On Conservatism, Culture Wars, and Ideologues in Layman's Clothing

Ideology always trumps reality in the mind of an ideologue

In the search for new leads on the recent CBC/Liberal collusion accusations, one inevitably comes across those who, usually for largely partisan reasons, thinks the allegations are no trouble at all.

One, in particular, couldn't escape notice. Posted by an individual by the name of Elasticsoul. This particular tirade followed a brief quote from CBC publisher John Cruickshank's letter to Conservative party campaign chair Doug Finley. It reads as follows:

"The Conservative Party of Canada is much like the Republican Party of the United States: it is now largely controlled by neoconservative 'market fundamentalists.' They WANT to damage faith in the political process. They WANT to start a nasty culture war to divide the electorate and put the other parties on the defensive. The Conservatives are following the model used successfully by the Republicans to gain power, if necessary at the expense of national unity, national pride, and certainly morality.

The Conservatives try to play the 'struggling honest outsider' role, but are at least as dirty as the other major parties. The Conservatives have FAR more cash in the bank than their opponents and are the governing party, yet constantly claim to be fighting powerful forces. The Conservatives ARE the powerful, well-funded, regressive force that the rest of us are trying to contain."

Predictably, Elasticsoul's little lecture hits on all the typical anti-conservative talking points. It also presents us with a choice opportunity to examine the thought processes of an ideologue of his nature, and determine precisley where a good deal of the hostility that is infecting the Canadian political process is coming from, and what implications it holds for the future.

First off, this particular individual certainly isn't very interested in discussing whether or not there is a serious issue at hand (and there is; the allegations alone are serious enough). For some reason, ideology seems much more important to Elasticsoul than whether or not the CBC has been behaving in a politically partisan manner.

First off, it seems that Conservatives are allegedly the only ones interested in damaging faith in the political process. It seems that Conservatives are allegedly the only ones interested in cultural warfare, despite the fact that so many self-proclaimed opponents of conservatism seem so eager to wage such a conflict.

The Conservatives are also accused of sowing disunity and resorting to immoral means in order to attain power (although he doesn't elaborate on what those may be).

Yet the complaints of immorality clearly appeal most to those who so desperately wish to spread the idea that, should anyone disagree with them, anything that could concievably be wrong with such a person simply must be wrong with them. In the minds of ideologues such as Elasticsoul, morality and politics have become entirely inseparable. He and those who agree with him are surmised to hold a monopoly on morality. Anyone who disagrees is degenerative, regressive, and utterly immoral.

Under such pervasive ideological conditions, it's unsurprising that some of those who are most impressionable can be coaxed into changing their minds.

Of course one has to consider the particular context of Elasticsoul's comments. At certain points, they seem to almost border on panic. Conservatism is treated almost as if it's some sort of infection that must be contained.

Yet, no legitimate government comes to power without support. When last anyone bothered to check, 30% of Canadians still support the Conservative party. That's an awfully large "infection", and in any human patient, would certainly border on terminal.

Yet, despite the tenure of a government that allegedly preys on national unity in order to achieve power, national unity remains at its highest point in decades, and Quebec separatism remains on the verge of becoming a spent force (although ruling out any resurgence would be extremely foolhardy).

In other words, Canada remains healthy despite its Conservative government. That should give people such as Elasticsoul cause to reconsider their rhetoric, but sadly, ideology brooks no such reconsideration. It is, by its very nature, rigid, unforgiving, and ignorant of facts. Ideology always seems to trump real issues in the mind of an ideologue. It's unsurprising -- they wouldn't be ideologues otherwise.

People such as Elasticsoul accuse Conservatives of being corrosive to national unity, yet it's they themselves who brand the 30% -- nearly a third -- of Canadians who plan to vote Conservative as somehow dangerous, even teetering on the brink of catastrophic.

The so-called "culture war" that Elasticsoul bemoans seems only to be fought amongst those -- on either side of the political divide -- most interested in waging such a battle.

It's also impressive how often morality can be tossed right out the window. In fact, it seems immorality may be the cultural warrior's mutual stock in trade.

Fortunately, most Canadians aren't bothering to take up arms in such a conflict, no matter how badly individuals such as Elasticsoul would actually encourage them to.

CBC Lives in Glass House, Throws Stones

CBC claims about transparency are utterly laughable

In the most recent development in the allegations that an as-yet unnamed CBC reporter fed questions to Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez, the CBC has finally broken its silence...

...about a Conservative party fundraising letter.

In the letter, CBC news publisher John Cruickshank castigates Conservative party campaign chairman Doug Finley for spreading cynicism throughout the political process:

"Dear Mr. Finley,

I have reviewed your pre-Christmas fundraising letter.

I write this public response to you because I believe that by its inaccuracy, innuendo, exaggeration and expressed malice towards hundreds of Canadian journalists you risk damaging not just your target, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, but also public faith in our political process.

I understand that a private association like the Conservative party does not have the sort of transparent and reliable complaints process that we have at the CBC. That is regrettable.

I understand that you have already availed yourself of access to our Ombudsman, complaining that a member of the CBC News staff communicated suggested questions to Liberal MPs in advance of a public hearing. I appreciate this show of confidence in the integrity of our process. I wish you had reflected that respect for our commitment to answer any and all complaints about our work in your unfortunate letter to potential donors.

You were well aware when you sat down to write your appeal for cash that CBC News had publicly condemned the behaviour you complain of and had called a disciplinary meeting to look into it.

Your suggestion to your potential contributors that the CBC was waging a partisan campaign against your party and the government of Canada was flatly contradicted by every step we had taken before you composed your cash appeal.

We accept that you are not the only, or even the first, Canadian political party to use CBC News as a whipping boy for fundraising purposes.

The Liberal party accused us of bias on several occasions when it fit their agenda.

As a public broadcaster we take our responsibilities to all Canadian shareholders very seriously. This is more than just a glib promise. Unlike any other broadcaster in the country, the CBC has a journalistic standards and practices book. This book is given to each reporter, producer, editor and host working at the CBC. It outlines in explicit detail the code of conduct for our journalists. It covers conflict of interest; it covers issues of journalistic fairness and balance. It is clear, and it is binding. It is also a living document. We talk about it and refer to it daily when we are dealing with difficult ethical issues. It is also freely available to the general public to see, so they know exactly what standards we aim to maintain.

I would be delighted to share a copy of it with you.

CBC News is especially sensitive to how we cover partisan political debates. The CBC is non-partisan. We do not want to be seen to be a creation of any party (although, as you know, it was a Progressive Conservative government that brought our organization into being.)

While all our journalists try to live by our code of conduct, CBC News is not infallible. But we are accountable. When there are errors of judgment, or misunderstandings or improper interpretation of the journalistic standards and practices, we investigate. When we discover shortcomings, we change our standards and practices.

No other news organization in the country operates within such a demanding ethical regime. For you to sully the reputations of so many dedicated Canadian professionals is utterly unacceptable. Your denigration of our ethical standards can only contribute to the public cynicism about public life that is already far too pervasive.

Yours sincerely,
John Cruickshank,
Publisher,
CBC News"

Of course, Cruickshank's letter seems to overlook a number of problems regarding the overall situation.

First off, he insists the CBC's process for dealing with complaints is "transparent and reliable". Yet, the CBC has already promised it will not be releasing the identity of the reporter in question. Not only will the public not have the benefit of knowing to whom to attribute this clear case of misconduct, but the individuals who will have to interact with him or her will not know, either. They certainly have the right to know about the ethical standing of any potentially disreputable reporter, so that they may make an informed choice about whether or not they wish to take the risk of dealing with that reporter.

In fact, the entirely behind-closed-doors disciplinary process practically ensures that the various questions that need to be answered won't even be asked.

Questions that also deal with the notable ambiguity of key passages of the very code of conduct that Cruickshank alludes to. (An email directed to the "transparent and reliable" CBC ombudsman, Vince Carlin, regarding this last particular matter has yet gone unanswered.)

Cruickshank's big words aside, a great many Canadians are calling for some accountability from the CBC, but we have yet to see it.

It's a very frustrating position to be in to find that one cannot have their questions about the operation of a publicly-funded organization answered. We've been asking them for weeks.

Cruickshank's stonewalling in the wake of Finley's fundraising letter (the greater implications of which are discussed elsewhere) only stands to reinforce the fact that a public inquiry is the only way Canadians will get the answers about the CBC that they deserve.

Will John Cruickshank finally begin answering some questions, or will he at least advise Prime Minister Stephen Harper to start the process by which these questions can be answered publicly?

The time for an answer to this question, and to many others, is now.

The What the Fuck!? Files Vol. 3 - What Some People Are Teaching Their Kids

Disgusting

Sargeant Jonathon Menjivar died in Iraq.

Oh, wait. No he didn't.

These are the revelations that have come out of a sad, sad episode in Texas wherein a six-year-old girl won four tickets to go see Hannah Montana by telling contest organizers her father was killed in Iraq.

"My daddy died this year in Iraq," her winning essay begins.

But there were two problems: first off, the US Department of Defense has no record of a Sgt Menjivar being killed in Iraq. Secondly, it sounds like a made-up name.

Now, one might think that, having been busted, the little girl's mother would be ready to dole out some discipline. Guess again. She was involved.

One might think she might be a little apologetic, at least in public.

Guess again.

"We did the essay and that's what we did to win," said Priscilla Ceballos, the little girl's mother. "We did whatever we could do to win."

This, apparently, is what some people are teaching their children.

Disgusting.

Time For the Commonwealth to Step Up to The Plate

The time to stop violence in Pakistan is now

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has the toughest job in the entire world right now.

Of course, it isn't as if the job wasn't hard enough before the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first woman to lead a Muslim country, had previously described herself as the person Muslim extremists fear most.

She may have been right, as an Al Qaida-linked Pakistani extremist attacked Bhutto as she attended a Pakistan People's Party rally in Rawalpindi.

Since Bhutto's death, the powderkeg that is Pakistan has exploded, as PPP supporters have taken to the streets and rioting.

Musharrif has some heavy lifting ahead of him, as his government has promised to bring the Al Qaida militants responsible for the attack on Bhutto to justice.

However, he need not do it alone.

Word has begun to circulate that NATO may assign additional troops to reinforce the Pakistani border in order to prevent Taliban and Al Qaida militants from passing back and forth at will.

This is a good start.

However, this is also an opportunity for the Commonwealth to pitch in stabilizing a critical member state by way of a peacekeeping mission. With 58 member states with a combined up a grand total of 1.9 billion people, (although India alone constitutes one billion of this number -- but more on this shortly) the Commonwealth could certainly muster manpower to spare.

Fielding Commonwealth peacekeeprs in Pakistan would carry the added benefit of fielding a multicultural force less likely to be deemed an occupation force by Pakistani locals.

To top it off, at least Pakistan, unlike Afghanistan, has a fully trained, fully equipped and reliable military. Commonwealth forces would merely be reinforcing them.

Of course, engaging the Commonwealth in Pakistan is far from a perfect solution. Participation by troops from India, in particular, could only exacerbate the violent situation, and for obvious reasons.

There are also valid questions as to whether or not many African countries, in particular, could afford to dispatch forces to Pakistan. Britain, Canada and Australia would certainly be obligated to help out financially in order to make this happen.

Commonwealth engagement in Pakistan would also have a positive effect on the war in Afghanistan, as insurgents would have fewer places to hide out when necessary: certainly a plus in the books of many. Anything that can help end the conflict in Afghanistan sooner can certainly be regarded as a good thing.

The Commonwealth is certainly an organization that could use a boost to its international credibility. Flexing some muscle in Pakistan, as some other commentators have suggested, could provide just such a boost.

Musharraf would do well to call some friends to help him with his heavy lifting.

Iranian Supply of Taliban Forces Finally Comes to Forefront

Like it or not, it's time to get tough on Iran

Those paying close attention to the Afghanistan conflict have long had their suspicions regarding where the Taliban is recieving its armaments from.

On Christmas Day, speaking in the midst of a visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, Canadian minister of defence Peter MacKay has finally decided to stop beind so quiet about it.

"We're very concerned that weapons are coming in from Iran," MacKay announced. "We're very concerned that these weapons are going to the insurgents and are keeping this issue alive. We've certainly made our views to the Iranian government about this known."

"It's so difficult to cut these supply lines when you have people from other countries giving out weapons that are being used against Canadian Forces and troops from other countries."

In the days since MacKay's comments some predictable people have made some predictable comments regarding them. Unfortuantely, all too many of these people are willfully out to lunch, and out of touch with the facts.

The fact that Iranian weapons have been ending up in the hands of the Taliban is well known. British military intelligence services have confirmed it.

In fact, on 5 September, British special forces intercepted trucks crossing into Afghanistan from Iran. They contained materiel to make Explosively Formed Penetrators, a form of roadside bomb used by the Taliban.

"It is difficult for me to conceive that this convoy could have originated in Iran and come to Afghanistan without at least the knowledge of the Iranian military," said General Dan McNeill, who noted that these discoveries suggest direct Iranian involvement. "These EFPs have caused me some anxiety. I would say whoever put these together had the benefit of not only knowledge, but also some technology and machines."

The Iranians have also been caught supplying such devices to Iraqi insurgents.

"This confirms our view that elements within Iran are supporting the Taliban," announced a spokesperson from the British embassy in Kabul. "We have previously raised the issue of arms to the Taliban with the Iranians and will continue to do so."

MacNeill and MacKay are far from the only ones to allege that Iran has been supplying insurgents in Afghanistan. In 2006, General Mohammad Ayub Safi, an Afghan officer charged with border security in Herat province, noted that "in only the first quarter of [2006], more than 10 Iranian officials have been arrested in Herat who were allegedly involved in illegal activities."

One caveat, however, should be raised: even General McNeill has been reluctant to accuse the Iranian government of explicit involvement in Afghanistan. Rather, the Iranians may merely be passively allowing shipments of weapons bound for Afghanistan to travel through their territory, and turning a willfully blind eye toward "rogue elements" within their military that are providing such training to Taliban fighters and other Afghan insurgents.

One must also remember that the diplomatic relationship between Tehran and Kabul has notably improved, although one also cannot rule out the interest Iranian officials have in seeing American troops, in particular, killed in combat, as well as the direct benefit they would recieve from undermining fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's in Iran's interests to undermine the emerging Afghan state, even if they empower a Sunni regime in the process.

One could raise the point that the Iranian theocracy and the Taliban have always shared a mutual hostility. Then again, those who raise this argument are clearly unaware of, or simply ignoring, the previously-hostile relationship between the Taliban and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (who is their principle ally in the war against the Karzai government and its NATO allies).

War makes for strange bedfellows. History reminds us of that time and time again.

Unfortunately, war against Iran is clearly not an option at this time. With American and British troops in Iraq and NATO troops in Afghanistan stretched near their limit, the forces necessary to deal with definitively with Iran are simply unavailable. While Desert Storm-style air strikes could still concievably put the fear of western power into characteristically beligerent Iranian leaders, the necessary ground support to ensure that lesson takes simply is not available. Other options are necessary.

Deploying more troops along the Iranian border is clearly necessary. Beyond that, the Iranian government must be made to understand that allowing hostile forces to travel through their territory unmolested is an act that will carry repercussions.

If the Iranians want to continue supplying -- be it directly or indirectly -- insurgents in Afghanistan with arms, perhaps its time we start supplying Kurds in Northern Iran with weapons so they can get serious about resisting Iranian oppression. Perhaps the Lor, Bakhtiari and Qashqai tribes that have taken up arms against the Iranian state could use a little assistance.

What goes around comes around, and when it comes to getting tough on Iran, turnabout may yet be fair play.

Conservatives Should Be Wary of Their Rhetoric

Media martyrdom may make for good fundraising, but bad politics

With a 2008 election possibly in the cards, the Conservatives -- like all of Canada's political parties -- will need every dollar they can get their hands on.

Apparently, they're banking on outrage over the recent allegations of collusion between the Liberal party and the CBC. In a fundraising letter, Conservative party campaign director Doug Finley is urging Conservative party members to contribute whatever they can to help the party win what he predicts will be an uphill battle:

"Let's face the facts.

Running as a Conservative in Canada is never easy.

The Liberals have long benefited from the support of the country's most powerful vested interests. And the NDP has always been backed by the country's loudest vocal interests.

And now it has been revealed that representatives of the CBC – the CBC that you and I pay for with our taxes – worked with Liberal MPs to attack our Government's record on a House of Commons committee.

That's right. Former Liberal Cabinet Minister Jean Lapierre – now a journalist with the TVA network – told CTV Newsnet that questions posed by Liberal MPs in House Committee were written by the CBC.

"I knew all about those questions. They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can't believe that but last night, an influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions that the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."
-Jean Lapierre, CTV Newsnet, December 13, 2007

Lapierre's stunning revelations shocked me. And having listened to Canadians' feedback on talk radio and read their comments on the blogs I know they probably shocked you too.

The CBC even admitted to Canadian Press that its behaviour in this instance was both "inappropriate" and "inconsistent" with the Corporation's policies and practices.

Sadly, this is not the first time our taxpayer-funded public broadcaster has found itself caught up in an embarrassing anti-Conservative controversy.

During the 2004 election campaign, it was revealed that CBC tried to stack a town hall-style meeting with Stephen Harper with people who were "scared, freaked out or worried about the Conservatives, the Conservative agenda or its leader."

And following our 2006 election victory the CBC publicly expressed "regret" after one its journalists was exposed using footage of Stephen Harper totally out-of-context and in a way that distorted the Government's position.

So what does this all mean?

In the coming weeks and months Canada could be headed into an election forced by Stéphane Dion's Liberals.

We may not have the support of the Liberals' powerful allies. (As Campaign Director, I can assure you that the CBC will not be writing Stephen Harper's questions for his debate with Mr. Dion). But we do have the support of people like you. Proud Canadians who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.

I would ask that you make a contribution - $200 or $100 – whatever you can afford to ensure the Conservative Party has the resources it needs to take on the Liberal Party and its vested interest allies.

We will need all of the money we can raise in order to fight back with paid advertising, direct voter contact and candidate support when the Liberals - and their vested interest allies – begin to attack our record, our leader and our plans for Canada's future.

People like you are the backbone of the Conservative Party, the only party that stands up to the vested and vocal interests who so desperately want to go back. Please contribute today so we can keep Canada moving forward under the strong leadership of Prime Minister Stephen Harper."

In theory, the letter may bring in precisely the results one simply knows Finley is hoping for.

Needing money to overcome the machinations of a powerful media enemy may look good on a partisan fundraising letter, but it overlooks a number of basic political realities.

The Conservatives may be overestimating the value of money to a political campaign. Certainly, one can't mount a campaign without it, but masses of money doesn't guarantee political success. This is a lesson the Conservatives should have learned by now, having out-fundraised the Liberals since what seems like the dawn of time, the Conservatives have all too often come up short electorally.

First off, one has to consider the key differences between "earned media" and "paid media". Paid media consists of TV, radio and newspaper ads that are paid for by the party. Earned media consists of media exposure earned by releasing policy statements, criticising political opponents, or staging photo ops.

Earned media is infinitely more valuable than paid media, because earned media is what makes a party seem like it matters. A party that seems unnewsworthy by necessity also seems inconsequential. Being deemed insignificant is a political death warrant by any means.

Secondly, no amount of money can elect a candidate that is unlikable.

As Steven Levitt and Michael Dubner remind us, money can't force people to cast their ballot in favour of a candidate. In examining US congressional campaigns in which opponents ran against one another on consecutive occasions, Levitt and Dubner concluded that in some cases, 50% of money spent by a candidate could account for as little as 1% of their vote total.

Levitt and Dubner basically concluded that in elections, previously defeated candidates had a tendency to spend more money, while incumbents had a tendency to spend either the same amount, or less. However, despite expectations that the higher-spending candidates would at least perform better, voting patterns didn't always correlate to the amount of additional spending.

In short, money doesn't have quite the impact on politics that some imagine.

Even with Liberal fundraising figures languishing in the basement, the Conservatives are far from guaranteed to ski down mountains of cash and back into 24 Sussex Drive. In a future election they'll have to earn their way back into power.

If they want to do so, they'll need to earn media coverage, and control their message stringently enough to ensure that such coverage will be favourable.

Complaining about a hostile CBC and throwing money to the four winds is a recipe for electoral disaster.

The alleged collusion between the Liberals and the CBC is, indeed a serious matter. But milking this controversy for the purposes of fundraising may send a message to the Candian electorate that the Conservative party may not be altogether comfortable with.

To those in the know, it suggests the party may be out of touch with some basic political realities.

The Conservatives need to call a public inquiry into the collusion allegations, and let that matter take care of itself. Scrambling to raise money on the back of these allegations only makes the party appear weak and unable to conduct a political campaign in the media.

The Conservatives may inspire a windfall of fundraising cash with this issue, but they'll do themselves more favours by simply getting down to the business of conducting politics. That will involve dealing with the media including, inevitably, the CBC.

Shameful, Uncalled For, and Completely Unexpected

One would have expected better than this

Little more can be said about the comments made by Neo Conservative regarding the recent shooting death of Karim Rashid Ata-Ayi.

In the wake of the 29-year-old Torontionians' death, Neo has apparently drawn the conclusion that his mother, Toronto anti-violence activist Patricia Wynters, simply must have been a bad parent, and that her sons (her oldest son was gunned down in 2001) simply got what they deserve.

Anyone who pays an iota of attention to the Canadian blogosphere probably remembers Canadian Cynic and his proud "fuck you Wanda Watkins" moment.

One would have expected -- should have expected -- that someone who considers themselves a conservative would value law and order. One should have expected that someone who considers themselves a conservative would be pleased that individuals such as Ata-Ayi, reportedly with a violent past, would choose to renounce such violence, and work with an organization such as UMOVE towards quelling it.

Apparently not. When such an individual is gunned down, apparently he reaps what he sows.

Of course somewhere in the midst of this, bloglodyte Canadian Cynic seems to feel himself quite vindicated. He'd like everyone to believe that maybe, just maybe he isn't such a bad guy if someone from the so-called "evil, hateful right" is willing to attack a grieving mother just as enthusiastically as he is.

Well, no. He's still scum. Unfortunately, it would seem that some people are less reluctant to get scummy themselves than they were previously given credit for.

Of course, Neo not necessarily share Cynic's unique place in the Canadian blogosphere. A lot of people would suggest that he owes Patricia Wynters an apology.

Cynic has refused to apologize, although he did offer a lame escuse about his cat being run over (Wanda Watkins was mourning her son; Cynic was mourning his cat). That's how he solidified his position in the Canadian blogosphere -- as a person respected by no one aside from those who are also so ridiculously filled with hate that they can't manage an original thought amongst the mass of them -- although he may have established it long before.

If Neoconservative wants to share Cynic's fate, all he needs do is not apologize. Perhaps, however, there is hope that he'll recognize the mistake he's made, and do the right thing.

We'll be watching and waiting.

Merry Fucking Christmas

And to all a good night.

Opposition Leaders Start Election Countdown Clock

Politics as usual promised in new year

The opposition party leaders have spoken: Canadians should expect an election in 2008.

In theory, at least.

Less than two months after insisting Canadians don't want an election, Stephane Dion is once again pledging himself to defeating the upcoming spring budget.

It's like deja vu all over again.

"After two years of this minority Conservative government, the psychological threshold will have been reached," Dion announced. "People may not want, necessarily, an election, but they will not be surprised if there is one."

This coming from the man who so recently led his party into months of avoiding every opportunity to defeat the government. Canadians will probably be forgiven if they're less than convinced.

Jack Layton certainly isn't.

"[Dion] has been propping up Mr. Harper all fall, and abstaining on a throne speech that's explicitly said we'll stay in Afghanistan longer, we will abandon Kyoto and we'll give huge tax reductions to those doing well," Layton sniffed.

Even Gilles Duceppe is looking foward the spring budget with eager eyes. "I don't see how their budget will be supported by any of the opposition parties," he insists.

Yet just as all the government-slaying rhetoric about the budget was overdue this time last year, it's doubly overdue this year, as experts are looking toward a "tame budget".

According to Toronto Dominion bank's Don Drummond, recent economic misgivings expressed by Harper suggest this upcoming budget will be a little less spectacular than usual. "We are so used to, in Canada, to have blockbuster budgets that always have billions and billions of dollars in new spending, or billions of dollars in tax cuts, and I just don't think we're going to have that in 2008," Drummond said.

If the government does, indeed, advance a moderate budget come spring, opposition leaders may have a tough time trying to sell defeating the government to the Canadian people.

After all, Dion started his ruminations about defeating the government bright and early in 2007. It shouldn't shock Canadians that he would do so even earlier with his party tied in the polls.

Although it may cause nervousness in some Conservative party circles, the opposition promises to force an election in 2008 really amount to nothing more than business-as-usual under a minority Parliament.

But the Conservatives have proven to have more tricks up their political sleeve than the opposition gave them credit for in 2007, and one can rest assured that all the opposition talk of defeating the government will vanish without a trace if the government makes it politically inexpedient to do so.

The political doomsday clock may be running, but under a minority parliament, it always is.

The opposition threats to defeat the government in 2008 is really nothing more than business-as-usual, and business-as-usual is precisely what Canadians should expect.

Many a Tear Shed Over Canadian Blog Awards

Everything, it seems, has to be political

If anyone needed a crash course in acrimony, the recent controversy over the Canadian Blog Awards may be just the ticket.

Long story short, various feminist blogs have demanded the establishment of a feminist blog category, and have become quite outraged that they didn't get their way.

Perhaps what is most disheartening is the fact that these feminists were offered an opportunity to accept various compromises, including the establishment of a "men's issues" category. That suggestion, in particular, was rebuffed with regard as such:

"This whole but “what about the menz” argument is absolute bullshit. “Mens rights” organizations are not about helping men preserve their rights, they’re about maintaining privileges that allow them to treat women as second class citizens and get away with it. And that’s just as bad as being a racist in my book."

The undue denegration of masculinism
aside, the argument essentially boils down as follows: "we feminists deserve recognition on our terms, and our terms alone."

Considering that "their terms" clearly include denying similar recognition to others who may or may not want it says some very unfortunate things about the particular individuals involved. It's hard to credit such a relatively small group of people with speaking for all feminists, but it's certainly indicative of what these particular individuals think feminism stands for.

There once was a time when feminism was promoted as encouraging the reconceptualization of gender roles for both women and men. While this may or may not render any percieved need for a "men's issues" or "masculinist" category at the Canadian Blog Awards, the idea that feminists would reject it outright -- dismissing it as sexist simply because it deals men expresses a very unsettling attitude. The fact that they think the Canadian Blog Awards should institutionalize this attitude, and are so outraged when it won't, is more unsettling still.

Yet more unsettling than that is the suggestion, raised by a predictable source that Canadians with conservative political beliefs shouldn't even be allowed to participate:

"In the nuttiest of nutshells, SB, the CBAs were bound to collapse for one painfully simple reason -- you were going to allow Canada's conservatives to participate. And as I will explain in horrific detail, that was the fatal flaw since, quite simply, anything those people touch turns to shit. Every time. Without exception. As you have now learned.

There is a reason that Canada's wingnuts shouldn't be allowed near anything of value, and that's because they will wreck it every time, and the CBAs are no exception. Most of us -- the sane ones -- will look at something like the CBAs and think, "Cool. A way to recognize and reward the creme de la creme of the blogosphere." And we would proceed accordingly. So far, so good.

The wingnut contingent, on the other hand, would look at the CBAs and think, "Cool. A way to ram our political and ideological agenda down everyone's throat through carefully-choreographed and relentless freeping." See the difference, SB? Because that's (kind of) what happened here."

As it turns out, Cynic and his ilk want to use the freeping of the Beaver's "Worst Canadian" poll as a test case for excluding conservatives from the Awards.

As it turns out, Left-wingers have engaged in their share of freeping as well. Add to this the pro-abortion freeping of the Great Canadian Wish list (even as anti-abortion activists also freeped it), and the obvious freeping in favour of getting Stephen Harper on the "Worst Canadian" list as well, and it seems that Canada's left-wingers are no less guilty of the "cardinal sin" of freeping as their opponents.

(Truth hurts, get a fucking helmet.)

So, then, in the end, what does it all boil down to? Maybe that Canadian Cynic has spent the last two months pouting over his inability to propel the Galloping Beaver to a win in the 2007 Weblog awards. Also, that some feminists seem to think they're entitled to dictate the terms under which debate over gender can take place.

In the end, however, one has to feel bad for the awards' organizers, considering the amount of abuse they've been absorbing for nothing more than refusing to acquiesce to the demands of the wrong group of self-interested people.

Will Pablo Rodriguez Speak Up?

Rodriguez has some questions to answer as well

In a recent op/ed piece published in the National Post, Ian MacDonald raises an intriguing point:

Pablo Rodriguez rarely asks questions in English.

In fact, during this past session of Parliament, Rodriguez asked a single question in English. He asked an additional seven in French.

Yet, MacDonald notes, when Rodriguez appeared before the committee, to address Brian Mulroney (who speaks fluent French), he asked (in English), "Mr. Mulroney, you said you made no presentation to Maxime Bernier on the wireless spectrum issue. While he was the industry minister, have you ever had a private or public dinner or lunch with him in Montreal, or any other city? Have you ever met with him at all? If so, how many times, in which city? Have you ever placed a telephone call to him, or has he called you? On any of those, did you discuss the wireless spectrum issue?"

MacDonald asserts that the question was crafted "with lawyerly precision", and his assessment may not be altogether unfair.

To add a caveat, to treat the innuendo stirred up by noting that Rodriguez uncharacteristically asked his question in English as conclusive of anything would be unfair. However, to discard the suspicion it raises out of hand would also be altogether unreasonable.

To put it simply, it raises questions about who wrote -- or, rather, helped him write -- this particular question, but by the same token there are plenty of reasonable answers. Certainly, a Liberal staffer could have helped him translate the letter into English, and craft it with such precision.

But, by the same token, why ask the question in English at all when Rodriguez's self-noted language of preference is French?

Perhaps someone listening to the answer prefers to communicate in English.

On the other hand, Rodriguez could have simply been asking the question in English as a courtesy to Mulroney, whose first language is English. It seems a reasonable tactic to ensure a straight answer from Mulroney.

But who, other than Rodriguez, knows for sure?

For his part, Rodriguez claims that he was "inspired by what I saw on TV, inspired by the questions in the House of Commons, inspired by the fact that Mr. Bernier never wants to answer questions."

Now it's time for Rodriguez to answer some questions about his relationship with the as-yet-unnamed CBC reporter.

This is merely another reason why a public inquiry should be held. Otherwise, Canadians may never get the answers they deserve.

Counter-Branding at its Most Blatant

Counter-branding a key political tactic

Although the 2006 mid-term elections in the United States have long passed, they continue to teach us lessons about politics in general. A particular lesson can be derived from the advertisement featured above.

The lesson at hand deals with branding -- the creating and marketing of an identity to the electorate.

The spot in question, seemingly released as a pro-Democrat spot leading up to the 2006 election, can be treated as one of the more solid examples of an act as essential to any political party or entity as branding -- that of counter-branding.

As much as branding is the act of constructing a simple and coherent identity concept for onesdelf, counter-branding is the act of creating one that will then be applied to a competitor. In this sense, not only are the brands individuals and movements create for themsleves competitive with the brands opponents create for themselves, but also competitive with the attempts of the opposition to brand them in their stead.

In this case, the authors of the attempt to brand is obvious (Democrats), as is the identity of those they intend to brand (Republicans).

In the ad, the creators essentially cherry pick a few phrases out of what they claim is a dictionary definition of conservatism: "resistant to change", "unimaginatively conventional", "a bourgeois mentality". The ad then boils those three phrases down to three presented keywords: "materialistic", "resistant" and "unimaginative".

It then concludes: "are you sure you're a conservative?"

Of course, that isn't really the question the ad means to ask. The question the ad implies is: "these are the values of conservatism. Are you sure you want to be a conservative?"

Now, the fact that different dictionaries define conservatism differently would seem to complicate this effort. But in the end, that doesn't really matter much -- not even when the individuals behind the ad make a sly attempt to rely on the authority of a dictionary.

What really matters is whether or not the message takes hold, and helps in the construction of a voting coalition large enough to defeat the opposition.

In the weeks following November 7, 2006, this eventually turned out to be the case.

The United States could be considered to be one of the most fertile testing grounds for political branding techniques, possibly because American citizens (arguably) have lived their lives uniquely awash in branding techniques, and in the advertising by which that branding is done.

At least this serves as a convenient (if perhaps fickle) explanation for the colouring (perhaps even branding) of Democrat-voting states in Pepsi cola blue, while colouring Republican-voting states in Coca-Cola red. Especially when one considers the values being implied.

Pepsi cola has for years told American consumers that it's "the choice of a new generation". Likewise, Democrats have always tried to portray themselves as "the voice of a new generation". The Republicans, on the other hand, have simply portrayed themselves as "classic" America: traditional and Rockwellian.

Much like Pepsi and Coke have flooded the marketing world with countless spokespersons, the Democrats and Republicans have also promoted their own icons: the youthful Robert F Kennedy and Howard Dean for the Democrats, the older but more "white-bread" Ronald Reagan and Ike Eisenhauer for the Republicans.

When either party wants to impose an image of their own creation on their opponents, they've often proven to be quite predictable: youthful, energetic Democrats attempt to brand Republicans (ironically, the historically younger of the two parties) as outdated, unimaginative and slow. The sturdy, trusty Republicans attempt to brand Democrats as weak, untrustworthy, and a little radical.

When either of these parties bests the other, there certainly are other factors involved. But the predominance of these messages in the days both preceding and following a balloting day points to their formidability on the political scene.

This form of political judo should not be taken lightly.

Of course, there's a certain extent to which branding and counter-branding works. North of the 49th parallel, we've seen both successful examples of counter-branding:





And disastrous attempts:



Warren Kinsella would be the first to remind us that attack ads, in particular, often work. This is due to the pervasive power of counter-branding as a technique.

But it can also backfire. As such, overzealous conter-branding (as was the case with the astounding bone-headed "soldiers in our cities" ad) can be as much a danger to those who attempt it as to those who would be on the business end of it.

It's for this reason that it's unsurprising that political campaigns have very much become branding wars. Just as some of the memorable branding wars of the 1990s had us wondering "what's the diff?" between Coke and Pepsi, the political battles of the 2000s have invited people of all stripes to don a blindfold and drop their ballot for the political product of their choice.

Regardless of who wins the political branding war, it's democracy that will inevitably lose, as image becomes more important than ideas.

Lions for Lambs Raises Important Questions About War on Terror

What would a win in the war on terror look like?

"Do you want to win the terror?" Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) asks. "This is the quintessential yes or no question of our time."

Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) shuffles uncomfortably in her chair. Like many Americans -- like many citizens in countries participating in the War on Terror (including in Canada) -- she probably knows her instinctive answer to that question. But then again, a question is nagging in the back of her mind: what do we do next?

Irving, an up-and-coming young Senator (annointed as "the future of the Republican party" by Roth herself) doesn't really seem to have an idea.

Lions for Lambs, Robert Redford's recent political drama about the war on terror (focusing almost entirely on Afghanistan), asks this question. Even if we all share Irving's single-minded desire for "a win", what precisely do we do next?

Lions for Lambs also inspires an even more important question: what, precisely, would "a win" in the war on terror look like? Just as Iraq has exposed the importance of the question of what we do following a military victory, we must also be very cognizant of this question.

If addressed from the point of view of pure elementary logic, it seems very simple: victory in the war on terror entails the elimination of terrorism. At its most simplistic, the idea of winning the war on terror suggests that we will one day live in a world without terrorism.

We desperately need to reconsider this answer. It's nothing more than a pipe dream.

In order to determine the truth of this, we need look no further than another historical pipe dream, one that allegedly originates from the opposite side of the political spectrum as the war on terror: the idea of a world without nuclear weapons.

In Weapons and Hope, Freeman Dyson -- a notable anti-nuclear weapons activist -- asks what he felt to be the most important question of the Cold War period: what would a nuclear weapons free world look like?

In the end, Dyson determines, it's virtually impossible. Once released from the lamp, the Nuclear genie could never be forced back inside.

Equally sadly, the idea of a terrorism-free world is equally impossible. Like nuclear weapons, terrorism is a genie that can never be forced back into the lamp. So long as individuals consider themselves oppressed and have a much more powerful enemy they want to fight, terrorism will always be a tempting option, be it as a form of societal intimidation or as asymetrical warfare.

In the single minded desire to win the war on terror, we need to be very cognizant of how we conceptualize victory.

Secure homelands are clearly an integral part of that concept. Whether we like it or not, we will have to engage the rest of the world -- both militarily and diplomatically -- in order to attain that security.

We must also avoid sinking to the depths of our opponents. Mutually Assured Destruction can come about from the careless disregard of the principles our civilization was built upon as from unrestrained escalation of the conflict abroad. And while dismantling terrorist networks by force is an absolute necessity, we must also ensure that terrorism doesn't become a bogeyman that can be exploited to push political agendas -- that is, if it hasn't already (and there's a good deal of disagreement on this).

Most importantly, we must ensure that our troops are fighting for what we tell them they are.

That's the responsibility of those of us on the home front, as Lions for Lambs reminds us. Whether we support the war on terror or not, it's our responsibility to hold our leaders accountable, and to ensure that our fighting men and women aren't put at unnecessary risk.

Certainly, we must win the war on terror. By the same token, we do ourselves -- and those who are fighting in this war -- a grave disservice if we fail to understand what victory in this conflict means, and how it will be won.

We must all do our part. We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of allowing our fighting men and women to do all the heavy lifting for us.

Cutting the Shit Regarding Copyright Law

Lots of panic, little substance in copyright debate

If one were to believe certain online commentators, one would think that the new copyright law expected to be introduced (although recently postponed) by Jim Prentice is nothing short of a promise to rape nuns and devour orphans.

Yet, when one examines a good deal of the commentary, one thing becomes abundantly clear: much of this protest is based almost entirely on rhetoric, with very little substance to it.

After all, it takes a very special brand of ideologue to denounce a piece of legislation you haven't even seen yet.

Of course, certain panic stricken individuals would like to remind everyone precisely how important this matter is. "This is a very important event, an important piece of legislation," said Kempton Lam, who organized a recent protest at Prentice's Calgary office. "If it’s not set right, [we] are going to suffer the consequences for years to come.”

Seems pretty dire, doesn't it?

Given the obvious importance of the copyright issue, one would expect that those protesting this phantom would have something really, really important to say.

Guess again. In fact, it seems the objections to what is believed (although not confirmed) to be contained in the bill boil down to three As: anti-Americanism, anti-corporatism and assinine premises.

During Question Period this past week, NDP copyright critic Charlie Angus accused the Conservatives of "rolling out the red carpet to corporations.”

University of Ottawa professor and would-be copyright guru Michael Geist has accused the government of pandering to the American entertainment industry.

Geist is also among those who have insisted that the bill will closely mimic the American Digital Millenium Copyright Act (without, of course, having seen the proposed bill). "There was every sense that the government was going to produce precisely what the US has done," Geist insisted. "People recognize that [the DMCA] has caused significant harm for all sorts of groups: privacy interests, consumer groups [and] free speech."

Of course, the fact that copying someone else's copyrighted intellectual property doesn't qualify as "free speech" notwithstanding, the most ridiculous argument should, of course, be saved for last.

"Say I buy a DVD and want to rip that to a file and put that on my iPod. It’s the movie that I bought. I didn’t go out and buy the experience of putting a plastic disc in a player and then pushing a button on a remote control," argues Ian Wallace. "I bought the experience to watch that movie."

Not so. Purchasing a CD or DVD does not entail purchasing the right to copy that material at will.

At its most extreme, it may not be entirely unreasonable to agree with Terence Corcoran's assessment of the protestors. To suggest that people should be allowed to tinker away at anti-circumvention measures with impunity is, frankly, ludicrous.

Canadians don't tolerate lawlessness in the corporeal world. There's no reason why we should be expected to settle for it in cyberspace. Property rights are a fundamental foundation of the rule of law, and intellectual property is simply no different.

Perhaps the greatest irony is this: by targeting the anti-circumvention articles of any proposed copyright act as the locus of protest against Geist's phantom copyright bill, individuals such as Geist, Lam and Angus want to use hostility toward "large corporations" to try and topple the entire bill.

Now, if only big corporations were the only ones who own intellectual property.

The ironic thing about the movement to undermine copyright law in Canada, under the guise of freeing information from the shackles of big corporations, is that it will undermine the intellectual property rights of countless authors, musicians, film producers, and other assorted artists. People like Ian Wallace would like to believe they're conducting a David-and-Goliath struggle against "evil corporations". Instead, they're helping screw the little guy: thousands of hard-working producers of intellectual property who will see their ability to make a living off their work endangered simply because some jerkoff doesn't want to pay for the new Die Hard DVD, and some other jerkoff figures "by golly, he shouldn't have to, either".

Michael Geist takes his ill-concieved information revolutionary act a step too far when he actually suggests that copyright law should facilitate the distribution of copyrighted works in digital form as a business model.

Someone should tell Mr Geist that's up to the copyright holders. Copyright law needs to ensure that such transactions are carried out legally, within the guidelines imposed by law. In other words, copyright law needs to ensure that, whether directly or indirectly, copyright holders are the ones selling their intellectual property, not pirates.

As for developing digital distribution as a business model? Not the government's job.

As for the allegedly-impending shitstorm of lawsuits against consumers, Canadian Independent Record Production Association CEO Duncan McKie raises the most pertinent point: "the property holders would have to decide to sue."

And if the person on the business end of that lawsuit happens to be someone illegally copying that copyright holder's property, they can't exactly pretend that haven't reaped what they sow.

All the panic over an amended copyright law is premature at best, and outright ridiculous at worst.

It's time to give it a rest.

CIC Complaint Reveals Disturbing Matters Regarding Human Rights Commission

Human Rights Commissions being abused for political motivations? Seemingly so

In a recent op/ed column published in The National Post, Ezra Levant takes aim at the recent filing of a human rights complaint against Maclean's magazine.

According to Levant:

"Its crime? Refusing the CIC's absurd demand that Maclean's print a five-page letter to the editor in response to an article the CIC didn't like."

It's unsurprising that Levant would have something to say about this matter, as he himself has found himself subject to such manipulations of Canadian human rights law.

The complaint deals with a feature ran in the 20 October, 2006 issue of Maclean's. Entitled "The Future Belongs to Islam", the feature is a reprint of a chapter from America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn.

Now, for those who pay close enough attention to the work at hand, there should be little question that Steyn's column is unmitigated intellectual garbage. It paints a very unflattering portrait of Steyn's feverish worldview, wherein somehow every evil at work in the world today, including Islamic terrorism, can be conveniently blamed on the very concept of social security and universal health care.

In the end, the intended point of the article becomes agonizingly clear: if only westerners would have more babies, we wouldn't need to fear the big, bad Muslims who are "transforming Europe into Eurabia".

In fact, "The Future Belongs to Islam" deals in many of the same logical fallacies pedalled by many dilletantish "foreign policy experts" such as David Frum and Michael Ignatieff, including the "Islamic death cult" plopper (god forbid anyone should ever believe that perhaps Islamic terrorists do have grievances or goals, be they legitimate or illegitimate).

A good number of the ideas in "The Future Belongs to Islam" don't stand up to precursory scrutiny, just as the very premise of his book, America Alone, melts before the listing of the NATO states currently involved in Afghanistan (America Alone... oh, except for Canada, Britain, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands...).

That being said, its in this vein that the best way to combat the kind of ignorance being spread by Steyn and his ilk isn't in a Human Rights Tribunal. The best way to combat Steyn's sophistic trash is by refuting it in the media.

But that doesn't mean that Maclean's should be legally obligated to print a five-page letter to the editor refuting Steyn's work. That being said, Maclean's isn't the only game in town. There are plenty of other publications in which Steyn's feature could be refuted (although all of them will draw the line at a five page letter to the editor).

Virtually every publication in North America places some limits on the length of the letters it will consider publishing. Yet Levant predicts that the Human Rights Tribunal may rule against Maclean's magazine:

"It may shock those who do not follow human rights law in Canada, but Maclean's will probably lose.

Forcing editors to publish rambling letters is not a human right in Canada. But that's not how the CIC worded their complaint, filed with the B.C., Ontario and federal human rights commissions. Maclean's is "flagrantly Islamophobic" and "subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt" according to a CIC statement. "I felt personally victimized," said Khurrum Awan at the CIC's recent press conference. All this because Maclean's dared to run a column discussing the demographic rise of Islam in the West."

Levant notes that the CIC has tried to use the courts to silence those critical of Islam before, but also notes that using the Human Rights Commission may prove to be more productive than tactics used in the past.

"It's a new strategy for the CIC, which in the past has tried unsuccessfully to sue news media it disagreed with -- including the National Post -- using Canada's defamation laws. But Canada's civil courts aren't the best tool for that sort of bullying. In a defamation lawsuit, the CIC would have to hire its own lawyers, follow the rules of court and prove that it suffered real damages -- and the newspapers would have truth and fair comment as defences. Launching a nuisance suit against Maclean's would result in an embarrassing loss for the CIC, a court order to pay the magazine's legal fees and it would deepen the CIC's reputation as a group of radicals who don't understand Canadian values. (Three years ago, Mohamed Elmasry, the CIC's Egyptian-born president, declared that every adult Jew in Israel is a legitimate target for terrorists).

So civil lawsuits won't work. Criminal charges are a non-starter, too: Canada's hate-speech laws are reserved for extreme acts of incitement, and charges can only be laid with the approval of the justice minister. And in criminal court, the accused must be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. No chance there."

Levant contends that the activist nature of the HRC favours complainants:

"That's why human rights commissions are the perfect instrument for the CIC. The CIC doesn't even have to hire a lawyer: Once the complaint has been accepted by the commissions, taxpayers' dollars and government lawyers are used to pursue the matter. Maclean's, on the other hand, will have to hire its own lawyers with its own money. Rules of court don't apply. Normal rules of evidence don't apply. The commissions are not neutral; they're filled with activists, many of whom aren't even lawyers and do not understand the free-speech safeguards contained in our constitution."

Those who have paid even passing attention to the human rights debate in Canada are well aware of the fact that many self-described right-wingers oppose the human rights commission.

It isn't as if they're disinterested individuals, either. Consider the recent furor over a decision by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission to impose a lifetime ban on Bill Whatcott from criticizing homosexuality. He had recently published and distributed a pamphlet he alleged quoted a classified ad for "Men seeking boys". Whatcott more recently ran for mayor of Edmonton, and filed his nomination papers wearing a "homosexuality is a sin" T-shirt (classy guy).

Yet in the Maclean's complaint, these individuals may have finally found themselves a horse to race.

If the Whatcott example is held up as an example of the punishment that Maclean's could recieve if found guilty (perhaps a permanent ban on publishing articles criticizing Islam), the Whatcott precedent could actually be transformed from something relatively reasonable (although this will inevitably be in the eye of the beholder) into something outright sinister.

Even merely ordering a retraction and apology could turn out to be very troublesome.

"The punishments that these commissions can order are bizarre. Besides fines to the government and payments to complainants, defendants can be forced to "apologize" for having unacceptable political or religious opinions.

An apology might not sound onerous, yet it is far more troubling than a fine. Ordering a person -- or a magazine -- to say or publish words that they don't believe is an Orwellian act of thought control. The editor of Maclean's, Ken Whyte, maintains his magazine is fair. But human rights commissions have the power to order him to publish a confession that he's a bigot -- or, as in one Ontario case, even order someone to study Islam. Even convicted murderers cannot be "ordered" to apologize."

In fact, as it turns out, using the human rights commission to attack Maclean's may turn out to be an abuse of the very human rights codes these commissions are charged with administering.

"Some of Canada's human rights codes cover "publications." Those powers were originally meant to cover things like signs saying No Jews Allowed or Whites Only (in human rights jargon, symbols that "indicate discrimination") or a swastika or burning KKK cross planted on someone's yard.

You don't need to be a lawyer to know that a magazine article is not what the founders of human rights commissions had in mind. As Alan Borovoy, the general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association -- and one of the architects of modern Canadian human rights law -- wrote last year, "during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech." Censoring debates was "hardly the role we had envisioned for human rights commissions."

Borovoy's warning has gone unheeded. The opposite, actually -- it signalled to the CICs of the world that human rights commissions are the perfect instrument to pursue their agenda of censorship. At the federal Canadian Human Rights Commission, for example, one single activist -- a lawyer named Richard Warman, who used to work at the commission himself -- has filed 26 complaints, nearly 50% of all complaints under that commission's "hate messages" section. He's turned it into a part-time job, winning tens of thousands of dollars in "awards" from people he's complained about in the past few years. Warman is a liberal activist, who likes to complain against Web sites he calls racist or homophobic. He's had the common sense to stick to suing small, oddball bloggers who can't fight back. But surely the CIC has observed Warman's winning streak, and will use his precedents to go after Maclean's."

However, Levant also cites the case of Reverend Stephen Boissoin who wrote a letter to the editor of the Red Deer Advocate, published on June 17, 2002, wherein he railed against an alleged pro-gay agenda in Canadian schools, and exhorting that "enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied."

"An even more terrifying precedent recently was set in Alberta. The case involved a letter to the editor written by a Christian pastor and published in the Red Deer Advocate newspaper. The letter was a zealous, even rude, expression of the pastor's belief that homosexuality was a sin, and that there was a homosexual political "agenda" that had to be stopped. But instead of joining the debate by writing a letter to the editor, a local teacher complained to the human rights commission.

The commission's one-woman panel--a divorce lawyer with no expertise in constitutional rights -- ruled that "the publication's exposure of homosexuals to hatred and contempt trumps the freedom of speech afforded in the Charter." That was it: Freedom of speech, and of the press, and religion, all of which are called "fundamental freedoms" in our Constitution, now come second to the newly discovered right of a thin-skinned bystander not to be offended."

Levant actually fails to mention that University of Calgary Education professor Darren Lund waited until after a 17-year-old gay teenager was assaulted until he decided to file a complaint.

Whether the assault was coincidental or not (the assault took place two weeks after the article was printed; one may make of that what they will), Lund may have been justified in feeling the letter caused harm.

“I do stand on the principle that I think the letter did expose people to hatred and I think the government, if it’s serious about its human-rights legislation, needs to make a ruling in this case and I think it’s very clear what they need to do,” Lund remarked.

Yet, the Boissoin case did take a turn for the unsettling, when the government itself chose to get involved, and certainly not on behalf of a pastor who was already finding himself in a position of legal disadvantage.

"In a rare move, the Alberta government sent a lawyer to intervene in the case -- against the pastor. The government lawyer argued that "if people were allowed to simply hide behind the rubric of political and religious opinion, they would defeat the entire purpose of the human rights legislation." Borovoy's well-intentioned laws aren't about making sure aboriginals can get taxi rides anymore.

The human rights panellist in question -- Lori Andreachuk, a former Tory riding association president -- wholeheartedly embraces this expansion of the definiton of "human rights." "It is, in my view, nonsensical to enact human rights legislation, to protect the dignity and human rights of Albertans, only to have it overridden by the expression of opinion in all forms," she wrote. Though no harm was proved to have come from the pastor's letter, it "was likely to expose gay persons to more hatred in the community" -- precisely the same language used by the CIC in their complaint against Maclean's.

In a ruling that spanned some 80 pages, Andreachuk spared just two paragraphs to explain why she was overruling the Charter's guarantee of freedom of speech. In real courts, a demanding legal hurdle called the Oakes Test must be passed before that can be done. The reason for infringing a Charter right must be "pressing and substantial," the infringement couldn't be "arbitrary or irrational" and it must be as "minimal" as possible. None of that analysis was even attempted by Andreachuk -- that's boring legal stuff for real judges in real courts. The Oakes Test was named after David Oakes, a man charged with trafficking of hash oil, who beat the rap using the Charter. Accused drug dealers get the benefit of the Constitution, but not accused pastors."

It is indeed troubling that Canadian human rights commissions are allowed to operate in a manner so contradictory to Canadian legal traditions, while handing down rulings that are still legally binding.

With the filing of the recent complaint against Maclean's magazine, there may finally be no way around this.

"There will be more human rights complaints like the CIC's, and more staggering rulings like the Alberta decision. It's odd: Mohamed Elmasry, an apologist for Islamo-fascism, using the same tools as an "anti-racist" leftist like Richard Warman. At first glance, they may seem like opposites, but they're actually identical: Both are illiberal censors who have found a quirk in our legal system, and are using it to undermine our Western traditions of freedom. Until last week, I would have thought that Maclean's magazine was too big a fish for them to swallow. I don't think that anymore."

While one of the principal functions of any healthy democracy is protecting its most vulnerable members from abuse, it may be time for Canadians to finally admit that two wrongs don't make a right.

While a belief in human rights is unquestionably one of the most important foundations of Canadian society, so is the belief in the rule of law. Yet when the principle of legal equality -- another fundamental foundation of Canadian society -- begins to take a backseat to the political motivations of those who use them to further their agenda.

It's time for Human Rights Commissions to start functioning like actual courts of law. If those administering these Commissions aren't up to this task, then the time has come to discard these commissions altogether, and start enforcing Human Rights Codes through the courts.

The CIC complaint against Maclean's magazine is both an abandonment of the CIC's responsibility in this matter -- namely, refuting Steyn's original article -- and an abuse of the system.

It cannot be allowed to stand.

Big Words from the CBC

But will it live up to them?

In a recent email being circulated amongst various bloggers, an unnamed CBC vice president has promised the CBC will get to the bottom of the matter:

"I wanted to let you know that CBC news chiefs have looked at the allegations made [recently].

They feel that the reporter's actions in pursuing the story were inappropriate and against CBC/Radio-Canada's Journalistic Standards.

They are continuing to investigate the particulars and will follow the disciplinary processes outlined in the CBC's collective agreement.

I imagine that the CBC Ombudsman will be responding to complaints and investigating what happened as well.

They want to make sure this doesn't happen in future."

It's a big promise.

But aside from the fact that the CBC has already announced it will not publicly reveal the identity of the reporter in question (raising some suspicion of an impending cover-up), a cursory examination of the CBC's published Journalistic Standards actually says very little about the matter at hand.

It's important to remember that there have been two explanations for the matter forwarded: that forwarded by the Liberal party and the CBC itself, suggesting that the reporter in question was merely pursuing a story of his or her own, and one forwarded by various Conservatives suggesting that the CBC and Liberal party were "strategically colluding".

If approached from the CBC/Liberal perspective, only one segment of the document, listed under "information gathering" seems to have any significance to the matter at hand. The passage refers to clandestine methods, and reads as follows:

"As a general rule, journalism should be conducted in the open. The credibility and trust placed in the CBC's journalistic programming by the public depends largely on confidence in the ethical and professional standards of its practitioners.

Covert methods, as referred to in this policy, should only be employed with due regard to their legality, to considerations such as fairness and invasion of privacy and whether the information to be obtained is of such significance as to warrant being made public but is unavailable by other means."

From this point of view, the reporter in question would be guilty only of using unnecessary means to get the information he or she desired. Such a question could be asked of Mulroney, or anyone else involved in the sale of wireless spectra, in the course of a properly-arranged interview.

Yet, one has to consider the chain of events necessary for this controversy to have transpired in the first place.

Pablo Rodriguez, as it turns out, is not a regular member of the House of Commons Ethics Committee. In order to be allowed to question Mulroney at the hearing, he first had to be granted permission to do so by the committee chairman, Liberal MP Paul Szabo. Beyond that, Szabo had to agree to allow the question despite the fact that it clearly dealt with matters outside the hearing's topic matter.

Conservative members of the committee called for a vote on whether or not the line of questioning would be allowed, and were outvoted.

It seems the opposition -- the Liberal party in particular -- were very interested in having Rodriguez's questions -- whether penned by or merely "suggested" by the CBC -- asked.

Once it becomes clear that a good deal of maneuvering by the Liberals was necessary in order to get these questions asked in the first place, it also becomes clear that the asking of the questions was not merely an attempt to glean the truth regarding the spectra auction, but rather a political ploy. The case for suspecting outright collusion becomes clear and quite persuasive.

The CBC's Journalistic Standards and Practices document does contain a section regarding socio-political activities, which reads as follows:

"Employees assigned to information programming areas are limited in engaging in political activity, as they have the potential to influence or appear to influence politically related programming.

The following is Corporate By-Law No. 14(3)33 under the heading OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES

"(3)(a) No employee who is employed by the Corporation on a full-time basis as a producer, a supervisor of news or information programming, an editor, a journalist, a reporter, an on-air personality, or who is a designated management employee or primarily responsible to represent the Corporation in its contact with the public, may, subject to subparagraph 14(3)(b) or (c), take a position publicly in a referendum or plebiscite, actively support a political party or candidate, stand for nomination as a candidate and/or be a candidate for election to the House of Commons, a provincial legislature, the Yukon legislative assembly, the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, or a municipal or civic office. For the purposes of this paragraph "designated management employee" means any employee who is a member of the Executive Group (persons paid on the Executive payroll) and any management employee who reports directly to a member of the Executive Group.

(b) A designated management employee may stand for nomination and/or be a candidate for election to a municipal or civic office with prior permission of his or her superior officer.

(c) An employee whose political activities are restricted under subparagraph 14(3)(a) and to whom section 87 of the Canada Elections Act (Revised Statutes of Canada 1985, chapter E-2) applies, shall be granted leave of absence without pay to stand for nomination as a candidate and/or be a candidate for election to the House of Commons, a provincial legislature or the Yukon legislative assembly, or the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, on the following conditions:

(i) that prior to the taking of such leave, the employee shall apply in writing to the president, requesting such leave and setting out the period of time required; and,

(ii) that the employee shall accept assignment to another position in the Corporation on his or her return, if the president in his or her discretion, determines that the usefulness of the employee in his or her duties to the Corporation will be impaired by the taking of such leave. If the assignment to another position is refused by the employee, the employee shall be separated from the Corporation effective at the time of the expiration of the leave of absence.

(d) Employees of the Corporation affected by subsection 14(3) may attend political occasions as private-citizen members of a publicly invited audience.

(i) Subject to paragraph 14(3)(a), any employee of the Corporation employed on a full-time basis may take a position publicly in a referendum or plebiscite or actively support a political party or candidate and may be granted leave of absence without pay to stand for nomination as a candidate and/or be a candidate for election to the House of Commons, a provincial legislature, the Yukon legislative assembly, the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, or a municipal or civic office, on prior written application to the Corporation setting out the period of leave required, if any.

(ii) An employee who is a candidate for election to the House of Commons, a provincial legislature, the Yukon legislative assembly, the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, or any municipal or civic office and is elected shall be separated from the Corporation on the date that he or she is officially declared elected. However, an employee declared elected to any municipal or civic office may apply to his or her vice-president for permission to continue his or her employment with the Corporation while holding such office. If the vice-president in his or her discretion determines that the holding of such office will not interfere with the proper and regular performance of the employee in his or her duties to the Corporation then such permission shall be granted."

Interestingly, aside from passages forbidding anyone employed in a CBC newsroom from publicly expressing political support or standing as a candidate without first requesting and recieving a leave of absence, the CBC's document on Journalistic Standards and Practices says very little about the matter at hand.

In fact, aside from an ambiguously-worded passage forbidding "active support" of a political party or candidate, there's very little in this document to prevent a CBC journalist from working behind the scenes politically.

When considering this particular controversy as a case of CBC/Liberal collusion, it becomes evident that the reporter in question was working behind the scenes.

Without a more explicitly-worded statement in the document at hand, there is a valid question regarding whether or not the CBC can discipline the reporter in question at all.

Of course, failing to take any action at all can only serve to undermine the CBC's self-claimed "unique position of trust".

The lack of any specific statements regarding behind-the-scenes political work by CBC personell -- whether that behind-the-scenes work involves the use of CBC resources or not -- also puts CBC ombudsman and "leading commentator on journalism ethics in Canada" Vince Carlin in a difficult position. He may find his hands tied regarding any charges of collusion, but if that turns out to be the case, he'll also have to see to it that the CBC's Journalistic Standards statement is amended.

That could be viewed as a tacit admission that something shadier than a misguided attempt at getting information has occured here.

Whether or not the CBC lives up to its big promises and maintains its "unique position of trust" remains to be seen.

Celebrating 300 Posts!

As blogging activity has picked up significantly at the Nexus over the past couple of months, its unsurprising that we're starting to knockoff a few milestones around these parts.

This one in particular (as the headline reads), is 300 posts.

It's been a heckuva ride over the past few months in particular, and I'd like to thank my few regular readers, those who have read my work, and those who will do so in future.

I'd also like to thank those who have consistently demonstrated that they just don't get it. Their empty admonitions, vapid villifications and attempts at character assassination have actually demonstrated that this bizarre little experiment you've all been so kind as to participate in has largely been a success.

They stand as proof that there are, indeed, people in the world who still view ego as more important than ideas.

I'd also like to thank those who have consistently demonstrated that they do get it (you'll find them listed under the blogroll).

No matter what happens in coming months, there are a few promises I'd like to make: I promise no punches will be pulled. I promise a constant influx of fresh ideas and perspectives. I promise to challenge cowardice, of any variety, wherever it may be found.

I also promise to be more active in the blogging community.

More than anything, I promise no apologies to those who won't like what's coming next. Don't expect the next 300 posts to be any different than the first.

John McCain Recieves Key Endorsements

McCain campaign due for a boost, but is it too late?

Joe Lieberman has decided who he thinks should be President of the United States.

And it isn't a Democrat.

In a surprise move, Lieberman has endorsed Republican candidate John McCain as the man to reunite the United States. "Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America," Lieberman announced. "Let's put the United States first again, and John McCain is the man as president who will help us do that."

On the endorsement front, today was a very good day for McCain. the Des Moines Register and Boston Globe have chosen McCain as the Republican best qualified to become Commander-in-Chief.

"Time after time, McCain has stuck to his beliefs in the face of opposition from other elected leaders and the public," the Register's Editorial Board wrote. "The force of John McCain's moral authority could go a long way toward restoring Americans' trust in government and inspiring new generations to believe in the goodness and greatness of America."

"As a lawmaker and as a candidate, he has done more than his share to transcend partisanship and promote an honest discussion of the problems facing the United States," the board continued.

Despite previously-sagging polling numbers, these key endorsements are only the tip of the iceberg of McCain's turning fortunes. In a poll recently published in USA Today, McCain's favourable/unfavourable rating registered at 50% favourable/30% favourable. The nearest competing Republican, former New York city mayor Rudi Giuliani, registered numbers of 50% favourable/41% unfavourable.

Fabourable/unfavourable ratings actually being the most reliable polling data, this is very good news for McCain. Now lagging only 3 points behind front-runners Guiliani and the Chuck-Norris-fuelled Mike Huckabee, McCain is clearly set for a late-campaign surge.

However, it's possible that it may be too late for McCain. As with his past presidential campaign, McCain has been having trouble raising funds. He may find himself in a situation similar to that he found himself in in 2004, where he needed to win four of the first five primaries simply to stay competitive.

Unless this late surge in polling numbers is accompanied by a similar surge in his fundraising numbers, McCain simply may not be able to make up lost ground in this contest. Even then, defeating either Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama may turn out to be the penultimate uphill battle.

McCain has his work cut out for him. Unfortunately, his future may not be entirely in his own hands. American voters planning to donate funds to a presidential campaign will have to render judgement on him, too.

With Americans ready to embrace the kind of change McCain offers, that judgement may yet turn out to be favourable, but only time will tell.

Poppy Objection Should Have Been Overruled

Judge's objection to the wearing of a poppy in court betrays lack of objectivity

A courtroom controversy that has been quietly brewing for the past couple of months recently became a little bit louder, as the fallout from an incident in a Kitchener, Ontario courtroom has hit the letters to the editor page of The National Post.

On October 31st, Justice Margaret Woolcott issued a stern lecture to Constable Dan Haines and defence lawyer Richard Prendiville. "I think that somehow I owe you something in training," she said. "I wouldn't wear my poppy to court."

"Because however much -- and I really probably should have said something to [Prendiville] too -- but however much you may think that's a totally acceptable symbol, and that it is totally neutral, that might not be entirely the case for everybody who comes to court," Woolcott suggested. "It represents a symbol of support and I suspect that 99.999 per cent of us happily wear it outside of the courtroom. You probably should not wear anything like that in court."

Woolcott is entirely wrong in taking this stance. Some people, however, seem to fail to understand why.

In a 14 December letter, Ted Doueck essentially suggests Marget Woolcott's decision to lecture a police officer testifying in an assault trial for wearing a poppy was a sound act of accomodation for the local Mennonite minority:

"In Waterloo County, Ont, where Justice Margaret Woolcott sits on the Ontario Court bench, there is a large Mennonite population, who have a long and worthy history of adherence to non-violence and peace-making and are opposed to war and killing. Among this group of loyal Canadian citizens (whom you have blithely labeled "hateful eccentrics") the wearing of a poppy is generally viewed as glorification of war and all it entails.

Mennonites understand very well the disasters and destruction that accompany war and aggression -- they historically experienced these disasters themselves, as the persecuted targets of governments who were unwilling to accept and respect their policies of non-resistance and nonviolence. I have no idea what Justice Woolcott's personal views may be on this issue, but I commend her for displaying sensitivity to the fact that there are legitimate, alternate views in our society about the efficacy of war and violence in solving human problems. This opinion does not minimize the tragic loss of lives experienced in war but rejects the implicit endorsement of violence and military struggle which the poppy signifies.

Justice Woolcott recognized that wearing a poppy in a courtroom is essentially a political statement, made by a police constable whose line of work also entails the potential use of force and violence to uphold the law. Not all Canadians feel comfortable with that political view, nor should they, as she correctly pointed out to the officer in question."

In short, Dueck argues that it's acceptable to chide the officer in question because some people don't agree with the poppy as a symbol. In particular Mennonites, he argues, understand this as well as anyone due to the past persecutions they've suffered.

The irony that some of history's worst persecutions were ended only through war may be lost on him. This is precisley the point raised in a response written by Calgary's Alexander MacKay:

"As a surviving combat infantryman of two terrible wars I am deeply offended by letter-writer Ted Dueck's assertions that the poppy stands for war, that its wearing is viewed as "glorification of war" and that it signifies an "endorsement of violence."

In my service I never met any combat soldier who glorified war. Indeed it was universally reviled but accepted as a necessary alternative to more horrible consequences.

Undeniably all war is horrible, but the Second World War came about largely because we, the Western democracies, wanted peace too much. So craven did we become in seeking peace that we not only sold other innocent countries (e.g. Czechoslovakia) into slavery but we shunned facing war when it could have been resolved with minimum bloodshed -- instead of paying the eventual butcher's bill of 60 million lives.

Those who reject all war should reflect on Korea. There, the intervention of the willing, including Canada at a cost of more than 500 lives, prevented South Korea from suffering the terrible fate of its northern brethren. Today, South Korea is a vibrant modern society with boundless opportunities for its youth. Would Mr. Dueck have preferred that our sacrifices not have been made for them? Does he applaud the results of our failure to intervene in Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur?

Mr. Dueck and Margaret Woolcott, the Ontario Court Justice who berated a police officer for wearing a poppy in her courtroom, are disingenuous in attempting to affix their own pejorative meanings to a symbol that was solely intended to commemorate, and grieve for, those brave individuals who gave their lives so that others, including those who revile them, may live their lives in peace and security."

In another letter, Victoria's Michael Ross takes issue with Dueck and Woolcott's treatment of the poppy as a symbol:

"Apparently letter writer Ted Dueck's and Madame Justice Woolcott attended the same revisionist history classes. The poppy is not a symbol of war any more than a judge's robes are a symbol of unquestionable Solomonian wisdom. The poppy is purely and simply put, a symbol of remembrance. The reason it is worn by policemen across Canada is not to make a "political statement;" but to show that they remember those Canadians who made the ultimate sacrifice and laid down their lives for their country. When my great-grandfather and my grandfather volunteered to fight tyranny overseas as proud members of the Canadian army, they fought so that all Canadians -- including Mennonites, Ontario Justices, and the residents of Waterloo -- could live in peace, freedom, and security.

I salute and thank the policemen across this nation who don the poppy to honour and remember the deeds of our fathers. The only political statement here is that of the Judge. I would think that she has more important issues to contend with in her court than hectoring policemen around Remembrance Day."

Ross is precisely right. If anyone involved in this unfortunate incident has used the courtroom as a forum for a political statement, it certainly wasn't Haines or Prendiville. It was Woolcott herself.

Whether in the name of an objection to the symbolism behind the poppy, or as a form of accomodation to those who don't agree with it, Woolcott's suggestion that the poppy -- worn in remembrance of those who died fighting to defend the country our justice system is supposed to represent -- is explicitly a political statement. It represents, at best, an accomodationists' insistence that the opinion of .001% (by her own estimation) should somehow count for more than that of the remaining 99.999%. The suggestion that a police officer can't wear a poppy in remembrance of those who gave up their lives so that we may have, among other things, our legal system is nothing short of a national embarrassment.

The suggestion that he can't do so because someone, somewhere might object to it is implicitly silly, and has no place in a court of law.

In the end, what Woolcott's objection reveals is her own lack of objectivity. She has demonstrated a noted inability to accept that while some people may interpret the poppy in ways other than that intended (and Ted Dueck's letter stands as proof of that), that is simply part of life in a democracy. In a democracy, where we enjoy freedom of speech, we're allowed to make statements that may risk offending someone. This freedom makes us obligated to face the consequences for such statements, but we have that freedom nonetheless.

Case in point: in her attempt to avoid offending the small number of people who see the poppy as a celebration of war, Woolcott has offended a great many more.

The damage she has done to her own reputation, and the reputation of her court, is a consequence she'll have to accept.

CBC Investigating Collusion Allegations

But an internal probe isn't enough

In the wake of an emerging scandal alleging Liberal party MP Pablo Rodriguez asked a question at the Mulroney-Schreiber hearing that had been written (or at least suggested) for him by a CBC reporter, the CBC has announced it will be launching an investigation into the affair.

On Thursday, Rodriguez asked Mulroney if he had anything to do with the recent decision to auction new allocations of cellular transmission frequencies.

Following a complaint lodged with the CBC ombudsman by the Conservative party, the CBC will be investigating the allegations raised by former Liberal party cabinet minister Jean Lapierre.

The CBC has admitted that the practice is, at the very least, "inappropriate".

"In our view, while the reporter may have been in pursuit of a journalistically legitimate story, this was an inappropriate way of going about it and as such inconsistent with our journalistic policies and practices," announced CBC head of English media relations John Keay. "The particulars of this matter are currently under investigation and will be considered under the disciplinary processes outlined in our collective agreement."

Unfortunately for the CBC, conducting an internal investigation may simply not be enough this time.

When one considers the implications this matter holds for the CBC, its reputaiton, and its status in the public eye, it isn't hard to percieve the lunacy of allowing the CBC to merely investigate itself and calling that the end of it. While previous episodes (including the previously mentioned Christina Lawand editing-cum-hatchet-job episode) could plausibly be written off as mere indiscretions, the discovery of open collusion between the CBC and Liberal party cannot be quietly swept under the rug with a brief apology and a promise of future vigilance.

This time, the CBC has some very serious questions to answer, and there is only one place the public can rest assured it will recieve the proper answers.

That forum is a public inquiry.

This recent affair has raised a good many troubling questions about the CBC, and Canadians deserve answers. Among them:

-Exactly how prominent is such "suggesting" of questions by CBC employees? How many CBC reporters have done this, and how long has it been going on?

-Under what guise has this practice been taking place? Has it been restricted to public inquries, or have CBC personell helped write Question Period queries as well?

-Are these personell doing this as private citizens or as CBC employees? Are they using their CBC credentials to gain access to Liberal party members, or members of any other party, for this purpose?

-Are these reporters doing this on their own time, or during hours billable to the CBC?

-Have any CBC employees made use of CBC assets or resources in service of a political party?

-Has any arrangement been established between the Liberal party members and CBC employees in question whereby such favours are reciprocated in any way, shape, or form?

-Have CBC brass made it clear to CBC employees that such behaviour is prohibited, or have CBC executives made use of a "don't ask, don't tell" approach in regards to such behaviour?

Canadians, who fund the CBC via their tax dollars, have a right to know the answers to these questions, and the CBC should consider itself obligated to answer them in the public eye, not behind closed doors.

An internal probe is not enough. The government should call an official inquiry into this matter so Canadians can get the answers they deserve.

A Picture Indeed Worth a Thousand Words

What do these two men have in common?

Two simple things: both talk a big game vis a vis global warming. And both, when actally in office, did nothing about it.

They obviously share one third thing in common: neither has realized that actions do speak louder than words. The inaction of these two men is worth millions of words.

'Nuff said.

CBC Has Tough Questions to Answer

CBC "suggesting" questions for the Liberal party

For those of us critical of the CBC and its overwhelming bias, the past few days have been very good days.

In what has turned out to be an absolute bombshell of a story, former Liberal cabinet minister Jean Lapierre has suggested the CBC may be writing Question Period queries for the Liberal party.

According to Lapierre, Liberal MP Pablo Rodirguez recieved questions written by the CBC to be asked during Brian Mulroney's testimony before the Commons Committee regarding whether or not he had anything to do with the upcoming wireless spectrum auction.

On Mike Duffy Live Lapierre commented on the questions asked by Rodriquez.

"Last night I knew all about those questions," Lapierre explained. "They were written by the CBC and provided to the Liberal Members of Parliament and the questions that Pablo Rodriguez asked were written by the CBC and I can’t believe that but last night, a very influential Member of Parliament came to me and told me those are the questions the CBC wants us to ask tomorrow."

Upon some further investigation into the matter, Liberal staff members have denied that the CBC has written questions for the Liberals, but rather merely "suggested" the questions, which Liberal staffers then wrote.

If that isn't a distinction devoid of any real diference, one might wonder what is.

Canadians should be expecting some answers in short order from the CBC over this matter.

Sadly, this isn't the first embarrassing episode in the chronicling of CBC's blatant partisanship. Last year, CBC reporter Christina Lawand was caught editing comments by Stephen Harper in order to make them appear uncaring. The previous year (during the federal election), the network was busted fishing for Canadians planning to vote against the Conservatives due to fears over a hidden agenda.

However, this is a very different matter. This most recent episode actually involves open collusion between the CBC and the Liberal party. It actually represents outright political interference by a publicly-funded broadcaster.

All in all, maybe this recent episode is less than surprising. After all, it isn't like the CBC doesn't know which side their bread is buttered on.

Mulroney Finally Speaks

Mulroney appears before Commons Ethics Committee

Brian Mulroney finally broke weeks of silence today, as he testified before the House of Commons Ethics committee regarding his dealings with German-Canadian businessman Karlheinz Schreiber.

During the course of his testimony, Mulroney made it clear that he regrets ever having anything to do with Schreiber.

"My second biggest mistake in life, for which I have no one to blame but myself, is having accepted payments in cash from Karlheinz Schreiber for a mandate he gave me after I left office," Mulroney announced. "...My biggest mistake in life, by far, was ever agreeing to be introduced to Karlheinz Schreiber in the first place."

Mulroney testified that on August 27, 1993, he accepted the first of three payments from Schreiber. At that meeting, Mulroney said, Schreiber actually declared his intention to sue the federal government for not approving the Bear Head project. "[Shreiber] told me he had planned to pursue legal damages to recover costs and damages, he left me with a copy of the lawsuit."

"He then said that it would be very helpful to Thyssen to have a former prime minister assist in the international promotion of their peacekeeping vehicles and gave me a copy of merchandising documents regarding the vehicle."

"When I indicated that this kind of global activity was something I thought I could usefully do -- provided that none of the activity would relate to domestic Canadian representation -- he produced a legal sized envelope and handed it to me," Mulroney testified.

"At that point, Mr. Schreiber said this is the first retainer payment -- he told me there would be a total of three payments for three years."

Mulroney says he was hesitant to accept cash from Schreiber, but, "When I hesitated, he said 'I'm an international businessman and I only deal in cash, this is the way I do business.'"

Given that Schreiber has been noted to be in the business of dispersing money without leaving a paper trail, it's unsurprising that he would insist on dealing in cash.

Mulroney testified that he used the money to cover expenses while promoting Thyssen's Bearhead internationally.

"After accepting the international payment on the retainer, and during the time two subsequent payments were made, I made trips to China, Russia, Europe and throughout the United States of America where I met with government and industry leaders and explored with them the prospects for this peacekeeping vehicle,"

Yet, Mulroney's testimony before the committee clearly raises further questions.

First off, how much money was he paid in the first place? As well-publicized, Schreiber claims to have paid Mulroney $300,000 in three $100,000 installments (he was allegedly supposed to be paid $500,000). Today, Mulroney replied that he was, in fact, paid only $225,000 in three installments of $75,000.

Secondly, why did Mulroney claim he had never had dealings with Schreiber during the course of his libel suit against the federal government? If he hadd meant to note that he had no dealings with Schreiber regarding Airbust, that's exactly what he should have said.

It's evident that Mulroney has nothing to hide in regards to his dealings with Schreiber, but omissions such as that hardly help his case.

Last but certainly not least, Mulroney has yet to explain why he took so long to pay taxes on the $225,000.

Of course, further investigation into the testimony of each man will have to decide who is more credible. Naturally, Mulroney holds the advantage in this regard: presumably his lobbying visits on behalf of Thyssen will be recorded in the records of the Chinese, Russian, European and American officials he visisted while promoting the Bearhead.

Meanwhile, however, Schreiber has no paper trail to back his claims. His specialty has come back to bite him in the ass just as surely as he has come back to bite Mulroney's.

Parvez Murder Becomes a Battleground for Multiculturalism

Barbara Kay suggests Aqsa Parvez case a black eye for Multiculturalism

In the wake of the murder of Aqsa Pervez, a 16-year-old Muslim girl who was strangled by her father for refusing to wear a Hijab, many commentators have pointed the finger of blame at Multiculturalism, and, more specifically, Islam.

Her 26-year-old brother has also been charged with obstruction of justice.

In a National Post Full Comment op/ed piece, Barbara Kay argues that Parvez's murder is proof of the failings of Multiculturalism and Feminism, as demands that we respect cultural differences force people to bend over backward in order to accomodate the most brutal practices of other cultures.

"...The alliance of feminism with multiculturalism has created a two-tier sisterhood.

The top tier, western women, have achieved full equality rights. Any and all male aggression against a top tier woman triggers a public outcry and a million lit candles. The second tier women — those from other cultures — are not so fortunate. Feminists exploit multiculturalism to justify their moral abandonment of the women who most need them: girl victims of dysfunctional or socially unevolved cultures."

Partially, Barbara Kay has it right. Certainly, there are some people who have become so enamoured with Multiculturalism that they have allowed various groups a "free pass", even within the borders of our own country, to do as their culture would allow, regardless of whether or not it violates the rules and laws of Canadian society.

This, however, is not a failing of Multiculturalism in and of itself. Rather, it's a failing of Multiculturalism as a political ideology. The use of Multiculturalism as a political ideology demands that it be rigid and uncompromising. It's under conditions such as this that the detail that a crime has been committed can easily be swept under a rug and forgotten.

Multiculturalism should not be so highly enshrined in the Canadian identity that it can allow for cultural values to be used as an excuse for murder.

To people such as Kay, however, the Parvez case has become more than merely a question of whether or not Multiculturalism should allow "honour killings" to be tolerated in Canadian society (although the answer to that question is obvious). They want to treat the Parvez case as a trial for the Hijab itself:

"Sixteen-year old Mississauga teenager Aqsa Parvez died on Tuesday of wounds suffered in an attack on her Monday — allegedly by her father. (A brother is also charged with the crime of obstruction.) Friends of Aqsa painted a picture of a young girl eager to integrate into Canadian society, in ongoing conflict with her conservative Pakistani father who insisted she wear the hijab, the Muslim symbol of sexual modesty.

Multiculturalists would have us believe that the hijab is merely a religious symbol, like the Sikh kirpan or the Christian cross, freely embraced by the girls wearing them. It isn’t, as many Muslim commentators, including Tarek Fatah in these pages yesterday, have frequently explained. The hijab is rather a public sign of supervised sexual modesty, and marks those wearing it as chattel, leashed to their fathers and brothers as surely as if they were wearing a dog collar.

But you’ll never hear a feminist murmur a word of complaint about these girls’ lack of autonomy, for the same reasons the judge in Australia couldn’t imagine that an aboriginal girl should be treated with the same dignity and respect as her own daughter.

I have argued before in these pages that the hijab, however benign-seeming, is still one end of a female-submissive spectrum that ends in the burqa, a garment virtually all Canadians find antithetical to our values. If public schools, which are supposedly secular, had banned hijabs as France did, along with all other religious paraphernalia, in order to create a level social Canadian playing field, Aqsa would have had Canada on her side."

To many Canadians, Kay's remarks would seem spot-on. Ignoring for a few moments that the Burqa holds different meanings for differing groups of Muslims (some of whom reject the practice altogether), many see the Burqa as an example of suppression of women at worst, and female submissiveness at best. Under either condition, they argue, the Burqa should be seen as anathema to Canadian values.

At first glimpse, they'd seem to be correct.

Yet the fact is that, at the end of the day, Canada is either a free society or it is not.

Anti-Hijab and anti-Burqa activists need to come to grips with the fact that religious freedom must also entail the right for Muslim women to choose either of these garments, if they do so of their own accord. However, Canadian Muslims, if they expect to benefit from the freedom of religion Canada offers, must also accept those freedoms will apply to their wives and daughters as well. Honour killings will absolutely not be tolerated.

Muhammad Parvez should be made an example of what the Canadian justice system holds in store for those who commit such foul acts.

However, banning all religious paraphenalia from schools, as Barbara Kay suggests, would only entrench religious intolerance in Canada, as the increasing fervour surrounding secularism and its religious counterpart, atheism, begins to demand that all religions be suppressed in the public eye.

Whether or not France (time and time again proven to be less tolerant than they pretend to be) has done this is immaterial. People used to agree that religious intolerance is bad, and in the wake of Aqsa Parvez's "honour killing" -- arguably a result of religious intolerance within her own home, as her father refused to respect her differing beliefs -- what is needed is more religious tolerance, not less.

We don't have to respect cultural values that allow for "honour killings". We do, however, have to respect that cultural values may lead people to dress differently than we may otherwise like them to.

To refuse to do so is nothing short of intolerance. We used to agree that was a bad thing.

Denis Coderre and the Definition of Insanity

Liberal Defense Critic suggests we do the same things, the same way, and somehow expect a different result

It's said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, in the same way, expecting different results.

That's precisely what the Denis Coderre, the Liberal party's Defense critic, has suggested the Canadian government do inregards to Canada's aging fleet of Aurora patrol planes.

"Those planes have a capacity to be perfect up to 2025," Coderre insisted at a press conference attended by fellow Liberals Scott Brisan, Geoff Regan and Michael Savage. "If we are replacing them... and we're stalling those other [upgrades], you will have kind of a gap in some years when Canada won't be able to fulfil its own military duty. That's a problem in itself."

To sum the matter up in short, Coderre, the Defense Critic for the party that has historically cut corners with Canada's military hardware in order to save a couple of bucks, has suggested Canada's sitting government do exactly the same.

Somehow, presumably, the results will be different.

The previous chapters in this sad little chronicle are pretty well known to Canadians.

Upon taking office in 1993, the Liberals (under Jean Chretien) cancelled the previous Tory government's purchase of helicopters to replace Canada's decrepid fleet of Sea Kings. What ensued was nothing less than years of helicopter crashes, and, more importantly, pilot casualties, precipitated by Liberal negligence.

In 2004, a Canadian submariner died of injuries sustained in a fire aboard a submarine purchased second-hand from the British Navy.

Now Coderre suggests Canada should continue to pursue the Liberal policy of overhauling obselete equipment in order to squeeze every last operating hour out of it. Perhaps when the Canadian forces resort to spending 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air on the Auroras will they finally admit the planes have had enough.

Coderre has even suggested that replacing the planes instead of upgrading them will leave Canada with a significant gap in its surveillance capabilities -- obviously a blow for Arctic sovereignty. Yet, Defense department officials disagree, noting that replacements for the Auroras can be in place by the time the refit of the existing planes would be finished in 2013.

As a potential compromise, a portion of Canada's Aurora planes could be refitted, then used as backups in case of an emergency.

But Canadians have already seen what happens when the government bends over backwards to extend the operating life of aging hardware.

It looks a little something like this:



That's reason enough for Defense Minister Peter MacKay to tell Denis Coderre the government already has other plans.

The last thing Canadians need is for its sitting government to buy into Coderre and the Liberals' institutional insanity.

Bad News for Stephane Dion: Canadians Not Buying Liberal Swill

And all that whining for nothin', too...

After spending the better part of a year complaining about the alleged disastrousness of the Conservative government, Stephane Dion can't be happy about Nik Nanos' newest polling numbers.

While Dion has, to date, spent his time as Leader of the Opposition lodging some rather predictable complaints about the government, including resorting to complaining about the "unfairness" of its budget or simply calling the government "mean", it turns out that Canadians simply aren't buying into Dion's claims about how regressive and un-Canadian the government allegedly is.

In the poll, when asked how good a job they thought the government was doing, 10.1% responded "very good". 29.4% said the government was "good". A whopping 38.1% graded the government as "average". Only 9% and 9.4% graded the government as "poor" and "very poor", respectively.

So, it turns out, despite all of Dion's hard work trying to find that magical wedge issue that would drive Canadians away from the government, an overwhelming 77.6% of Canadians rate them as average or better.

And while Conservative partisans should restrain themselves from jumping for joy -- after all, an assessment of the government as "average" doesn't necessarily denote satisfaction with that government -- this poll does spell bad news for Stephane Dion.

The argument that Dion would be more popular if only he were more personable can now be largely discarded. It's hard to justify constantly denouncing the government as disastrous (or even potentially disastrous) when the public at large has judged them to be no more (or, conversely, less) disastrous than previous governments.

If Dion continues his favoured line of rhetoric, he could find himself further alienated from the Canadian electorate.

Evidently, New Brunswick Liberals Not as Dumb as They Look

Government of New Brunswick to "pass tax cut along" to consumers

When Stephane Dion and the federal Liberal party found it politically inconvenient to oppose the Conservatie government's 2008 GST cut, the New Brunswick Liberal Party thought they had discovered the next best thing in hiking the Harmonized Sales Tax by 1%.

The Harmonized Sales Tax is a harmonized combination of the General Goods and Services tax (imposed by the federal government) and the Provincial Sales tax (imposed by the provincial government). The HST also involves the governments of Novia Scotia and Newfoundland.

According to New Brunswick Finance Minister Victor Boudreau, premier Shawn Graham discussed the proposed HST hike with Nova Scotia premier Rodney McDonald and Newfoundland premier Danny Williams, and was forced to conclude that the hike was unfeasible.

"Government wasn't looking at putting one extra penny into its coffers," Boudreau insisted.

Of course, because it pertains to an agreement involving two other provincial governments, New Brunswick can't hike the tax unilaterally. If the other two provinces involved weren't willing to go with New Brunswick on this, then the plan is officially dead.

The ridiculousness of taking on the federal government over one of the most unpopular taxes in Canadian history aside, portraying the decision not to hike the HST as an "early christmas present", in particular, is nothing short of a logical fallacy, particularly considering that hiking the HST is the exact opposite of a Christmas present ("merry Christmas, I got you nothing...").

One would think Liberals would be smarter in places where they're actually governing.

Think Tank Offers Wise Advice fo Afghanistan Panel

Senlis Council offers sound advice for Afghanistan panel

In testimony before the federal government's Afghanistan Panel, Senlis Council president Norine MacDonald offered what the Senlis council feels would be a rudimentary roadmap to success in Afghanistan.

The council recommends the following:

-Shifting responsibility for delivering aid to civilians in Khandahar from the Canadian International Development Agency to the Canadian Armed Forces in the short term.

-Planning CIDA's role in Afghanistan over the medium- to long-term in order to boost the Agency's effectiveness in the region.

-Calling a NATO meeting to discuss sharing of the Afghanistan mission with non-NATO countries, and increasing the troop presence in Afghanistan to 80,000.

-Adoping a "zero civilian casualties" policy to ensure that any and all civilian casualties are prevented.

-Establishing clear objectives and bench marks for security, humanitarian and development work in Afghanistan.

-Lobbying against the chemical spraying of opium poppy crops in Afghanistan, and instead establishing a pilot project using said poppies for pharmaceuticals.

-The establishment of Canadian-Afghan professional exchange and development programs so Canadian civilians may share their expertise with their Afghan counterparts.

The Senlis council recommendations are mostly sound, although they are imperfect. That is, the principles are fundamentally sound, but practicality could become an issue if these policies are hastily implimented in the field.

"What I said to the Manley panel today was that we need a development and aid effort that will actually deliver development and aid when the military has promised that to the locals," MacDonald said. "What we have seen on the ground is really that CIDA is not being effective at all in delivering development and aid. They are not supporting the Canadian military in the way they should."

"CIDA's efforts in Kandahar are so minimal on the ground as to be nonexistent. It's a crisis. We are seeing starving babies and a hospital that is a nightmare. The military could do a better job. The young men and women from Canada would be more than happy to deliver aid to the Afghan people," she added.

While some would dispute the Council's assessment of CIDA's effectiveness -- most notably, the federal minister in charge of aid and development (one may make of this what they wish) -- transferring responsibility for short-term aid to the armed forces will add yet another task to the already-occupied Canadian Forces. Requiring Canadian troops to carry out humanitarian work in Khandahar may require a temporary boost in troop deployment -- think of it as a "humanitarian surge".

Adopting a zero civilian casualties policy in Afghanistan is actually quite important. However, we need to remember that civilian casualties during war are very much a part of fighting a war, and sometimes are unavoidable -- particularly in situations such as when Taxis refuse to stop at military checkpoints.

As a general operating principle, however, we simply must do everything we can to avoid such casualties whenever possible.

Other than these minor issues, the Senlis Council has offered some good ideas on changes that can be made to the approach to the Afghanistan mission in order to ensure its success.

"There's a lot things we could do differently that would have a really significant impact on the situation and the stability of the Karzai government and bring our troops home sooner," MacDonald announced.

The Canadian Forces would be well-served to follow the Senlis Council's advice in the new year.

German Scientology Ban Wrongheaded

German officials support religious intolerance under guise of Constitution

Call it beating a dead horse, but Germany has hardly proven to be a hotbed of religious tolerance.

A recent movement in Germany to ban the Church of Scientology, however, has taken a turn for the just plain embarrassing.

Noting that Scientology allegedly "to be an organization that is not compatible with the constitution," Berlin Interior minister Ehrhart Koerting has noted that the country's domestic intelligence service will be asked to do the work necessary to ban Scientology in Germany.

Regardless of whether or not one considers Scientology to be a sham or not -- and there's much to be said about a religion established just so a Science Fiction author can sell more copies of his book -- the goals of Scientology hardly "threatens the peaceful democratic order."

In fact, banning Scientology -- and thus enshrining religious intolerance in the country's security policy -- presents a threat to the "peaceful democratic order" in Germany.

When government officials in Germany start buying into bizarre world domination conspiracy theories, it's not hard to imagine that the country is at risk of sliding back into some of its darker historical chapters.

One need not like Scientology to admit that its adherents have the right to their religious beliefs.

December 2007 Book Club Selection: Statecraft, Margaret Thathcer

Former British Prime Minister offers a crash course in foreign policy

It takes a special breed of woman to earn the nickname "the Iron Lady".

As the occupant of 10 Downing Street from 1979-90, Thatcher earned herself a reputation for being tough and ruthless. She also proved herself to be a capable cold warrior, and eventually came to be known as one of the "big three" neoconservative leaders of the 1980s (the other two being US president Ronald Reagan and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney).

Thatcher served as British Prime Minister at a time when the world was undergoing incredible changes. As such, one should be unsurprised that she would have a thing or two to say about foreign policy.

Like her political career, Statecraft was written at a time of global change -- in this case, the preliminary manuscript was finished shortly after the 9/11 attacks that precipitated the war on terror.

In Statecraft, Thatcher examines each part of the world, and outlines a step-by-step policy framework to deal with each. In outlining these policies, Thatcher takes realism as her watchword. She continually refers back to her experiences as a Cold Warrior (both prior to and after the collapse of the Soviet Union) for examples that vindicate her recommendations.

Most notably, Thatcher is largely dismissive of what she often regards as empty idealism. She weighs the state of the world while considering competing interests, and often espouses a view that is both Americo- and Anglo-centric in nature.

In particular, she spares no suspicion regarding the European Union, which she at one point describes as a French attempt to eclipse the United States as the world's dominant power.

Statecraft offers a stark reminder that Britain's "iron lady" is built of very stern stuff.

Liberal Excitement Over Mulroney/Schreiber Affair Due to Drop Off in 5... 4...

Liberal involvement with Karlheinz Schreiber comes to forefront

Karma, as they say, is a bitch.

With the Liberal party bending over backwards to dig dirt on the governing Conservatives via the Schreiber-Mulroney affair, today's huge development in the story just might make this story worthwhile for Conservative partisans.

Those paying attention to the early goings of this emerging non-scandal may have noticed various NDP commentators such as Brad Lavigne, referring to mutual Conservative and Liberal connections to Karlheinz Schreiber. Surely, they must have also noticed various Liberal commentators warning those NDP commentators to "be careful" about what they said.

It turns out that these Liberals had every reason to be vaguely threatening, considering the recent developments in the story today.

According to the Globe and Mail, powerful Liberal cabinet minister Andre Ouellet lobbied fiercely in favour of building the Thyssen AG armaments plant in Nova Scotia.

In various letters marked "secret", Ouellet and then-Industry Minister John Manley clearly disagreed about the project. Manley clearly shared Brian Mulroney's view on the project, which at one point was expected to have potentially cost Canadian taxpayers $100 million.

It was also discovered that Schreiber's company donated $10,000 to the Liberals after they won the 1993 federal election.

Not only, however, did Ouellet lobby the government in favour of the Bear Head project, but it seems he may have lobbied Schreiber himself to change the planned location of the factory to Quebec.

Ouellet expected the project to create 500 jobs in a poor Montreal neighbourhood.

"This is in line with the federal government's policy that all investment proposals should fully take into account the net economic advantages to Canada," Ouellet wrote. "That is why I suggest that you consider very seriously this request from a foreign company that is willing to invest in Canada and to export a military vehicle that could be in increasing demand in the context of peace missions that are more and more numerous around the world."

Manley eventually relented to accepting an economic analysis of the project's benefits from Thyssen.

Now, before Conservative partisans get too excited, one needs to remember that Ouellet, like Mulroney did nothing wrong in his dealings with Schreiber and Thyssen.

In each case, each individual merely acted in what they felt may be the best interests of depressed areas of the country -- Nova Scotia in Mulroney's case, and East Montreal in Ouellet's.

There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, that was their job at the time.


When the project was found to stand to cost Canada $100 million, Mulroney declared it dead.

When the government began preparations to purchase new armoured vehicles for the Canadian Forces, Ouellet declined to push Thyssen's product, instead urging the importance of an open competition. Purchasing the vehciles from Thyssen, or any other company, he noted, "without a tendering process would go against the rules of equity."

Neither man acted improperly, in any sense of the word.

That being said, if the Liberals want to use the Mulroney-Schreiber affair to portray the Conservative party as corrupt, they now need to realize that they'll be tarred with the same brush vis a vis the Ouellet-Schreiber affair.

Perhaps given the recent revelatins regarding Schreiber and his dealings, there will be significantly less will to waste Canadian time and money trying to get to the bottom of a matter in which no wrongdoings have transpired.

Or, the Liberals can keep trying to invent a scandal, and inevitably play into the hands of a hungry NDP.

Karma works quite well like that.

Barack, Make Fun of Hillary, You Should

American politics' resident Yoda offers Obama some advice

If Karl Rove were born to a single mother in a galaxy far, far, away, one wouldn't be surprised if Yoda were called upon for a paternity test.

Just look at the guy. The resemblence is actually kind of creepy.

And while he may usually act a lot more like Darth Vader, Rove took a page out of Yoda's playbook today in offering Jedi/presidential hopeful Barack Obama some unsolicited advice on how to defeat leading Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"Stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson," he wrote in an open memo published in the Financial Times. "Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way."

Rove would certainly know this pretty well. High-minded is something that his candidates have rarely been. "Mean or ugly"? That's another matter entirely.

Rove also noted that Obama should close in on Clinton's complaints that she's being "picked on". Find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on," Rove wrote. "The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation."

"Blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humor and a smile and it will sting even more."

Naturally, Rove's (actually sound) advice to Obama has raised some questions regarding his motivations. While redemption and a turn back from the dark side can't be considered impossible, this is still Karl Rove we're talking about. In other words, it isn't bloody likely.

One Clinton spokesperson predictably surmised that Rove is helping set Obama up as the Democratic candidate only to help the Republicans knock him down. "Why is Karl Rove giving Senator Obama advice on how to win? Could it be that he thinks it will be easier for Republicans to run against the unknown gentleman from Illinois?"

According to Jim VandeHei, it may merely be relevance in the current campaign that Rove desires. "If you're a gambler you want to be at the table, and he very much wants to be part of this debate," VandeHei said.

Whatever his motivations, Rove's advice is very sound. If Obama wants to make one last push as the presidency, he'd be wise to follow Rove's advice to the letter.

If the plight of John McCain shows us anything, it's that there may not be a second chance at the presidency for some candidates, no matter how strong a candidate really is.

Stephane Dion Not Ready for the Big Game

Liberal leader promises a "new ball game" in 2008

After a hard-luck year as Liberal leader and leader of the opposition, Stephane Dion announced today that he expects his party's fortunes are about to change.

"2008 will be another ball game," Dion announced. "You cannot keep alive forever a government who wants to die."

More specifically, Dion is looking toward spring 2008 as the date on which he wants to topple the Conservative government and try to fulfil what he thinks is the Liberal party's destiny -- his previously promised return to power.

"I think each week I feel that [the public mood is] warmer about the idea that maybe we should revisit the kind of choice we have made in 2006. And we'll see if it's still the case in February or in March or in April," he said.

Despite some public assertions to the contrary, Dion seems to feel a bit of political good mojo has dropped into his lap with the ongoing (and opposition preciptated) Mulroney-Schreiber circus, and he believes this is going to make all the difference in 2008.

Unfortunately, however, Dion has yet to realize that he -- and his party -- have made their own luck, most of it bad, to this date. His recent remarks regarding the 2006 election stand as proof enough.

"In the last election, Jack Layton asked Canadians to lend him their votes," said Dion. "And what did they get? Stephen Harper. Many Canadians will demand their vote back -- with interest."

Of course, there are a few logical fallacies in this statement. First off, when casting their vote in favour of the NDP, most of these voters knew full well the NDP wasn't going to form the government. They were, in effect, choosing the NDP to hold a balance of power in a minority parliament.

Most of all, however, this statement is merely more proof that Stephane Dion isn't ready to be Prime Minister. Blaming Jack Layton and the NDP for the ascension of the country's sitting government has been a popular refuge for many Liberals, and there's a reason for this: it's much more convenient than blaming themselves.

It was Liberal corruption that eventually forced the 2005/06 election, and Liberal corruption that turned Canadians away from voting Liberal. Only persistent Liberal fear mongering prevented more Canadians from casting their vote in favour of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

With virtually all of the forecast ideological evils that the Liberals predicted failing to materialize themselves in any way, shape or form, fear is one tactic the Liberals won't be able to play to so easily.

Beyond this, Canadians have consistently stated their preference of Harper to Dion as Prime Minister. In the most recent leadership preference survey, SES-Sun Media found that 37% of Canadians think Harper is the best leader of a Canadian political party. Only 13% would prefer to see Stephane Dion as a Prime Minister. Jack Layton (whom, to reiterate, Dion blames for Harper becoming PM) polled at 17%.

Of course, blaming the NDP has become customary for the Liberal party when facing defeat. Jamie Heath, however, wisely notes that these individuals choose to overlook cases in which the Liberals were defeated wherein the NDP was not a factor. Their defeats in 1984 and 1958 are two prime examples.

The idea that the Liberals could lose on their own is hardly unthinkable. Dion would do better as party leader to take his lumps, and learn from them. Both he and his party have demonstrated a lack of ability to do so.

Dion also unwittingly showcased his failures as a potential statesman.

"At the next election, there will be this narrow, selfish Conservative idea of Canada, with Stephen Harper's hidden agenda toward the U.S. Republican ideology," Dion announced.

Perhaps this is another reason why Dion is so eager to have an election in 2008. Should the next federal election come at any point after November of 2008, the Liberals won't be able to envoke the spectre of George Bush to scare up extra votes at the ballot box. But even more so than this, Dion, while sitting in opposition, is lobbing criticisms at a governing party in a foreign country, all in the name of partisan gain.

This, along with his insistence that Karlheinz Schreiber being allowed to remain in Canada so he may continue to spread innuendo is more important than extraditing him to a foreign country wherein he is sought for actual crimes, and along with his party's use of international forums as a platform from which to denounce the Harper government, can be considered a rather serious strike against him in terms of statesmanship.

It's also plainly unwise. What, for example, would transpire should the Republicans somehow win the 2008 presidential election? Dion would certainly find it difficult to have to cooperate with a Republican president after having bandied that party's name about in the name of partisan gain.

And one certainly realizes that Stephane Dion absolutely cannot allow the Harper government to be seen interacting amicably with a Democratic US government.

In another glaring example of Dion's failings, one considers the list of Dion's accomplishments, to date, as Liberal leader, as provided by the Liberal party website.

Among these "accomplishments", are listed:

"-Leading the debate on Canada’s economic agenda and putting forward a plan for moving our economy forward by making our country more competitive and putting more money in the pockets of Canadians.

-Committing to improving social policy by fighting poverty, strengthening our justice system, protecting Canada’s Charter, encouraging women in politics, protecting official languages, supporting Aboriginal Peoples, and promoting the cultural community.

-Pledging to work together with the international community to combat climate change and support the environment by putting forward comprehensive strategies such as the Carbon Budget Plan to regulate industrial greenhouse-gas pollution, the Clean Energy Plan to make Canada the global leader in renewable energy, and protecting Canada’s stronghold on our precious water resources.

-Strengthening Canada’s commitment to a multilateral foreign policy and outlining a clear plan for Canada’s mission in Afghanistan."

Which, of course, to anyone who's actually paid attention over the last year, reads, frankly, like a complete crock.

First off, Dion offered strikingly little "economic leadership" aside from pledging himself to vote against the Conservative party budget months before he knew what it would contain, then criticized the 2007 economic update for cutting taxes (which puts more money in the pockets of Canadians).

Secondly, Dion pledged to fight child poverty -- despite the fact that his party has repeatedly pledged to do so over the past 30 years, and never acted. He denounced changes to criminal justice laws that would put more criminals behind bars. His party helped shelf legislation that would force Aboriginal bands to respect the Charter rights of their members.

Third, Dion pledged to do something that his party consistently failed to do while in government. He previously wailed "this is unfair" when taken to task for that during the Liberal party leadership debates.

Last but not least, he promised to bring Canadian troops home from Afghanistan in 2009 -- an act that would actually redpudiate Canada's commitment to internationalism, not strengthen it.

Even with all of this glaringly obvious to the majority of Canadians, Dion is looking ahead to an election in 2008.

"Will an election come in 2008? Maybe. So be ready at any time," he instructed Liberal party faithful.

"At the next election, there will be this narrow, selfish Conservative idea of Canada, with Stephen Harper's hidden agenda toward the U.S. Republican ideology," he, as previously noted, added, "And there will be our generous, sincere vision of a richer, greener, fairer Canada of the 21st century. There will be a collision between these two conceptions of our country."

For a man who accuses his chief opponent of being an ideologue, Dion spends a good deal of time verbally relishing a clash of ideologies.

Beyond this, however, Dion has consistently shown himself to be a man who prefers to divide Canadians rather than unite them. His tireless search for a critical wedge issue to drive conservative- and liberal-minded Canadians apart may be what has come to define him more than anything.

Dion must think this will prove to be a strenth. But he clearly isn't thinking about what affect this will have on his own objectives.

Dion is overlooking an important detail: he doesn't have enough seats to force an election without support from the Bloc Quebecois. Even then, however, the NDP could, along with the Conservatives, stave off a non-confidence vote. And if, as Dion insists, they won't be a factor in a Spring 2008 election, it certainly won't be in their interest to help engineer one.

Dion can't even rally his fellow opposition leaders properly. At a time when in order to accomplish his goals he needs to unite the opposition leaders in the name of defeating the Conservatives, he's instead making comments that will only divide them.

New ball game or not, Stephane Dion is not ready to play. He wasn't ready in 2006, he wasn't ready in 2007, and 2008 will likely not be any different.

Stephane Dion will certainly only continue to make his own luck -- and one can nearly rest assured it will be bad.