Liberals all talk on climate change
The truth, as the old adage says, hurts. This being said, the current Kyoto debate in Canada should send the Liberal party scurrying for a helmet.
The Liberals have certainly found Kyoto to be a politically productive issue. Despite their recent branding of a Conservative party election war room as a “fear factory”, the Liberals recently released a new ad clearly aimed at provoking terror amongst Canadians, on the issue of climate change (the terrified-looking baby is a nice – but hypocritical – touch).
Yet, when one looks closer at the Liberal party stance on Kyoto, one finds layers upon layers of hypocrisy, threatening to undermine what was a very tender policy point to begin with.
The Liberals point with pride toward the December 2005 United Nations Climate Change Conference, wherein Stephan Dion brought 182 countries to agreement on further commitments to fight climate change.
For Dion, that’s pretty much where the story ends. Previously, on November 29, 2005, Paul Martin’s Liberal government – in which Stephan Dion served as minister of the environment – lost a confidence vote in the house of commons. Dion’s success at the Montreal conference was little more than an empty triumph of a dying government.
Equally unfortunately for Dion – and the Liberals – that isn’t where the story begins, either.
Under the Liberal government of Jean Chretien, Canada ratified the Kyoto protocol in 2002. Canada committed to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 (interestingly, Chretien chose the 6% figure merely to one-up the American commitment of 5%). Yet, by 2004, greenhouse gas emissions had continued to rise until they were 27% above 1990 levels.
Under Stephan Dion, greenhouse gas emissions only continued to rise. This undoubtedly paints a less-than-flattering image of Stephan Dion: the man who could bring 182 countries together to agree to fight climate change, but who himself did nothing to actually do so.
Another revealing point is that posed by Liberal Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty (brother of Liberal party environmental critic David McGuinty).
McGuinty had previously promised to deactivate all of Ontario’s coal-fired power plants by 2007. McGuinty has extended this deadline to 2014 – two years after the deadlines laid out in the Kyoto protocol. Had McGuinty lived up to his original promise, Ontario would be 50-80 closer to its Kyoto targets.
This from the premier who accused the federal government of letting the Alberta oil industry “off easy”.
McGuinty – who, just to reiterate, supports Kyoto – has also demanded that Ontario’s car manufacturers be given favorable treatment. “we will not abide is any effort on the part of the national government to unduly impose greenhouse-gas emission reductions on the province of Ontario at the expense of our auto sector," McGuinty said.
McGuinty was, at the time, responding to Conservative musings about imposing emissions standards on Canadian car manufacturers similar to those in effect in California. According to a graph released by Environment Canada in 2004, transportation-related emissions accounted for 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. The oil, gas and coal industries accounted for 20%.
In other words, McGuinty – a Kyoto supporter – was in favor of regulating an industry that produces 20% of Canada’s greenhouse gases, but not in favor of regulating cars – producers of 19% of Canada’s greenhouse gases.
Unfortunately for McGuinty, it’s all too similar to Quebec supporting Kyoto while it stands to profit from its hydroelectric resources (GHG free), while less fortunate provinces struggle to meet their share of Canada’s Kyoto targets.
If Canada is to meet its Kyoto targets, Ontarians – who support Kyoto – will have to make sacrifices as surely as Albertans will.
At the end of the day, however, it seems some Liberals have forgotten the purpose of the Kyoto protocol. On CTV’s Canada AM, David McGuinty (just to reiterate, Dalton’s brother), complained, “We as a country signed onto Kyoto and one of the mechanisms in the Kyoto Treaty is to allow our emitters to trade credits internationally between countries to help reduce the cost, per tonne, of greenhouse gases. This government has ruled that out."
Apparently, according to McGuinty, the Kyoto protocol was never about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. To McGuinty, Kyoto was about forcing industry to send their money to other countries in order to meet the government’s diplomatic obligations.
The Liberal party stance on Kyoto is nothing short of hypocrticial. While the Conservative government may need to work well outside the Kyoto deadlines in order to meet Canada’s obligations, it is Liberal inaction that has forced them to do so.
Which ultimately leaves Stephan Dion and the flying McGuinty brothers facing an unpleasant revelation: the truth hurts.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Kevin Potvin Lashes Out
Holy shit! He's gonna blow!
The nagging Kevin Potvin saga took a turn for the absurd today, as he abruptly added a column to the website for his Republic of East Vancouver website today.
Like any borderline-psychopathic ideologue with wounded pride, Potvin rages against those he deems his oppressors, derides his critics, and repeatedly threatens to sue.
Among his numerous targets are Peter O’Neil, who failed while attempting to interview Potvin for a piece regarding his disqualification as a Green Party candidate when Potvin, according to his own account, attempted to interview him. In his tirade, Potvin recounts, “he grew audibly distressed when I told him I am a journalist too, and I was in fact interviewing him at the same time.” According to Potvin, O’Neil terminated the interview after having been asked “if he is for or against corporatism and militarism. “I’m asking the questions!” he barked, before flatly refusing to answer anything further at all.”
He notes that the Vancouver Sun was “forced to print a correction explaining that the hapless and flustering O’Neil didn’t mean to fabricate the quote he couldn’t get from [Potvin].”
In a story published April 13, O’Neil attributes the comment “go, Osama, go!” to Potvin’s “Revolting Confession” article. In the original article Potvin also wrote (and I know this is merely reiterating on this blog, as I’ve already reproduced these comments once, but they are so astoundingly offensive they are somehow worth repeating once again), “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact, whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”
Whatever O’Neil’s misquote was, Potvin should be able to forgive him. He was probably just taking Potvin’s advice, and using his emotions as a form of “mental shorthand”, and reconstructing Potvin’s comments as he remembered them.
Potvin also takes aim at Province columnist Michael Smyth. Potvin describes ”Greens Must Dump Pro-Al Qaida Candidate article as “libelous”. Unfortunately for Potvin, all of his comments are on the public record, and verifiable.
He also takes note with Smyth’s description of Potvin’s behaviour as “weird”. Potvin himself describes it as “dignity”. Suddenly, in Potvin’s mind, it’s dignified to accept an interview request from a journalist and insist that he shall be the one doing the interview. Weird, indeed.
Potvin complains that, “In his story, Smyth writes, “Potvin refused to take questions from reporters” to substantiate his claim I was running and hiding. So far, his boss, Roz Guggi, has refused to take questions from me regarding the libel they printed in his article.” Yet, by his own account, Potvin has refused to take any questions from reporters. He has insisted on asking the questions. Apparently, his journalistic instinct tells him that, in a situation wherein a political candidate has made incredibly outrageous – as well as just plain stupid – comments regarding 9/11, the really newsworthy event is that a reporter would as HIM a question. Wow.
Bruce Hutchinson also comes under fire. Or, rather, Brian Hutchinson comes under fire – but it’s OK, mr Potvin, it’s another b-name – whose mention of the behaviour of Potvin’s supporters Potvin dismisses with the following statement: “Could it really be that traumatic to face a couple of questions yourself after so gracelessly hounding me?”
Once again, mr Potvin might do well to remember that Brian Hutchinson isn’t the story – Potvin’s own comments about 9/11 are.
Lastly, Potvin lashes out at National Post columnist Lorne Gunter. Potvin decries Gunter’s “Greens’ answer to John Beck article as a “late hit” . Potvin insists that he is no worse than a “an Earth-abusing, pro-Bush, pro-NAFTA, pro-war type” like Gunter.
Potvin decries it all the entire time. Potvin would surely have everyone believe he is nothing more than a victim, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Unfortunately for Potvin, he has called this all upon himself – by refusing to adequately address and defend his comments, by refusing to answer questions, and by making boneheaded comments to begin with.
At the end of the day, Potvin is lucky. Opposition research (or “oppo” as experienced political strategists call it for shot) is a common practice in electoral campaigns today, and one can only imagine what the Conservative party or even the NDP would have done with something like this.
While incredibly amusing, Potvin’s latest outburst has probably established a new adage: “when the going gets tough, nearly-psychotic hateful ideologues pout.”
The nagging Kevin Potvin saga took a turn for the absurd today, as he abruptly added a column to the website for his Republic of East Vancouver website today.
Like any borderline-psychopathic ideologue with wounded pride, Potvin rages against those he deems his oppressors, derides his critics, and repeatedly threatens to sue.
Among his numerous targets are Peter O’Neil, who failed while attempting to interview Potvin for a piece regarding his disqualification as a Green Party candidate when Potvin, according to his own account, attempted to interview him. In his tirade, Potvin recounts, “he grew audibly distressed when I told him I am a journalist too, and I was in fact interviewing him at the same time.” According to Potvin, O’Neil terminated the interview after having been asked “if he is for or against corporatism and militarism. “I’m asking the questions!” he barked, before flatly refusing to answer anything further at all.”
He notes that the Vancouver Sun was “forced to print a correction explaining that the hapless and flustering O’Neil didn’t mean to fabricate the quote he couldn’t get from [Potvin].”
In a story published April 13, O’Neil attributes the comment “go, Osama, go!” to Potvin’s “Revolting Confession” article. In the original article Potvin also wrote (and I know this is merely reiterating on this blog, as I’ve already reproduced these comments once, but they are so astoundingly offensive they are somehow worth repeating once again), “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact, whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”
Whatever O’Neil’s misquote was, Potvin should be able to forgive him. He was probably just taking Potvin’s advice, and using his emotions as a form of “mental shorthand”, and reconstructing Potvin’s comments as he remembered them.
Potvin also takes aim at Province columnist Michael Smyth. Potvin describes ”Greens Must Dump Pro-Al Qaida Candidate article as “libelous”. Unfortunately for Potvin, all of his comments are on the public record, and verifiable.
He also takes note with Smyth’s description of Potvin’s behaviour as “weird”. Potvin himself describes it as “dignity”. Suddenly, in Potvin’s mind, it’s dignified to accept an interview request from a journalist and insist that he shall be the one doing the interview. Weird, indeed.
Potvin complains that, “In his story, Smyth writes, “Potvin refused to take questions from reporters” to substantiate his claim I was running and hiding. So far, his boss, Roz Guggi, has refused to take questions from me regarding the libel they printed in his article.” Yet, by his own account, Potvin has refused to take any questions from reporters. He has insisted on asking the questions. Apparently, his journalistic instinct tells him that, in a situation wherein a political candidate has made incredibly outrageous – as well as just plain stupid – comments regarding 9/11, the really newsworthy event is that a reporter would as HIM a question. Wow.
Bruce Hutchinson also comes under fire. Or, rather, Brian Hutchinson comes under fire – but it’s OK, mr Potvin, it’s another b-name – whose mention of the behaviour of Potvin’s supporters Potvin dismisses with the following statement: “Could it really be that traumatic to face a couple of questions yourself after so gracelessly hounding me?”
Once again, mr Potvin might do well to remember that Brian Hutchinson isn’t the story – Potvin’s own comments about 9/11 are.
Lastly, Potvin lashes out at National Post columnist Lorne Gunter. Potvin decries Gunter’s “Greens’ answer to John Beck article as a “late hit” . Potvin insists that he is no worse than a “an Earth-abusing, pro-Bush, pro-NAFTA, pro-war type” like Gunter.
Potvin decries it all the entire time. Potvin would surely have everyone believe he is nothing more than a victim, suffering the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Unfortunately for Potvin, he has called this all upon himself – by refusing to adequately address and defend his comments, by refusing to answer questions, and by making boneheaded comments to begin with.
At the end of the day, Potvin is lucky. Opposition research (or “oppo” as experienced political strategists call it for shot) is a common practice in electoral campaigns today, and one can only imagine what the Conservative party or even the NDP would have done with something like this.
While incredibly amusing, Potvin’s latest outburst has probably established a new adage: “when the going gets tough, nearly-psychotic hateful ideologues pout.”
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Jim Harris - King of Wishful Thinking
Harris apparently not a math major
According to Elizabeth May, her decision to compete against Peter MacKay in Nova Scotia’s Central Nova riding has been described by some as, ”stupid, egomaniacal, deluded, courageous (but still stupid), or selfish.”
These may or may not be fair assessments of May’s chances in Central Nova. For her own part, May insists she can win. It is May herself who has made the decision to run in Central Nova. Her expressions of optimism are nothing more than anyone should reasoanbly expect.
However, an amusing self-portrait in self-delusion comes from Jim Harris, the man May succeeded as Green Party leader.
In a weblog post on the Green Party website, Harris shares May’s claims that Central Nova is “winnable” for the Green Party. He lists 15 reasons why he believes May running in Central Nova is a “brilliant strategic move”.
First off, Harris claims that the 2003 merger between the Canadian Alliance and Progeressive Conservative party severely hurt McKay’s support within the riding. Comparing the combined CA/PC vote in the 2000 election (55.6%) to the portion of the vote McKay won with in 2004 (49.1%) and his 2006 results (40.7%), Harris draws the conclusion that McKay is “holding onto the seat by the skin of his teeth”.
Secondly, he postulates that “Central Nova is a highly split riding”. While McKay won 40% of the vote in 2006, the closest competitor was the NDP with just under 33% of the ridings’ votes.
Third, Harris notes that the Liberals have agreed not to run a candidate in Central Nova, leaving 25% of the vote up for grabs. Harris describes Central Nova as “the ideal split riding” where any party, theoretically, could win with 25+1% of the vote.
Fourth, Harris notes that May is the only national party leader running in Atlantic Canada. He sites the victory of Alexa McDonough, who won a maritime riding the NDP had never previously won, as historical precedent for such a victory.
As point under five, Harris claims the Green Party is the most efficiently-spending party in Canada. In 2006, the Green Party spent $1.34 for every vote it received in Central Nova. Harris postulates that if the party spends $75,000 in Central Nova, enough voters to defeat McKay will flock to the party.
Point six: Harris notes that St. Francis Xavier University is within the riding. He also notes that in the London North Center bi-election, the Green party also won all the University polls.
Seventh, Harris suggests that being from Nova Scotia gives Elizabeth May home field advantage.
Eight: Harris notes that May and McKay’s contest will be a high-profile race. This, certainly, will be true. Harris notes that the real winner in the contest will be Atlantic Canadians, due to all the attention that the contest will bring to maritme Canadians.
Ninth, Harris insists that the Conservative party has ignored Atlantic Canada.
As his tenth point, Harris insists that “two million Progressive Conservatives” will defect en masse to the Green Party.
Eleventh, Harris insists Central Nova is not being targeted maliciously. The Green party will also be running candidates in Liberal and NDP strongholds.
Point twelve: May running against McKay is “courageous”. Harris suggests voters in Central Nova will admire May’s gutsy moves.
Thirteenth: Harris suggests terror at the prospects of rising ocean levels via climate change will drive voters in Central Nova to the Green Party.
As his fourteenth point, Harris insists that Canadian foreign policy is “horrific”, “from fighting Bush’s war in Afghansistan to undermining the once proud international reputation as peace keepers, to opposing global negotiations on climate change”.
Finally, Harris believes that Harper’s “culture of defeatism” comments will harm McKay in Central Nova.
While it’s a seemingly well-thought-out list, Harris’ analyses falls on its face in several points.
First off, Harris’ math skills are obviously not up to par with the average high school drop-out. Harris insists that the Green party can win in Central Nova because the Liberals won’t be competing against them. However, in 2006, the Liberal party won less than 25% of the vote in this riding. For its part, the Green party captured a less-than-astounding 1.5% of support in the riding. Even if every single Liberal voter casts ballots in favour of the Green party in an upcoming election, this will only be 26.5% of the vote. Should McKay recapture his 2006 total of 40.6%, McKay still wins the riding.
If Liberal voters follow the barely-unspoken command of their increasingly demanding (perhaps, arguably, despotic) leader, it still wouldn’t be enough. However, traditional voting patterns in Atlantic Canada may complicate this assumption. Traditionally, voters in Atlantic Canada are family-oriented. Children tend to vote as their parents voted. The abandonment of the riding by the Liberals could have ramifications for the party akin to a family breakup. The Conservatives could be in for a big ballot box bonus.
Secondly, Harris’ insistence that his party’s ratio of $1.34 will translate into an avalanche of votes is deluded at best. His citation of the influence of St. Francis Xavier university in the riding underscores one important fact – Green Party voters outstrip Green Party donors in the riding. And while the Green Party may have received one vote for every $1.34 spent, they received a grand total of 671 votes.
According to Harris’ math, spending the $75,000 limit in Central Nova should net them 55,970 voters in Central Nova. In 2006, however, only 42,015 voters cast ballots for the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens, collectively. Harris’ analyses forwards a suggestion that the Green Party will somehow attract more voters than the number that actually live in the riding.
Harris’ insistence that her roots in Nova Scotia will give her an advantage over McKay is laughable. McKay is from Nova Scotia as well, and actually grew up in Central Nova. May grew up in Cape Breton. At best, May can hope for is to match McKay’s appeal in this sense. She probably won’t get even that.
Like May, Harris also cites foreign policy as a portfolio on which they would like to challenge the Conservatives. However, given the recent decimation of their foreign policy credibility by Kevin Potvin, they won’t have much luck in this regard. Consider that one of the “horrors” he accredits to the Conservatives – the war in Afghanistan – was actually initiated by the party they have made a back-room deal with. Oops.
Finally, Harris’ citation of Atlantic alienation operates as a logical fallacy. The constituents of Central Nova should percieve themselves as infinitely better off being represented by a Deputy Prime Minister than by a leader of a fringe party with – if they’re lucky – a handful of seats. Furthermore, May will opposing not only an incumbant MP, but an incumbant MP from an incumbant government with a reasonable governing record. This will be a hard man to dislodge.
On top of all this, McKay’s voting record as Deputy Prime Minister will only solidify his appeal to progressive conservatives in this riding.
In fact, perhaps the best May can hope for in her campaign against Peter McKay is to mount a fierce enough campaign that will attract media attention. The residual media attention that would be afforded to other Green party candidates could be enough to elect a small number of them.
Jim Harris, however, needs to go back to the drawing board and double-check his math.
According to Elizabeth May, her decision to compete against Peter MacKay in Nova Scotia’s Central Nova riding has been described by some as, ”stupid, egomaniacal, deluded, courageous (but still stupid), or selfish.”
These may or may not be fair assessments of May’s chances in Central Nova. For her own part, May insists she can win. It is May herself who has made the decision to run in Central Nova. Her expressions of optimism are nothing more than anyone should reasoanbly expect.
However, an amusing self-portrait in self-delusion comes from Jim Harris, the man May succeeded as Green Party leader.
In a weblog post on the Green Party website, Harris shares May’s claims that Central Nova is “winnable” for the Green Party. He lists 15 reasons why he believes May running in Central Nova is a “brilliant strategic move”.
First off, Harris claims that the 2003 merger between the Canadian Alliance and Progeressive Conservative party severely hurt McKay’s support within the riding. Comparing the combined CA/PC vote in the 2000 election (55.6%) to the portion of the vote McKay won with in 2004 (49.1%) and his 2006 results (40.7%), Harris draws the conclusion that McKay is “holding onto the seat by the skin of his teeth”.
Secondly, he postulates that “Central Nova is a highly split riding”. While McKay won 40% of the vote in 2006, the closest competitor was the NDP with just under 33% of the ridings’ votes.
Third, Harris notes that the Liberals have agreed not to run a candidate in Central Nova, leaving 25% of the vote up for grabs. Harris describes Central Nova as “the ideal split riding” where any party, theoretically, could win with 25+1% of the vote.
Fourth, Harris notes that May is the only national party leader running in Atlantic Canada. He sites the victory of Alexa McDonough, who won a maritime riding the NDP had never previously won, as historical precedent for such a victory.
As point under five, Harris claims the Green Party is the most efficiently-spending party in Canada. In 2006, the Green Party spent $1.34 for every vote it received in Central Nova. Harris postulates that if the party spends $75,000 in Central Nova, enough voters to defeat McKay will flock to the party.
Point six: Harris notes that St. Francis Xavier University is within the riding. He also notes that in the London North Center bi-election, the Green party also won all the University polls.
Seventh, Harris suggests that being from Nova Scotia gives Elizabeth May home field advantage.
Eight: Harris notes that May and McKay’s contest will be a high-profile race. This, certainly, will be true. Harris notes that the real winner in the contest will be Atlantic Canadians, due to all the attention that the contest will bring to maritme Canadians.
Ninth, Harris insists that the Conservative party has ignored Atlantic Canada.
As his tenth point, Harris insists that “two million Progressive Conservatives” will defect en masse to the Green Party.
Eleventh, Harris insists Central Nova is not being targeted maliciously. The Green party will also be running candidates in Liberal and NDP strongholds.
Point twelve: May running against McKay is “courageous”. Harris suggests voters in Central Nova will admire May’s gutsy moves.
Thirteenth: Harris suggests terror at the prospects of rising ocean levels via climate change will drive voters in Central Nova to the Green Party.
As his fourteenth point, Harris insists that Canadian foreign policy is “horrific”, “from fighting Bush’s war in Afghansistan to undermining the once proud international reputation as peace keepers, to opposing global negotiations on climate change”.
Finally, Harris believes that Harper’s “culture of defeatism” comments will harm McKay in Central Nova.
While it’s a seemingly well-thought-out list, Harris’ analyses falls on its face in several points.
First off, Harris’ math skills are obviously not up to par with the average high school drop-out. Harris insists that the Green party can win in Central Nova because the Liberals won’t be competing against them. However, in 2006, the Liberal party won less than 25% of the vote in this riding. For its part, the Green party captured a less-than-astounding 1.5% of support in the riding. Even if every single Liberal voter casts ballots in favour of the Green party in an upcoming election, this will only be 26.5% of the vote. Should McKay recapture his 2006 total of 40.6%, McKay still wins the riding.
If Liberal voters follow the barely-unspoken command of their increasingly demanding (perhaps, arguably, despotic) leader, it still wouldn’t be enough. However, traditional voting patterns in Atlantic Canada may complicate this assumption. Traditionally, voters in Atlantic Canada are family-oriented. Children tend to vote as their parents voted. The abandonment of the riding by the Liberals could have ramifications for the party akin to a family breakup. The Conservatives could be in for a big ballot box bonus.
Secondly, Harris’ insistence that his party’s ratio of $1.34 will translate into an avalanche of votes is deluded at best. His citation of the influence of St. Francis Xavier university in the riding underscores one important fact – Green Party voters outstrip Green Party donors in the riding. And while the Green Party may have received one vote for every $1.34 spent, they received a grand total of 671 votes.
According to Harris’ math, spending the $75,000 limit in Central Nova should net them 55,970 voters in Central Nova. In 2006, however, only 42,015 voters cast ballots for the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP and Greens, collectively. Harris’ analyses forwards a suggestion that the Green Party will somehow attract more voters than the number that actually live in the riding.
Harris’ insistence that her roots in Nova Scotia will give her an advantage over McKay is laughable. McKay is from Nova Scotia as well, and actually grew up in Central Nova. May grew up in Cape Breton. At best, May can hope for is to match McKay’s appeal in this sense. She probably won’t get even that.
Like May, Harris also cites foreign policy as a portfolio on which they would like to challenge the Conservatives. However, given the recent decimation of their foreign policy credibility by Kevin Potvin, they won’t have much luck in this regard. Consider that one of the “horrors” he accredits to the Conservatives – the war in Afghanistan – was actually initiated by the party they have made a back-room deal with. Oops.
Finally, Harris’ citation of Atlantic alienation operates as a logical fallacy. The constituents of Central Nova should percieve themselves as infinitely better off being represented by a Deputy Prime Minister than by a leader of a fringe party with – if they’re lucky – a handful of seats. Furthermore, May will opposing not only an incumbant MP, but an incumbant MP from an incumbant government with a reasonable governing record. This will be a hard man to dislodge.
On top of all this, McKay’s voting record as Deputy Prime Minister will only solidify his appeal to progressive conservatives in this riding.
In fact, perhaps the best May can hope for in her campaign against Peter McKay is to mount a fierce enough campaign that will attract media attention. The residual media attention that would be afforded to other Green party candidates could be enough to elect a small number of them.
Jim Harris, however, needs to go back to the drawing board and double-check his math.
Monday, April 16, 2007
This Just In: Kevin Potvin Still Doesn't Get It
Potvin clearly not ready for prime time politics
In a world that is constantly changing, it is comforting that some things will never change. Even after his disqualification from candidacy for the Green party, Kevin Potvin’s delusions are apparently one of those things.
In a recent statement, Potvin decried the decision of the Green party executive. "I think the Ottawa headquarters of the Green party misplayed this whole issue,” Potvin mused. “They're not ready for prime-time national politics.”
Fair enough. The Green Party may not be ready for “prime-time national politics.” Then again, neither is Kevin Potvin.
Although it is a well-known political fact that bad press is better than no press – the argument is that a party devoid of media attention will be regarded as irrelevant – the fact is that the amount of negative press heaped on Potvin (and rightfully so) would have made his candidacy a wasted effort. While the Green party may not have any ambitions of government, no fringe party can afford to waste the time, effort, and (most importantly for a small party) money in promoting an unelectable candidate.
Potvin’s most recently-reported musings aren’t the first time that he has engaged in some seemingly-thoughtful self-denial. On his campaign website, Potvin describes himself as a potential “middle of the road” candidate.
While Potvin’s empty anti-Americanism surely would have attracted votes from anti-American ideologues, the mainstream votes necessary for a candidate to win a campaign – especially on a “middle of the road” platform – wouldn’t be able to flee fast enough.
In what can only be described as a confusing logical fallacy, Potvin pointed to his troubles as the cause of the Green party’s other major controversy -- the back room deal between Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion that would prevent either party from running candidates against either leader . "[The National Post editorial] worried the Stephane Dion people enough to the point where they were able to say to Elizabeth May, `Look we took our guy out of a riding for you, you take your guy out of a riding for us,' '' he said.
If anyone can explain how Kevin Potvin’s removal satisfies the agreement in question – given that Dion is running in the riding of Saint-Laurent – Cartierville – or why Kevin Potvin’s 9/11 comments would be a source of worry for Stephan Dion, please let Potvin know. He probably can’t think of any plausible reasons himself.
As evidenced by a Republic column, Potvin also believes himself to be a threat to Industry Minister David Emerson. “The prospect of running against David Emerson had a beauty to it, but also, when I saw who the NDP and Liberals had nominated, I saw a real possibility of winning,” Potvin suggested. “The prospect of being the first Green in the House of Commons, and all the media glare that would come from that, tickled me when I thought about how that much attention could be turned toward environmental and industrial policy reform.”
Potvin clearly paints a very flattering self-image for himself: journalistic icon, environmental visionary, giant of Canadian politics. Unfortunately, none of them really fit.
As the headline reads, Kevin Potvin just doesn’t get it. And while it is very unfortunate that he has received death threats in the wake of the recent publicity of his 9/11 comments, it is very fortunate indeed that he is unsure whether or not he will continue to pursue a political career.
In a world that is constantly changing, it is comforting that some things will never change. Even after his disqualification from candidacy for the Green party, Kevin Potvin’s delusions are apparently one of those things.
In a recent statement, Potvin decried the decision of the Green party executive. "I think the Ottawa headquarters of the Green party misplayed this whole issue,” Potvin mused. “They're not ready for prime-time national politics.”
Fair enough. The Green Party may not be ready for “prime-time national politics.” Then again, neither is Kevin Potvin.
Although it is a well-known political fact that bad press is better than no press – the argument is that a party devoid of media attention will be regarded as irrelevant – the fact is that the amount of negative press heaped on Potvin (and rightfully so) would have made his candidacy a wasted effort. While the Green party may not have any ambitions of government, no fringe party can afford to waste the time, effort, and (most importantly for a small party) money in promoting an unelectable candidate.
Potvin’s most recently-reported musings aren’t the first time that he has engaged in some seemingly-thoughtful self-denial. On his campaign website, Potvin describes himself as a potential “middle of the road” candidate.
While Potvin’s empty anti-Americanism surely would have attracted votes from anti-American ideologues, the mainstream votes necessary for a candidate to win a campaign – especially on a “middle of the road” platform – wouldn’t be able to flee fast enough.
In what can only be described as a confusing logical fallacy, Potvin pointed to his troubles as the cause of the Green party’s other major controversy -- the back room deal between Elizabeth May and Stephane Dion that would prevent either party from running candidates against either leader . "[The National Post editorial] worried the Stephane Dion people enough to the point where they were able to say to Elizabeth May, `Look we took our guy out of a riding for you, you take your guy out of a riding for us,' '' he said.
If anyone can explain how Kevin Potvin’s removal satisfies the agreement in question – given that Dion is running in the riding of Saint-Laurent – Cartierville – or why Kevin Potvin’s 9/11 comments would be a source of worry for Stephan Dion, please let Potvin know. He probably can’t think of any plausible reasons himself.
As evidenced by a Republic column, Potvin also believes himself to be a threat to Industry Minister David Emerson. “The prospect of running against David Emerson had a beauty to it, but also, when I saw who the NDP and Liberals had nominated, I saw a real possibility of winning,” Potvin suggested. “The prospect of being the first Green in the House of Commons, and all the media glare that would come from that, tickled me when I thought about how that much attention could be turned toward environmental and industrial policy reform.”
Potvin clearly paints a very flattering self-image for himself: journalistic icon, environmental visionary, giant of Canadian politics. Unfortunately, none of them really fit.
As the headline reads, Kevin Potvin just doesn’t get it. And while it is very unfortunate that he has received death threats in the wake of the recent publicity of his 9/11 comments, it is very fortunate indeed that he is unsure whether or not he will continue to pursue a political career.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Update: Elizabeth May DQs Potvin
Just an update on the previous article: Elizabeth May has announced that Kevin Potvin will NOT be a Green Party Candidate in Vancouver-Kingsway.
While her initial "benefit of the doubt" stance remains troublesome, May and the Green Party have clearly made the right decision.
While her initial "benefit of the doubt" stance remains troublesome, May and the Green Party have clearly made the right decision.
An Inconvenient Truth of Kevin Potvin, Elizabeth May
"Benefit of doubt" for 9/11 celebrator
Kevin Potvin, the Green Party’s recently acclaimed candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, has attracted controversy recently, via an article, ”A Revolting Confession”. Within the article, Potvin refers to an internal attitude he discovered within himself that found the 9/11 attacks “beautiful”, insisting this was a response that many people shared. “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact,” he insists, “whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”
Potvin has weakly tried to dismiss the article as symbolic. Yet one finds it hard to find the symbolism in rooting for Osama bin Laden. A response published in The Republic, however, is much more telling.
While attempting to invoke Keats, Potvin notes that, on the afternoon of 9/11, “I went home and got out my pad of paper and made notes of everything that I could detect I was feeling. This is one of my journalistic techniques, it’s a form of shorthand. Rather than make notes of speeches at press conferences and other events, I instead pay attention and focus on the speaker, and then afterward make notes of exactly how I feel. Later, when I need to write up the story, I refer to my notes, and by being reminded of my feelings at the time, I remember everything that was said, and what’s more, I retain the meaning.”
In short, Potvin, the “journalist”, doesn’t take any notes or make any records of statements or events. He notes his emotional response, then uses that to remember what happened, or what was said. He also uses this to reconstruct the meaning.
Reconstruct is actually a very appropriate term. The science of psychology tells us that human memory is reconstructive. As such, using emotion as a recognitive tool in the place of any sort of record about what was actually said is a recipe for journalistic disaster. It’s entirely unlikely that mr. Potvin remembers anything as it was said, or as it actually happened. Whether this journalistic technique is an actual form of mental shorthand – as he insists – or if it is simply an excuse to promote his bias within his writing only mr. Potvin will really know for certain.
There are deeper issues here, however, than simply those for Potvin and his publication. There are very deep issues at play for the Green Party itself.
In a blog entry on the Green party website, Elizabeth May reveals that she chose the riding of Central Nova so she could challenge Peter MacKay on the foreign policy portfolio. “By running in Central Nova I will be taking on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, raising the clarity of vision of our international policies versus the “aye, aye, Sir” approach of Mr. Harper,” May insists.
Meanwhile, the Green party website has begun to feature more examples of foreign policy, ranging from the predictable pro-Kyoto stance to “be nice to Iran”.
More so than anything, the Kevin Potvin affair could prove to be the latest in a series of events demonstrating Elizabeth May’s unsuitability as a political leader. As with her recent kowtowing to Stephan Dion ., May risks demonstrating that she cannot ascertain the gravity of her decisions. Even while she sends a crystal-clear message to her party membership that her party will not campaign for a mandate to govern (thus accepting perpetual fringe party status), May has excused Potvin at a time when she wants to run against Peter McKay in Central Nova on the issue of foreign affairs.
A leader who undermines his or her own credibility has no real future in politics – and for obvious reasons. Potvin himself falls prey to this, but mostly through what can only be described as his own hypocrisy.
The masthead for his Republic newspaper reads, “The Republic of East Vancouver supports no party, advocates for no cause, serves no master, and considers problems with no preconceived notions”. Potvin would be able to reconcile this position against his Green Party candidacy if it weren’t for the fact that Potvin has used his publication to vigorously promote his own candidacy. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong this this, but it does break his promise of non-partisanship to his readers.
Furthermore, Potvin’s celebration of 9/11 as an attack on capitalism comes off as disingenuous coming from someone who, as a small business owner, is effectively a capitalist himself.
Furthermore (but not necessarily finally), he dismissed criticism over his comments by saying, “Don't you think the Parliament of Canada requires people that are free thinkers, independent thinkers and people that bring other points of view to the table besides those that are commonly accepted and those that are credentialed by the newspaper columnists?" In short, Potvin, himself a newspaper columnist – if one considers publications such as the Republic to be newspapers – argues that he is a maverick because his views aren’t supported by newspaper columnists. It smacks of an attempt at double-sided populism, and not a very good attempt at that.
Ironically, Preston Manning and the Reform party provided a good demonstration of how to deal with a controversial candidate, also in a Vancouver riding. When Doug Collins, a Vancouver-area radio host who had expressed racially-charged sentiments refused to distance himself from such comments, Manning himself refused to sign Collins’ candidacy. The Collins affair was still used to paint the party as racist, but one can only imagine how much worse this could have been had Collins not been dealt with appropriately.
There is another lesson that the Green party desperately needs to learn from the Reform party – that of not accepting fringe party status. The Reform party always declared its intention to eventually form the government, and as such was able to engineer a fairly meteoric rise to go from having no seats in parliament to being the Official Opposition in only nine years. Having already existed for more than 20 years in Canada, the Green party, particularly under May’s leadership, seems content to accept fringe party status.
This is not the kind of leadership this party needs.
Kevin Potvin, the Green Party’s recently acclaimed candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, has attracted controversy recently, via an article, ”A Revolting Confession”. Within the article, Potvin refers to an internal attitude he discovered within himself that found the 9/11 attacks “beautiful”, insisting this was a response that many people shared. “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact,” he insists, “whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”
Potvin has weakly tried to dismiss the article as symbolic. Yet one finds it hard to find the symbolism in rooting for Osama bin Laden. A response published in The Republic, however, is much more telling.
While attempting to invoke Keats, Potvin notes that, on the afternoon of 9/11, “I went home and got out my pad of paper and made notes of everything that I could detect I was feeling. This is one of my journalistic techniques, it’s a form of shorthand. Rather than make notes of speeches at press conferences and other events, I instead pay attention and focus on the speaker, and then afterward make notes of exactly how I feel. Later, when I need to write up the story, I refer to my notes, and by being reminded of my feelings at the time, I remember everything that was said, and what’s more, I retain the meaning.”
In short, Potvin, the “journalist”, doesn’t take any notes or make any records of statements or events. He notes his emotional response, then uses that to remember what happened, or what was said. He also uses this to reconstruct the meaning.
Reconstruct is actually a very appropriate term. The science of psychology tells us that human memory is reconstructive. As such, using emotion as a recognitive tool in the place of any sort of record about what was actually said is a recipe for journalistic disaster. It’s entirely unlikely that mr. Potvin remembers anything as it was said, or as it actually happened. Whether this journalistic technique is an actual form of mental shorthand – as he insists – or if it is simply an excuse to promote his bias within his writing only mr. Potvin will really know for certain.
There are deeper issues here, however, than simply those for Potvin and his publication. There are very deep issues at play for the Green Party itself.
In a blog entry on the Green party website, Elizabeth May reveals that she chose the riding of Central Nova so she could challenge Peter MacKay on the foreign policy portfolio. “By running in Central Nova I will be taking on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, raising the clarity of vision of our international policies versus the “aye, aye, Sir” approach of Mr. Harper,” May insists.
Meanwhile, the Green party website has begun to feature more examples of foreign policy, ranging from the predictable pro-Kyoto stance to “be nice to Iran”.
More so than anything, the Kevin Potvin affair could prove to be the latest in a series of events demonstrating Elizabeth May’s unsuitability as a political leader. As with her recent kowtowing to Stephan Dion ., May risks demonstrating that she cannot ascertain the gravity of her decisions. Even while she sends a crystal-clear message to her party membership that her party will not campaign for a mandate to govern (thus accepting perpetual fringe party status), May has excused Potvin at a time when she wants to run against Peter McKay in Central Nova on the issue of foreign affairs.
A leader who undermines his or her own credibility has no real future in politics – and for obvious reasons. Potvin himself falls prey to this, but mostly through what can only be described as his own hypocrisy.
The masthead for his Republic newspaper reads, “The Republic of East Vancouver supports no party, advocates for no cause, serves no master, and considers problems with no preconceived notions”. Potvin would be able to reconcile this position against his Green Party candidacy if it weren’t for the fact that Potvin has used his publication to vigorously promote his own candidacy. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong this this, but it does break his promise of non-partisanship to his readers.
Furthermore, Potvin’s celebration of 9/11 as an attack on capitalism comes off as disingenuous coming from someone who, as a small business owner, is effectively a capitalist himself.
Furthermore (but not necessarily finally), he dismissed criticism over his comments by saying, “Don't you think the Parliament of Canada requires people that are free thinkers, independent thinkers and people that bring other points of view to the table besides those that are commonly accepted and those that are credentialed by the newspaper columnists?" In short, Potvin, himself a newspaper columnist – if one considers publications such as the Republic to be newspapers – argues that he is a maverick because his views aren’t supported by newspaper columnists. It smacks of an attempt at double-sided populism, and not a very good attempt at that.
Ironically, Preston Manning and the Reform party provided a good demonstration of how to deal with a controversial candidate, also in a Vancouver riding. When Doug Collins, a Vancouver-area radio host who had expressed racially-charged sentiments refused to distance himself from such comments, Manning himself refused to sign Collins’ candidacy. The Collins affair was still used to paint the party as racist, but one can only imagine how much worse this could have been had Collins not been dealt with appropriately.
There is another lesson that the Green party desperately needs to learn from the Reform party – that of not accepting fringe party status. The Reform party always declared its intention to eventually form the government, and as such was able to engineer a fairly meteoric rise to go from having no seats in parliament to being the Official Opposition in only nine years. Having already existed for more than 20 years in Canada, the Green party, particularly under May’s leadership, seems content to accept fringe party status.
This is not the kind of leadership this party needs.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Just to Reiterate: Scott Reid is Still a Clown
We remember This too, bud
Man. I just finished watching Scott Reid on Mike Duffy Live, and I can't get over how this guy proves more and more that he is a clown every time he's on TV.
Conservative strategist Tim Powers was seemingly gracious enough to stop PWNING Reid on TV this week (as he has been prone to do for consecutive weeks, if not months). Instead, the esteemed mr. Reid was given an opportunity to collide with Geoff Norquay.
Clearly never missing an opportunity to prove that he is, in fact, a friggin' clown, Reid took the opportunity to launch himself into conspiracy theorist mode, trying to hold the Conservatives responsible for an RCMP pension scandal that actually took place while the Liberals were in office, all the while claiming that the RCMP "screwed" the Liberal party by investigating the income trust leak.
This all despite the fact that former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli was known to be extremely close to Jean Chretien.
So, just to reiterate: Scott Reid is a clown. As far as third-rate Warren Kinsella wannabes go, mr. Reid certainly does take the "intellectual" out of "intellectual coward".
Man. I just finished watching Scott Reid on Mike Duffy Live, and I can't get over how this guy proves more and more that he is a clown every time he's on TV.
Conservative strategist Tim Powers was seemingly gracious enough to stop PWNING Reid on TV this week (as he has been prone to do for consecutive weeks, if not months). Instead, the esteemed mr. Reid was given an opportunity to collide with Geoff Norquay.
Clearly never missing an opportunity to prove that he is, in fact, a friggin' clown, Reid took the opportunity to launch himself into conspiracy theorist mode, trying to hold the Conservatives responsible for an RCMP pension scandal that actually took place while the Liberals were in office, all the while claiming that the RCMP "screwed" the Liberal party by investigating the income trust leak.
This all despite the fact that former commissioner Juliano Zaccardelli was known to be extremely close to Jean Chretien.
So, just to reiterate: Scott Reid is a clown. As far as third-rate Warren Kinsella wannabes go, mr. Reid certainly does take the "intellectual" out of "intellectual coward".
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Turner Breaks Promise, Jumps to the Liberals
"Red Tory" Garth Turner turns to the Liberals
As the world turns, the world of most people only turns one way.
Unless you’re Garth Turner – in which case you would probably wish it to turn both ways. Today, Halton MP Garth Turner repudiated a prior promise not to join the Liberal party after being kicked out of the Conservative government’s caucus due to his breech of caucus confidentiality.
Turner had previously stated he would sit as an independent MP. He had even refused overtures from the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.
As his goals, Turner listed, among other things, tax reform, political reform, “digital democracy” and environmental activism – things that have never happened under the modern Liberal party. Some things of which had been talked about, but none of which had ever really happened.
In recent months, Turner has been criticized as being stubborn, opportunistic, and treacherous. Many people – including myself – have defended him from such claims. Imagine the embarrassment of individuals such as myself having learned today that such accusations may be more true than we had admitted.
Given that one of his cardinal reasons for joining the Liberal party was “to sit on a committee” is demonstration enough of his opportunism.
Turner claimed that he would find “greater freedom” within the Liberal party – the same Liberal party that forced Dr. Carolyn Parrish to vote against extending compensation to victims of Hepatitis-infected blood beyond an arbitrary date that conveniently protected the Liberal government from accepting responsibility for victims infected during Pierre Trudeau’s administration.
When Stephan Dion took a strong, strict partisan stance against Stephen Harper’s speech to Ottawa’s Canadian Club, Turner, the MP now enjoying “greater freedom” simply dutifully said, “I agree.”
Turner decried that he had promised his constituents that the Conservative government would be, “moderate, tolerant and mainstream”. To anyone other than an opportunist or an ideologue, there is simply no way to construe the current government as having been anything but moderate, tolerant and mainstream.
Despite the fact that it was a Liberal government that instituted the Chinese head tax, the Conservative party, under Stephen Harper issued an apology, and has offered compensation.
The Conservative party also introduced the Clean Air Act – legislation superior to Kyoto, yet opposed by “environmental lobby” ideologues because it isn’t Kyoto. Despite the claims of various ideologues, the Conservative party has consistently governed from the center, and had even stepped to the left on a number of occasions – including an announcement of aid grants designed to help the homeless.
Turner claimed that, despite his previous promises, joining the Liberals didn’t compromise his integrity. However, he did end his press conference on a strong note – promising that if Harper would call bi-elections for David Emerson, Wajid Kahn and Michel Fortier to defend their decisions to the electorate, he would be part of a fourth by-election.
But, then again, we know how well Turner keeps his promises.
As the world turns, the world of most people only turns one way.
Unless you’re Garth Turner – in which case you would probably wish it to turn both ways. Today, Halton MP Garth Turner repudiated a prior promise not to join the Liberal party after being kicked out of the Conservative government’s caucus due to his breech of caucus confidentiality.
Turner had previously stated he would sit as an independent MP. He had even refused overtures from the Green Party’s Elizabeth May.
As his goals, Turner listed, among other things, tax reform, political reform, “digital democracy” and environmental activism – things that have never happened under the modern Liberal party. Some things of which had been talked about, but none of which had ever really happened.
In recent months, Turner has been criticized as being stubborn, opportunistic, and treacherous. Many people – including myself – have defended him from such claims. Imagine the embarrassment of individuals such as myself having learned today that such accusations may be more true than we had admitted.
Given that one of his cardinal reasons for joining the Liberal party was “to sit on a committee” is demonstration enough of his opportunism.
Turner claimed that he would find “greater freedom” within the Liberal party – the same Liberal party that forced Dr. Carolyn Parrish to vote against extending compensation to victims of Hepatitis-infected blood beyond an arbitrary date that conveniently protected the Liberal government from accepting responsibility for victims infected during Pierre Trudeau’s administration.
When Stephan Dion took a strong, strict partisan stance against Stephen Harper’s speech to Ottawa’s Canadian Club, Turner, the MP now enjoying “greater freedom” simply dutifully said, “I agree.”
Turner decried that he had promised his constituents that the Conservative government would be, “moderate, tolerant and mainstream”. To anyone other than an opportunist or an ideologue, there is simply no way to construe the current government as having been anything but moderate, tolerant and mainstream.
Despite the fact that it was a Liberal government that instituted the Chinese head tax, the Conservative party, under Stephen Harper issued an apology, and has offered compensation.
The Conservative party also introduced the Clean Air Act – legislation superior to Kyoto, yet opposed by “environmental lobby” ideologues because it isn’t Kyoto. Despite the claims of various ideologues, the Conservative party has consistently governed from the center, and had even stepped to the left on a number of occasions – including an announcement of aid grants designed to help the homeless.
Turner claimed that, despite his previous promises, joining the Liberals didn’t compromise his integrity. However, he did end his press conference on a strong note – promising that if Harper would call bi-elections for David Emerson, Wajid Kahn and Michel Fortier to defend their decisions to the electorate, he would be part of a fourth by-election.
But, then again, we know how well Turner keeps his promises.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Liberal Party Plan B: Get Stockwell
Liberals trying to scapegoat Stockwell Day for their sins
To those who have been following the fallout from the Maher Arar case, today’s resignation of RCMP commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli came as no surprise, and for good reason.
Zaccardelli, of course, was serving as RCMP commissioner in 2002, when the RCMP passed false information to American officials, who subsequently deported the Syrian-born Arar to his original home country, where he was subsequently tortured.
According to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who accepted Zaccardelli’s resignation, the outgoing commissioner sited that “it would be in the best interest of the RCMP to have new leadership as this great organization faces challenges in the future.”
For those following the case, the story is very different. It was revealed on 5 December that Zaccardelli had previously perjured himself in the course of the inquiry, earning himself what Liberal MP Mark Holland rightfully thinks was a certain dismissal.
“It’s a start,” Holland said of Zaccardelli’s resignation. Now, one would expect that Holland’s next ideal targets for the inquiry would be the officers involved, none of whom have yet been disciplined, and some of whom were even promoted.
Now Holland, the Liberal party and the New Democratic party have all set their sights firmly on Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, suggesting that Day may have been complicit in Zaccardelli’s about-face, despite the lack any evidence to suggest so.
“I can tell very clearly that at no time, from my office or officials, was there any interference whatsoever in the operation of the commissioner's duties or any testimony he was giving,” Day insisted.
Now, one would expect that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Day would be considered innocent until proven guilty. Not with the Liberal party. The Liberals, of course, are citing ministerial responsibility. Indeed, Stockwell Day is apparently expected to be responsible for something in which Zaccardelli was involved in 2002 – when the Liberal party was in power.
For those who may have missed the irony of this, the Liberals are trying to hold Day responsible for something that took place under a Liberal government.
This is the same party under which Ralph Goodale refused to live up to ministerial responsibility and resign when it was revealed that an Income Trust investor was improperly tipped off, via a wink-wink-nudge-nudge email, to an impending decision about Income Trusts.
Yep, Ministerial responsibility: the Liberals are all about it… at least when another government’s ministers are being scapegoated for things that happen under their watch.
To those who have been following the fallout from the Maher Arar case, today’s resignation of RCMP commissioner Guiliano Zaccardelli came as no surprise, and for good reason.
Zaccardelli, of course, was serving as RCMP commissioner in 2002, when the RCMP passed false information to American officials, who subsequently deported the Syrian-born Arar to his original home country, where he was subsequently tortured.
According to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who accepted Zaccardelli’s resignation, the outgoing commissioner sited that “it would be in the best interest of the RCMP to have new leadership as this great organization faces challenges in the future.”
For those following the case, the story is very different. It was revealed on 5 December that Zaccardelli had previously perjured himself in the course of the inquiry, earning himself what Liberal MP Mark Holland rightfully thinks was a certain dismissal.
“It’s a start,” Holland said of Zaccardelli’s resignation. Now, one would expect that Holland’s next ideal targets for the inquiry would be the officers involved, none of whom have yet been disciplined, and some of whom were even promoted.
Now Holland, the Liberal party and the New Democratic party have all set their sights firmly on Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, suggesting that Day may have been complicit in Zaccardelli’s about-face, despite the lack any evidence to suggest so.
“I can tell very clearly that at no time, from my office or officials, was there any interference whatsoever in the operation of the commissioner's duties or any testimony he was giving,” Day insisted.
Now, one would expect that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, Day would be considered innocent until proven guilty. Not with the Liberal party. The Liberals, of course, are citing ministerial responsibility. Indeed, Stockwell Day is apparently expected to be responsible for something in which Zaccardelli was involved in 2002 – when the Liberal party was in power.
For those who may have missed the irony of this, the Liberals are trying to hold Day responsible for something that took place under a Liberal government.
This is the same party under which Ralph Goodale refused to live up to ministerial responsibility and resign when it was revealed that an Income Trust investor was improperly tipped off, via a wink-wink-nudge-nudge email, to an impending decision about Income Trusts.
Yep, Ministerial responsibility: the Liberals are all about it… at least when another government’s ministers are being scapegoated for things that happen under their watch.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Video Never Lies
Amateur Attack Ads Tell Interesting story
It’s official. YouTube has become a cultural phenomenon.
Like many recent cultural phenomena, perhaps the greatest strength of YouTube is that it offers its users a do-it-yourself online media outlet (not much unlike blogs – hello!).
Like any do-it-yourself media outlet, YouTube was quickly harnessed for political means. Various people have used YouTube – as well as similar sites such as Google Video – for various political purposes. Those with a stake in the current Liberal leadership campaign are no different.
Often, the way the grassroots uses the do-it-yourself online media tells an interesting story.
Once again, the current Liberal leadership contest is no different.
A number of amateur attack ads have been uploaded to these sites. They convey an interesting image of the Liberal party at this turning point in its history – and it may not be a very pretty picture at that.
The bulk of the videos take aim at one of two targets (if, of course, one ignores the mass of attention paid to George Bush and Stephen Harper): frontrunners Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.
”Once a Dipper, Always a Dipper” takes aim at Rae, predictably highlighting Rae’s career as the disastrous NDP premier of Ontario, and listing several inflammatory quotes made about the Liberals during that time. “Keep leadership in the family,” becomes the theme of the piece.
”Timmy” portrays a couple of pop-art Ontarians, NDP supporters turned Liberals, shocked to learn of Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership. While the mother is driven to drinking, the father tells his son Timmy the story of “Rae days” in scant detail. Rae Days are also the subject of ”Potholes”. In ”NDP Orange” it is actually suggested that Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership metaphorically pisses on the “great” image and legacy of the Liberal party.
George Bush and the Republicans also become an omnipresent spectre. In ”Michael Ignatieff Outakes”, a South Park-style animated Ignatieff needs to be corrected after announcing his candidacy for the Republican party. He is later on seen ogling a map of Iraq. ”Fit to Be President” makes use of Hulk Hogan’s famous “Real American” entry music, and makes reference to some of Ignatieff’s contentious writings on imperialism and torture, as well as a photoshopped image of Iggy with an Eagle perched on his outstretched ”Presidential Finger”. A video of this title tries to turn a hand gesture into a political issue (yet curiously makes few references to Pierre Trudeau’s Prime Ministerial finger).
Speaking of Pierre Trudeau, no Liberal campaign of any sort could possibly be complete without someone exhuming his ideological grave, and this campaign is no exception to this rule. ”Quebec as a Nation: A New Perspective” quotes Pierre Trudeau at length on the issue of Quebec nationalism, painting Michael Ignatieff – whose recent Quebec as a nation appeal reopened the issue – as an outsider, out of touch with Liberal values. Video can also be found of Justin Trudeau responding to Ignatieff’s suggestion.
Even nutbars such as Alex Jones have weighed in, spreading their typical paranoid nonsense, and insinuating that Bob Rae could be used as a sacrificial lamb to allow the Conservative party to help institute a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States.
To be fair, there are some bright spots. In particular, Gerard Kennedy’s supporters have posted some positive ads, highlighting their candidate’s strengths.
Frankly, these ads do not paint a flattering picture of the Liberal party.
Not only do they paint a start picture of a party divided against itself, they also reinforce the (arguably) popular public image of the Liberals as a party running headlong into a dead end – of a party so committed to living in the past that they cannot possibly lay claim to the bold vision for the future they often lay claim to. Between rampant anti-Americanism, and political xenophobia, these ads show a side of the Liberal party they would likely much rather remain private.
But nothing remains private when it is posted to online video, for the entire world to see.
It’s official. YouTube has become a cultural phenomenon.
Like many recent cultural phenomena, perhaps the greatest strength of YouTube is that it offers its users a do-it-yourself online media outlet (not much unlike blogs – hello!).
Like any do-it-yourself media outlet, YouTube was quickly harnessed for political means. Various people have used YouTube – as well as similar sites such as Google Video – for various political purposes. Those with a stake in the current Liberal leadership campaign are no different.
Often, the way the grassroots uses the do-it-yourself online media tells an interesting story.
Once again, the current Liberal leadership contest is no different.
A number of amateur attack ads have been uploaded to these sites. They convey an interesting image of the Liberal party at this turning point in its history – and it may not be a very pretty picture at that.
The bulk of the videos take aim at one of two targets (if, of course, one ignores the mass of attention paid to George Bush and Stephen Harper): frontrunners Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff.
”Once a Dipper, Always a Dipper” takes aim at Rae, predictably highlighting Rae’s career as the disastrous NDP premier of Ontario, and listing several inflammatory quotes made about the Liberals during that time. “Keep leadership in the family,” becomes the theme of the piece.
”Timmy” portrays a couple of pop-art Ontarians, NDP supporters turned Liberals, shocked to learn of Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership. While the mother is driven to drinking, the father tells his son Timmy the story of “Rae days” in scant detail. Rae Days are also the subject of ”Potholes”. In ”NDP Orange” it is actually suggested that Rae’s candidacy for the Liberal leadership metaphorically pisses on the “great” image and legacy of the Liberal party.
George Bush and the Republicans also become an omnipresent spectre. In ”Michael Ignatieff Outakes”, a South Park-style animated Ignatieff needs to be corrected after announcing his candidacy for the Republican party. He is later on seen ogling a map of Iraq. ”Fit to Be President” makes use of Hulk Hogan’s famous “Real American” entry music, and makes reference to some of Ignatieff’s contentious writings on imperialism and torture, as well as a photoshopped image of Iggy with an Eagle perched on his outstretched ”Presidential Finger”. A video of this title tries to turn a hand gesture into a political issue (yet curiously makes few references to Pierre Trudeau’s Prime Ministerial finger).
Speaking of Pierre Trudeau, no Liberal campaign of any sort could possibly be complete without someone exhuming his ideological grave, and this campaign is no exception to this rule. ”Quebec as a Nation: A New Perspective” quotes Pierre Trudeau at length on the issue of Quebec nationalism, painting Michael Ignatieff – whose recent Quebec as a nation appeal reopened the issue – as an outsider, out of touch with Liberal values. Video can also be found of Justin Trudeau responding to Ignatieff’s suggestion.
Even nutbars such as Alex Jones have weighed in, spreading their typical paranoid nonsense, and insinuating that Bob Rae could be used as a sacrificial lamb to allow the Conservative party to help institute a North American Union of Canada, Mexico and the United States.
To be fair, there are some bright spots. In particular, Gerard Kennedy’s supporters have posted some positive ads, highlighting their candidate’s strengths.
Frankly, these ads do not paint a flattering picture of the Liberal party.
Not only do they paint a start picture of a party divided against itself, they also reinforce the (arguably) popular public image of the Liberals as a party running headlong into a dead end – of a party so committed to living in the past that they cannot possibly lay claim to the bold vision for the future they often lay claim to. Between rampant anti-Americanism, and political xenophobia, these ads show a side of the Liberal party they would likely much rather remain private.
But nothing remains private when it is posted to online video, for the entire world to see.
Sunday, November 05, 2006
What the Fuck!? Files Vol.1 -- Men Fail to Support Breast Cancer Research
Honestly, guys: Let’s not be douchebags
Life is a funny thing.
OK. Maybe that’s an under-exaggeration. Life is fucked up. We live in a world where virtually every day, something occurs, or we encounter something that can elicit one and only one response.
What the fuck!?
For those moments, we (okay, I – but hopefully, just for now ) at the Nexus of Assholery are proud to announce yet another new addition to the Nexus: the “What the Fuck !?” Files.
The inaugural entry – of what will certainly be many entries – into the “What the Fuck!?” Files was uncovered while attending a recent screening of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, a film that itself could constitute an entry into the “What the Fuck!?” Files.
While buying concessions prior to the film, I was offered the opportunity to purchase a $2 button (okay, they kicked in a $10 coupon for Coles Books and Chapters, so I actually profited $8 from the transaction).
The cashier remarked that not very men had bought the buttons.
Did I mention the $2 paid for the button benefits breast cancer research?
Oddly, many men aren’t supporting breast cancer research. Which, frankly, strikes me as odd.
Because there are so many reasons for men to support breast cancer research. Six billion reasons. Six billion excellent reasons.
Women, you see have breasts. Men tend to like women (okay, not all men, but that’s another story for another time), but these men also tend to like breasts. There are approximately three billion women on the planet, and so, approximately six billion breasts.
So, it then seems odd that men would not support breast cancer research, given that breast cancer research tends to support breasts.
You know, tits . Boobs . Jubblies. Fun bags. Happy pillows.
I think I’ve pretty much made my point. Guys, support breasts. Support breast cancer research.
For Christ’s sake, guys. Buy some fucking buttons.
Life is a funny thing.
OK. Maybe that’s an under-exaggeration. Life is fucked up. We live in a world where virtually every day, something occurs, or we encounter something that can elicit one and only one response.
What the fuck!?
For those moments, we (okay, I – but hopefully, just for now ) at the Nexus of Assholery are proud to announce yet another new addition to the Nexus: the “What the Fuck !?” Files.
The inaugural entry – of what will certainly be many entries – into the “What the Fuck!?” Files was uncovered while attending a recent screening of Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, a film that itself could constitute an entry into the “What the Fuck!?” Files.
While buying concessions prior to the film, I was offered the opportunity to purchase a $2 button (okay, they kicked in a $10 coupon for Coles Books and Chapters, so I actually profited $8 from the transaction).
The cashier remarked that not very men had bought the buttons.
Did I mention the $2 paid for the button benefits breast cancer research?
Oddly, many men aren’t supporting breast cancer research. Which, frankly, strikes me as odd.
Because there are so many reasons for men to support breast cancer research. Six billion reasons. Six billion excellent reasons.
Women, you see have breasts. Men tend to like women (okay, not all men, but that’s another story for another time), but these men also tend to like breasts. There are approximately three billion women on the planet, and so, approximately six billion breasts.
So, it then seems odd that men would not support breast cancer research, given that breast cancer research tends to support breasts.
You know, tits . Boobs . Jubblies. Fun bags. Happy pillows.
I think I’ve pretty much made my point. Guys, support breasts. Support breast cancer research.
For Christ’s sake, guys. Buy some fucking buttons.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Kadhim to Harper: Let's Get it On, Bitch
Kadhim wants to go mano-a-mano with PM over Gun Registry
Once again, the gauntlet has been thrown in Canada’s gun control debate.
Figuratively and literally.
Hayder Kadhim, one of the victims wounded by Kimveer Gill’s rampage at Dawson College, has challenged the Prime Minster to a public debate on gun control.
“I want him to explain why he wants to dismantle a gun registry proven to have saved many lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain,” Kadhim announced at a press conference in Montreal.
Of course, an expert on the gun registry like Kadhim may be able to explain to us how the gun registry prevented Kimveer Gill from opening fire in Dawson college with his Berretta Cx4 Storm, a legally-owned and registered – albeit registered – firearm.
Except, it didn’t. Whoops.
Kadhim may also want to defend his assertion that the Gun Registry is proven to have saved lives. It hasn’t. The Dawson College shooting is proof of that.
In fact, the Gun Registry relates to incidents such as the Dawson College Shooting in one of two ways: either, A.)The weapons used were registered, and the Gun Registry did nothing to prevent it; or B.)The weapons used were unregistered and the Gun Registry couldn’t have possibly done anything to prevent it.
Kadhim also may have wanted to check the facts regarding the cost of the Gun Registry before his press conference.
Originally budgeted at $2 million, the cost of the gun registry have exceeded $1 billion, good for a cost inflation of at least 5000%.
Whoops.
Gun Control advocates have accused the Registry’s opponents of sabotaging it. “There’s no question that the same people who said ‘take it apart because it costs too much’ did everything in their power to drive up the costs and make it impossible to implement,” Wendy Cukier said in 2003, while serving as the president of the Coalition for Gun Control.
To make matters worse, Kadhim seems to have forgotten all about the revelation of May 16, 2006, when it when it was discovered that a bureaucrat loyal to the Liberal party covered up $39 million in costs in 2002-03. . It was discovered that the money was later reported over the two subsequent years.
In other words, the costs were covered up. Then the cover up was covered up.
To top it all off, one might expect that a gun control expert like Kadhim would know that the gun registry doesn’t accomplish anything that can’t be accomplished by tracking gun licenses. In fact, tracking gun licenses would e even more effective in predicting the presence of a weapon in a given situation, because it allows for cases when a license has been issued, but no weapon has been registered, yet may still be present.
Furthermore, Kadhim has yet to explain how criminals will be persuaded to register their weapons, or how the gun registry acts to prevent crime with weapons that aren’t legally owned.
If Kadhim wants a debate opponent on the gun registry, he can find one – right here at the Nexus. If Kadhim wants to have a public debate on the gun registry, I will respond by making a challenge of my own: you set up the venue, you buy the plane ticket, and I will personally show up and give him a public debate on the gun registry.
But he had better be prepared to take a severe ass-whupping, because he is seriously barking up the wrong tree. His campaign to save the Gun Registry is both ill-concieved and ill-informed.
His advocacy in favor of a monolithic bureaucracy that is built upon nothing more than an illusion of action is proof enough of that.
Once again, the gauntlet has been thrown in Canada’s gun control debate.
Figuratively and literally.
Hayder Kadhim, one of the victims wounded by Kimveer Gill’s rampage at Dawson College, has challenged the Prime Minster to a public debate on gun control.
“I want him to explain why he wants to dismantle a gun registry proven to have saved many lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain,” Kadhim announced at a press conference in Montreal.
Of course, an expert on the gun registry like Kadhim may be able to explain to us how the gun registry prevented Kimveer Gill from opening fire in Dawson college with his Berretta Cx4 Storm, a legally-owned and registered – albeit registered – firearm.
Except, it didn’t. Whoops.
Kadhim may also want to defend his assertion that the Gun Registry is proven to have saved lives. It hasn’t. The Dawson College shooting is proof of that.
In fact, the Gun Registry relates to incidents such as the Dawson College Shooting in one of two ways: either, A.)The weapons used were registered, and the Gun Registry did nothing to prevent it; or B.)The weapons used were unregistered and the Gun Registry couldn’t have possibly done anything to prevent it.
Kadhim also may have wanted to check the facts regarding the cost of the Gun Registry before his press conference.
Originally budgeted at $2 million, the cost of the gun registry have exceeded $1 billion, good for a cost inflation of at least 5000%.
Whoops.
Gun Control advocates have accused the Registry’s opponents of sabotaging it. “There’s no question that the same people who said ‘take it apart because it costs too much’ did everything in their power to drive up the costs and make it impossible to implement,” Wendy Cukier said in 2003, while serving as the president of the Coalition for Gun Control.
To make matters worse, Kadhim seems to have forgotten all about the revelation of May 16, 2006, when it when it was discovered that a bureaucrat loyal to the Liberal party covered up $39 million in costs in 2002-03. . It was discovered that the money was later reported over the two subsequent years.
In other words, the costs were covered up. Then the cover up was covered up.
To top it all off, one might expect that a gun control expert like Kadhim would know that the gun registry doesn’t accomplish anything that can’t be accomplished by tracking gun licenses. In fact, tracking gun licenses would e even more effective in predicting the presence of a weapon in a given situation, because it allows for cases when a license has been issued, but no weapon has been registered, yet may still be present.
Furthermore, Kadhim has yet to explain how criminals will be persuaded to register their weapons, or how the gun registry acts to prevent crime with weapons that aren’t legally owned.
If Kadhim wants a debate opponent on the gun registry, he can find one – right here at the Nexus. If Kadhim wants to have a public debate on the gun registry, I will respond by making a challenge of my own: you set up the venue, you buy the plane ticket, and I will personally show up and give him a public debate on the gun registry.
But he had better be prepared to take a severe ass-whupping, because he is seriously barking up the wrong tree. His campaign to save the Gun Registry is both ill-concieved and ill-informed.
His advocacy in favor of a monolithic bureaucracy that is built upon nothing more than an illusion of action is proof enough of that.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Halloween Spirit Permeates Afghanistan Rallies
"Canada out of Afghanistan" rallies touted as "huge success"
Ah, yes. Halloween. That time of year when adults and children alike disguise themselves as someone or something else for fun.
It should come as no surprise, then, that in the days leading up to Halloween, the “venerable” Toronto Star has been hard at work describing October 28’s “Canada out of Aghanistan Now!” rallies as something they weren’t – a success.
500 protestors marched through the streets of Ottawa (population 859,704). 200 protestors showed up in Halifax (population 359,111). 500 congregated in Montreal (population 3,326,510), and 600 in Vancouver (population 600,000). In Edmonton (population 937, 845), fewer than 100 turned up.
Success? Hardly. Not in one of these cases did so much as 1% of the city’s population turn out to agitate against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.
“I get the feeling we’re making history here today,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “Millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role.”
Layton, whose comments about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan have alienated Canadian military service men and women from his party, may have wanted to check his rhetoric before spewing this absurdity. If “millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role,” millions of Canadians might have actually shown up to these rallies.
Thousands (but barely thousands) of Canadians in 37 cities – far from what Toronto organizer Sid Lacombe implied when he said, “there are 37 different actions happening in Canada today, all the big cities, and even small towns.”
37 rallies in a country with a population of 32,000,000 hardly represents a huge success. In fact, a mere 37 rallies is a dismal failure.
Even more amusing is the common failure in logic. It seems that many protestors have confused the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq. “It’s an illegal war,” 60 year-old Ellen Schifren asserted.
The same charge leveled against the American war in Iraq. Of course, one might expect an obvious international law expert like Schifren to know that the war in Afghanistan is actually being conducted under a UN mandate.
Whoops.
This was hardly atypical. Many of the protestors carried placards portraying Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a war monger, despite the fact that it was actually the Liberal Party of Canada that committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and did so without a parliamentary vote, or even a debate.
Whoops.
While one certainly can appreciate the value of dissent on an issue as key and important as the war in Iraq, these rallies essentially turned out to be nothing more than a Halloween masquerade – protesters masquerading failure as success, Stephen Harper as George Bush, and the dumber as merely dumb.
Ah, yes. Halloween. That time of year when adults and children alike disguise themselves as someone or something else for fun.
It should come as no surprise, then, that in the days leading up to Halloween, the “venerable” Toronto Star has been hard at work describing October 28’s “Canada out of Aghanistan Now!” rallies as something they weren’t – a success.
500 protestors marched through the streets of Ottawa (population 859,704). 200 protestors showed up in Halifax (population 359,111). 500 congregated in Montreal (population 3,326,510), and 600 in Vancouver (population 600,000). In Edmonton (population 937, 845), fewer than 100 turned up.
Success? Hardly. Not in one of these cases did so much as 1% of the city’s population turn out to agitate against Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan.
“I get the feeling we’re making history here today,” said NDP leader Jack Layton. “Millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role.”
Layton, whose comments about Canadian involvement in Afghanistan have alienated Canadian military service men and women from his party, may have wanted to check his rhetoric before spewing this absurdity. If “millions of Canadians are deeply concerned about this combat role,” millions of Canadians might have actually shown up to these rallies.
Thousands (but barely thousands) of Canadians in 37 cities – far from what Toronto organizer Sid Lacombe implied when he said, “there are 37 different actions happening in Canada today, all the big cities, and even small towns.”
37 rallies in a country with a population of 32,000,000 hardly represents a huge success. In fact, a mere 37 rallies is a dismal failure.
Even more amusing is the common failure in logic. It seems that many protestors have confused the war in Afghanistan with the war in Iraq. “It’s an illegal war,” 60 year-old Ellen Schifren asserted.
The same charge leveled against the American war in Iraq. Of course, one might expect an obvious international law expert like Schifren to know that the war in Afghanistan is actually being conducted under a UN mandate.
Whoops.
This was hardly atypical. Many of the protestors carried placards portraying Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a war monger, despite the fact that it was actually the Liberal Party of Canada that committed Canadian troops to Afghanistan, and did so without a parliamentary vote, or even a debate.
Whoops.
While one certainly can appreciate the value of dissent on an issue as key and important as the war in Iraq, these rallies essentially turned out to be nothing more than a Halloween masquerade – protesters masquerading failure as success, Stephen Harper as George Bush, and the dumber as merely dumb.
Monday, October 23, 2006
Believe it or Not, Duceppe Makes Good
Um... Wow...
Personally, I never thought I would say this.
BUT.
Good for Gilles Duceppe.
Holy shit. I can’t believe I just said that. Let’s take another look at that.
…
Good for Gilles Duceppe.
…
Holy shit! I really did just say that! Now, let’s take a closer look at why.
As most people have probably already heard, Gilles Duceppe has threatened to help topple the sitting Conservative minority government. With polling numbers suggesting the Liberal party could be in a position to potentially mount a spring 2007 election, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has added a little fuel to the fire under Stephen Harper’s feet.
“Stephen Harper must now deliver the goods for Quebec, especially concerning the fiscal imbalance,” Duceppe announced. “If Stephen Harper breaks this promise, we will make his government fall.”
According to Duceppe, the government’s survival is contingent on an extra $3,9 billion for Quebec in the next federal budget.
To make matters worse, the Conservative party’s polling numbers in Quebec seem to have tanked. A recent poll has the Conservative party holding 17 points, trailing the Liberal party at 20, and the Bloc Quebecois at 47. The NDP and Green Party trail with eight points apiece.
Now to some, Duceppe might seem to simply be playing predatory politics at its worst.
But frankly, this is exactly what Duceppe’s constituents – as well as the members of his party – elected him to do. Stephen Harper, as most may recall, made a promise during the 2006 election to rectify the fiscal imbalance – the very fiscal imbalance the Liberal party refused to recognize.
Seven months and one federal budget later, Harper’s Conservatives have yet to make good.
Of course, Harper would likely be better off resolving the matter with Quebec Premier Jean Charest, rather than kowtowing to the separatist BQ.
But at the same time, Duceppe may want to be careful what he wishes for – keeping this key promise to Quebecers may be just the solution Stephen Harper’s support in Quebec desperately needs.
Personally, I never thought I would say this.
BUT.
Good for Gilles Duceppe.
Holy shit. I can’t believe I just said that. Let’s take another look at that.
…
Good for Gilles Duceppe.
…
Holy shit! I really did just say that! Now, let’s take a closer look at why.
As most people have probably already heard, Gilles Duceppe has threatened to help topple the sitting Conservative minority government. With polling numbers suggesting the Liberal party could be in a position to potentially mount a spring 2007 election, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has added a little fuel to the fire under Stephen Harper’s feet.
“Stephen Harper must now deliver the goods for Quebec, especially concerning the fiscal imbalance,” Duceppe announced. “If Stephen Harper breaks this promise, we will make his government fall.”
According to Duceppe, the government’s survival is contingent on an extra $3,9 billion for Quebec in the next federal budget.
To make matters worse, the Conservative party’s polling numbers in Quebec seem to have tanked. A recent poll has the Conservative party holding 17 points, trailing the Liberal party at 20, and the Bloc Quebecois at 47. The NDP and Green Party trail with eight points apiece.
Now to some, Duceppe might seem to simply be playing predatory politics at its worst.
But frankly, this is exactly what Duceppe’s constituents – as well as the members of his party – elected him to do. Stephen Harper, as most may recall, made a promise during the 2006 election to rectify the fiscal imbalance – the very fiscal imbalance the Liberal party refused to recognize.
Seven months and one federal budget later, Harper’s Conservatives have yet to make good.
Of course, Harper would likely be better off resolving the matter with Quebec Premier Jean Charest, rather than kowtowing to the separatist BQ.
But at the same time, Duceppe may want to be careful what he wishes for – keeping this key promise to Quebecers may be just the solution Stephen Harper’s support in Quebec desperately needs.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Bush and Harper Running for Liberal Leadership?
Listening to the rhetoric being traded by the candidates for the leadership of the federal Liberal party, one would suspect that Canadian Prime Minster Stephen Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush were candidates for the job.
Each candidate has taken seemingly every opportunity to draw as close a relationship between Harper and Bush as humanly possible. Waxing rhetorically about the “similarities between Harper and Bush”, the leadership candidates have made a point of forcing the issue.
Even when mocking this tendency, Stephan Dion asserts, “yes, Harper is terrible,” while shrugging.
It’s safe to say that if any of the leading candidates – frontrunner Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephan Dion and Gerard Kennedy – were running against Harper or Bush for the Liberal leadership, they would win in a landslide. Unfortunately for them, they aren’t. So is focusing on Harper and Bush a wise decision?
Regardless of the wisdom (or potential lack thereof) of treating Harper and Bush as de facto candidates new. Before the campaign even began, the youth wing of the Liberal party distributed approximately 100 stickers to their university chapters . The stickers were a photoshopped mock-up of the Brokeback Mountain movie posters, with Harper and Bush’s faces substituted for those of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. It is branded “Brokeback Conservativism”, and described as “a story about two friends who share ideas, ideologies, and long walks on the beach…”
The obvious homophobia aside (from members of the ever-so-tolerant Liberal party, too…), the stickers are merely one symptom of the Liberal party’s use of George Bush as a political tactic.
This was also prophetic of the candidate’s use of Harper/Bush comparisons during the campaign. John Diamond, the president of Young Liberals of Canada, in an interview with Concordia’s The Link, suggested this would be brought up during the leadership campaign – which it has.
There are some within the Liberal party who are concerned about this tendency. “I think [the campaign] is a little over the top. I don’t think that they have that much in common,” said Nick Blesser, the 2005/06 vice-president of the Concordia University Liberal Party Association. “I think it’s demonizing both individuals, which is not always a good idea. It creates more skepticism, and there is already too much of that among young people today.”
Blesser also clued into the homophobic statement made by the stickers. “Are you implying something sexual? No, I don’t,” he said.
It seems that the Liberal party’s attempts to equate Stephen Harper with George W. Bush have been bearing fruit. As the U.S. inches ever closer to its midterm elections, Canadian pollsters have found that the Conservative and Liberal parties are currently tied for support amongst Canadians. In a Strategic Council poll of 1,000 voters, the two parties were found to be tied at 32% apiece, with support in Quebec dipping to 16%.
According to the Strategic Council’s Allan Gregg, same-sex marriage, the Kyoto protocol and the war in Afghanistan are the key issues separating the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec.
Diamond focused on Harper’s promised vote on potentially re-opening the same-sex marriage debate, saying, “To me, [same-sex marriage] is an issue of equality. [Harper] wants to open reopen this discussion, these are things that smack of George W. Bush republicanism.”
It isn’t limited to the leadership campaign, either.
Scott Reid, a Liberal party spokesperson, has delighted in pointing out what he wants Canadians to believe are Harper’s “three B’s: Bullying, BS and Bush”. He takes any opportunity he can to needle the Conservative party about allegedly “wearing Bush’s belt buckle” or “Bush’s pyjamas”.
The focus on equating Stephen Harper with George W. Bush may be paying dividends for now, but one can’t help but wonder if they will continue to be successful once the American midterm elections have passed, and the imaginations of Canadians are drawn to more important matters.
Worse yet, the Liberal party may want to consider what it will do should the current minority government endure past 2008, when Bush leaves office. Suddenly, what may well be their most successful PR tactic will have disappeared into history’s long night, leaving the Liberals to find a new tactic.
Perhaps what would be wise is if the Liberal party were to focus on establish a record as the Opposition to campaign on, instead of resorting to distraction tactics while quietly playing partisan politics with key issues such as the environment.
Each candidate has taken seemingly every opportunity to draw as close a relationship between Harper and Bush as humanly possible. Waxing rhetorically about the “similarities between Harper and Bush”, the leadership candidates have made a point of forcing the issue.
Even when mocking this tendency, Stephan Dion asserts, “yes, Harper is terrible,” while shrugging.
It’s safe to say that if any of the leading candidates – frontrunner Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, Stephan Dion and Gerard Kennedy – were running against Harper or Bush for the Liberal leadership, they would win in a landslide. Unfortunately for them, they aren’t. So is focusing on Harper and Bush a wise decision?
Regardless of the wisdom (or potential lack thereof) of treating Harper and Bush as de facto candidates new. Before the campaign even began, the youth wing of the Liberal party distributed approximately 100 stickers to their university chapters . The stickers were a photoshopped mock-up of the Brokeback Mountain movie posters, with Harper and Bush’s faces substituted for those of Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. It is branded “Brokeback Conservativism”, and described as “a story about two friends who share ideas, ideologies, and long walks on the beach…”
The obvious homophobia aside (from members of the ever-so-tolerant Liberal party, too…), the stickers are merely one symptom of the Liberal party’s use of George Bush as a political tactic.
This was also prophetic of the candidate’s use of Harper/Bush comparisons during the campaign. John Diamond, the president of Young Liberals of Canada, in an interview with Concordia’s The Link, suggested this would be brought up during the leadership campaign – which it has.
There are some within the Liberal party who are concerned about this tendency. “I think [the campaign] is a little over the top. I don’t think that they have that much in common,” said Nick Blesser, the 2005/06 vice-president of the Concordia University Liberal Party Association. “I think it’s demonizing both individuals, which is not always a good idea. It creates more skepticism, and there is already too much of that among young people today.”
Blesser also clued into the homophobic statement made by the stickers. “Are you implying something sexual? No, I don’t,” he said.
It seems that the Liberal party’s attempts to equate Stephen Harper with George W. Bush have been bearing fruit. As the U.S. inches ever closer to its midterm elections, Canadian pollsters have found that the Conservative and Liberal parties are currently tied for support amongst Canadians. In a Strategic Council poll of 1,000 voters, the two parties were found to be tied at 32% apiece, with support in Quebec dipping to 16%.
According to the Strategic Council’s Allan Gregg, same-sex marriage, the Kyoto protocol and the war in Afghanistan are the key issues separating the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec.
Diamond focused on Harper’s promised vote on potentially re-opening the same-sex marriage debate, saying, “To me, [same-sex marriage] is an issue of equality. [Harper] wants to open reopen this discussion, these are things that smack of George W. Bush republicanism.”
It isn’t limited to the leadership campaign, either.
Scott Reid, a Liberal party spokesperson, has delighted in pointing out what he wants Canadians to believe are Harper’s “three B’s: Bullying, BS and Bush”. He takes any opportunity he can to needle the Conservative party about allegedly “wearing Bush’s belt buckle” or “Bush’s pyjamas”.
The focus on equating Stephen Harper with George W. Bush may be paying dividends for now, but one can’t help but wonder if they will continue to be successful once the American midterm elections have passed, and the imaginations of Canadians are drawn to more important matters.
Worse yet, the Liberal party may want to consider what it will do should the current minority government endure past 2008, when Bush leaves office. Suddenly, what may well be their most successful PR tactic will have disappeared into history’s long night, leaving the Liberals to find a new tactic.
Perhaps what would be wise is if the Liberal party were to focus on establish a record as the Opposition to campaign on, instead of resorting to distraction tactics while quietly playing partisan politics with key issues such as the environment.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Opposition Parties and "Environmental" Lobby Breathes Hot Air Over Clean Air Act
Warm front sweeps over Parliament as hit parade begins
Yesterday, Stephen Harper’s government tabled its long-promised Clean Air Act.
Predictably, Canada’s opposition parties and so-called environmental lobbies have taken up the cause – of preventing effective long-term environmental legislation.
“They're not going to do anything: This is a (law) for inaction," said the Sierra Club’s John Bennet, complaining that the Clean Air Act calls for consultations with industry over the next three years.
"Instead of using existing legislation and acting immediately, the Conservatives have delivered vague promises to regulate polluters sometime in the coming decades," Hugh Wilkins, a lawyer with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Of course, one would expect that Bennet and Wilkins, two obvious experts in environmental law to understand that all the current agreements with industry, struck by the Liberal party, only call for voluntary compliance. This law will be in effect until 2010.
In other words, for the next three years, the Conservative government has no option but to consult with industry about what the standards (which will be mandatory) should be. Previous Liberal governments made certain of that, arrogantly legislating in such a way that not only handcuffed their own government, but also future non-Liberal governments.
After 2010, the government will set fixed caps on air pollutants, as well as stricter emissions standards for vehicles, modeled after California’s much-applauded standards.
By 2050, the Conservative plan is to cut total emissions by 45 to 65%. These are well in excess of Canada’s current Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012.
The number one complaint about the Clean Air Act seems to be that it does not explicitly mention Kyoto. Like complaints about George W. Bush after 9/11 – sulking, “he didn’t mention Canada!” – the so-called environmental lobby complains that the Act doesn’t mention Kyoto.
Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, complained, “[This] means that we have killed Kyoto as far as Canada is concerned. We've violated our international responsibilities. I don't take that lightly and I hope that no one else does."
Kyoto “expert” Olivastri may or may not be aware that the 65% by 2050 figure is very similar to a target provided under the Kyoto protocol – Britain’s targets. Britain, under the Kyoto protocol, has accepted a goal of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 65% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Conservative government has just pledged to meet these much more ambitious targets.
Given this little factoid, one has to wonder exactly what it is that the so-called environmental lobby wants.
It’s difficult to ascertain if the environmental groups in question are Liberal party members, voicing their criticisms via their Liberal party talking points, or if the environmental groups in question have been completely enveloped by the anti-conservative movement.
Either way, the point becomes abundantly clear: this was never about the environment. It was about politics all along.
The Clean Air Act – The Wrong-Colored Lollypop?
It can be likened to an unruly child in a grocery store, demanding a red lollypop.
“I want the red lollypop!” the child demands. The red lollypop, for whatever reason, is unattainable.
“I’m sorry honey,” the beleaguered mother says soothingly, “we can’t have the red lollypop. How about a green lollypop with a chocolate center instead?”
“NO!” the petulant child screams, jumping up and down frantically. “I want the red one!”
Such is the condition of Canada’s “environmental” lobby. The Conservative party, handcuffed until 2010 by Liberal party-initiated voluntary industrial emissions standards, has instead opted to act beyond 2010, and act to a greater extent – within a time frame that is, in fact, still within the Kyoto protocol’s time frame – and the “environmental” lobby is responding with a temper tantrum because the plan isn’t Kyoto.
Is it better than Kyoto? You’re damn skippy.
Is it Kyoto? No. And that’s what the problem is.
The Conservative government has come forth with a firm plan for action. A plan that won’t allow Canada off the hook, doing noting while paying billions of dollars in order to buy emissions credits from countries that aren’t required to do anything to meet their Kyoto requirements. Unlike the Clean Air Act (merely one part of the Conservative party Green Plan), under the Kyoto protocol, Canada’s ability to do nothing is reinforced by further inaction. With money! Kyoto is not a plan for action.
For its part, the Sierra Club has already been caught playing politics with the environment. On June 16 of this year, the Sierra Club issued its annual “environmental report cards”. The Harper government, in power for all of six months, was given a failing grade. Fs across the board.
"We are recommending that the Harper government attend summer school in order to see improvement next time," said the ever-so-clever Stephen Hazell, the then-acting executive director the Sierra Club.
The Harper government had, at that point, no opportunity to formulate its environmental policy.
The government of Prince Edward Island, however, was given a B average. In particular, it was given a B for biodiversity – even after a serious incident in which over 100 tons of raw sewage were simply pumped to Charlottetown harbor instead of being cleaned up.
Whoops.
Interestingly, the Sierra Club also opposes the Conservative government’s biofuel initiative, which would require that all gasoline in Canada be composed of 5% ethanol by 2010, which would reduce Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gas by that same 5%.
Once again, whoops.
One really has to wonder what side the Sierra Club is buttering their bread on. One might expect that an environmental lobby group would put some effort in to ascertaining the achievements of each government honestly, in stead of trying to act as a defacto opposition party.
Playing Politics With the Future
Canada’s opposition parties have pledged to vote against the Clean Air Act.
It’s interesting to note that, given that the item allegedly occupies a central point on the current agenda, that Canada’s opposition parties are promising to play partisan politics with the Clean Air Act – and have been promising to do so before it was even tabled.
“The whole Clean Air Act, for me, is a cynical exercise by the Conservatives," opined Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s environment critic. "Even if the committee rushed, and even if we pushed this thing as fast as we could, there's little to no chance at all of this thing coming into effect prior to the next election. That's unfortunate."
Unfortunate, indeed. The opposition parties instead favor private member’s bill C-288, which would require the federal government to somehow magically implement the Kyoto protocol, despite the constraints placed upon this by current legislation. Somehow, a party that has always favored increasing environmental legislation has come to deride the government’s impulse to introduce new legislation. “Our argument has always been that they have the legislation already," Cullen continued. "Why are they recreating it? If that's not a delay tactic, I don't know what is."
The “environmental” lobby and opposition parties desperately need to get their talking points straight on this one. Either the legislation in place is sufficient, as they claim – in which case criticizing the government for not proposing new policy (as was being done) should be considered an untenable position – or the new legislation, which plans over the long term should be accepted as a valuable tool for protecting the environment for the next 44 years.
At the very least, the lobby groups and opposition parties could do something really crazy, like – oh, I don’t know – cooperating with the government via the committee process, suggesting perhaps some – gee, what would… -- amendments to the act in question.
Otherwise, the message these parties are sending to Canadians may be that the opposition parties favor short-term inaction, as opposed to long-term planning and action. This certainly isn’t the message most people would want to send if they were part of an environmental lobby group or allegedly progressive political party, but this might be entirely immaterial.
Who cares about protecting the environment when there are political points to be scored?
Obviously, not the Liberals, NDP or Bloq Quebecois. The “environmental lobby”?
Obviously, not any less.
Yesterday, Stephen Harper’s government tabled its long-promised Clean Air Act.
Predictably, Canada’s opposition parties and so-called environmental lobbies have taken up the cause – of preventing effective long-term environmental legislation.
“They're not going to do anything: This is a (law) for inaction," said the Sierra Club’s John Bennet, complaining that the Clean Air Act calls for consultations with industry over the next three years.
"Instead of using existing legislation and acting immediately, the Conservatives have delivered vague promises to regulate polluters sometime in the coming decades," Hugh Wilkins, a lawyer with the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.
Of course, one would expect that Bennet and Wilkins, two obvious experts in environmental law to understand that all the current agreements with industry, struck by the Liberal party, only call for voluntary compliance. This law will be in effect until 2010.
In other words, for the next three years, the Conservative government has no option but to consult with industry about what the standards (which will be mandatory) should be. Previous Liberal governments made certain of that, arrogantly legislating in such a way that not only handcuffed their own government, but also future non-Liberal governments.
After 2010, the government will set fixed caps on air pollutants, as well as stricter emissions standards for vehicles, modeled after California’s much-applauded standards.
By 2050, the Conservative plan is to cut total emissions by 45 to 65%. These are well in excess of Canada’s current Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels, between 2008 and 2012.
The number one complaint about the Clean Air Act seems to be that it does not explicitly mention Kyoto. Like complaints about George W. Bush after 9/11 – sulking, “he didn’t mention Canada!” – the so-called environmental lobby complains that the Act doesn’t mention Kyoto.
Beatrice Olivastri, CEO of Friends of the Earth Canada, complained, “[This] means that we have killed Kyoto as far as Canada is concerned. We've violated our international responsibilities. I don't take that lightly and I hope that no one else does."
Kyoto “expert” Olivastri may or may not be aware that the 65% by 2050 figure is very similar to a target provided under the Kyoto protocol – Britain’s targets. Britain, under the Kyoto protocol, has accepted a goal of 20% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 65% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The Conservative government has just pledged to meet these much more ambitious targets.
Given this little factoid, one has to wonder exactly what it is that the so-called environmental lobby wants.
It’s difficult to ascertain if the environmental groups in question are Liberal party members, voicing their criticisms via their Liberal party talking points, or if the environmental groups in question have been completely enveloped by the anti-conservative movement.
Either way, the point becomes abundantly clear: this was never about the environment. It was about politics all along.
The Clean Air Act – The Wrong-Colored Lollypop?
It can be likened to an unruly child in a grocery store, demanding a red lollypop.
“I want the red lollypop!” the child demands. The red lollypop, for whatever reason, is unattainable.
“I’m sorry honey,” the beleaguered mother says soothingly, “we can’t have the red lollypop. How about a green lollypop with a chocolate center instead?”
“NO!” the petulant child screams, jumping up and down frantically. “I want the red one!”
Such is the condition of Canada’s “environmental” lobby. The Conservative party, handcuffed until 2010 by Liberal party-initiated voluntary industrial emissions standards, has instead opted to act beyond 2010, and act to a greater extent – within a time frame that is, in fact, still within the Kyoto protocol’s time frame – and the “environmental” lobby is responding with a temper tantrum because the plan isn’t Kyoto.
Is it better than Kyoto? You’re damn skippy.
Is it Kyoto? No. And that’s what the problem is.
The Conservative government has come forth with a firm plan for action. A plan that won’t allow Canada off the hook, doing noting while paying billions of dollars in order to buy emissions credits from countries that aren’t required to do anything to meet their Kyoto requirements. Unlike the Clean Air Act (merely one part of the Conservative party Green Plan), under the Kyoto protocol, Canada’s ability to do nothing is reinforced by further inaction. With money! Kyoto is not a plan for action.
For its part, the Sierra Club has already been caught playing politics with the environment. On June 16 of this year, the Sierra Club issued its annual “environmental report cards”. The Harper government, in power for all of six months, was given a failing grade. Fs across the board.
"We are recommending that the Harper government attend summer school in order to see improvement next time," said the ever-so-clever Stephen Hazell, the then-acting executive director the Sierra Club.
The Harper government had, at that point, no opportunity to formulate its environmental policy.
The government of Prince Edward Island, however, was given a B average. In particular, it was given a B for biodiversity – even after a serious incident in which over 100 tons of raw sewage were simply pumped to Charlottetown harbor instead of being cleaned up.
Whoops.
Interestingly, the Sierra Club also opposes the Conservative government’s biofuel initiative, which would require that all gasoline in Canada be composed of 5% ethanol by 2010, which would reduce Canada’s emissions of greenhouse gas by that same 5%.
Once again, whoops.
One really has to wonder what side the Sierra Club is buttering their bread on. One might expect that an environmental lobby group would put some effort in to ascertaining the achievements of each government honestly, in stead of trying to act as a defacto opposition party.
Playing Politics With the Future
Canada’s opposition parties have pledged to vote against the Clean Air Act.
It’s interesting to note that, given that the item allegedly occupies a central point on the current agenda, that Canada’s opposition parties are promising to play partisan politics with the Clean Air Act – and have been promising to do so before it was even tabled.
“The whole Clean Air Act, for me, is a cynical exercise by the Conservatives," opined Nathan Cullen, the NDP’s environment critic. "Even if the committee rushed, and even if we pushed this thing as fast as we could, there's little to no chance at all of this thing coming into effect prior to the next election. That's unfortunate."
Unfortunate, indeed. The opposition parties instead favor private member’s bill C-288, which would require the federal government to somehow magically implement the Kyoto protocol, despite the constraints placed upon this by current legislation. Somehow, a party that has always favored increasing environmental legislation has come to deride the government’s impulse to introduce new legislation. “Our argument has always been that they have the legislation already," Cullen continued. "Why are they recreating it? If that's not a delay tactic, I don't know what is."
The “environmental” lobby and opposition parties desperately need to get their talking points straight on this one. Either the legislation in place is sufficient, as they claim – in which case criticizing the government for not proposing new policy (as was being done) should be considered an untenable position – or the new legislation, which plans over the long term should be accepted as a valuable tool for protecting the environment for the next 44 years.
At the very least, the lobby groups and opposition parties could do something really crazy, like – oh, I don’t know – cooperating with the government via the committee process, suggesting perhaps some – gee, what would… -- amendments to the act in question.
Otherwise, the message these parties are sending to Canadians may be that the opposition parties favor short-term inaction, as opposed to long-term planning and action. This certainly isn’t the message most people would want to send if they were part of an environmental lobby group or allegedly progressive political party, but this might be entirely immaterial.
Who cares about protecting the environment when there are political points to be scored?
Obviously, not the Liberals, NDP or Bloq Quebecois. The “environmental lobby”?
Obviously, not any less.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Michael Ignatieff & Stephen Harper: Their Feet & Their Mouths
Open mouth. Insert foot. Repeat as necessary.
Michael Ignatieff is not a happy man. This may have something to do with the fact that he’s had a very rough week.
On monday, Ignatieff was criticized for not attending a leadership debate. On Tuesday, Ignatieff accused Israel of war crimes. On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used Ignatieff’s comments to (perhaps unwisely) label the candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign as “Anti-Israel”. On Friday, Ignatieff responded to Harper, but also lashed out at the media.
“Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this (Mideast) conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the Liberal leadership of Canada,” Ignatieff complained. “Mr. Harper's comments were a disgrace, a disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians.”
“There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel.,” Ignatieff insisted. “The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."
"Being a friend means speaking honestly and this week I did that, I spoke honestly about this summer's terrible conflict," he said. "It was a conflict provoked by Hezbollah and its backers to lure Israel into a wide war, it was a conflict in which Israel exercised its right to respond and to send a terrorist militia a clear message that its actions cannot and would not be tolerated."
However, on October 10, in a Radio-Canada interview, Ignatieff said, "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."
So, to recap, on Tuesday, Israel is a war criminal. On Friday, Hezbollah are war criminals.
In any conventional sense of the term, this would be a huge flip-flop.
On Thursday, Stephen Harper described Ignatieff’s previous accusations as “consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.” However, on Friday he noted that Joe Volpe and Scott Brison were exceptions to his assertions.
Now, what Harper said was inflammatory, but was it accurate?
Ignatieff’s aforementioned comments on Israel, and subsequent flip-flop on the issue, demonstrate that he is merely doing what he can to exploit the Israeli issue for political gain.
Gerard Kennedy issued the standard promises to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, but his supporters have been more vocal, accusing Israel of conducting ‘state terrorism’.
"We don't want to see any more terrorism, whether the terrorism of suicide bombers or launching rockets or state terrorism. This is state terrorism," said Kennedy supporter Boris Wrzesnewskyj.
Even more interesting are the comments of Kennedy supporter Thomas Hubert, who advocated eliminating all “Zionists” from the Liberal party. "The Liberal Party is stronger without these violent Zionists in our party. I am glad for them to cease influencing our foreign policy so we are free to promote Canadian values of peace. It amazes me that this community is so absurdly selfish. The only issue that matters to them is the defence of a "state" that survives on the blood of innocent people. Shameful.”
Harper has already admitted that Stephan Dion is not anti-Israel.
But as it relates to Bob Rae, Harper may be a little bit off. In a 2002 opinion article entitled “Parting Company with the NDP”, Rae (who is of Jewish descent) criticized what he believed to be a strong anti-Israel bias in the NDP.
On his website, www.Bobrae.ca, Rae even issued the following statement, “The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."
"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."
That is not, by any means, an anti-Israel statement.
For Harper, the leader of the federal Conservative party, commenting on the statements of the leading candidate for the Liberal leadership is perfectly legitimate. However, Harper needs to keep one important fact in mind.
In Canada, conservatives do not win on rhetoric. They have to win on facts.
Labelling all the candidates for the Liberal leadership as “anti-Israel” takes an issue that should be discussed in terms of fact, and transforms it into a rhetorical issue.
He should, at the very least, avoid making comments he can’t defend. As it pertains to two of the four frontrunners for the Liberal leadership, Harper can’t defend these comments.
However, in the cases of Ignatieff and Kennedy, defending their own comments (and those of their supporters) is a matter they should be good deal more concerned with. As the frontrunner, Ignatieff needs to be doubly concerned.
Michael Ignatieff is not a happy man. This may have something to do with the fact that he’s had a very rough week.
On monday, Ignatieff was criticized for not attending a leadership debate. On Tuesday, Ignatieff accused Israel of war crimes. On Thursday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper used Ignatieff’s comments to (perhaps unwisely) label the candidates in the Liberal leadership campaign as “Anti-Israel”. On Friday, Ignatieff responded to Harper, but also lashed out at the media.
“Yesterday, Stephen Harper used my statement that war crimes were committed in this (Mideast) conflict to launch a personal attack on me and on my colleagues running for the Liberal leadership of Canada,” Ignatieff complained. “Mr. Harper's comments were a disgrace, a disgrace for a man who holds an office that is supposed to represent all Canadians.”
“There is no basis whatever for Mr. Harper to suggest that the Liberal party is biased against Israel.,” Ignatieff insisted. “The prime minister showed a profound lack of respect to the Official Opposition and a profound lack of respect to the Canadian people who elected them."
"Being a friend means speaking honestly and this week I did that, I spoke honestly about this summer's terrible conflict," he said. "It was a conflict provoked by Hezbollah and its backers to lure Israel into a wide war, it was a conflict in which Israel exercised its right to respond and to send a terrorist militia a clear message that its actions cannot and would not be tolerated."
However, on October 10, in a Radio-Canada interview, Ignatieff said, "I was a professor of human rights, and I am also a professor of the laws of war, and what happened in Qana was a war crime."
So, to recap, on Tuesday, Israel is a war criminal. On Friday, Hezbollah are war criminals.
In any conventional sense of the term, this would be a huge flip-flop.
On Thursday, Stephen Harper described Ignatieff’s previous accusations as “consistent with the anti-Israeli position that has been taken by virtually of the candidates for the Liberal leadership.” However, on Friday he noted that Joe Volpe and Scott Brison were exceptions to his assertions.
Now, what Harper said was inflammatory, but was it accurate?
Ignatieff’s aforementioned comments on Israel, and subsequent flip-flop on the issue, demonstrate that he is merely doing what he can to exploit the Israeli issue for political gain.
Gerard Kennedy issued the standard promises to recognize Israel’s right to exist and defend itself, but his supporters have been more vocal, accusing Israel of conducting ‘state terrorism’.
"We don't want to see any more terrorism, whether the terrorism of suicide bombers or launching rockets or state terrorism. This is state terrorism," said Kennedy supporter Boris Wrzesnewskyj.
Even more interesting are the comments of Kennedy supporter Thomas Hubert, who advocated eliminating all “Zionists” from the Liberal party. "The Liberal Party is stronger without these violent Zionists in our party. I am glad for them to cease influencing our foreign policy so we are free to promote Canadian values of peace. It amazes me that this community is so absurdly selfish. The only issue that matters to them is the defence of a "state" that survives on the blood of innocent people. Shameful.”
Harper has already admitted that Stephan Dion is not anti-Israel.
But as it relates to Bob Rae, Harper may be a little bit off. In a 2002 opinion article entitled “Parting Company with the NDP”, Rae (who is of Jewish descent) criticized what he believed to be a strong anti-Israel bias in the NDP.
On his website, www.Bobrae.ca, Rae even issued the following statement, “The issue is not simply Israel's right to defend itself - it is how to police a border, how to reduce tension, how to create the preconditions for dialogue. Israel has a right to live in peace within secure, internationally recognized borders. At the moment this clearly requires the presence of peace monitors. Lebanon cannot and will not do it and has called for a UN presence on its soil to assist in this. The UN must respond."
"Canada's further efforts need to focus on the refusal of both Hezbollah and Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. These radical groups, clearly fuelled by money and other assistance from Iran and Syria, point to the biggest obstacle to peace: an inability to accept Israel as a legitimate country in the region. Ideologies that cannot accept the presence of other people, with different religions, languages, and loyalties, are a profound threat to the peace of the world."
That is not, by any means, an anti-Israel statement.
For Harper, the leader of the federal Conservative party, commenting on the statements of the leading candidate for the Liberal leadership is perfectly legitimate. However, Harper needs to keep one important fact in mind.
In Canada, conservatives do not win on rhetoric. They have to win on facts.
Labelling all the candidates for the Liberal leadership as “anti-Israel” takes an issue that should be discussed in terms of fact, and transforms it into a rhetorical issue.
He should, at the very least, avoid making comments he can’t defend. As it pertains to two of the four frontrunners for the Liberal leadership, Harper can’t defend these comments.
However, in the cases of Ignatieff and Kennedy, defending their own comments (and those of their supporters) is a matter they should be good deal more concerned with. As the frontrunner, Ignatieff needs to be doubly concerned.
Conservatives Turf Turner
Bad fucking idea
Instructions for a political fiasco:
1. Get gun
2. Point at feet
3. Pull trigger
The Conservative party followed these instructions perfectly today, squeezing the trigger on the suspension of Garth Turner from the Conservative caucus.
Fuck.
Ever controversial, Turner was noted as being a politician that does not fit in with the stereotype of a Conservative. A small-c conservative with socially progressive views. Sure, he favors smaller government and lower taxes. He’s also a small-l liberal where it counts, favoring more rights for all Canadians.
The Conservative party claimed that Turner was violating the secrecy of caucus. There may be some truth for this. For example, in a recent weblog post, Turner speculated on the contents of the next federal budget, writing, “So, I'd wager the coming budget will look pretty much like this: another point off the GST, a drop in the income tax rate for the lowest bracket, the promised rollover in capital gains taxes for reinvested profits (look for a complicated new investment account to be created - Bay Street will love it), provisions for social benefits not be clawed back for lower-income workers, a lower growth forecast for the economy, an agricultural action plan, bringing in new income-support for farmers, [and] more middle-class tax credits aimed at family expenses.”
Now, if one considers that a budget discussion should take place under conditions of secrecy (I, personally, do not), this certainly does violate that secrecy.
The Conservative party has insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had nothing to do with Turner’s suspension, and even sustained from the national caucus vote that decided the issue.
Interestingly, many media outlets took this story as an opportunity to play a game of “get Harper”, asking questions insinuating that Harper was behind the decision. Neither Turner, nor any of his former colleagues confirmed any allegations.
Turner, for his part, has resolved to follow the wishes of his constituents. He has promised to hold town hall meetings in the next week before he decides what he will do. He has promised he will sit at a “caucus of one”, and will not join any of the other parties.
The Conservative party, however, has some very serious questions to answer. For a party that is garnering a reputation for secrecy, to suspend Turner in such a manner is simply a bone-headed move. Suddenly, the one answer to all the criticisms ideologues levy against the Conservative party has been banished to sit as an Independent.
Bigotry? Garth Turner.
Same sex marriage? Garth Turner.
Right-wing extremism? Garth Turner.
Garth Turner may have been the most prominent leftover from the Progressive Conservative party left in the Conservative party. No more. Mere hours after the suspension of Turner from the Conservative caucus, a new seating plan was released, with Turner sat on the other side of the house – far away from his former colleagues.
On Mike Duffy live, a fellow Conservative MP even suggested that Canadians may see Turner sit as a Liberal or NDP member in the next session of parliament – but not as a Conservative.
The Conservative Party has just distanced itself from the most valuable member of their caucus: their voice of conscientious dissent. This is something that is of incredible value to any party: it demonstrates variety within the opinions of that party.
With recent polls suggesting that the Conservatives and Liberals are tied in national polling, this is a move that could not have possibly came at a worse time. Turner is an MP the Conservative Party should have clutched near and dear to its heart.
If there is any sense left in the minds of the Conservative party, it is hopefully not too late to turn back the clock, and take Turner back.
Otherwise, Canadians may not like the answers the Conservatives have for the questions they will need to answer.
Instructions for a political fiasco:
1. Get gun
2. Point at feet
3. Pull trigger
The Conservative party followed these instructions perfectly today, squeezing the trigger on the suspension of Garth Turner from the Conservative caucus.
Fuck.
Ever controversial, Turner was noted as being a politician that does not fit in with the stereotype of a Conservative. A small-c conservative with socially progressive views. Sure, he favors smaller government and lower taxes. He’s also a small-l liberal where it counts, favoring more rights for all Canadians.
The Conservative party claimed that Turner was violating the secrecy of caucus. There may be some truth for this. For example, in a recent weblog post, Turner speculated on the contents of the next federal budget, writing, “So, I'd wager the coming budget will look pretty much like this: another point off the GST, a drop in the income tax rate for the lowest bracket, the promised rollover in capital gains taxes for reinvested profits (look for a complicated new investment account to be created - Bay Street will love it), provisions for social benefits not be clawed back for lower-income workers, a lower growth forecast for the economy, an agricultural action plan, bringing in new income-support for farmers, [and] more middle-class tax credits aimed at family expenses.”
Now, if one considers that a budget discussion should take place under conditions of secrecy (I, personally, do not), this certainly does violate that secrecy.
The Conservative party has insisted that Prime Minister Stephen Harper had nothing to do with Turner’s suspension, and even sustained from the national caucus vote that decided the issue.
Interestingly, many media outlets took this story as an opportunity to play a game of “get Harper”, asking questions insinuating that Harper was behind the decision. Neither Turner, nor any of his former colleagues confirmed any allegations.
Turner, for his part, has resolved to follow the wishes of his constituents. He has promised to hold town hall meetings in the next week before he decides what he will do. He has promised he will sit at a “caucus of one”, and will not join any of the other parties.
The Conservative party, however, has some very serious questions to answer. For a party that is garnering a reputation for secrecy, to suspend Turner in such a manner is simply a bone-headed move. Suddenly, the one answer to all the criticisms ideologues levy against the Conservative party has been banished to sit as an Independent.
Bigotry? Garth Turner.
Same sex marriage? Garth Turner.
Right-wing extremism? Garth Turner.
Garth Turner may have been the most prominent leftover from the Progressive Conservative party left in the Conservative party. No more. Mere hours after the suspension of Turner from the Conservative caucus, a new seating plan was released, with Turner sat on the other side of the house – far away from his former colleagues.
On Mike Duffy live, a fellow Conservative MP even suggested that Canadians may see Turner sit as a Liberal or NDP member in the next session of parliament – but not as a Conservative.
The Conservative Party has just distanced itself from the most valuable member of their caucus: their voice of conscientious dissent. This is something that is of incredible value to any party: it demonstrates variety within the opinions of that party.
With recent polls suggesting that the Conservatives and Liberals are tied in national polling, this is a move that could not have possibly came at a worse time. Turner is an MP the Conservative Party should have clutched near and dear to its heart.
If there is any sense left in the minds of the Conservative party, it is hopefully not too late to turn back the clock, and take Turner back.
Otherwise, Canadians may not like the answers the Conservatives have for the questions they will need to answer.
Friday, September 29, 2006
This Just In: Kimveer Gill Loved Megadeth, Megadeth Evil
CBC mischaracterizes Megadeth frontman's comments
Almost immediately following the September 13 Dawson College shooting, the media started focusing on gunman Kimveer Gill's adoption of the gothic subculture.
Evidently, Kimveer Gill was also a big fan of Megadeth, and especially the song "A Toute La Monde", a french-language song which he claimed convinced him to finally go on his shooting spree in Montreal.
"The guy who went to Dawson College and shot everyone, it's terrible," Mustane announced at a recent Montreal concert (where, as usual, they played A "Toute La Monde" -- it's become something of a Montreal/Megadeth tradition).
"Aside from the fact that what he did was very wrong, we have a relationship with Montreal, and that really pissed us off," he added. "That guy was not worthy of being a Megadeth fan."
Yet, for some reason, the CBC recently ran the story under the headline "Megadeth defends music Dawson College gunman loved." But judging by Mustane's own words, perhaps a better headline would have been, "Megadeth to gunman: "fuck you"."
Interestingly, Gill also pictured himself wearing a Kane mask (Kane, of course, being a current WWE superstar). Perhaps Glenn Jacobs can be accused of "defending the wrestler gunman loved".
So, it seems that whether the CBC is putting an editorial slant on "news" stories through headlines, putting an editorial slant on "news" stories by mixing and matching questions and answers (by the way, Christina Lewand, please meet me at footnote number one), or banning dissenting columnists from the people's network, the CBC seems to be entirely comfortable with setting a new low standard for Canadian journalism.
Given that the Canadian tax payer is paying for this little exercise in embarrassment, perhaps it is time for the Canadian public to be a good deal less comfortable with this.
1.)OK, Christina. What were you thinking? Sure, you must have thought you were pretty sly, with that whole violating journalistic ethics and matching Stephen Harper's answers to the wrong question thing. But you had to have known that press conference was also being broadcast on CTV. So, you got busted.
Stupid. Real stupid. Look, Christine, if you're going to not like Stephen Harper, that's fine. But be honest while you're doing it. What you did was basically a form of lying. Not a good road for a journalist to be travelling.
For most journalists, being caught doing something like this would be throwing your career away. Fortunately for yourself, you work for CBC.
Almost immediately following the September 13 Dawson College shooting, the media started focusing on gunman Kimveer Gill's adoption of the gothic subculture.
Evidently, Kimveer Gill was also a big fan of Megadeth, and especially the song "A Toute La Monde", a french-language song which he claimed convinced him to finally go on his shooting spree in Montreal.
"The guy who went to Dawson College and shot everyone, it's terrible," Mustane announced at a recent Montreal concert (where, as usual, they played A "Toute La Monde" -- it's become something of a Montreal/Megadeth tradition).
"Aside from the fact that what he did was very wrong, we have a relationship with Montreal, and that really pissed us off," he added. "That guy was not worthy of being a Megadeth fan."
Yet, for some reason, the CBC recently ran the story under the headline "Megadeth defends music Dawson College gunman loved." But judging by Mustane's own words, perhaps a better headline would have been, "Megadeth to gunman: "fuck you"."
Interestingly, Gill also pictured himself wearing a Kane mask (Kane, of course, being a current WWE superstar). Perhaps Glenn Jacobs can be accused of "defending the wrestler gunman loved".
So, it seems that whether the CBC is putting an editorial slant on "news" stories through headlines, putting an editorial slant on "news" stories by mixing and matching questions and answers (by the way, Christina Lewand, please meet me at footnote number one), or banning dissenting columnists from the people's network, the CBC seems to be entirely comfortable with setting a new low standard for Canadian journalism.
Given that the Canadian tax payer is paying for this little exercise in embarrassment, perhaps it is time for the Canadian public to be a good deal less comfortable with this.
1.)OK, Christina. What were you thinking? Sure, you must have thought you were pretty sly, with that whole violating journalistic ethics and matching Stephen Harper's answers to the wrong question thing. But you had to have known that press conference was also being broadcast on CTV. So, you got busted.
Stupid. Real stupid. Look, Christine, if you're going to not like Stephen Harper, that's fine. But be honest while you're doing it. What you did was basically a form of lying. Not a good road for a journalist to be travelling.
For most journalists, being caught doing something like this would be throwing your career away. Fortunately for yourself, you work for CBC.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Lebanon Conflict Presents Twin Conundrums for Canadian Leaders
There is no question that, for politicians, times of war and conflict tend to paint the most interesting portraits of them.
The current war in Lebanon has been no different for Canadian politicians. This conflict has proven to be a political conundrum in ways that few could ever expect. In fact, politicians representing both the governing Conservative party and the official opposition Liberal party have encountered twin conundrums in the form of the War in Lebanon.
Polls Present Harper With Another Lesson to Learn
For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this crisis has been a huge lesson in many respects. He's learned valuable lessons on the topics of crisis response, image management, and playing the role of a middle power. Now, Harper needs to learn the most important lesson of all: the lesson regarding how to properly determine the will of the people.
As the leader of a party with a strong populist element (courtesy of the influence of the Reform party, of which he himself was a charter member), this was a strength of Harper the party leader, and is going to continue to be a necessary skill for Harper the Prime Minister.
As previously reported, Harper quickly came out in support of Israel. Traditionally, Canada has been a reluctant ally of Israel. While Harper was criticized by his political opponents, Lebanese supporters, and critics of Israel, he was rewarded by praise from Canada's Jewish community (including a rally of more than 1,000 people at a Vancouver Synagogue).
But a recent poll conducted by the Strategic Council, CTV and The Globe and Mail found that 45% of Candians disagreed with Harper's stand on Israel. This would seem like a healthy number for a minority government -- perhaps even for a majority government -- Prime Minister, but the same poll found that only 32% explicitly agreed with him.
In Quebec, a whopping 61% of respondents disagreed with Harper's support of Israel's actions.
77% prescribed a neutral role for Canada. Only 12% believed the government is maintaining a neutral position.
While Canada traditionally supports Israel, during times of crisis, Canada has traditionally maintained the role of the third-party "honest broker".
During the 1956 Suez Canal crises, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lester Pearson made one of history's great political breakthroughs by advancing the idea of UN peacekeeping (this would net him the Nobel Peace Price in 1957). During the 1967 Six Day War, the Canadian government supported a UN resolution that called on Israel to remove its forces from the territories occupied during the course of the war. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Canada failed to condemn the surprise attack on Israel, but pledged peacekeeping forces. Finally, during the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, the Canadian government was first to criticize Israel's invasions of Lebanon.
53% of respondants favored the creation of a UN peacekeeping force to enter the region. 57% supported Canadian troops being a part of such a force. This is a strong contrast to the opinion expressed by Deputy Prime Minster Peter McKay, when he insisted, " a ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah."
While it is entirely questionable whether or not peace can ever occur so long as Hezbollah continues to exist, there is no question that Canadians favor peace in the Middle East. Abbortsford MP (representing the Conservative party) may have said it best recently. " There is no such thing as a dialogue for peace with people who are dedicated to violence and the destruction of a free and democratic nation," he said.
In the end, Harper's stand on Israel has done little to harm his party's popularity. While the Liberals made a three-point jump in the polls, the governing Conservatives also jumped a point. The Bloc Quebecois saw no change, while the NDP and the Green Party dropped three points, and a single point respectively.
But Harper's stance on Israel could prove to be costly down the road. Any minority government, by necessity, has to act on its populist urges. A minority government only becomes a majority government by serving the interests of the people.
Certainly, it is being shown that the Lebanon alone is not going to be the issue that denies the Conservative party the opportunity to form a majority government. But left untended, Harper's stance on Lebanon could cause serious problems for the party.
It seems they may have recognized this. Peter MacKay has lately begun advocating in favor of a conditional ceasefire. " There has to be a ceasefire," he said, " But certain conditions must be achieved to reach that stable, durable cessation of violence in the region."
MacKay has urged both sides to cease their attacks. He also called on Israel to show more restraint in their campaign, and upon Iran and Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah. " This has to be a lasting peace," he noted. " It cannot simply be a temporary solution to allow for the rearmament of a terrorist body, and simply begin the violence again."
This isn't so much a drastic shift in the stance Harper and MacKay have taken on the conflict, but it certainly does change the nature of the dialogue, from one that would allow Israel to confinue their conflict unabated by Canadian criticism to one that places the onus to pursue peace on both sides. It is not a neutral stance -- Canada is still supportive of Israel -- but it is a principled stand on the issue that condemns terrorism, but states respect for the value of peace.
That is certainly more in line with what polled Canadians have said they want. But there is still the matter of a percieved alignment with the foreign policy of the United States -- a move which would make a great many Canadians uncomfortable -- to be addressed.
Israel Acting on its Responsibility to Protect
Former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy wasted little time in voicing his criticisms over Harper's "measured response" comments.
" I am increasingly concerned about the view that the only role that Canada should play is to adhesively stick itself to Bush administration policies and at the very time when in fact those policies are increasingly showing that they are not working," Axworthy asserted. " [Harper is] almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right. We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Yet one of Lloyd Axworthy's chief accomplishments as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ICISS report The Responsibility to Protect (drafted on the topic of multilateral intervention during times of crisis) would actually disagree with him. The report states: "state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself."
So, according to his Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers posed by Hezbollah's rocket attacks.
Had Israel not lived up to its responsibility, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays out a very different prescription: " Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the internation responsibility to protect."
While the report is clearly dealing with issues of internal strife, one of the foundations of the doctrine is found in Article 24 of the UN chareter, which outlines the responsibility of the UN Security Council to maintain international peace and security. Thus, the applicability to international crises, and the current situation remains intact.
Hezbollah is a force internal to Lebanon (yet allegedly independent of the nation's government), which has willingly placed Lebanese civilians in peril by launching their attacks from Lebanese soil, then hiding amongst the civilian population -- essentially using them as human shields.
Because the Lebanese government has demostrated itself unwilling (or perhaps, unable) to deal with what by necessity becomes a threat to its people, the responsibility falls to external forces -- optimally the international community, but in this case, Israel.
Israel's failure to take into account its responsibility to avoid civilian casualties aside, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays the matter out very simply: Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Lebanon has the same responsibility. Should both, or either of these states fail to live up to their responsibility, the onus falls on the international community to saddle up and ride to the rescue.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has three base elements: the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild.
In this situation, the Lebanese government has clearly failed in its responsibility to prevent. There have been repeated calls by Israel, and by other members of the international community for Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government failed to do. Israel's hands were tied in this regard, because for Israel to deal with Hezbollah, they would have had to enter Lebanese territory with little or no provokation.
The Israeli government did not, however, fail to live up to its responsibilty to react. The reaction to attacks carried out on your territory is to respond -- even if this necessitates entering the territory of another sovereign state in order to do so.
What has yet to be seen is if either country will live up to its responsibilty to rebuild, which requires both states to provide full assistance with efforts to recover, rebuild, and reconcilliate -- indeed, if the last of these is even possible.
Israel can potentially find its justification under the "Just Cause" article of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This article states that, in order for military intervention (or response) to be warranted, there must be "serious and irreperable harm occuring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind: large scale loss of life -- actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act -- or large scale ethnic cleansing -- actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror, or rape.
When a terrorist organization starts launching rocket attacks on a country's territory, it can be expected that these attacks will result in deaths. But should the perpetrators of these attacks (in this case, Hezbollah) substitute a chemical weapon warhead for a less-effective explosive warhead (for example, mustard gas is remarkable easy to manufacture), "large scale loss of life" is a definite possibility. Under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel, in this situation, is required to act in order to prevent such an attack from occurring.
In situations where states fail to live up to these responsibilities, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine grants primary authority to authorize multilateral intervention to the UN Security Council -- which has forever been notoriously deadlocked on any issue related to Israel. So, in other words, unless Israel can deal with this problem itself, Israel is, frankly, screwed.
Axworthy likened the situation in Lebanon to that in Iraq, saying, "The morass in Iraq is such a talisman for everything that is going on."
Anyone familiar with the 1991 Gulf War will remember that the UN withdrew the mandate to use force against Saddam Hussein quickly following his surrender, even while he was commencing an oppressive military campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Had the Responsibility to Protect doctrine existed at the time, it certainly would have had to apply to the situation there.
On this note, it is said that hindsight is always 20/20. While this document obviously did no good at a time in which it did not exist, it cannot be used as support for preventative action that did not happen. But the Responsibility to Protect doctrine could be used to support actions long after the fact -- including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was done at least partially to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and at least partially for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people.
Even Axworthy himself called Iraq one of the most "chillingly oppressed" countries he had ever visited.
At the end of the day, the matter becomes very simple: Canada cannot advance itself as the world's foremost advocate of universal human rights if it would allow the citizens of Israel, a state at least officially considered an ally, to have their most base human rights -- the right to life -- threatened by an external force acting with impunity.
In a way, this was ultimately the point of The Responsibility to Protect.
Axworthy certainly may take a stand on the war in Lebanon if he likes. But criticizing Israel for exercising its right -- and fulfilling its responsibility -- to protect its citizens jeopardizes the value of some of his best work -- and it was very important work indeed.
The current war in Lebanon has been no different for Canadian politicians. This conflict has proven to be a political conundrum in ways that few could ever expect. In fact, politicians representing both the governing Conservative party and the official opposition Liberal party have encountered twin conundrums in the form of the War in Lebanon.
Polls Present Harper With Another Lesson to Learn
For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, this crisis has been a huge lesson in many respects. He's learned valuable lessons on the topics of crisis response, image management, and playing the role of a middle power. Now, Harper needs to learn the most important lesson of all: the lesson regarding how to properly determine the will of the people.
As the leader of a party with a strong populist element (courtesy of the influence of the Reform party, of which he himself was a charter member), this was a strength of Harper the party leader, and is going to continue to be a necessary skill for Harper the Prime Minister.
As previously reported, Harper quickly came out in support of Israel. Traditionally, Canada has been a reluctant ally of Israel. While Harper was criticized by his political opponents, Lebanese supporters, and critics of Israel, he was rewarded by praise from Canada's Jewish community (including a rally of more than 1,000 people at a Vancouver Synagogue).
But a recent poll conducted by the Strategic Council, CTV and The Globe and Mail found that 45% of Candians disagreed with Harper's stand on Israel. This would seem like a healthy number for a minority government -- perhaps even for a majority government -- Prime Minister, but the same poll found that only 32% explicitly agreed with him.
In Quebec, a whopping 61% of respondents disagreed with Harper's support of Israel's actions.
77% prescribed a neutral role for Canada. Only 12% believed the government is maintaining a neutral position.
While Canada traditionally supports Israel, during times of crisis, Canada has traditionally maintained the role of the third-party "honest broker".
During the 1956 Suez Canal crises, then-Foreign Affairs Minister Lester Pearson made one of history's great political breakthroughs by advancing the idea of UN peacekeeping (this would net him the Nobel Peace Price in 1957). During the 1967 Six Day War, the Canadian government supported a UN resolution that called on Israel to remove its forces from the territories occupied during the course of the war. During the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Canada failed to condemn the surprise attack on Israel, but pledged peacekeeping forces. Finally, during the 1975-1990 Lebanese civil war, the Canadian government was first to criticize Israel's invasions of Lebanon.
53% of respondants favored the creation of a UN peacekeeping force to enter the region. 57% supported Canadian troops being a part of such a force. This is a strong contrast to the opinion expressed by Deputy Prime Minster Peter McKay, when he insisted, " a ceasefire and a return to the status quo is a victory for Hezbollah."
While it is entirely questionable whether or not peace can ever occur so long as Hezbollah continues to exist, there is no question that Canadians favor peace in the Middle East. Abbortsford MP (representing the Conservative party) may have said it best recently. " There is no such thing as a dialogue for peace with people who are dedicated to violence and the destruction of a free and democratic nation," he said.
In the end, Harper's stand on Israel has done little to harm his party's popularity. While the Liberals made a three-point jump in the polls, the governing Conservatives also jumped a point. The Bloc Quebecois saw no change, while the NDP and the Green Party dropped three points, and a single point respectively.
But Harper's stance on Israel could prove to be costly down the road. Any minority government, by necessity, has to act on its populist urges. A minority government only becomes a majority government by serving the interests of the people.
Certainly, it is being shown that the Lebanon alone is not going to be the issue that denies the Conservative party the opportunity to form a majority government. But left untended, Harper's stance on Lebanon could cause serious problems for the party.
It seems they may have recognized this. Peter MacKay has lately begun advocating in favor of a conditional ceasefire. " There has to be a ceasefire," he said, " But certain conditions must be achieved to reach that stable, durable cessation of violence in the region."
MacKay has urged both sides to cease their attacks. He also called on Israel to show more restraint in their campaign, and upon Iran and Syria to stop supporting Hezbollah. " This has to be a lasting peace," he noted. " It cannot simply be a temporary solution to allow for the rearmament of a terrorist body, and simply begin the violence again."
This isn't so much a drastic shift in the stance Harper and MacKay have taken on the conflict, but it certainly does change the nature of the dialogue, from one that would allow Israel to confinue their conflict unabated by Canadian criticism to one that places the onus to pursue peace on both sides. It is not a neutral stance -- Canada is still supportive of Israel -- but it is a principled stand on the issue that condemns terrorism, but states respect for the value of peace.
That is certainly more in line with what polled Canadians have said they want. But there is still the matter of a percieved alignment with the foreign policy of the United States -- a move which would make a great many Canadians uncomfortable -- to be addressed.
Israel Acting on its Responsibility to Protect
Former minister of foreign affairs Lloyd Axworthy wasted little time in voicing his criticisms over Harper's "measured response" comments.
" I am increasingly concerned about the view that the only role that Canada should play is to adhesively stick itself to Bush administration policies and at the very time when in fact those policies are increasingly showing that they are not working," Axworthy asserted. " [Harper is] almost at the forefront of a very small group of nations who say whatever Israel does is right. We're becoming part of the problem, not part of the solution."
Yet one of Lloyd Axworthy's chief accomplishments as Minister of Foreign Affairs, the ICISS report The Responsibility to Protect (drafted on the topic of multilateral intervention during times of crisis) would actually disagree with him. The report states: "state sovereignty implies responsibility, and the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself."
So, according to his Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens from the dangers posed by Hezbollah's rocket attacks.
Had Israel not lived up to its responsibility, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays out a very different prescription: " Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the internation responsibility to protect."
While the report is clearly dealing with issues of internal strife, one of the foundations of the doctrine is found in Article 24 of the UN chareter, which outlines the responsibility of the UN Security Council to maintain international peace and security. Thus, the applicability to international crises, and the current situation remains intact.
Hezbollah is a force internal to Lebanon (yet allegedly independent of the nation's government), which has willingly placed Lebanese civilians in peril by launching their attacks from Lebanese soil, then hiding amongst the civilian population -- essentially using them as human shields.
Because the Lebanese government has demostrated itself unwilling (or perhaps, unable) to deal with what by necessity becomes a threat to its people, the responsibility falls to external forces -- optimally the international community, but in this case, Israel.
Israel's failure to take into account its responsibility to avoid civilian casualties aside, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine lays the matter out very simply: Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens. Lebanon has the same responsibility. Should both, or either of these states fail to live up to their responsibility, the onus falls on the international community to saddle up and ride to the rescue.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine has three base elements: the responsibility to prevent, the responsibility to react, and the responsibility to rebuild.
In this situation, the Lebanese government has clearly failed in its responsibility to prevent. There have been repeated calls by Israel, and by other members of the international community for Lebanon to deal with Hezbollah, which the Lebanese government failed to do. Israel's hands were tied in this regard, because for Israel to deal with Hezbollah, they would have had to enter Lebanese territory with little or no provokation.
The Israeli government did not, however, fail to live up to its responsibilty to react. The reaction to attacks carried out on your territory is to respond -- even if this necessitates entering the territory of another sovereign state in order to do so.
What has yet to be seen is if either country will live up to its responsibilty to rebuild, which requires both states to provide full assistance with efforts to recover, rebuild, and reconcilliate -- indeed, if the last of these is even possible.
Israel can potentially find its justification under the "Just Cause" article of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine. This article states that, in order for military intervention (or response) to be warranted, there must be "serious and irreperable harm occuring to human beings, or imminently likely to occur, of the following kind: large scale loss of life -- actual or apprehended, with genocidal intent or not, which is the product either of deliberate state action, or state neglect or inability to act -- or large scale ethnic cleansing -- actual or apprehended, whether carried out by killing, forced expulsion, acts of terror, or rape.
When a terrorist organization starts launching rocket attacks on a country's territory, it can be expected that these attacks will result in deaths. But should the perpetrators of these attacks (in this case, Hezbollah) substitute a chemical weapon warhead for a less-effective explosive warhead (for example, mustard gas is remarkable easy to manufacture), "large scale loss of life" is a definite possibility. Under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, Israel, in this situation, is required to act in order to prevent such an attack from occurring.
In situations where states fail to live up to these responsibilities, the Responsibility to Protect doctrine grants primary authority to authorize multilateral intervention to the UN Security Council -- which has forever been notoriously deadlocked on any issue related to Israel. So, in other words, unless Israel can deal with this problem itself, Israel is, frankly, screwed.
Axworthy likened the situation in Lebanon to that in Iraq, saying, "The morass in Iraq is such a talisman for everything that is going on."
Anyone familiar with the 1991 Gulf War will remember that the UN withdrew the mandate to use force against Saddam Hussein quickly following his surrender, even while he was commencing an oppressive military campaign against the Kurds in northern Iraq. Had the Responsibility to Protect doctrine existed at the time, it certainly would have had to apply to the situation there.
On this note, it is said that hindsight is always 20/20. While this document obviously did no good at a time in which it did not exist, it cannot be used as support for preventative action that did not happen. But the Responsibility to Protect doctrine could be used to support actions long after the fact -- including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which was done at least partially to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and at least partially for the benefit of the oppressed Iraqi people.
Even Axworthy himself called Iraq one of the most "chillingly oppressed" countries he had ever visited.
At the end of the day, the matter becomes very simple: Canada cannot advance itself as the world's foremost advocate of universal human rights if it would allow the citizens of Israel, a state at least officially considered an ally, to have their most base human rights -- the right to life -- threatened by an external force acting with impunity.
In a way, this was ultimately the point of The Responsibility to Protect.
Axworthy certainly may take a stand on the war in Lebanon if he likes. But criticizing Israel for exercising its right -- and fulfilling its responsibility -- to protect its citizens jeopardizes the value of some of his best work -- and it was very important work indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)