Showing posts with label Michael Ignatieff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Ignatieff. Show all posts
Thursday, June 30, 2011
ECW Fans Invade Michael Ignatieff Campaign Stop
The original, unedited footage of Michael Ignatieff and Nardwuar the Human Serviette from a Vancouver campaign stop during the 2011 federal election.
You wouldn't believe how many Bothans died to bring us this information.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Jack Layton For Leader of the Opposition
Ever since Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the Conservative Party to power in 2006, one word has been considered scandalous if so much as uttered by a Conservative:
Majority.
This has, of course, been driven as much by Liberal panic-mongering as anything else. But now, with the 2011 federal election steadily slipping away from the Liberals, they're working as hard as they can to make a certain word scandalous if so much as uttered by the NDP:
Leader. As in, "of the Opposition".
Following what appeared to be stagnating numbers early in the campaign, the NDP surge -- particularly in Quebec -- has had tongues wagging across Canada.
Michael Ignatieff, for one, is not happy about it.
"Come on, folks, let's be serious," Ignatieff implored. "We've got to choose a government on the 2nd of May; we can't choose a bunch of Boy Scouts on this issue."
Which is actually rather ironic when you think about it: Ignatieff and his fellow opposition leaders essentially told the Canadian public that they toppled the Harper government because they weren't Boy Scouts.
According to Ignatieff, what matters is that Canadians vote for the Liberals in order to avoid returning Stephen Harper to power.
"If you vote for Mr Layton, you're going to get a Harper minority government." Ignatieff forecasted. "If you vote for Mr Duceppe, you're going to get a Harper minority government."
Which, again, is funny when you think about it. To most people, Quebeckers shouldn't vote for the Bloc Quebecois because they're separatists. To Ignatieff, it's because not Quebeckers voting for the Bloc is good for him.
It's the kind of sentiment that gives ample cause for doubt about whether or not Ignatieff is fit to continue as Leader of the Opposition.
But while Ignatieff's stock is fading, another opposition leader continues to gather momentum in the leadership department. And, no, it isn't Gilles Duceppe.
That leader is Jack Layton. Speaking recently on the campaign trail, Layton indicated sound juggment on a matter of intense importance to Canadians: the Constitution.
Layton indicated that he would be open to re-opening the Constitution in order to secure Quebec's assent to that document. And as opposed to Pierre Trudeau, who rammed the Constitution through while a separatist government was in power in Quebec, Layton wants to wait until "the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec" exist.
Needless to say, Layton is gambling. Canadians don't exactly look back on the last rounds of Constitutional wranglings -- the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords -- with fond memories.
Yet Layton is clearly well-attuned to the problems the state of Canada's Constitution -- with Quebec not a signatory to that document -- pose to the country.
"What we're saying is that at some point in the future the whole issue of the fact that Quebec hasn't signed on to our Constitution has got to be dealt with," Layton remarked. "But the first step is getting rid of the Stephen Harper government and putting in place a government that can actually work with not only the people of Quebec, but right across the country, and stop this division that we've been getting for far too long."
Quebec isn't the only waning hole in the country's Constitutional unity. Canada's First Nations have yet to achieve a satisfactory position within the British North America Act.
But if Layton is going to be involved in Constitutional negotiations, it's imperative that those negotiations take place under a Conservative government. If Layton is able to direct such constitutional discussions from the driver's seat, God only knows what kind of disaster will ensue.
One could rest assured that Layton would do everything he can to institutionalize some rather extreme leftist principles in the Constitution. The idea of Libby Davies with a pen at the Constitutional table should send a chill down the spines of any thinking Canadian. (Read: not the kind who vote for Davies.)
All this being said, the Constitution is a key issue for Canada, whether Canadians welcome it or not. Jack Layton's understanding of this is another key marker demonstrating that he's ready to sit in the Opposition's big chair.
Jack Layton would make an excellent Leader of the Opposition... opposing a Stephen Harper majority government.
Conservatives Earning Support on Israel Issue
Under Tories, Canada a loyal ally to Jewish state
Canadians of many political inclinations often express concern at election time that foreign policy is not prominent enough at election time.
This election, it has taken turns at centre stage. But in many ridings, such as Ken Dryden's riding of York Centre, foreign policy -- particularly pertaining to Israel -- is rarely far from the forefront.
In Toronto-area riding York Centre, the Liberal vote has largely been about two groups: the Italian vote and the Jewish vote.
"The biggest change that's happened is that at one time, there were two very strong Liberal supporting communities in this riding, one was the Italian community and the other was the Jewish community," Dryden remarked. "The Italian community is still strong for the most part in supporting the Liberals and the Jewish community, many of them have shifted and are supporting the Conservatives."
As noted here previously, some of that shift can be attributed to dirty campaigning by the Conservatives. There's no reason whatsoever to write the Tories a free pass for it.
But some of that shift can be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives are earning that support by virtue of strong policy on Israel.
The fact that the Conservative Party policy on Israel -- namely, that Canada will support its allies instead of remaining silent when it matters -- appeals to the people who understand best precisely how important Israel is.
This isn't to say that the Liberal Party has, by any means, entirely derelicted the Israel issue. It was a Liberal Party government that outlawed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in Canada. That clearly counts.
But so does moral support when Israel acts to defend itself. This is something the Liberals proved far less willing to provide. For example, in 2006, after Israel had moved to protect itself from attacks by Hezbollah, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of "war crimes". He later apologized for the remark. Two years later.
By the same mark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Israel's response to be "a measured response". Which, regardless of the outrage of the far-left, it was.
In 2006, Israel was actually discharging its responsibilities under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which basically states that the sovereignty of states is dependent on the government acting to protect its citizens, and respect their human rights.
Simply put, if Israel had not acted to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, the international community would have been responsible to do it. Unfortuantely, the international community would have been unlikely to act discharge that responsibility.
With Dryden facing the most difficult election of his political career, he may be reaping the whirlwind of Ignatieff's failure to act as a strong ally of Israel. Conservative candidate Mark Adler may be reaping the benefits of Harper's support.
"When I go door to door in the Jewish area, people are totally aware of the Harper record on Israel and the previous Liberal administration's record on Israel," Adler said. "The Jewish community is aware of Michael Ignatieff's comments with respect to Israel, claiming that Israel has committed war crimes in Lebanon."
There is, by no means, any guarantee that the Israel issue will carry the riding in York-Centre, or anywhere else. But the Tory shift in support in the Jewish community has been hard-fought, and (mostly) well-earned.
Canadians of many political inclinations often express concern at election time that foreign policy is not prominent enough at election time.
This election, it has taken turns at centre stage. But in many ridings, such as Ken Dryden's riding of York Centre, foreign policy -- particularly pertaining to Israel -- is rarely far from the forefront.
In Toronto-area riding York Centre, the Liberal vote has largely been about two groups: the Italian vote and the Jewish vote.
"The biggest change that's happened is that at one time, there were two very strong Liberal supporting communities in this riding, one was the Italian community and the other was the Jewish community," Dryden remarked. "The Italian community is still strong for the most part in supporting the Liberals and the Jewish community, many of them have shifted and are supporting the Conservatives."
As noted here previously, some of that shift can be attributed to dirty campaigning by the Conservatives. There's no reason whatsoever to write the Tories a free pass for it.
But some of that shift can be attributed to the fact that the Conservatives are earning that support by virtue of strong policy on Israel.
The fact that the Conservative Party policy on Israel -- namely, that Canada will support its allies instead of remaining silent when it matters -- appeals to the people who understand best precisely how important Israel is.
This isn't to say that the Liberal Party has, by any means, entirely derelicted the Israel issue. It was a Liberal Party government that outlawed Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist organizations in Canada. That clearly counts.
But so does moral support when Israel acts to defend itself. This is something the Liberals proved far less willing to provide. For example, in 2006, after Israel had moved to protect itself from attacks by Hezbollah, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff accused Israel of "war crimes". He later apologized for the remark. Two years later.
By the same mark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper declared Israel's response to be "a measured response". Which, regardless of the outrage of the far-left, it was.
In 2006, Israel was actually discharging its responsibilities under the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, which basically states that the sovereignty of states is dependent on the government acting to protect its citizens, and respect their human rights.
Simply put, if Israel had not acted to curtail Hezbollah's attacks on Israeli civilians, the international community would have been responsible to do it. Unfortuantely, the international community would have been unlikely to act discharge that responsibility.
With Dryden facing the most difficult election of his political career, he may be reaping the whirlwind of Ignatieff's failure to act as a strong ally of Israel. Conservative candidate Mark Adler may be reaping the benefits of Harper's support.
"When I go door to door in the Jewish area, people are totally aware of the Harper record on Israel and the previous Liberal administration's record on Israel," Adler said. "The Jewish community is aware of Michael Ignatieff's comments with respect to Israel, claiming that Israel has committed war crimes in Lebanon."
There is, by no means, any guarantee that the Israel issue will carry the riding in York-Centre, or anywhere else. But the Tory shift in support in the Jewish community has been hard-fought, and (mostly) well-earned.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
This Could Harm Michael Ignatieff's Prospects, But It Shouldn't
Ignatieff linked to Iraq war planning
With the Canadian left constantly willing to trot out Prime Minister Stephen Harper's early support for the Iraq War, one can only wonder how Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's early involvement in the planning of that war will impact the electoral prospects of the Liberal Party.
It will probably hurt them. But it honestly shouldn't.
On its face, the suggestion that Ignatieff was involved in war planning would suggest that he was helping select targets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ignatieff's involvement was as part of an academic advisory group whose goal was integral to any attempt at responsibly prosecuting such a war: namely, the reduction of civilian casualties.
Of course, this hasn't stopped Ignatieff from being critical of pre-war planning.
"First of all, there was some real failures in post-invasion planning," Ignatieff declared in a 2003 Charlie Rose interview. “I saw matrices, you know, checklists compiled by, you know, the department of the army and army planners. They had some of the stuff that you'd want on a good post-invasion checklist, but what I think happened on that side was the military victory occurred so quickly that the post-invasion followup just didn't get generated fast enough."
Considering that Ignatieff was involved in planning the campaign, he could bear some responsibility for that failure. Then again, details are not clear as to whether or not Ignatieff was actually involved in any post-invasion planning.
The work Ignatieff and the Carr Centre did for the Pentagon is extremely laudible work. It should be a credit to Ignatieff.
But considering the stance his party has repeatedly taken toward the Iraq War, it will be hard for Michael Ignatieff to avoid. Which is genuinely a shame.
With the Canadian left constantly willing to trot out Prime Minister Stephen Harper's early support for the Iraq War, one can only wonder how Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's early involvement in the planning of that war will impact the electoral prospects of the Liberal Party.
It will probably hurt them. But it honestly shouldn't.
On its face, the suggestion that Ignatieff was involved in war planning would suggest that he was helping select targets. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Ignatieff's involvement was as part of an academic advisory group whose goal was integral to any attempt at responsibly prosecuting such a war: namely, the reduction of civilian casualties.
Of course, this hasn't stopped Ignatieff from being critical of pre-war planning.
"First of all, there was some real failures in post-invasion planning," Ignatieff declared in a 2003 Charlie Rose interview. “I saw matrices, you know, checklists compiled by, you know, the department of the army and army planners. They had some of the stuff that you'd want on a good post-invasion checklist, but what I think happened on that side was the military victory occurred so quickly that the post-invasion followup just didn't get generated fast enough."
Considering that Ignatieff was involved in planning the campaign, he could bear some responsibility for that failure. Then again, details are not clear as to whether or not Ignatieff was actually involved in any post-invasion planning.
The work Ignatieff and the Carr Centre did for the Pentagon is extremely laudible work. It should be a credit to Ignatieff.
But considering the stance his party has repeatedly taken toward the Iraq War, it will be hard for Michael Ignatieff to avoid. Which is genuinely a shame.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Patrick Brazeau 1, Liberal Party 0
Brazeau cajoles Ignatieff into rejecting voter subsidy for controversial candidate
Senator Patrick Brazeau's tenure in the Senate hasn't been without its share of controversy.
But since the 2011 election campaign got underway, Brazeau -- former National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and a Stephen Harper appointee -- has been like a house on fire.
Of course it isn't as if the Liberals haven't given him enough help. In the Liberal candidate for Manicouagan, the Liberals provided him with a convenient target to attack.
Forbes, of course, is the controversial candidate who described aboriginals as "featherheads". His candidacy has cast doubt not only on the Liberal Party's vetting of its candidates, but also on its ability to respond appropriately when it's uncovered that a candidate is unsuitable.
Forbes is staying in the election, and although he is billing himself as an independent, he'll appear on the ballot as a Liberal.
Which has presented the problem of the Liberal Party receiving per-vote subsidy cash from Forbes' campaign totals; funds Brazeau declared the Liberal Party should reject.
“The racist and hurtful comments by Mr Ignatieff’s candidate in Manicouagan set our society back and threaten to undo the progress we have made together,” Brazeau declared in a statement. “To think that Mr Ignatieff’s Liberal Party will now financially benefit from each vote received by Mr Forbes is an insult to all Canadians and taxpayers."
"This isn’t the vision of Canada that we believe in, and this is hardly the example of the Canada that we want our children to know and love,” Brazeau concluded.
Liberal spokesman Marc Roy declared that the Liberals would oblige Brazeau.
“Any vote subsidies that come in will be returned to Elections Canada,” explained Roy. “For Elections Canada procedures, we can’t remove him from the ballot. He is not running on the Liberal slate and is not endorsed.”
An even better move would be to take those funds and donate them to a charity assisting troubled Aboriginal youths. But so long as the Forbes subsidy isn't lacing the Liberal Party's coffers, that's the important thing.
So rack that up as a small -- but important -- victory for Patrick Brazeau.
Senator Patrick Brazeau's tenure in the Senate hasn't been without its share of controversy.
But since the 2011 election campaign got underway, Brazeau -- former National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and a Stephen Harper appointee -- has been like a house on fire.
Of course it isn't as if the Liberals haven't given him enough help. In the Liberal candidate for Manicouagan, the Liberals provided him with a convenient target to attack.
Forbes, of course, is the controversial candidate who described aboriginals as "featherheads". His candidacy has cast doubt not only on the Liberal Party's vetting of its candidates, but also on its ability to respond appropriately when it's uncovered that a candidate is unsuitable.
Forbes is staying in the election, and although he is billing himself as an independent, he'll appear on the ballot as a Liberal.
Which has presented the problem of the Liberal Party receiving per-vote subsidy cash from Forbes' campaign totals; funds Brazeau declared the Liberal Party should reject.
"This isn’t the vision of Canada that we believe in, and this is hardly the example of the Canada that we want our children to know and love,” Brazeau concluded.
Liberal spokesman Marc Roy declared that the Liberals would oblige Brazeau.
“Any vote subsidies that come in will be returned to Elections Canada,” explained Roy. “For Elections Canada procedures, we can’t remove him from the ballot. He is not running on the Liberal slate and is not endorsed.”
An even better move would be to take those funds and donate them to a charity assisting troubled Aboriginal youths. But so long as the Forbes subsidy isn't lacing the Liberal Party's coffers, that's the important thing.
So rack that up as a small -- but important -- victory for Patrick Brazeau.
Monday, April 04, 2011
Cap-and-Trade Bad For Saskatchewan, Bad For the West
Ignatieff's green plan could be Green Shift II
Looking back on the 2008 federal election, it becomes clear that then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion's vaunted green shift -- which would have re-designed Canada's tax system around a carbon tax -- was a millstone around the neck of the Liberal Party.
While Dion took the blame for that defeat, the carbon tax itself was actually an idea adopted from the current Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff. With Ignatieff now proposing a cap-and-trade system in the place of that carbon tax, he's again provoking serious concerns regarding its effect on Canadian industry.
For his own part, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has been trying to stay out of the 2011 federal election. But as the Premier of a province that would be hit hard by the proposed cap-and-trade scheme, Wall has been forced to start speaking out.
Cap-and-trade, he points out, would be bad not only for Saskatchewan, but for the west as a whole.
"There's already been speculation in the media that it could be very costly to the industry in Western Canada, to Alberta and Saskatchewan, not just to oilsands but to the fossil fuels industry," Wall explained.
Wall would be prepared to consider a cap-and-trade system if he could secure assurances that the funds accrued through the trading would remain in the province in which they are paid.
"We need assurances from all parties that if provinces are serious about dealing with the issue, and we are, that any proceeds from fines related to emissions stays in our province," Wall announced.
"Cap-and-trade is different," he declared. "Cap-and-trade is very much about a wealth transfer because it can't respect borders by definition. That's certainly the cap-and-trade that I understand. That's the one that some of the central Canadian provinces want."
It's also approximately what then-Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff said the Green Shift would do in 2008. Boshcoff was defeated by now-Conservative MP John Rafferty in the 2008 federal election, but is now running again.
"If it's different than that, that's what we need to know and we should know it soon," Wall insisted.
But if Michael Ignatieff approaches his Green Plan the same way Stephane Dion approached the Green Shift, Canadians should expect to not know precisely what this Green Plan entails. Dion evaded questions about how a Liberal government would replace falling revenue from a carbon tax. Until Ignatieff becomes more forthcoming, Canadians -- Brad Wall included -- shouldn't hold their breath waiting to hear the details.
Looking back on the 2008 federal election, it becomes clear that then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion's vaunted green shift -- which would have re-designed Canada's tax system around a carbon tax -- was a millstone around the neck of the Liberal Party.
While Dion took the blame for that defeat, the carbon tax itself was actually an idea adopted from the current Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff. With Ignatieff now proposing a cap-and-trade system in the place of that carbon tax, he's again provoking serious concerns regarding its effect on Canadian industry.
For his own part, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has been trying to stay out of the 2011 federal election. But as the Premier of a province that would be hit hard by the proposed cap-and-trade scheme, Wall has been forced to start speaking out.
Cap-and-trade, he points out, would be bad not only for Saskatchewan, but for the west as a whole.
Wall would be prepared to consider a cap-and-trade system if he could secure assurances that the funds accrued through the trading would remain in the province in which they are paid.
"We need assurances from all parties that if provinces are serious about dealing with the issue, and we are, that any proceeds from fines related to emissions stays in our province," Wall announced.
"Cap-and-trade is different," he declared. "Cap-and-trade is very much about a wealth transfer because it can't respect borders by definition. That's certainly the cap-and-trade that I understand. That's the one that some of the central Canadian provinces want."
It's also approximately what then-Liberal MP Ken Boshcoff said the Green Shift would do in 2008. Boshcoff was defeated by now-Conservative MP John Rafferty in the 2008 federal election, but is now running again.
"If it's different than that, that's what we need to know and we should know it soon," Wall insisted.
But if Michael Ignatieff approaches his Green Plan the same way Stephane Dion approached the Green Shift, Canadians should expect to not know precisely what this Green Plan entails. Dion evaded questions about how a Liberal government would replace falling revenue from a carbon tax. Until Ignatieff becomes more forthcoming, Canadians -- Brad Wall included -- shouldn't hold their breath waiting to hear the details.
Friday, April 01, 2011
An Alternative Reform of Campaign Finance
Harper plans to cut per-vote subsidies
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
With Prime Minister Stephen Harper continually reminding Canadians about the ill-fated socialist/separatist coalition then-Liberal leader Stephane Dion cobbled together in the wake of the 2008 election, no one needed a reminder.
But Harper sent just such a reminder today, when he announced that he would eliminate the per-vote subsidy political parties receive in the wake of an election.
"Taxpayers shouldn't have to support political parties that they don't support," Harper declared. "[It's] this enormous check that keeps piling into political parties every month, whether they've raised any money or not, that means we're constantly having campaigns. The war chests are always full."
Harper says that he plans to end the continuous threat of an election by cutting those funds off, leaving parties to fundraise on their own.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff responded with a blatant fear-mongering attack.
"We have a democratic system at the right price -- it's economical, it creates a level playing field," Ignatieff declared. "If he wants to attack it he will face the resistance of all parties."
"Do you defend Canadian democracy or do you want to import American-style democracy into this country?" Ignatieff asked. "I don't think so, because you get big money, you get corruption, you get all the problems that bedevil American democracy."
If only it were so. Harper's bid to eliminate the per-vote subsidy does not, on its own, re-open the door for corporate or union money to reenter Canadian partisan politics, even if Elizabeth May -- far from a renowned constitutional scholar -- seems to think that it should.
If Ignatieff were wise, he would offer some kind of alternative reform to keep the per-vote subsidy alive.
He would begin by proposing that any party wishing to receive the per-vote subsidy must run candidates in a minimum of 75% or 80% of Canada's ridings. Right now, there is only one major party that doesn't do this: the Bloc Quebecois.
Frankly, federalist Canadians are offended that the Bloc Quebecois, a country that wants to break Canada apart, gets to make their pitch to do so on the taxpayer dime. Ignatieff would not only win the approval of Canadians by cutting the Bloc out, he would also restore his party's tarnished image as a stalwart of federalism.
Ignatieff would further propose that any party that wants to receive the per-vote subsidy elect their leaders through a primary election process.
As respected a Canadian journalist as John Ibbitson proposed this very idea in Open & Shut. While many adherents of Canada's opposition parties would likely denounce this kind of reform as "too American", it would actually make Canada's electoral politics far more democratic and responsive than they are today.
As Ibbitson himself notes, without the primary process, Barack Obama could have never been nominated for President, let alone could he have won. (Although the results of Obama's tenure cast doubt on whether this was actually for the best.)
It would be a simple choice for Canadian political parties: they could choose to be open and democratic, and be rewarded with public support, or they could choose to be insular and parochial -- and receive no such reward.
But Canadian voters should expect Michael Ignatieff to make no such proposal. He's too busy fear-mongering in the current election while accusing Stephen Harper of doing it.
So far as campaign finance reform goes, such an implicitly democratic reform is just a sweet, sweet dream.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
For the Far Left, Defeat for Canada is Victory For Themselves
The ideologically parochial left has reminded Canadians what they really care about
Observers of US politics may remember the outrage that many Americans felt when the Republican Party was caught celebrating Chicago's failure to win its bid to host the Olympics.
US President Barack Obama had lent his political star power -- strong at the time, but waning ever since -- to the bid. Republicans crowed that the loss of the Chicago Olympic bid was a defeat for Obama.
Commentators such as Rachel Maddow condemned the Republicans for having cheered against their own country. They were right to do so.
Today, as Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, it's worth taking some time out to identify those Canadians who are almost certainly celebrating Canada's defeat; and celebrating it for partisan or ideological gain.
Canadians like Michael Ignatieff, who suggested that Stephen Harper's government hasn't earned a seat on the Security Council. Canadians like Murray Dobbin, who spewed a bizarre diatribe about US imperialism laden with anti-Israel rhetoric. Canadians like Robert Fowler. Canadians like Paul Heinbecker.
Reportedly, among the Canadians who cheered against Canada receiving a Security Council seat wasn't former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper's commitment to child and maternal health at the G8 and G20 summits.
"You don't have to use the words human security. It is a reflection of the same view that there are a lot of vulnerable people in the world, who are not given the protection of the laws in their own countries," Axworthy said. "It's two years that could really be a very innovative time for Canada coming out of the G8 and G20 and other initiatives."
Axworthy was more than willing to put partisanship aside for his country. It's a shame that those with a partisan or ideological motive to ignore Canada's increased international profile won't do the same.
It's not that they can't. It's just that they won;t.
They're too outraged that Canada won't sacrifice its own interests by blindly backing the global left-wing agenda -- things such as the scientifically-invalid consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
The ideologically-selfish and parochial far left has reminded Canadians what they really care about: their extreme agenda, and nothing else. They celebrate when Canada loses on the global stage because they believe that defeat will advance their agenda in the hearts and minds of Canadians.
But Canada's sparse collection of far-left ideologues may be shocked to see this turn against them.
"Most Canadians believe — and this is born out in public opinion polls — that partisan politics stops at our borders and we should speak with one voice on the world stage," explains Carleton Unviersity's Fen Hampson. "Whether we have 'earned' it or not, Canadians want to see us secure a seat on the Security Council."
"Partisans of all political stripes and diplomatic persuasions should tread carefully, especially on matters like this where Canadians expect their leaders to take the high road," he concludes.
Unsurprisingly, Canada's far left simply won't take the high road. Not when there's ideological gain to be had.
For them, Canada's defeat on the global stage is victory for themselves.
Observers of US politics may remember the outrage that many Americans felt when the Republican Party was caught celebrating Chicago's failure to win its bid to host the Olympics.
US President Barack Obama had lent his political star power -- strong at the time, but waning ever since -- to the bid. Republicans crowed that the loss of the Chicago Olympic bid was a defeat for Obama.
Commentators such as Rachel Maddow condemned the Republicans for having cheered against their own country. They were right to do so.
Today, as Canada withdrew its bid for a seat on the UN Security Council, it's worth taking some time out to identify those Canadians who are almost certainly celebrating Canada's defeat; and celebrating it for partisan or ideological gain.
Canadians like Michael Ignatieff, who suggested that Stephen Harper's government hasn't earned a seat on the Security Council. Canadians like Murray Dobbin, who spewed a bizarre diatribe about US imperialism laden with anti-Israel rhetoric. Canadians like Robert Fowler. Canadians like Paul Heinbecker.
Reportedly, among the Canadians who cheered against Canada receiving a Security Council seat wasn't former Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy, who praised Prime Minister Stephen Harper's commitment to child and maternal health at the G8 and G20 summits.
"You don't have to use the words human security. It is a reflection of the same view that there are a lot of vulnerable people in the world, who are not given the protection of the laws in their own countries," Axworthy said. "It's two years that could really be a very innovative time for Canada coming out of the G8 and G20 and other initiatives."
Axworthy was more than willing to put partisanship aside for his country. It's a shame that those with a partisan or ideological motive to ignore Canada's increased international profile won't do the same.
It's not that they can't. It's just that they won;t.
They're too outraged that Canada won't sacrifice its own interests by blindly backing the global left-wing agenda -- things such as the scientifically-invalid consensus on anthropogenic climate change.
The ideologically-selfish and parochial far left has reminded Canadians what they really care about: their extreme agenda, and nothing else. They celebrate when Canada loses on the global stage because they believe that defeat will advance their agenda in the hearts and minds of Canadians.
But Canada's sparse collection of far-left ideologues may be shocked to see this turn against them.
"Most Canadians believe — and this is born out in public opinion polls — that partisan politics stops at our borders and we should speak with one voice on the world stage," explains Carleton Unviersity's Fen Hampson. "Whether we have 'earned' it or not, Canadians want to see us secure a seat on the Security Council."
"Partisans of all political stripes and diplomatic persuasions should tread carefully, especially on matters like this where Canadians expect their leaders to take the high road," he concludes.
Unsurprisingly, Canada's far left simply won't take the high road. Not when there's ideological gain to be had.
For them, Canada's defeat on the global stage is victory for themselves.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
With Whom Would Gerard Kennedy Negotiate?
Kennedy allows his anti-Americanism to shine through
As Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy's bill to grant war resisters safe haven in Canada progresses closer to its second reading, Kennedy is suddenly speaking the language of compromise.
He says he's willing to compromise on the bill, which currently calls for Canada to become a safe haven for conscientious objectors anywhere in the world.
"It's not a requirement for me that that very broad principle now be ensconced in the Immigration and Refugee Act," Kennedy said.
No. Instead, he's more than willing to see his act reduced to making Canada a haven for American war resisters... and American war resisters alone.
Which should really remind Canadians of what this bill is really about: trying to solidify the Liberal Party's stance with voters of the far-left, for whom anything opposing US interests is a good thing -- even when shielding individuals who volunteered for military service, often after the contentious war in Iraq began.
Even Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff -- who is quickly embracing the role of say-anything Grit leader -- is getting in on the act.
"You don't let just anybody in," Ignatieff said. "They have to prove that they have a substantial objection of conscience to forced military service."
"The issue here -- and that's why we want to get it into committee -- is the issue of stop-loss, the issue of where you enlist and whether you're compelled to re-enlist," he explained.
If stop-loss has really been the issue, that would be news. After all, Kennedy's bill doesn't specifically state that it applies solely to stop-lossed servicepersons.
Nor is there any reason to think that Kennedy will consent to have his bill re-written to reflect that. It isn't a compromise that Kennedy has publicly offered. Moreover, the prospect of so-called "conscientious objectors" who haven't been stop-lossed being deported back to the US as they should be would undermine the bill's promise of cheap partisan gain.
But this is all really a moot point.
Perhaps Gerard Kennedy should be reaching out to the Barack Obama administration that the Liberal Party allegedly favours to find out what kind of a compromise he can work out with them.
There's little chance of that. But if Kennedy's bill were about anything other than cheap partisan gain, it's one of the first things he would be doing.
As Liberal MP Gerard Kennedy's bill to grant war resisters safe haven in Canada progresses closer to its second reading, Kennedy is suddenly speaking the language of compromise.
He says he's willing to compromise on the bill, which currently calls for Canada to become a safe haven for conscientious objectors anywhere in the world.
"It's not a requirement for me that that very broad principle now be ensconced in the Immigration and Refugee Act," Kennedy said.
No. Instead, he's more than willing to see his act reduced to making Canada a haven for American war resisters... and American war resisters alone.
Which should really remind Canadians of what this bill is really about: trying to solidify the Liberal Party's stance with voters of the far-left, for whom anything opposing US interests is a good thing -- even when shielding individuals who volunteered for military service, often after the contentious war in Iraq began.
Even Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff -- who is quickly embracing the role of say-anything Grit leader -- is getting in on the act.
"You don't let just anybody in," Ignatieff said. "They have to prove that they have a substantial objection of conscience to forced military service."
"The issue here -- and that's why we want to get it into committee -- is the issue of stop-loss, the issue of where you enlist and whether you're compelled to re-enlist," he explained.
If stop-loss has really been the issue, that would be news. After all, Kennedy's bill doesn't specifically state that it applies solely to stop-lossed servicepersons.
Nor is there any reason to think that Kennedy will consent to have his bill re-written to reflect that. It isn't a compromise that Kennedy has publicly offered. Moreover, the prospect of so-called "conscientious objectors" who haven't been stop-lossed being deported back to the US as they should be would undermine the bill's promise of cheap partisan gain.
But this is all really a moot point.
Perhaps Gerard Kennedy should be reaching out to the Barack Obama administration that the Liberal Party allegedly favours to find out what kind of a compromise he can work out with them.
There's little chance of that. But if Kennedy's bill were about anything other than cheap partisan gain, it's one of the first things he would be doing.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Long-Gun Registry and the Triumph of Divisive Politics
Opposition uses long-gun registry as wedge issue
With Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland's bill to kill Candice Hoeppner's bill to scrap the long-gun registry adpoted by the House of Commons, the opposition is waxing triumphally.
They're accusing the Conservative Party of divisive politics, while they themselves divide Canadians.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff hasn't been the worst of them -- it's tough to decide whether to impart that distinction on Holland or on the Bloc Quebecoi's Maria Mourani -- but he hasn't shied away from it, either.
"We stood with victims, we stood with emergency room doctors, we stood with the police and the Mounties, all of whom say we need a long-gun registry for the public security of Canadians," Ignatieff insisted. "If you care about public safety in this country, you want a gun registry. Period."
If only it were really so.
Ignatieff and his fellow proponents of the long-gun registry emotionally blackmailed Canadians by insisting that the long-gun registry was a "memorial" to the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims. He stood on-side with police chiefs who accepted a $115,000 donation from the company that produces the software for the long-gun registry, and with the RCMP who possessed a clear incentive to describe the registry as a success under their administration.
Moreover, Canadians who legitimately care about public safety in Canada fully understand that the long-gun registry doesn't serve public safety. It has never prevented gun crimes, and hasn't saved a single life.
Moreover, it's entirely useless to police -- and nearly any front-line police officer in Canada will tell you that.
When it becomes clear that there is not even one single, solitary fact that supports maintaining the long-gun registry, it becomes clear what the proponents of the registry are doing: they're using it as a wedge issue to divide Canadians.
Nearly all of them are extremely eager to accuse the Conservatives of doing the same. But it's an incredibly disingenuous argument.
It's been proponents of the registry that have crowed about its importance to urban Canadians. It's been the proponents of the registry that have tried to guilt Canadians into supporting it by reminding them of past tragedies that not only would the long-gun registry not have prevented, but the long-gun registry hasn't prevented repeats.
The facts speak for themselves. But proponents of the long-gun registry won't tolerate to have the facts debated.
They'd rather divide Canadians and reap the rewards for themselves. But rural Liberal and NDP MPs may find themselves instead paying the price in an upcoming election.
With Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland's bill to kill Candice Hoeppner's bill to scrap the long-gun registry adpoted by the House of Commons, the opposition is waxing triumphally.
They're accusing the Conservative Party of divisive politics, while they themselves divide Canadians.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff hasn't been the worst of them -- it's tough to decide whether to impart that distinction on Holland or on the Bloc Quebecoi's Maria Mourani -- but he hasn't shied away from it, either.
"We stood with victims, we stood with emergency room doctors, we stood with the police and the Mounties, all of whom say we need a long-gun registry for the public security of Canadians," Ignatieff insisted. "If you care about public safety in this country, you want a gun registry. Period."
If only it were really so.
Ignatieff and his fellow proponents of the long-gun registry emotionally blackmailed Canadians by insisting that the long-gun registry was a "memorial" to the L'Ecole Polytechnique victims. He stood on-side with police chiefs who accepted a $115,000 donation from the company that produces the software for the long-gun registry, and with the RCMP who possessed a clear incentive to describe the registry as a success under their administration.
Moreover, Canadians who legitimately care about public safety in Canada fully understand that the long-gun registry doesn't serve public safety. It has never prevented gun crimes, and hasn't saved a single life.
Moreover, it's entirely useless to police -- and nearly any front-line police officer in Canada will tell you that.
When it becomes clear that there is not even one single, solitary fact that supports maintaining the long-gun registry, it becomes clear what the proponents of the registry are doing: they're using it as a wedge issue to divide Canadians.
Nearly all of them are extremely eager to accuse the Conservatives of doing the same. But it's an incredibly disingenuous argument.
It's been proponents of the registry that have crowed about its importance to urban Canadians. It's been the proponents of the registry that have tried to guilt Canadians into supporting it by reminding them of past tragedies that not only would the long-gun registry not have prevented, but the long-gun registry hasn't prevented repeats.
The facts speak for themselves. But proponents of the long-gun registry won't tolerate to have the facts debated.
They'd rather divide Canadians and reap the rewards for themselves. But rural Liberal and NDP MPs may find themselves instead paying the price in an upcoming election.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Michael Ignatieff's Latest Gift to the Tories
Goodale, McGuinty should remind Canadians what is wrong with Liberal Party
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff must imagine his planned townhall meetings -- dubbed 'Open Mike" townhalls -- is the quickest way for his party to position itself to form government in a forthcoming election.
Unfortunately, what Ignatieff is leaving behind him in Ottawa -- a new house leader and a new deputy leader -- should only remind Canadians why they voted the Liberal party out of office in the first place.
Ralph Goodale will be assuming the role of deputy leader, serving as Liberal leader in Ignatieff's place. Even better for the governing Conservatives is the prospect of David McGuinty as Liberal house leader.
“I’m going to continue getting out there and meeting Canadians all through the fall in our ‘Open mike’ town hall meetings," Ignatieff explained. "That’s why I need Ralph’s steady hand in Ottawa."
For his own part, Goodale looks forward to the challenge.
"It's a key responsibility that I am anxious to deliver well for Mr Ignatieff," Goodale announced. "He needs to have confidence that everything is being managed in the House and on the Parliamentary front so he can do that critical job of gaining face action with Canadian voters. I am very pleased and anxious to tackle the challenge."
Of course, what Canadians shouldn't have forgotten is that it was Goodale's "steady hand" in the Department of Finance that declined to investigate the leak of a decision regarding Income Trust taxation that ultimately led to the ouster of the Paul Martin government when the RCMP intervened to investigate.
To this very day, Goodale decries the timing of the investigation -- announced in the midst of the 2005/06 election. If Goodale had investigated when he had the opportunity, instead of simply refusing, the timing wouldn't have been an issue.
For the Conservatives, the appointment of David McGuinty as House Leader is even better: in the public mind it will push the federal Liberals even closer to the provincial Liberals (led by McGuinty's brother), whose government continues to sink deeper and deeper into scandal.
If that weren't enough, McGuinty will also remind Canadians of the disingenuity of Liberal overtures on climate change: while he was the Liberal environment critic, McGuinty earned a reputation for renting gas-gazzling, carbon-spewing Cadillacs.
Not only will David McGuinty associate the federal Grits even closer with their troubled provincial counterparts, but he will remind Canadians of the Liberal failure on their own climate change policies -- perhaps better described as a complete disregard of their own climate change policies.
Unfortunately, Canadians often have a short memory about such things. It will be up to the Conservatives to remind Canadians about these two individuals and their ugly records, both in and out of government.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff must imagine his planned townhall meetings -- dubbed 'Open Mike" townhalls -- is the quickest way for his party to position itself to form government in a forthcoming election.
Unfortunately, what Ignatieff is leaving behind him in Ottawa -- a new house leader and a new deputy leader -- should only remind Canadians why they voted the Liberal party out of office in the first place.
Ralph Goodale will be assuming the role of deputy leader, serving as Liberal leader in Ignatieff's place. Even better for the governing Conservatives is the prospect of David McGuinty as Liberal house leader.
“I’m going to continue getting out there and meeting Canadians all through the fall in our ‘Open mike’ town hall meetings," Ignatieff explained. "That’s why I need Ralph’s steady hand in Ottawa."
For his own part, Goodale looks forward to the challenge.
"It's a key responsibility that I am anxious to deliver well for Mr Ignatieff," Goodale announced. "He needs to have confidence that everything is being managed in the House and on the Parliamentary front so he can do that critical job of gaining face action with Canadian voters. I am very pleased and anxious to tackle the challenge."
Of course, what Canadians shouldn't have forgotten is that it was Goodale's "steady hand" in the Department of Finance that declined to investigate the leak of a decision regarding Income Trust taxation that ultimately led to the ouster of the Paul Martin government when the RCMP intervened to investigate.
To this very day, Goodale decries the timing of the investigation -- announced in the midst of the 2005/06 election. If Goodale had investigated when he had the opportunity, instead of simply refusing, the timing wouldn't have been an issue.
For the Conservatives, the appointment of David McGuinty as House Leader is even better: in the public mind it will push the federal Liberals even closer to the provincial Liberals (led by McGuinty's brother), whose government continues to sink deeper and deeper into scandal.
If that weren't enough, McGuinty will also remind Canadians of the disingenuity of Liberal overtures on climate change: while he was the Liberal environment critic, McGuinty earned a reputation for renting gas-gazzling, carbon-spewing Cadillacs.
Not only will David McGuinty associate the federal Grits even closer with their troubled provincial counterparts, but he will remind Canadians of the Liberal failure on their own climate change policies -- perhaps better described as a complete disregard of their own climate change policies.
Unfortunately, Canadians often have a short memory about such things. It will be up to the Conservatives to remind Canadians about these two individuals and their ugly records, both in and out of government.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
A Crash Course in Reality for Linda McQuaig
The government's recent decision to purchase F-35 fighter jets to replace Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 Hornets has driven at least one point home to the Canadian public:
The Toronto Star seems to have attracted a stable of peacenik writers who simply refuse to acquaint themselves with reality.
Previously, it was Michael Byers, the foreign policy "expert" who implicitly suggested that Canada simply doesn't need fighter jets. Now it's Linda McQuaig.
Writing in an op/ed, McQuaig starts out by suggesting that Canadians simply don't want a new fleet of fighter jets.
"Of all the things Canadians want from their government, my guess is that new military fighter jets would probably rank close to last," McQuaig writes.
"But new fighter jets are what we’re getting," she complains. "Despite the enduring popularity of peacekeeping among Canadians, the Harper government continues to ramp up war-oriented military spending, most recently with its announcement of plans to buy 65 F-35 fighter jets from Lockheed Martin."
McQuaig is clearly clinging to the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping despite the fact that the nature of modern conflicts -- which, as opposed to being inter-state conflicts tend to be ethnic or religious conflicts -- has rendered it obselete.
Few know this better than the person whom McQuaig likely hopes her criticism of this purchase would benefit -- Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
Ignatieff has made it clear on numerous occasions that the peacekeeping model people like McQuaig favour is simply no longer applicable to modern conflicts -- including Darfur, where McQuaig has previously made it clear she would like to see Canadians deployed.
During a 2008 speech at the University of Alberta -- carried in full exclusively at the Nexus -- Ignatieff cast doubt on a Darfur deployment as a peaceful alternative to deployments such as Afghanistan.
"The problems in Darfur are extremely serious. Sometimes people can say that 'if I can just go there. Why Afghanistan? Why not Darfur?'. The only thing to bear in mind when you say that is just think about what a deployment of Canadians in Darfur would look like.In a combat mission such as that in the Sudan, the paramount goal of Canadian forces wouldn't be to advance McQuaig's far-left hippie ideology. It would be to accomplish the goals of the mission with a minimum of casualties.
It's 55 degrees centigrade. There's no cover anywhere. Do you think the Janjaweed are going to get off their camels and walk up when they see a Canadian flag and our hand? No. It's a combat mission."
That demands air cover -- the kind of air cover provided by helicopters, and by a fighter jet like the Lightning II, that can hover and deliver its munitions in close combat situations.
McQuaig, however, clearly refuses -- simply refuses -- to acquaint herself with this reality.
Even McQuaig's insistence that the looming end of Canada's combat engagement in Afghanistan should lead to a reduction in military expenditures is highly suspect.
After all, the reduction in Canada's hard power capabilities led to situations like in Rwanda, where an under-sized, under-equipped and under-supplied contingent of UN peacekeepers -- under Canadian command -- were forced to stand impotently by while more than 800,000 were ruthlessly slaughtered.
In Canada, the lack of political will to make the appropriate contribution to that mission was compounded by the lack of political will to even have that capability in the first place.
Simply put, when people like Linda McQuaig criticize Stephen Harper's government for investing in Canada's military capabilities, they are simply talking out of their ass.
L:nda McQuaig doesn't know the first thing about these kinds of issues, and she never has. By the force of her own will, she never will.
McQuaig's commitment to a discredited peacenik ideology not only fails to save lives overseas, but would actually put the lives of Canadian servicemen at an unacceptable level of risk.
One could offer Linda McQuaig a crash course in reality, but any attempt to educate her in such matters will plummet to Earth faster than Canada's fleet of CF-18s will if not replaced in the near future.
Friday, July 23, 2010
A Little Something For the Douchebags to Remember
Liberals are the ones with the record of brutalizing protestors
Pictured left is a scene from 1996, when then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien assaulted anti-poverty activist Bill Clennett.
Chretien recently reprised his famed "Shawinigan handshake" with both Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.
Yet this couldn't have come at a less opportune time for the Liberal Party, as some of its douchier members and supporters still try in vain to paint now-Prime Minister Stephen Harper with responsibility for the treatment of protesters at the G20 summit -- and, more comically, for the Black Bloc riots themselves.
But in reprising his famed assault on Clennett, Chretien has sent a stark reminder to Canadians:
If any governing party in Canada has a history of brutalizing protestors, it's actually the Liberal Party, not the Conservatives. That Chretien regards his unprovoked assault on Clennett as funny simply underscores how very little they care.
For his own part, Clennett is not amused.
"He's a buffoon," Clennett remarked. "It was just outrageous and it was something that never happened before."
"He plays this persona," Clennett continued. "He's not an idiot, but he doesn't act always intelligently from my perspective. And he thinks this is something funny."
Judging from their reactions, Ignatieff and Trudeau thought the joke was rather amusing as well.
If only the Clennett affair was an isolated incident, that could be written off to jitters following Chretien's experience with a violent home invasion.
But during the following year, in 1997, Chretien would be complicit in the unjustified pepper-spraying of protesters at the APEC summit in Vancouver. Through the Prime Minister's Office, Chretien ordered the RCMP to get rid of protestors.
And for whom did he do this? None other than then-Indonesian President Muhammad Suharto -- under whom Indonesia was a mass-human rights violator.
While Canadians have not taken the aforementioned partisan Liberal douchebags seriously in their desperate efforts to blame Stephen Harper for the unacceptable behaviour of police officers at the G20 summit, the time is ripe to recognize the Liberal Party's history of brutalizing protestors while in government.
The aforementioned douchebags won't like it. But fuck 'em.
By the way, speaking of douchebags -- Nice one, John. But the last thing the internet needed was another reminder that John "Dr Dawg" Baglow has absolutely no credibility.
Chretien recently reprised his famed "Shawinigan handshake" with both Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau.
Yet this couldn't have come at a less opportune time for the Liberal Party, as some of its douchier members and supporters still try in vain to paint now-Prime Minister Stephen Harper with responsibility for the treatment of protesters at the G20 summit -- and, more comically, for the Black Bloc riots themselves.
But in reprising his famed assault on Clennett, Chretien has sent a stark reminder to Canadians:
If any governing party in Canada has a history of brutalizing protestors, it's actually the Liberal Party, not the Conservatives. That Chretien regards his unprovoked assault on Clennett as funny simply underscores how very little they care.
For his own part, Clennett is not amused.
"He's a buffoon," Clennett remarked. "It was just outrageous and it was something that never happened before."
"He plays this persona," Clennett continued. "He's not an idiot, but he doesn't act always intelligently from my perspective. And he thinks this is something funny."
If only the Clennett affair was an isolated incident, that could be written off to jitters following Chretien's experience with a violent home invasion.
But during the following year, in 1997, Chretien would be complicit in the unjustified pepper-spraying of protesters at the APEC summit in Vancouver. Through the Prime Minister's Office, Chretien ordered the RCMP to get rid of protestors.
And for whom did he do this? None other than then-Indonesian President Muhammad Suharto -- under whom Indonesia was a mass-human rights violator.
While Canadians have not taken the aforementioned partisan Liberal douchebags seriously in their desperate efforts to blame Stephen Harper for the unacceptable behaviour of police officers at the G20 summit, the time is ripe to recognize the Liberal Party's history of brutalizing protestors while in government.
The aforementioned douchebags won't like it. But fuck 'em.
By the way, speaking of douchebags -- Nice one, John. But the last thing the internet needed was another reminder that John "Dr Dawg" Baglow has absolutely no credibility.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Michael Ignatieff's Sino-Cluelessness
Ignatieff fails to account for Chinese human rights record
Posting on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Ezra Levant has some choice words for Liberal leader Michaelf Ignatieff.
Ignatieff, Levant insists, has spoken "false praise to power".
In a speech delivered at China's Tsinghua University, Ignatieff embraced Jean Chretien's craven approach to China; all he needed to do to make it complete was swap the phrase "good governance and rule of law" for "human rights".
In fact, despite China's human rights record -- the Chinese Communist Party's legacy written in blood -- Ignatieff's greatest human rights-related barbs were reserved for Canada.
"I am a proud Canadian, proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights we accord religious and linguistic minorities, and the constitutional acknowledgement of our Aboriginal peoples," Ignatieff said. "I will defend these achievements everywhere, but I am not blind to the gap that exists between our ideals and reality for some of my fellow citizens. Indeed, I am in politics to narrow that gap."
Canada certainly hasn't always been perfect. But it's drawn the line at harvesting the organs of religious minorities to sell internationally, as China has done to practitioners of Falun Gong -- an abuse revealled internationally by Liberal Party icon Irwin Cotler.
In fact, Ignatieff spoke very softly about China's human rights record.
"In my classroom at Harvard, there were vigorous debates about China," Ignatieff continued. "My Chinese students did not always see eye to eye with other students on such issues as the death penalty, the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, access to the Internet and the largest issue of all, to what degree, to what extent, and at what level, economic liberalization should be followed by increased democratic rights."
"But I made it clear that the ultimate decision about these questions will be made, not by foreigners, but by the Chinese people themselves," he naively added.
Of course, the world remembers what happened the last time too many Chinese citizens tried to campaign for democratic freedoms in China. The state ran them down with tanks.
Many Chinese citizens today still do not know about the Tiananmen Square massacre. They are generally not taught that it took place, nor was it covered by the Chinese media of the day.
The farther away within China one lives from Beijing, the more unlikely one is to know about the events of June 4, 1989. Ignatieff, speaking just one month removed from the 20th anniversary of that atrocity, has no such excuse.
Perhaps some would see it as fitting that Michael Ignatieff, the grandson of a Russian diplomat who, by Ignatieff's own admission, once effectively bilked China out of some border provinces would try to make amends by so blatantly caving in to the Chinese phenomenon of "shame diplomacy" -- attempting to shame foreigners out of criticizing China's human rights policies.
An honest Canadian leader would broke no such pressure. Canadians who believe in human rights were rightly embarrassed by Jean Chretien's cowardly approach to this topic.
Michael Ignatieff has embarrassed us again -- but at least he hasn't embarrassed us as Prime Minister.
Posting on the National Post's Full Comment blog, Ezra Levant has some choice words for Liberal leader Michaelf Ignatieff.
Ignatieff, Levant insists, has spoken "false praise to power".
In a speech delivered at China's Tsinghua University, Ignatieff embraced Jean Chretien's craven approach to China; all he needed to do to make it complete was swap the phrase "good governance and rule of law" for "human rights".
In fact, despite China's human rights record -- the Chinese Communist Party's legacy written in blood -- Ignatieff's greatest human rights-related barbs were reserved for Canada.
"I am a proud Canadian, proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the rights we accord religious and linguistic minorities, and the constitutional acknowledgement of our Aboriginal peoples," Ignatieff said. "I will defend these achievements everywhere, but I am not blind to the gap that exists between our ideals and reality for some of my fellow citizens. Indeed, I am in politics to narrow that gap."
Canada certainly hasn't always been perfect. But it's drawn the line at harvesting the organs of religious minorities to sell internationally, as China has done to practitioners of Falun Gong -- an abuse revealled internationally by Liberal Party icon Irwin Cotler.
In fact, Ignatieff spoke very softly about China's human rights record.
"But I made it clear that the ultimate decision about these questions will be made, not by foreigners, but by the Chinese people themselves," he naively added.
Of course, the world remembers what happened the last time too many Chinese citizens tried to campaign for democratic freedoms in China. The state ran them down with tanks.
Many Chinese citizens today still do not know about the Tiananmen Square massacre. They are generally not taught that it took place, nor was it covered by the Chinese media of the day.
The farther away within China one lives from Beijing, the more unlikely one is to know about the events of June 4, 1989. Ignatieff, speaking just one month removed from the 20th anniversary of that atrocity, has no such excuse.
Perhaps some would see it as fitting that Michael Ignatieff, the grandson of a Russian diplomat who, by Ignatieff's own admission, once effectively bilked China out of some border provinces would try to make amends by so blatantly caving in to the Chinese phenomenon of "shame diplomacy" -- attempting to shame foreigners out of criticizing China's human rights policies.
An honest Canadian leader would broke no such pressure. Canadians who believe in human rights were rightly embarrassed by Jean Chretien's cowardly approach to this topic.
Michael Ignatieff has embarrassed us again -- but at least he hasn't embarrassed us as Prime Minister.
Sunday, May 02, 2010
Sage Advice or Cultural Warfare?
Writing in Maclean's Magazine, Andrew Coyne comments on Michael Ignatieff's recent suggestion that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-appoint Governor General Michaelle Jean, and draws a sobering conclusion:
Ignatieff may only be doing so as a culture war tactic. And Coyne is not amused.
Speaking about why he thought Jean should be reappointed, Ignatieff emphasized that Jean is a francophone, a woman, and is black.
"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," Ignatieff announced.
"Michaëlle Jean has served her country with distinction and honour,” Ignatieff added. "She deserves our thanks and our gratitude."
Ignatieff, of course, is right that Jean has served Canada with distinction adn honour. But in his emphasis of her gender, and ethnic and lingual background, Coyne detects the lingering stench of Frank Graves.
"In mounting this highly public lobby for her to be retained, the Liberals have chosen to emphasize her demographic credentials: as a woman, black, francophone and immigrant," Coyne writes. "These were in large part why she was appointed, of course, and perhaps that’s fair enough, though some of us grumped at her signal lack of other qualifications to the job. But to invoke these in the debate over whether she should be reappointed is deliberately to suggest that the government’s decision to replace her is an insult to these groups — making whoever replaces her, should they happen to be white or male or some other genetically incorrect makeup, the embodiment of that insult. That’ll do wonders for his or her legitimacy."
Frank Graves, of course, is the pollster who advised the Liberal party to "invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia".
In emphasizing Jean's demographic qualities, Coyne infers that Ignatieff is using the appointment of the Governor General as a political tactic in just such a culture war.
He also condemns the act as an unprecedented attempt to politicize the appointment of a Governor General.
"It’s always a political appointment, to a greater or lesser extent," Coyne admits. "But it has not previously been a point of partisan controversy, and on such calculatedly divisive lines. The appointment is entirely within the purview of the prime minister, and as long as that power was not abused via a manifestly unsuitable appointment, opposition parties have always gone along with it."
Prime Minister Harper could, of course, cut Ignatieff's efforts off at the knees by perhaps appointing someone like Herb Carnegie to the office of Governor General, provided that the 91 year-old former Quebec Aces star -- whose dreams of playing in the NHL were curtailed by racism -- wouldn't have his health curtailed by the travel.
Like Jean, Carnegie is black. He was born to parents who had immigrated to Canada from Jamaica.
Moreover, appointing Carnegie as the Governor General would not only impart to this great Canadian the respect he deserves, but would also give Stephen Harper the opportunity to appoint Michaelle Jean to a post more suiting her talents -- such as Canada's Ambassador to France.
A younger candidate -- like 65-year-old Phil Fontaine -- could be just as well-suited to a possible appointment. Fontaine, an Aboriginal leader, is also a survivor of the residential school system.
Needless to say, if Michael Ignatieff is really using the appointment of the next Governor General to invoke a culture war, Prime Minister Harper should be able to do him one better no matter how Ignatieff may try to exploit the process.
Ignatieff may only be doing so as a culture war tactic. And Coyne is not amused.
Speaking about why he thought Jean should be reappointed, Ignatieff emphasized that Jean is a francophone, a woman, and is black.
"As a francophone woman who overcame great obstacles to get where she is today, and as the first black Canadian appointed as governor general, I can’t imagine a better role model for young Canadians, particularly young girls," Ignatieff announced.
"Michaëlle Jean has served her country with distinction and honour,” Ignatieff added. "She deserves our thanks and our gratitude."
Ignatieff, of course, is right that Jean has served Canada with distinction adn honour. But in his emphasis of her gender, and ethnic and lingual background, Coyne detects the lingering stench of Frank Graves.
"In mounting this highly public lobby for her to be retained, the Liberals have chosen to emphasize her demographic credentials: as a woman, black, francophone and immigrant," Coyne writes. "These were in large part why she was appointed, of course, and perhaps that’s fair enough, though some of us grumped at her signal lack of other qualifications to the job. But to invoke these in the debate over whether she should be reappointed is deliberately to suggest that the government’s decision to replace her is an insult to these groups — making whoever replaces her, should they happen to be white or male or some other genetically incorrect makeup, the embodiment of that insult. That’ll do wonders for his or her legitimacy."
Frank Graves, of course, is the pollster who advised the Liberal party to "invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia".
In emphasizing Jean's demographic qualities, Coyne infers that Ignatieff is using the appointment of the Governor General as a political tactic in just such a culture war.
He also condemns the act as an unprecedented attempt to politicize the appointment of a Governor General.
"It’s always a political appointment, to a greater or lesser extent," Coyne admits. "But it has not previously been a point of partisan controversy, and on such calculatedly divisive lines. The appointment is entirely within the purview of the prime minister, and as long as that power was not abused via a manifestly unsuitable appointment, opposition parties have always gone along with it."
Prime Minister Harper could, of course, cut Ignatieff's efforts off at the knees by perhaps appointing someone like Herb Carnegie to the office of Governor General, provided that the 91 year-old former Quebec Aces star -- whose dreams of playing in the NHL were curtailed by racism -- wouldn't have his health curtailed by the travel.
Like Jean, Carnegie is black. He was born to parents who had immigrated to Canada from Jamaica.
Moreover, appointing Carnegie as the Governor General would not only impart to this great Canadian the respect he deserves, but would also give Stephen Harper the opportunity to appoint Michaelle Jean to a post more suiting her talents -- such as Canada's Ambassador to France.
A younger candidate -- like 65-year-old Phil Fontaine -- could be just as well-suited to a possible appointment. Fontaine, an Aboriginal leader, is also a survivor of the residential school system.
Needless to say, if Michael Ignatieff is really using the appointment of the next Governor General to invoke a culture war, Prime Minister Harper should be able to do him one better no matter how Ignatieff may try to exploit the process.
Friday, April 23, 2010
A Losing Proposition for All Canadians
Frank Graves calls for "culture war" in Canada
EKOS pollster Frank Graves recently offered some advice to Liberal Party leader Michael Ignatieff that should make the blood of all Canadians run cold.
“I told them that they should invoke a culture war. Cosmopolitanism versus parochialism, secularism versus moralism, Obama versus Palin, tolerance versus racism and homophobia, democracy versus autocracy,” Graves is reported as having said. “If the cranky old men in Alberta don’t like it, too bad. Go south and vote for Palin.”
Once upon a time, as many Canadians will recall, it was the Liberal Party that accused the Conservative Party of divisive politics. Now, it's the Liberal Party's favourite pollster encouraging them to do the very same.
Then again, this is really nothing new.
Under Jean Chretien, the Liberal Party thrived off of false chariactures of their principal opponents. In the discourse offered by the Liberal Party, Preston Manning was transformed from a forward-thinking conservative on matters such as language policy (his proposed Fair Language Policy would have been a multi-cultural upgrade on official bilingualism) into a thinly-veiled bigot.
Nothing could have been further from the truth. But under Chretien, the Liberals were willing to do anything -- anything -- to gain or keep power. Even if it meant stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from Canadian taxpayers.
To make matters worse, Lawrence Martin -- who brought Canadians reports of Graves' commentary -- seems to think that Ignatieff has taken this advice, and that his attempt to exploit issues like the long gun registry and abortion as ideological boilerplate mark the first steps in a stark turn down the low road of politics.
This can only serve to transform Canadian politics into something darker, more divisive, and dishonest.
It takes a particularly dangerous brand to ideologue to look at the divisive and destructive political canflaguration in the United States, then tell one of Canada's political leaders that we need that here. Canadians cannot afford to turn their back on Frank Graves.
His advice to Ignatieff would make for a losing proposition for all Canadians. Hopefully, any attempt to spark a culture war will make like everything else Michael Ignatieff has attempted to date -- and blow up in his face.
Other bloggers writing about this topic:
Montreal Simon - "Frank Graves and the Way to Beat the Cons"
Sort of Political - "Kory Teneycke ROCKS!!!"
BC Blue - "Stunning Advice to Iffy by Liberal Pollster"
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Joyce Arthur's Peculiar View on Human Rights
Commenting on a column by Kelly McParland on National Post Full Comment on Michael Ignatieff's "failed attempt to ambush the Conservatives on abortion", Joyce Arthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada has some advice for the Liberal leader in regards to party nominating policy:
Rarely has Arthur ever been so utterly candid on how she imagines opposing views are to be handled.
Unsatisfied with the notion that the Liberal Party would be accepting of views that differ from hers on the matter of abortion, Arthur argues that they should simply be barred from running for office under the party banner.
But as is so often the case with Arthur, her self-serving rhetoric hits key logical snags that just underscores the extent to which her pro-abortion ideology has overwhelmed any rational thinking on her point.
For one thing, she falsely equivocates anti-abortion thinking with racism. Contrary to whatever Arthur may think about the issue, abortion remains a live controversy in the minds of Canadians. Public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated that Canadians remain largely divided on the topic of abortion.
Meanwhile, Canadians are not divided on the issue of racism: Canadians overwhelmingly reject it.
Whether Arthur likes it or not, any topic regarding a live controversy is a legitimate matter of conscience -- a freedom that is guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Interestingly, no mention of abortion rights is mentioned in either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, in the mind of Arthur, abortion has somehow become a human right while freedom of conscience has not.
Arthur is also an outspoken opponent of the right to freedom of expression, having participated in pushes to run anti-abortion groups off of university campuses. She's a fervent advocate of special institutional privileges for pro-abortion groups.
Last but not least, Arthur does't seem to respect the democratic will of the Canadians who elect the 30 anti-abortion MPs of which she speaks. It's hardly a secret that these Liberal MPs oppose abortion, and their constituents know this.
In other words, the constituents of these MPs knowingly elect anti-abortion MPs. While Arthur may regard this act with hostility, others will remember that it's the right of these Canadians to hold their own opinions on abortion, and elect representatives who reflect that view. While abortion is not necessary a defining voting issue for all of these constituents, those for whom it is will simply vote for other candidates.
What will Joyce Arthur imagine the Liberal Party should do then? Surely the party cannot whip 30 MPs that it would not have.
Moreover, the power of the Liberal leader to apply the party whip to nearly half of his caucus should be considered to be less than decisive.
Of course all of these points would be considered the domain of what most Canadians would consider facts and logic. Yet, when dealing with Joyce Arthur and her cohorts in the pro-abortion movement, it becomes perfectly evident that they are continually entitled to their own facts, their own logic, and, moreover, their own sense of human rights -- one not supported by the Charter or by the Universal Declaration.
Unsatisfied with the notion that the Liberal Party would be accepting of views that differ from hers on the matter of abortion, Arthur argues that they should simply be barred from running for office under the party banner.
But as is so often the case with Arthur, her self-serving rhetoric hits key logical snags that just underscores the extent to which her pro-abortion ideology has overwhelmed any rational thinking on her point.
For one thing, she falsely equivocates anti-abortion thinking with racism. Contrary to whatever Arthur may think about the issue, abortion remains a live controversy in the minds of Canadians. Public opinion polls have repeatedly demonstrated that Canadians remain largely divided on the topic of abortion.
Meanwhile, Canadians are not divided on the issue of racism: Canadians overwhelmingly reject it.
Whether Arthur likes it or not, any topic regarding a live controversy is a legitimate matter of conscience -- a freedom that is guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Interestingly, no mention of abortion rights is mentioned in either the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, in the mind of Arthur, abortion has somehow become a human right while freedom of conscience has not.
Arthur is also an outspoken opponent of the right to freedom of expression, having participated in pushes to run anti-abortion groups off of university campuses. She's a fervent advocate of special institutional privileges for pro-abortion groups.
Last but not least, Arthur does't seem to respect the democratic will of the Canadians who elect the 30 anti-abortion MPs of which she speaks. It's hardly a secret that these Liberal MPs oppose abortion, and their constituents know this.
In other words, the constituents of these MPs knowingly elect anti-abortion MPs. While Arthur may regard this act with hostility, others will remember that it's the right of these Canadians to hold their own opinions on abortion, and elect representatives who reflect that view. While abortion is not necessary a defining voting issue for all of these constituents, those for whom it is will simply vote for other candidates.
What will Joyce Arthur imagine the Liberal Party should do then? Surely the party cannot whip 30 MPs that it would not have.
Moreover, the power of the Liberal leader to apply the party whip to nearly half of his caucus should be considered to be less than decisive.
Of course all of these points would be considered the domain of what most Canadians would consider facts and logic. Yet, when dealing with Joyce Arthur and her cohorts in the pro-abortion movement, it becomes perfectly evident that they are continually entitled to their own facts, their own logic, and, moreover, their own sense of human rights -- one not supported by the Charter or by the Universal Declaration.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Michael Ignatieff With (Fertilized) Egg on His Face
Liberal Party scandal mongering falls short
When Prime Minister Stephen Harper called upon the G8 to undertake a maternal and child health initiative, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff seemed to think he had been handed a golden opportunity.
By calling on Harper to ensure that the maternal and child health initiative included funding for abortion, Ignatieff must have imagined he could paint Harper as a right-wing extremist and pander to the pro-abortion movement by re-opening the abortion debate.
That move has left Ignatieff with egg on his face, as his party narrowly lost a non-binding motion to ensure that abortion and contraception were included in the plan.
Read that again: Ignatieff couldn't even pass a non-binding motion on the topic.
A number of anti-abortion Liberal MPs declined to show up for the vote, and three Liberal MPs -- Paul Szabo, John McKay and Dan McTeague -- voted against the motion.
"We've been very clear from the outset that this package, this program, would not include abortion," Conservative MP Candice Hoeppner said recently. "That's not what we want to talk about. It's not the direction that we want to go."
Unfortunately, Ignatieff very much did want to go in that direction, and fell short in his blatant attempt to pander to the pro-abortion movement -- a great many pro-abortion activists must be asking some rather serious questions about the Liberal Party's commitment to their starkly ideological agenda today.
Hopefully, Michael Ignatieff will think twice before he so obnoxiously attempts to exploit the perpetual controversy of abortion again.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Michael Ignatieff & The Art of Stop Gap Senate Reform
Ignatieff proposes alternate Senate reform package
With Senate reform predictably becoming a hot topic following the appointment of a new batch of Senators -- as it always does -- Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered his own version of Senate reform proposals.
Ignatieff believes that 12-year term limits should be substituted for the proposed 8-year term limits, and that a public service appointment commission should oversee the selection of Senators.
"I'd even go as far as to limit the prime minister's prerogative to appoint senators," Ignatieff suggested. "That is, I'd pass (appointments) through a public service appointment commission, so we scrub it and get the best possible appointees."
At face value, this isn't such a bad idea. There should be some kind of process to vet or confirm any appointment the Prime Minister makes to any position.
The problem for Ignatieff is that his predecessor, Stephane Dion, opposed any "piecemeal" or incremental reforms as irresponsible. He had argued that incremental reforms would have unforeseeable consequences (while evidently overlooking the notion that sweeping reforms would have sweeping unforeseeable consequences).
One wonders what unforeseeable circumstances the establishment of a public service commission to approve the Prime Minister's Senate appointees would have.
But what remains evident is that if the Prime Minister could be compelled to appoint Senators approved by such a commission, he could just as easily be compelled to appoint Senators chosen by citizens via an election.
All that is necessary is for provinces to enact such legislation.
That would be a real reform, as opposed to a mere piecemeal reform. All that is needed is the political will to make this happen.
With Senate reform predictably becoming a hot topic following the appointment of a new batch of Senators -- as it always does -- Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has offered his own version of Senate reform proposals.
Ignatieff believes that 12-year term limits should be substituted for the proposed 8-year term limits, and that a public service appointment commission should oversee the selection of Senators.
"I'd even go as far as to limit the prime minister's prerogative to appoint senators," Ignatieff suggested. "That is, I'd pass (appointments) through a public service appointment commission, so we scrub it and get the best possible appointees."
At face value, this isn't such a bad idea. There should be some kind of process to vet or confirm any appointment the Prime Minister makes to any position.
The problem for Ignatieff is that his predecessor, Stephane Dion, opposed any "piecemeal" or incremental reforms as irresponsible. He had argued that incremental reforms would have unforeseeable consequences (while evidently overlooking the notion that sweeping reforms would have sweeping unforeseeable consequences).
One wonders what unforeseeable circumstances the establishment of a public service commission to approve the Prime Minister's Senate appointees would have.
But what remains evident is that if the Prime Minister could be compelled to appoint Senators approved by such a commission, he could just as easily be compelled to appoint Senators chosen by citizens via an election.
All that is necessary is for provinces to enact such legislation.
That would be a real reform, as opposed to a mere piecemeal reform. All that is needed is the political will to make this happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)