Giving in to bigotry is a failure of leadership
Writing in the Metropolitan, Dan Delmar calls out many of the leaders in Canada who have opposed a ban on the burqa, the controversial garment worn by many Muslim women.
"The burqa (or niqab) is possibly the most offensive garment on the face of the earth: A head-to-toe covering worn by women who practice an extremist and some say perverted form of Islam," Delmar writes. "It is a symbol of repression, misogyny and, as French president Nicholas Sarkozy said last year, 'debasement.' It should not be tolerated in any civilized society."
Whether or not a woman wears the burqa voluntarily doesn't seem to matter much to Delmar.
"We have somehow become a nation of nations, and as such, it is difficult to find common ground, shared values," Delmar continues. "Only a small minority of Muslim women in this country may be forced by their husbands to drape themselves in these sheets; some are coerced by family; some, at the very least, have been raised with a warped sense of obligation to a tyrannical subculture. But are we being true to ourselves as Canadians if we accept this type of behavior? Do we see these tragic figures and look the other way out of indifference or a misplaced commitment to multiculturalism?"
Delmar notes that rejection of a burqa ban is one of the issues that Conservative and Liberal politicians alike reject.
"Canadian women have the right, if they want, to wear a burka," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings. "As a woman, clearly it makes me a little uncomfortable. But then there are other practices that are perfectly legal and acceptable that make people uncomfortable."
Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has also outright rejected the very notion of a burqa ban.
Delmar doesn't like this -- he insists that it's a dereliction of leadership.
"Montreal Liberal Marlene Jennings was one of the first MPs to rebuff calls for a burqa ban, saying that it would not survive a constitutional challenge though she herself – as a feminist – finds it offensive," Delmar continues. "Her leader, Michael Ignatieff, was also quick to abandon the idea of new legislation, as was Conservative Justice Minister Rob Nicholson."
"A medieval and, in certain cases, abusive practice adopted by a small minority of Muslims without reason should not be shielded from scrutiny by the religious freedom defense. What is needed are leaders, apart from Quebec sovereignists, who have the courage to test the elasticity of the Charter and, in so doing, uphold Canadian values and plainly decent behaviour."
Unfortuantely for Dan Delmar's argument, religious freedom is a Canadian value, and it is plainly decent.
Religious intolerance isn't leadership, and abusing the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to this end isn't the act of a leader.
Showing posts with label Rob Nicholson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rob Nicholson. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Canada's Ideological Divide, In a Nutshell
In Canada, it can be amazing how quickly a basic issue can quickly become clouded in the eyes of the common ideologue.
Sad as it may seem, the Conservative Party's recently-announced anti-child porn legislation is one of those examples.
But issues like this are also an opportunity for Canadians to examine Canada's ideological divide for precisely what it is. In this case, one has the opportunity to examine where each particular ideological camp has situated themselves.
Naturally, both CTV and CBC have reported on the matter. But what's even more interesting than the story itself are some of the reactions to it.
Some Canadians, bizarrely enough, are somehow opposed to these efforts to curb child pornography. The comments section of the story offered by both CTV and CBC have offered not only these individuals an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, but through a thumbs up/thumbs down system, have allowed other readers to give an opinion on each readers comments.
Consider the following comment from the story, as posted on the CBC website:
It isn't hard to begin unraveling some of the problems with this particular reader's comments.
First off, there's only a certain extent to which proxies and encryptions can protect any particular individual from identification. And while an wifi connection could certainly be hijacked for the purpose of locating and downloading child pornography, an accused individual could quite quickly be cleared through something so simple as an examination of their computer's hard drive.
(There are, naturally, privacy concerns related to police searches of a computer hard drive that may not be sufficiently covered by current legislation, and may require further legislation. That, by its own merit, is actually a rather fair argument.)
As anyone can see, this particular comment was given 22 "thumbs up" (individuals agreeing with the comment), compared to only two "tumbs down" (individuals disagreeing with the comment).
So on that note, it's interesting to see how a dissenting opinion is treated by CBC readers:
Certainly, no one is obligated to agree with this particular reader. But it's worth noting that very few Canadians have anything to hide in this particular matter.
The legislation in question isn't an attempt to restrict the civil liberties of Canadians. It's an effort to shut down criminal activity that, by its very nature, preys upon children.
Not that commenters like this one, from CTV, will understand this:
Surely, almost all Canadians recognize that child pornography is not a matter of "artistic expression", and that the exploitation of children has no "artistic merit".
That is a basic, fundamental truth that simply requires no explanation. This comment was treated with the amount of merit it deserves -- it received 100 "thumbs down" votes to an inexplicable seven "thumbs up" votes.
Closer to the mark is this reader, who simply pointed out that child pornography is actually a non-partisan (if not a non-ideological) issue:
This comment received 44 "thumbs up" votes to a mere three votes down.
Sadly, not everyone will agree that this is a non-partisan issue. The Conservative Party's 2004 attack on Paul Martin is frankly hard to forget.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the House of Commons votes on this issue. To anyone with an ounce of sense, it isn't hard to figure out that this is a bill that should pass unanimously (with fools like Libby Davies in the Commons, it's hard to say if it will).
Whether or not Canadians can put petty politics aside long enough for the bill to pass is another matter entirely.
Sad as it may seem, the Conservative Party's recently-announced anti-child porn legislation is one of those examples.
But issues like this are also an opportunity for Canadians to examine Canada's ideological divide for precisely what it is. In this case, one has the opportunity to examine where each particular ideological camp has situated themselves.
Naturally, both CTV and CBC have reported on the matter. But what's even more interesting than the story itself are some of the reactions to it.
Some Canadians, bizarrely enough, are somehow opposed to these efforts to curb child pornography. The comments section of the story offered by both CTV and CBC have offered not only these individuals an opportunity to voice their opinion on the matter, but through a thumbs up/thumbs down system, have allowed other readers to give an opinion on each readers comments.
Consider the following comment from the story, as posted on the CBC website:
It isn't hard to begin unraveling some of the problems with this particular reader's comments.First off, there's only a certain extent to which proxies and encryptions can protect any particular individual from identification. And while an wifi connection could certainly be hijacked for the purpose of locating and downloading child pornography, an accused individual could quite quickly be cleared through something so simple as an examination of their computer's hard drive.
(There are, naturally, privacy concerns related to police searches of a computer hard drive that may not be sufficiently covered by current legislation, and may require further legislation. That, by its own merit, is actually a rather fair argument.)
As anyone can see, this particular comment was given 22 "thumbs up" (individuals agreeing with the comment), compared to only two "tumbs down" (individuals disagreeing with the comment).
So on that note, it's interesting to see how a dissenting opinion is treated by CBC readers:
Certainly, no one is obligated to agree with this particular reader. But it's worth noting that very few Canadians have anything to hide in this particular matter.The legislation in question isn't an attempt to restrict the civil liberties of Canadians. It's an effort to shut down criminal activity that, by its very nature, preys upon children.
Not that commenters like this one, from CTV, will understand this:
Surely, almost all Canadians recognize that child pornography is not a matter of "artistic expression", and that the exploitation of children has no "artistic merit".That is a basic, fundamental truth that simply requires no explanation. This comment was treated with the amount of merit it deserves -- it received 100 "thumbs down" votes to an inexplicable seven "thumbs up" votes.
Closer to the mark is this reader, who simply pointed out that child pornography is actually a non-partisan (if not a non-ideological) issue:
This comment received 44 "thumbs up" votes to a mere three votes down.Sadly, not everyone will agree that this is a non-partisan issue. The Conservative Party's 2004 attack on Paul Martin is frankly hard to forget.
It will certainly be interesting to see how the House of Commons votes on this issue. To anyone with an ounce of sense, it isn't hard to figure out that this is a bill that should pass unanimously (with fools like Libby Davies in the Commons, it's hard to say if it will).
Whether or not Canadians can put petty politics aside long enough for the bill to pass is another matter entirely.
Friday, October 09, 2009
They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It, Thredux
Senate Liberals amend crime bill
Canada recently came very close to finally closing a loophole many criminals were using to shorten their time in prison. That is, until, the Liberal party's Senate caucus used their majority in the Upper Chamber to amend the legislation.
A portion of the bill that would have abolished two-for-one sentencing provisions for time served prior to trial. Instead, the bill will allow for judges to grant 1.5 days for every day served prior to sentencing, with two-for-one sentencing permitted under extreme circumstances.
According to Liberal Senator Joan Fraser, the Senate simply exercised its prerogative to exercise "sober second thought".
"The whole point of having the Senate is for the Senate to give, as John A Macdonald said, 'sober second thought' to legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons," she inisted. "There's no point in giving sober second thought if it does not include the right to make such corrections as the Senate deems appropriate."
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, for his own part, isn't buying that.
"It's very disappointing," said Nicholson. "There's nothing wrong with this. This bill is perfectly constitutional -- we've looked at it very carefully. It has support of attorneys general from coast to coast. The idea that a couple of Liberal senators have a better idea on these things, I completely reject."
While Fraser and her Senate colleagues were second-guessing the time to second-guess the judgement of politicians who can actually be held accountable by their constituents, they also found time to try to find Manitoba and Alberta Justice Ministers Dave Chomiak and Alison Redford in contempt of the Senate for attending a press conference before flying out of Ottawa.
As justice issues continue to be vaulted to the forefront of the political agenda in Ottawa, the predominance of old ideologies on the topic of criminal justice remains as strong as ever in the Senate, where Liberal Senators seem to be intent on fighting "prison overcrowding" by doing whatever is necessary to ensure that criminals don't have to serve their time as mandated by the court.
Joan Fraser and her colleagues seem to think that they know better than everyone -- even as criminals continue to exploit two- (now one-and-a-half-) for-one sentencing provisions by doing things such as declining bail.
At some point enough has to be enough. Perhaps this recent abuse of prerogative will finally spur Canadians to stand up and overwhelmingly demand an elected Senate so that Senators can no longer impose yesteryear's ideologies without ever having to defend themselves in an election.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Rick Newman - "Senate Shenanigans"
Joseph Uranowski - "Conservatives Say 'No' To Checks and Balances"
Canada recently came very close to finally closing a loophole many criminals were using to shorten their time in prison. That is, until, the Liberal party's Senate caucus used their majority in the Upper Chamber to amend the legislation.
A portion of the bill that would have abolished two-for-one sentencing provisions for time served prior to trial. Instead, the bill will allow for judges to grant 1.5 days for every day served prior to sentencing, with two-for-one sentencing permitted under extreme circumstances.
According to Liberal Senator Joan Fraser, the Senate simply exercised its prerogative to exercise "sober second thought".
"The whole point of having the Senate is for the Senate to give, as John A Macdonald said, 'sober second thought' to legislation that has been passed by the House of Commons," she inisted. "There's no point in giving sober second thought if it does not include the right to make such corrections as the Senate deems appropriate."
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson, for his own part, isn't buying that.
"It's very disappointing," said Nicholson. "There's nothing wrong with this. This bill is perfectly constitutional -- we've looked at it very carefully. It has support of attorneys general from coast to coast. The idea that a couple of Liberal senators have a better idea on these things, I completely reject."
While Fraser and her Senate colleagues were second-guessing the time to second-guess the judgement of politicians who can actually be held accountable by their constituents, they also found time to try to find Manitoba and Alberta Justice Ministers Dave Chomiak and Alison Redford in contempt of the Senate for attending a press conference before flying out of Ottawa.
As justice issues continue to be vaulted to the forefront of the political agenda in Ottawa, the predominance of old ideologies on the topic of criminal justice remains as strong as ever in the Senate, where Liberal Senators seem to be intent on fighting "prison overcrowding" by doing whatever is necessary to ensure that criminals don't have to serve their time as mandated by the court.
Joan Fraser and her colleagues seem to think that they know better than everyone -- even as criminals continue to exploit two- (now one-and-a-half-) for-one sentencing provisions by doing things such as declining bail.
At some point enough has to be enough. Perhaps this recent abuse of prerogative will finally spur Canadians to stand up and overwhelmingly demand an elected Senate so that Senators can no longer impose yesteryear's ideologies without ever having to defend themselves in an election.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Rick Newman - "Senate Shenanigans"
Joseph Uranowski - "Conservatives Say 'No' To Checks and Balances"
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
They Perpetually Just Do Not Get It
Some people aren't necessarily soft on crime -- just soft-headed
In virtually any election or pre-election campaign, if there's any topic that it's largely safe to campaign on, it's crime.
There's a very simple reason for this. Canadians of all political stripes recognize that crime detracts from their quality of life, and Canadians of all political stripes want crime dealt with.
One thing that Canadians are certain to represent is when crime is treated as an ideological issue. Unfortunately for Canada, one particular ideology reigs supreme in Canadian justice: the belief that all individuals can be rehabilitated, and that law's role is simply to deter criminals, then rehabilitate them when they do offend.
Unfortunately, the individuals who subscribe to this particular ideology have over looked at least one of the law's other roles.
Jeff Jedras seems to be one of these individuals:
The protection of society seems to be the legal missing link for his particular crowd. They complain that mandatory minimum sentences "only increase prison populations". They don't seem to understand that, at the end of the day people who commit violent and gun-related offenses belong in prison.
In cases where an individual is a repeat violent offender -- and that they cannot be effectively rehabilitated, as is the other pillar of any effective criminal justice system -- they belong in prison longer. Probably even indefinitely.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. Yet somehow the ideologically-blindfolded "smart"-on-crime crowd seem to manage not to.
Jedras goes on to complain that the Conservative bill would institute mandatory minimum sentencing on "simple possession". This is actually untrue.
In fact, Bill C-15 would introduce mandatory minimum sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of trafficking or growing marijuana without a medical permit. There's actually a big difference.
While Jedras makes a much stronger case regarding recent suggestions by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson that he may introduce legislation allowing police to randomly administer roadside breath tests, it's hard to see how one could miss the mark any more on the topic of mandatory minimum sentencing.
It should be noted that most criminals can be rehabilitated, and should be.
But people who commit violent crimes or traffic kdrugs belong in prison. Every day that such individuals are prison is a day that they aren't on Canadians streets peddling their wares or committing said violent acts.
Every day that they are in prison protects Canadian society from their misdeeds.
This isn't that difficult a concept to understand. The problem may not be that some of Canada's left-of-centre parties are "soft" on crime. It may just be that they're soft headed on crime.
In virtually any election or pre-election campaign, if there's any topic that it's largely safe to campaign on, it's crime.
There's a very simple reason for this. Canadians of all political stripes recognize that crime detracts from their quality of life, and Canadians of all political stripes want crime dealt with.
One thing that Canadians are certain to represent is when crime is treated as an ideological issue. Unfortunately for Canada, one particular ideology reigs supreme in Canadian justice: the belief that all individuals can be rehabilitated, and that law's role is simply to deter criminals, then rehabilitate them when they do offend.
Unfortunately, the individuals who subscribe to this particular ideology have over looked at least one of the law's other roles.
Jeff Jedras seems to be one of these individuals:
"I remember being dumbfounded during the 2005/06 election campaign, when the Paul Martin Liberals included support for mandatory minimum sentences for some (gun-related) crimes in the election platform, a move to echo ineffective Conservative policy proposals that was also adapted by the NDP.What Jedras -- and so many members of the the so-called "smart"-on-crime crowd don't seem to get is that deterrence is not the only purpose the law serves.
Mandatory minimums don’t work, the evidence on that point from the US is pretty overwhelming. Criminals know what they’re doing is wrong and they know there are consequences; mandatory minimums aren’t a deterrent. They do nothing to prevent crime, they only increase prison populations. They're about appearing tough on crime without doing the heavy-lifting to actually prevent crime."
The protection of society seems to be the legal missing link for his particular crowd. They complain that mandatory minimum sentences "only increase prison populations". They don't seem to understand that, at the end of the day people who commit violent and gun-related offenses belong in prison.
In cases where an individual is a repeat violent offender -- and that they cannot be effectively rehabilitated, as is the other pillar of any effective criminal justice system -- they belong in prison longer. Probably even indefinitely.
This is not a difficult concept to understand. Yet somehow the ideologically-blindfolded "smart"-on-crime crowd seem to manage not to.
Jedras goes on to complain that the Conservative bill would institute mandatory minimum sentencing on "simple possession". This is actually untrue.
In fact, Bill C-15 would introduce mandatory minimum sentencing in cases where someone is convicted of trafficking or growing marijuana without a medical permit. There's actually a big difference.
While Jedras makes a much stronger case regarding recent suggestions by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson that he may introduce legislation allowing police to randomly administer roadside breath tests, it's hard to see how one could miss the mark any more on the topic of mandatory minimum sentencing.
It should be noted that most criminals can be rehabilitated, and should be.
But people who commit violent crimes or traffic kdrugs belong in prison. Every day that such individuals are prison is a day that they aren't on Canadians streets peddling their wares or committing said violent acts.
Every day that they are in prison protects Canadian society from their misdeeds.
This isn't that difficult a concept to understand. The problem may not be that some of Canada's left-of-centre parties are "soft" on crime. It may just be that they're soft headed on crime.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Polygamy Isn't the Problem
Tories addressing wrong issue in polygamy ban
As controversy surrounding the Winston Blackmore case continues it heat up, it seems that the governing Conservative party may envoke the notwithstanding clause in order to maintain polygamy as a criminal offense in Canada.
Blackmore's lawyer has publicly announced that he'll cite the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and through it the constitution -- in order to defend Blackmore and his co-accused, Jim Oler.
Memos obtained through the Access to Information Act suggest that the Tories will not allow this to happen.
"Canadians of all backgrounds share some basic values, like a belief in human dignity, equality between men and women and the rule of law. It is these values that unite us as Canadians," states one of the memos prepared for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "The practice of polygamy represents a clear challenge to those unifying values."
Ironically, many were fearful that the Conservative party would envoke the notwithstanding clause to outlaw same-sex marriage. They didn't. But Blackwell's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, actually envoked same-sex marriage as a reason for polygamy's acceptability.
"It's pretty hard to justify why gay marriage is OK and polygamy's not," Suffredine mused.
And while many social conservatives will point to Suffredine's rationale as evidence that same-sex marriage does indeed undermine traditional marriage in Canada, the hysteria is at lest partially just that: hysteria.
Frankly, there's nothing wrong with polygamy when it's practiced between consenting adults. Polygamy itself isn't the problem.
The problems with polygamy surface in cases where underage girls or non consensual.
The state really doesn't have much business intervening in polygamist marriages unless either of these two conditions is present.
In focusing on polygamy itself, the Conservatives have missed the real problem. Unless a polygamist man's wives are underage or not consensually married to him, cracking down on polygamists very much is religious intolerance.
As controversy surrounding the Winston Blackmore case continues it heat up, it seems that the governing Conservative party may envoke the notwithstanding clause in order to maintain polygamy as a criminal offense in Canada.
Blackmore's lawyer has publicly announced that he'll cite the religious freedoms guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- and through it the constitution -- in order to defend Blackmore and his co-accused, Jim Oler.
Memos obtained through the Access to Information Act suggest that the Tories will not allow this to happen.
"Canadians of all backgrounds share some basic values, like a belief in human dignity, equality between men and women and the rule of law. It is these values that unite us as Canadians," states one of the memos prepared for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "The practice of polygamy represents a clear challenge to those unifying values."
Ironically, many were fearful that the Conservative party would envoke the notwithstanding clause to outlaw same-sex marriage. They didn't. But Blackwell's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, actually envoked same-sex marriage as a reason for polygamy's acceptability.
"It's pretty hard to justify why gay marriage is OK and polygamy's not," Suffredine mused.
And while many social conservatives will point to Suffredine's rationale as evidence that same-sex marriage does indeed undermine traditional marriage in Canada, the hysteria is at lest partially just that: hysteria.
Frankly, there's nothing wrong with polygamy when it's practiced between consenting adults. Polygamy itself isn't the problem.
The problems with polygamy surface in cases where underage girls or non consensual.
The state really doesn't have much business intervening in polygamist marriages unless either of these two conditions is present.
In focusing on polygamy itself, the Conservatives have missed the real problem. Unless a polygamist man's wives are underage or not consensually married to him, cracking down on polygamists very much is religious intolerance.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Ken Epp Stands His Ground
And he won't back down
With an election call seemingly only days away and spurious opposition to Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victirms of Crime bill -- stubbornly refusing to abate, the Conservative government is moving to try to disperse what it seems to fear is a coming storm.
"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill, as it is presently drafted, could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights," announced Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion."
Bill C-484 would, indeed, introduce fetal rights. However, because of the fact that the bill contains an explicit clause forbidding its use in cases of abortion or against any act (of commission or omission) of the mother, those rights would not supercede a preggnant woman's right to choose an abortion. The fetal reights recognized by Bill C-484 would begin and end with an unborn child's right to be protected from crime.
Naturally, the fundamentally intellectually-dishonest pro-abortion lobby refuses to acknowledge this.
Nicholson has promised new legislation that would require judges to consider a woman's pregnancy during the course of sentencing. Right now judges can, and often do, but law still cannot recognize the tendency of many offenders -- such as Jared Baker and Gary Bourgeois -- to target unborn children intentionally.
Fortunately, however, Bill C-484 is not a government bill. Rather, it's Elk Island MP Ken Epp's private member's bill. He isn't obligated to withdraw it, and it's the last thing he plans to do.
"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp announced. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."
If Nicholson is looking for an easy way out, he isn't going to find it. His government will either have to stay the course with Bill C-484 and endure the (actually very necessary) debate over abortion, or defeat its own member's bill, as it did with Leon Benoit's Bill C-291.
Ken Epp is well within his rights to stand his ground will Bill C-484 and not allow the government to introduce a watered-down bill protecting the unborn. This bill has passed two readings already -- in a parliament devoid of ideologically-grounded party discipline, this bill very much could pass.
Yet the Conservative government seems to be intent on ducking the abortion/fetal rights debate in the name of winning an election it isn't supposed to be calling in the first place.
Fortunately, Ken Epp isn't backing down. Nor are the other supporters of Bill C-484.
With an election call seemingly only days away and spurious opposition to Bill C-484 -- the Unborn Victirms of Crime bill -- stubbornly refusing to abate, the Conservative government is moving to try to disperse what it seems to fear is a coming storm.
"We've heard criticism from across the country, including representatives from the medical community, that Mr. Epp's bill, as it is presently drafted, could be interpreted as instilling fetal rights," announced Justice Minister Rob Nicholson. "Our government will not reopen the debate on abortion."
Bill C-484 would, indeed, introduce fetal rights. However, because of the fact that the bill contains an explicit clause forbidding its use in cases of abortion or against any act (of commission or omission) of the mother, those rights would not supercede a preggnant woman's right to choose an abortion. The fetal reights recognized by Bill C-484 would begin and end with an unborn child's right to be protected from crime.
Naturally, the fundamentally intellectually-dishonest pro-abortion lobby refuses to acknowledge this.
Nicholson has promised new legislation that would require judges to consider a woman's pregnancy during the course of sentencing. Right now judges can, and often do, but law still cannot recognize the tendency of many offenders -- such as Jared Baker and Gary Bourgeois -- to target unborn children intentionally.
Fortunately, however, Bill C-484 is not a government bill. Rather, it's Elk Island MP Ken Epp's private member's bill. He isn't obligated to withdraw it, and it's the last thing he plans to do.
"I definitely will not be withdrawing my bill," Epp announced. "They're quite different. I don't intend to let up."
If Nicholson is looking for an easy way out, he isn't going to find it. His government will either have to stay the course with Bill C-484 and endure the (actually very necessary) debate over abortion, or defeat its own member's bill, as it did with Leon Benoit's Bill C-291.
Ken Epp is well within his rights to stand his ground will Bill C-484 and not allow the government to introduce a watered-down bill protecting the unborn. This bill has passed two readings already -- in a parliament devoid of ideologically-grounded party discipline, this bill very much could pass.
Yet the Conservative government seems to be intent on ducking the abortion/fetal rights debate in the name of winning an election it isn't supposed to be calling in the first place.
Fortunately, Ken Epp isn't backing down. Nor are the other supporters of Bill C-484.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Harper to Opposition: "Go Ahead, Punk. Make My Day"
Tories daring opposition to bring government down
With Liberal Leader of the Opposition rattling the election sabre consistently over the past year-and-a-half and the Conservative government now forging into unknown territory as the longest-serving Conservative minority government in the nation's history, it seems Stephen Harper is taking some pages out of "Dirty" Harry Callahan's play book.
Today, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that if Bill C-2 -- the government's omnibus bill dealing with violent crime, dangerous offenders and the age of sexual consent -- is not passed promptly, the government will move the bill as a confidence motion.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced that he'll also extend a confidence motion on extending the government's Afghanistan mandate.
The latter motion could come before the house as early as next week.
With an election expected at any time during the coming year, it seems that Harper may have given up on trying to eke a few extra months out of this parliament and instead is perfectly content to play chicken with the opposition leaders.
For Stephane Dion, only one question remains to ask himself: "Do I feel lucky?"
Well? Do ya, punk?
(Okay, that last one may have been a little much. Just have fun with it.)
After all, on which issue would Dion like to defeat the government? A crime bill containing measures that will actually help protect Canadians from violent and dangerous offenders? Or the Afghanistan mission that his own party initiated -- while he himself was in cabinet, no less?
Dion has already announced he'll be seeking amendments to the Afghanistan motion.
"You need to be prepared to fight but the combat role is when you are proactively seeking the engagement with the enemy. It's something I have said that we will interrupt in February 2009," Dion has announced. (Apparently, Dion would prefer an "easy" mission despite recent admission by his own deputy leader that there are no "easy" missions in the 21st century).
As far as Afghanistan goes, it may just be the perfect issue for Harper to challenge Dion. Liberal MP David Cullen is rumored to be prepared to vote in favour of the mission on a whipped vote. At least three more Liberal MPs are apparently prepared to do the same. With Michael Ignatieff possibly very eager to make another run at the Liberal leadership, one can't rule out the very real possibility that he, himself, may vote in favour of the mission again.
On violent crime and dangerous offenders, it's unlikely that Dion would win that particular battle in the public eye. Considering that the issues that defeat a minority government tend to frame the coming election, this really is a no-brainer.
Then one considers what other issues the Liberals may want to defeat the government on? Climate change? Their prior abysmal performance -- with Dion as minister of the environment, no less -- would make them easy pickings. Nuclear safety? Nuh-uh. The Liberals ignored the mess for the better part of a decade-and-a-half.
With his prospects of finding an issue on which he can defeat the government and find an advantage, Dion will need to feel very lucky to force the election that he so desperately wants.
With the Conservatives still nursing a lead in the polls, that just may make Stephen Harper's day.
With Liberal Leader of the Opposition rattling the election sabre consistently over the past year-and-a-half and the Conservative government now forging into unknown territory as the longest-serving Conservative minority government in the nation's history, it seems Stephen Harper is taking some pages out of "Dirty" Harry Callahan's play book.
Today, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced that if Bill C-2 -- the government's omnibus bill dealing with violent crime, dangerous offenders and the age of sexual consent -- is not passed promptly, the government will move the bill as a confidence motion.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced that he'll also extend a confidence motion on extending the government's Afghanistan mandate.
The latter motion could come before the house as early as next week.
With an election expected at any time during the coming year, it seems that Harper may have given up on trying to eke a few extra months out of this parliament and instead is perfectly content to play chicken with the opposition leaders.
For Stephane Dion, only one question remains to ask himself: "Do I feel lucky?"
Well? Do ya, punk?
(Okay, that last one may have been a little much. Just have fun with it.)
After all, on which issue would Dion like to defeat the government? A crime bill containing measures that will actually help protect Canadians from violent and dangerous offenders? Or the Afghanistan mission that his own party initiated -- while he himself was in cabinet, no less?
Dion has already announced he'll be seeking amendments to the Afghanistan motion.
"You need to be prepared to fight but the combat role is when you are proactively seeking the engagement with the enemy. It's something I have said that we will interrupt in February 2009," Dion has announced. (Apparently, Dion would prefer an "easy" mission despite recent admission by his own deputy leader that there are no "easy" missions in the 21st century).
As far as Afghanistan goes, it may just be the perfect issue for Harper to challenge Dion. Liberal MP David Cullen is rumored to be prepared to vote in favour of the mission on a whipped vote. At least three more Liberal MPs are apparently prepared to do the same. With Michael Ignatieff possibly very eager to make another run at the Liberal leadership, one can't rule out the very real possibility that he, himself, may vote in favour of the mission again.
On violent crime and dangerous offenders, it's unlikely that Dion would win that particular battle in the public eye. Considering that the issues that defeat a minority government tend to frame the coming election, this really is a no-brainer.
Then one considers what other issues the Liberals may want to defeat the government on? Climate change? Their prior abysmal performance -- with Dion as minister of the environment, no less -- would make them easy pickings. Nuclear safety? Nuh-uh. The Liberals ignored the mess for the better part of a decade-and-a-half.
With his prospects of finding an issue on which he can defeat the government and find an advantage, Dion will need to feel very lucky to force the election that he so desperately wants.
With the Conservatives still nursing a lead in the polls, that just may make Stephen Harper's day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)