Like Adscam, the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal would not have legs if it were driven solely by the opposition. Some are interested in clean government and some have less innocent motivations. Regardless of the spin put out by the Conservatives about Mulroney’s liberal media “tormenters”, the list of people interested in the story is not at all limited to those with sentimental attachments to the Liberals, Bloc or NDP.
There are old and strange stories about how Mulroney gathered delegates to ouster former Tory leader Joe Clark and even more about the following leadership convention. It’s the kind of boozy rumour that comes out after a few drinks and often sounds more like the onset of Korsakoff’s disease than the truth. Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see. But the progressives of Joe Clark’s ilk have been largely frozen out of the current Bush-styled Conservative party, a fact that is not forgotten in the minds of some. And whatever your feelings about the (family values=white power?) Reform party, they were not great fans of Mulroney either and it’s hard not to believe Preston Manning was sincere about cleaning up the lobbying industry and Ottawa graft. Harper’s interests are another issue. Many believe that Harper is primarily interested in staying in power and so the odd on-again-off-again support over the last month for Brian Mulroney I suspect is a reflection of the inner dynamics within his own party more so than a genuine response to the ethical issues. I am not a conservative. I do not know and I do not want to know. The point I am trying to make is that there are people inside and outside the Conservative party who want to hear more about the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal and that interest will move a public inquiry forward.
As I wrote in the first of two posts, I had the good sense to blush during the last election campaign in response to Adscam. The Liberals were put in the penalty box for failing to pay attention to corruption. It’s a good metaphor and one that a lot of people including most Liberals accept. The Liberal government was being careless about minimizing corruption. Although at base, I am still more interested in politics because of issues like global warming and efficient health care delivery, I respect those who are sincerely fighting for clean government whether with their arguments or their votes. For them the Mulroney-Schrieber inquiry is not a vendetta. Why should I argue against them again?
To be honest, I was among those that were content when the story died many years ago because I was just so tired of Mulroney and I thought Liberals and Canada had more important issues to attend to at the time. Granted more incriminating evidence has since been brought to light, still this lazy attitude toward investigating corruption was wrong and is what ultimately led to Adscam. All partisan exaggerations aside, the real problem in Adscam was not that the Liberal party or its membership were corrupt, but rather that there was a pretend-its-not there toleration of illegal activity, a blindness for corruption.
If the lesson learned by lobbyists and public office holders from the Mulroney-Schreiber scandal is that dubious money transactions under the amount of $300,000 are o.k., then the cost of a public inquiry is minimal in comparison to the amount of corruption that we are otherwise inviting upon ourselves.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Mulroney-Schrieber affair, Public Inquiry (Part I)
I have an admission to make. I was glad several years ago to see Mulroney –and his hyperbole and all his theatrics—exit the Canadian political stage. It was a common attitude, I think. People were fed up with the man, just sick to death of hearing and seeing him. So spending a couple million dollars (the cost of the settlement with the former PM) to have him just go away seemed a small enough price to pay. It had less to do with whether I believed Mulroney had done something illegal or not, and more to do with the fact that I didn’t care. What I cared about more was Chretien’s new government which should, I thought, look toward its own future and what it wanted to accomplish. Why waste energy on something that would be perceived as a Liberal vendetta? Again, as I recall it, this was a fairly common view at the time. Seeing Mulroney on television this week brought this all back to mind.
My admission today is: this way of thinking was lazy and, in a certain sense, corrupt.
Fast forward to Adscam. I don’t think that this would have been half the media event that it became if it was not backed by groups inside and outside the Liberal party. There were some that were motivated by a desire for clean government and some that had less innocent motivations. For the former group, I have nothing but respect on this issue even though it is not what interests me about politics. I am interested in such issues as dealing with climate change and an effective policy in Afghanistan. In this sense, I and a lot of others have unwittingly been part of the problem for those who want clean government. The real issue in Adscam, all partisan exaggerations aside, was not that the Liberal party or its membership were corrupt, but rather that there was a toleration of illegal activity, a blindness for corruption. And the public has spoken on this issue quite clearly.
During the last election, I was in the passenger seat of a car winding myself up into a strong defense of the Liberal record. It was already dark when the driver reached over to turn up the radio to hear the news report about the launch of an investigation into Ralph Goodale’s involvement in a potential budget leak. (Although the allegations against the honourable Ralph Goodale were later disproven, the news report played into the ongoing narrative of Liberal corruption. It was really about Adscam). I had the good sense to blush and a few short words came out of my mouth that do not bear repeating here. The outcome of the false allegations are well known. They served to remind people about Adscam. There was a dramatic shift in the polls over the following week and the Liberals eventually lost the election.
I had the good sense to blush.
My admission today is: this way of thinking was lazy and, in a certain sense, corrupt.
Fast forward to Adscam. I don’t think that this would have been half the media event that it became if it was not backed by groups inside and outside the Liberal party. There were some that were motivated by a desire for clean government and some that had less innocent motivations. For the former group, I have nothing but respect on this issue even though it is not what interests me about politics. I am interested in such issues as dealing with climate change and an effective policy in Afghanistan. In this sense, I and a lot of others have unwittingly been part of the problem for those who want clean government. The real issue in Adscam, all partisan exaggerations aside, was not that the Liberal party or its membership were corrupt, but rather that there was a toleration of illegal activity, a blindness for corruption. And the public has spoken on this issue quite clearly.
During the last election, I was in the passenger seat of a car winding myself up into a strong defense of the Liberal record. It was already dark when the driver reached over to turn up the radio to hear the news report about the launch of an investigation into Ralph Goodale’s involvement in a potential budget leak. (Although the allegations against the honourable Ralph Goodale were later disproven, the news report played into the ongoing narrative of Liberal corruption. It was really about Adscam). I had the good sense to blush and a few short words came out of my mouth that do not bear repeating here. The outcome of the false allegations are well known. They served to remind people about Adscam. There was a dramatic shift in the polls over the following week and the Liberals eventually lost the election.
I had the good sense to blush.
Sunday, December 09, 2007
Le Canada Isolé
Le gouvernement Harper semble travailler fort pour isoler le Canada sur la scène internationale.
La Presse: Tous les diplomates, négociateurs et environnementalistes qui ont accepté de parler à La Presse ont en effet soutenu que l’étoile du Canada avait passablement pâli ces dernières années…
« Comme dans toutes les autres sphères internationales, le Canada a toujours eu une importance plus large que nature, précise-t-il [Jacques Bilodeau]. On avait une réputation d’intégrité, de compétence et de sérieux. Si bien que, lorsque le Canada parlait, il était entendu. »
Et aujourd’hui ? Les diplomates ne reconnaissent tout simplement plus le pays.
Un vote pour les conservateurs c’est un vote contre l’environnement et notre bonne réputation.
La Presse: Tous les diplomates, négociateurs et environnementalistes qui ont accepté de parler à La Presse ont en effet soutenu que l’étoile du Canada avait passablement pâli ces dernières années…
« Comme dans toutes les autres sphères internationales, le Canada a toujours eu une importance plus large que nature, précise-t-il [Jacques Bilodeau]. On avait une réputation d’intégrité, de compétence et de sérieux. Si bien que, lorsque le Canada parlait, il était entendu. »
Et aujourd’hui ? Les diplomates ne reconnaissent tout simplement plus le pays.
Un vote pour les conservateurs c’est un vote contre l’environnement et notre bonne réputation.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Dion Blog… Maybe
My initial reaction to the idea of a Dion blog was negative. But I have been mulling it over for the last week or so because that’s how I think about things and also because Ottlib then Red Tory (Nov. 3rd) brought it up. I wouldn’t agree with everything they write but I have come to respect them enough that it’s probably not a good idea to just dismiss what they are saying completely. So there it is. I hope this admission doesn't cause any head swelling.
The initial image I had was of Dion bickering mindlessly with some anonymous 14 year old conservative troll. How do you respond to crap like “Stephen Harper is not a Leader.” He would end up looking like Peter Van Loan which is to say: not prime ministerial. The leader needs hatchet men and women to deal with the nonsense so he can remain above it. But then again, does the blog need a comment section?
The greatest impact that Dion will have with his principal ideas will still be by delivering them as speeches or by publishing them in the print media like he has done before. Too much could cheapen the newsworthiness. A blog would have less impact although it could fill out his public persona. It would need to be very stylish because blogging is still not mainstreet. If bloggers are honest with themselves they know that outside the smaller world of their friends there are still are a lot of people and of a certain age who view the blogosphere as a geek world populated by lonely socially awkward people. Yes, I know this is largely a stereotype, but it is what it is. When I started this blog, I told a good friend whose reaction was quite telling. She looked at me quizzically (and somewhat disappointedly) and said, “Why the hell would you want to do that?” She meant why would you go online and tell total strangers what you are thinking and feeling. I still like you but you are such a loser sometimes.
Dion definitely has his geeky side there is no pretending. So what I am trying to say is that a potential Dion blog would need to look exceptionally up to date so as not to emphasize possibly negative qualities of his persona. The blog would need to be first of all stylish --if geeky somewhat. Maybe a biweekly or monthly post about events… the backstory from his perspective. It could work to make him more known as a person.
Red Tory in the link above provides some interesting examples from the British political scene.
Oh yeah and by the way, Stephen Harper is not a Leader! ;)
The initial image I had was of Dion bickering mindlessly with some anonymous 14 year old conservative troll. How do you respond to crap like “Stephen Harper is not a Leader.” He would end up looking like Peter Van Loan which is to say: not prime ministerial. The leader needs hatchet men and women to deal with the nonsense so he can remain above it. But then again, does the blog need a comment section?
The greatest impact that Dion will have with his principal ideas will still be by delivering them as speeches or by publishing them in the print media like he has done before. Too much could cheapen the newsworthiness. A blog would have less impact although it could fill out his public persona. It would need to be very stylish because blogging is still not mainstreet. If bloggers are honest with themselves they know that outside the smaller world of their friends there are still are a lot of people and of a certain age who view the blogosphere as a geek world populated by lonely socially awkward people. Yes, I know this is largely a stereotype, but it is what it is. When I started this blog, I told a good friend whose reaction was quite telling. She looked at me quizzically (and somewhat disappointedly) and said, “Why the hell would you want to do that?” She meant why would you go online and tell total strangers what you are thinking and feeling. I still like you but you are such a loser sometimes.
Dion definitely has his geeky side there is no pretending. So what I am trying to say is that a potential Dion blog would need to look exceptionally up to date so as not to emphasize possibly negative qualities of his persona. The blog would need to be first of all stylish --if geeky somewhat. Maybe a biweekly or monthly post about events… the backstory from his perspective. It could work to make him more known as a person.
Red Tory in the link above provides some interesting examples from the British political scene.
Oh yeah and by the way, Stephen Harper is not a Leader! ;)
Sunday, October 21, 2007
La Nation Québécoise
Dans un article paru dans La Presse ce matin une excellente question est posé par Mme Marois, chef du Parti Québécois, par rapport à leur projet de loi qui veut créer deux classes de citoyens au Québec : ceux qui parlent français et ceux qui ne le parlent pas. La deuxième classe de citoyens, ceux qui ont de la difficulté avec la langue dominante de la province, la minorité évidemment, seront privé de certains droits constitutionnels comme par exemple le droit de se présenter aux élections en tant que candidat.
Pauline Marois « Dites-moi en vertu de quelle rhétorique le « nous » canadien serait inclusif et le « nous » québécois, exclusif? Ne sommes-nous pas une nation, reconnue par les partis fédéraux? Alors en quoi l’affirmation de nous-mêmes serait-elle un projet ethnique? »
Dans le sens où le terme « nation québécoise » indique un fait sociologique indéniable, je suis d’accord. Cependant, je reconnais le problème de vendre ce concept aux autres provinces canadiennes, qui eux, soupçonnerait peut-être une signification différente. Or en effet, on voit dans les questions de Mme Marois la migration de ce concept vers un autre sens.
C’est bien Mme Marois, elle-même, qui suggère la solution au manque de francisation des nouveaux arrivés au Québec en répondant aux accusations de Phillipe Couillard, ministre Libéral. « C’est vous, monsieur le ministre, qui créez deux classes de citoyens. C‘est vous qui avez coupé dans la francisation des immigrants… » Alors, pourquoi pas remettre les fonds dans ces programmes, Mme Marois? (L’éditorialiste Nathalie Collard p. 14 en arrive à la pareil conclusion).
Il semble assez clair que le PQ va se servir de cette situation à des fins autres que la francisation.
Comment juger la popularité au Québec d’un tel assaut radical aux droits constitutionnels de certains de nos concitoyens? Le meilleur indice se trouve dans le titre d’un autre article sur la même page du journal : « Le PQ prêt à faire tomber le gouvernement demain matin »
Pauline Marois « Dites-moi en vertu de quelle rhétorique le « nous » canadien serait inclusif et le « nous » québécois, exclusif? Ne sommes-nous pas une nation, reconnue par les partis fédéraux? Alors en quoi l’affirmation de nous-mêmes serait-elle un projet ethnique? »
Dans le sens où le terme « nation québécoise » indique un fait sociologique indéniable, je suis d’accord. Cependant, je reconnais le problème de vendre ce concept aux autres provinces canadiennes, qui eux, soupçonnerait peut-être une signification différente. Or en effet, on voit dans les questions de Mme Marois la migration de ce concept vers un autre sens.
C’est bien Mme Marois, elle-même, qui suggère la solution au manque de francisation des nouveaux arrivés au Québec en répondant aux accusations de Phillipe Couillard, ministre Libéral. « C’est vous, monsieur le ministre, qui créez deux classes de citoyens. C‘est vous qui avez coupé dans la francisation des immigrants… » Alors, pourquoi pas remettre les fonds dans ces programmes, Mme Marois? (L’éditorialiste Nathalie Collard p. 14 en arrive à la pareil conclusion).
Il semble assez clair que le PQ va se servir de cette situation à des fins autres que la francisation.
Comment juger la popularité au Québec d’un tel assaut radical aux droits constitutionnels de certains de nos concitoyens? Le meilleur indice se trouve dans le titre d’un autre article sur la même page du journal : « Le PQ prêt à faire tomber le gouvernement demain matin »
Sunday, October 14, 2007
While you were sleeping...
Parliament has not yet reconvened and Stephen Harper has already goofed twice.
The promise to make every government bill an automatic confidence motion will with time look more and more like dumb bluster. Not only does this directly contradict his previous public statements, there are enough democrats in the country (in every political party) who realize that minority parliaments cannot function under such conditions and, if we are to have more minority situations, Stephen Harper’s promise is a dangerous and unworkable precendent. If an election occurs over a minor piece of legislation, the Harper Conservatives’ carry the full responsibility.
Secondly, the claim that striking a committee of unelected private citizens, who already appear to favour an extension of the combat role in Afghanistan, will neutralize the issue is ridiculous not brilliant. Imagine Stephen Harper’s response during an election Leaders debate to questions about the combat role that has resulted in increased levels of violence and instability in Afghanistan. Will he say that a committee is studying the issue and that election campaigns are not the time to talk about policy? Brilliant. Even those media commentators who loudly applaud Stephen Harper’s every word must be getting tired of being jerked around by the erratic Conservative message machine.
Some have argued that our leader Stephane Dion must have far-reaching, bold, even controversial policy pronouncements. Well what do you think his environmental policy is? The debate has not been settled. Stephen Harper’s government is doing everything in its power to not act and in addition to deceive the public about the costs and Canada’s goals. And targets like those contained in the Kyoto treaty are just an initial step. Media commentators can announce that the issue has been neutralized all they want, but does anyone believe them? Does anyone believe Stephen Harper? On the environmental file, we will witness the spectacle of the Liberals once again dragging the Conservatives kicking and screaming into modernity. These sorts of impressions can last for a generation and more.
I guess the Dion teams’ positioning of the Liberal party on the major issues of the day happened while many were sleeping. I am really pleased by the announcement of corporate tax cuts, a policy similar to “socialist” Sweden, to promote economic growth. The Afghanistan position is reasonable. We will end our combat mission in 2009, although further peace-keeping and aid efforts remain possible. It is time that our other partners in the NATO coalition do their part, otherwise it is not much of a coalition really.
In fact, the party has been positioned in what I think of as a policy sweet spot on most of the important issues. And there is no lack of talent in the federal Liberal caucus to get the message out. In the one-on-one debates of televised political discussion panels, the Liberal representatives leave the Conservatives looking like uniformed angry hacks which is why I would prefer at least another month or so for Liberal MPs to rake the Conservatives over the coals and to get Stephen Harper or one of his bumbling ministers on the record about the Conservative money laundering scandal.
Either way, its up to Stephane Dion to call the plays as he will be the leader for at least the next two elections. The talent and ambition of the current crop of MPs as well as the policies the Liberals are advancing, win or lose, make me proud to be a Liberal. Don’t expect an audience for excuses after the next election. Return victorious or on your shields.
The promise to make every government bill an automatic confidence motion will with time look more and more like dumb bluster. Not only does this directly contradict his previous public statements, there are enough democrats in the country (in every political party) who realize that minority parliaments cannot function under such conditions and, if we are to have more minority situations, Stephen Harper’s promise is a dangerous and unworkable precendent. If an election occurs over a minor piece of legislation, the Harper Conservatives’ carry the full responsibility.
Secondly, the claim that striking a committee of unelected private citizens, who already appear to favour an extension of the combat role in Afghanistan, will neutralize the issue is ridiculous not brilliant. Imagine Stephen Harper’s response during an election Leaders debate to questions about the combat role that has resulted in increased levels of violence and instability in Afghanistan. Will he say that a committee is studying the issue and that election campaigns are not the time to talk about policy? Brilliant. Even those media commentators who loudly applaud Stephen Harper’s every word must be getting tired of being jerked around by the erratic Conservative message machine.
Some have argued that our leader Stephane Dion must have far-reaching, bold, even controversial policy pronouncements. Well what do you think his environmental policy is? The debate has not been settled. Stephen Harper’s government is doing everything in its power to not act and in addition to deceive the public about the costs and Canada’s goals. And targets like those contained in the Kyoto treaty are just an initial step. Media commentators can announce that the issue has been neutralized all they want, but does anyone believe them? Does anyone believe Stephen Harper? On the environmental file, we will witness the spectacle of the Liberals once again dragging the Conservatives kicking and screaming into modernity. These sorts of impressions can last for a generation and more.
I guess the Dion teams’ positioning of the Liberal party on the major issues of the day happened while many were sleeping. I am really pleased by the announcement of corporate tax cuts, a policy similar to “socialist” Sweden, to promote economic growth. The Afghanistan position is reasonable. We will end our combat mission in 2009, although further peace-keeping and aid efforts remain possible. It is time that our other partners in the NATO coalition do their part, otherwise it is not much of a coalition really.
In fact, the party has been positioned in what I think of as a policy sweet spot on most of the important issues. And there is no lack of talent in the federal Liberal caucus to get the message out. In the one-on-one debates of televised political discussion panels, the Liberal representatives leave the Conservatives looking like uniformed angry hacks which is why I would prefer at least another month or so for Liberal MPs to rake the Conservatives over the coals and to get Stephen Harper or one of his bumbling ministers on the record about the Conservative money laundering scandal.
Either way, its up to Stephane Dion to call the plays as he will be the leader for at least the next two elections. The talent and ambition of the current crop of MPs as well as the policies the Liberals are advancing, win or lose, make me proud to be a Liberal. Don’t expect an audience for excuses after the next election. Return victorious or on your shields.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Scott Brison and about time
I was beginning to forget what I liked about Scott Brison so much. He totally clobbered that sack of wind Van Loan on Duffy tonight from start to finish. Scott needs more airtime. We need Scott to have more airtime.
In other news, its nice to hear some positive managed leaks for a change even if they are mixed with negative ones. Check out Diatribes.There will be some housecleaning later in the week?
To present a sense of direction there must be some winners and some losers. Hopefully, those who do not fare as well realize that it is not the end. Its nothing personal and politics is full of well deserved come-backs. Nothing is forever.
We’ll see what happens….
In other news, its nice to hear some positive managed leaks for a change even if they are mixed with negative ones. Check out Diatribes.There will be some housecleaning later in the week?
To present a sense of direction there must be some winners and some losers. Hopefully, those who do not fare as well realize that it is not the end. Its nothing personal and politics is full of well deserved come-backs. Nothing is forever.
We’ll see what happens….
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Leaker has got to Go
The coverage of the Jamie Carroll affair in the francophone press this week was outrageously bad for the Liberal party. I am not going to link to any of it because its all garbage. The journalists were doing their job trying to create heat, but it was all garbage just the same. The person who initiated the leak of the private conversation must be forced to resign.
Let’s be clear about something to begin with. The alleged “joke” was not funny and no excuses should be made for such a joke. Humour is a social phenomenon and the scripts for what is funny and what is not are implicit. You know it when you hear it. Take for example the n----- word. When Chris Rock uses it: funny (sometimes). When the tall weird guy from Seinfeld uses it: not funny. Dave Chapelle: always funny, etc… You get the picture. An anglophone can tell the same joke word for word as a francophone about francophones and it is not funny. In fact, it is a sure-fire conversation stopper. That’s the script. And in this case even a francophone could not pull off such a quip (I am not interested in exceptions that prove the rule here). Liberal MPs in Quebec are a bit of a survivalist club. They know the script and to survive they know that they must immediately denounce such a joke on the spot without hesitation otherwise they will be wearing the blame for it too.
The person who leaked this story (whether it is true or not) also knew the script. Fortunately, this did not happen during an election. If the person who initiated the leak is left in place, it will happen during an election. Following the reasoning of my post yesterday, for the good of the party this individual must resign or be forced to resign immediately.
After the Turner defeats in the 1980’s, we lost a lot of seats permanently. And now there is more than one party that is all too eager to occupy space vacated by the Liberals. The idea of throwing an election is arrogant in the extreme.
We are asking for peoples’ trust. And that starts by respecting them. The leaker must go.
Let’s be clear about something to begin with. The alleged “joke” was not funny and no excuses should be made for such a joke. Humour is a social phenomenon and the scripts for what is funny and what is not are implicit. You know it when you hear it. Take for example the n----- word. When Chris Rock uses it: funny (sometimes). When the tall weird guy from Seinfeld uses it: not funny. Dave Chapelle: always funny, etc… You get the picture. An anglophone can tell the same joke word for word as a francophone about francophones and it is not funny. In fact, it is a sure-fire conversation stopper. That’s the script. And in this case even a francophone could not pull off such a quip (I am not interested in exceptions that prove the rule here). Liberal MPs in Quebec are a bit of a survivalist club. They know the script and to survive they know that they must immediately denounce such a joke on the spot without hesitation otherwise they will be wearing the blame for it too.
The person who leaked this story (whether it is true or not) also knew the script. Fortunately, this did not happen during an election. If the person who initiated the leak is left in place, it will happen during an election. Following the reasoning of my post yesterday, for the good of the party this individual must resign or be forced to resign immediately.
After the Turner defeats in the 1980’s, we lost a lot of seats permanently. And now there is more than one party that is all too eager to occupy space vacated by the Liberals. The idea of throwing an election is arrogant in the extreme.
We are asking for peoples’ trust. And that starts by respecting them. The leaker must go.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Tyranny of the Few
Sometimes those who follow politics too closely forget the simple truth that in the mind of the average voter all Liberals are the same. When adscam hit, we all took it. There were no good Liberals and bad Liberals. The public was not willing to make a distinction between this one and that one. We were all Liberals. The punishment was collective. In Quebec, it has been particularly severe and we are still suffering from the aftershocks.
There are some (a small minority) that never accepted the will of the party when we democratically elected Stephane Dion as our leader. Rather than convince others by the force of their ideas, they are the kind that prefers to hiss and boo those with whom they disagree. And they prefer to speak about leadership for the same reason Harper likes to speak about leadership; it is easier than formulating a real argument, an argument that they could lose.
The leak to the media this week about a private conversation with Jamie Carroll was absolutely shameful. In addition, it was bad politics. To the average voter we are all Liberals. The complaint is ostensibly about Dion, but the average voter hears: Liberals are backstabbing snakes who are only looking out for their own personal interests; they care more about their own egos than the environment or the economy or pulling our troops out of that suckers game in Afghanistan; Liberals can’t be trusted; if a crisis struck the country they wouldn't be able to cope with it because they are so divided; they only want my vote to increase their own self-importance.
The Liberals have had at best a tenuous relationship with Quebeckers for more than a generation now. Publicly attacking the leader will ensure that voters even in the “safe” seats of Montreal will start to seriously consider a new permanent home. To be honest, it has crossed my mind. Those who pretend they are trying to save the party from Dion, if they were to succeed, would find themselves with very little left to save. They will not succeed.
On the positive side, I think that the haters have overplayed their hand this week. Let the backlash begin…
There are some (a small minority) that never accepted the will of the party when we democratically elected Stephane Dion as our leader. Rather than convince others by the force of their ideas, they are the kind that prefers to hiss and boo those with whom they disagree. And they prefer to speak about leadership for the same reason Harper likes to speak about leadership; it is easier than formulating a real argument, an argument that they could lose.
The leak to the media this week about a private conversation with Jamie Carroll was absolutely shameful. In addition, it was bad politics. To the average voter we are all Liberals. The complaint is ostensibly about Dion, but the average voter hears: Liberals are backstabbing snakes who are only looking out for their own personal interests; they care more about their own egos than the environment or the economy or pulling our troops out of that suckers game in Afghanistan; Liberals can’t be trusted; if a crisis struck the country they wouldn't be able to cope with it because they are so divided; they only want my vote to increase their own self-importance.
The Liberals have had at best a tenuous relationship with Quebeckers for more than a generation now. Publicly attacking the leader will ensure that voters even in the “safe” seats of Montreal will start to seriously consider a new permanent home. To be honest, it has crossed my mind. Those who pretend they are trying to save the party from Dion, if they were to succeed, would find themselves with very little left to save. They will not succeed.
On the positive side, I think that the haters have overplayed their hand this week. Let the backlash begin…
Monday, July 09, 2007
Ideological war on terror,drugs,Islam and common sense
A report on efforts to eradicate the opium harvest in Afghanistan came out this week in the New Yorker which I would recommend reading. Written very much in the style of that magazine, the article is entertaining as well as informative. The shooting scenes almost read like an engaging piece of short fiction.
What is the position of our government on the opium fields in Afghanistan? Are we helping or making things worse?
What is the position of our government on the opium fields in Afghanistan? Are we helping or making things worse?
Saturday, April 28, 2007
A dark glimpse in the Afghan mirror
Is that really me?
Canada caught a sinister glimpse of itself this week in the mirror of Afghanistan. Distorted only in part by the realities of that violent third world country, the Canadian “War on Terror” in Afghanistan reflects back at us a projection of our own fears and anxieties, wishful thinking, short-sightedness, deceitfulness, sloppy reasoning, delusional self-righteousness and ignorance.
Some of us recoiled. Some have turned away.
Last year I wrote a series of posts on Afghanistan:
A rude awakening
A reasonable criterion for military engagement
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part I
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part II
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part III
What Canada learned in Rwanda
The storyline has become more complicated since then --not because of a change in the Afghan situation but because of us and how the mission has become a partisan fight. Two issues, though, press to the front: the new government’s continued failure to articulate a clear and reasonable set of objectives in Afghanistan and the manipulation of information that Canadians need to judge the success (and appropriateness) of the objectives. I will ask about the objectives of the Afghan mission in a later post, titled: No blank cheques.
With regard to manipulation of information, The Globe and Mail reported this week that detainees handed over by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan authorities had been tortured. When the Harper government denied knowledge of torture, the Globe further published an internal report from the department of foreign affairs that described torture and executions of detainees in Afghan jails. Either the government was negligent by not reading the report or they had read the report and were lying when they said they had no knowledge about prisoner abuse. The foreign affairs document released to the Globe and Mail under the Access to Information Act had been heavily edited, although the Globe had access by another source to the unedited document. The edited version of the report had removed all mention of torture which suggests that the government was actively trying to cover up its mistake of either not reading the report or lying about it. The government further muddied the water by arguing that the detainees were obviously Taliban trying to embarrass Canada by inventing accounts of torture. Yet if these detainees were Taliban, then the government must also explain why these individuals had been released from prison by the time the Globe and Mail had interviewed them. Either the detainees were Taliban, and the prison system had failed by releasing them, or the detainees were innocent and telling the truth. There were also chilling intimations by many of the Harper government’s supporters, that torture was not necessarily a bad outcome. Several contradictory accounts were given by different government ministers of how prisoners are monitored. Some of those accounts must be false. And finally, Stephen Harper wrapped himself in the flag and argued, preposterously, that those who were raising questions about prisoner abuse were disrespecting the Canadian troops and that only his party represented the military.
The government is not being honest with us about what is happening in Afghanistan. Emotional appeals to patriotism are not sufficient. Without accurate feedback on the effects of the military occupation, Canadians cannot judge whether to proceed or withdraw. Insulated from the facts, the mission is nothing more than a reflection of our worst failings.
Canada caught a sinister glimpse of itself this week in the mirror of Afghanistan. Distorted only in part by the realities of that violent third world country, the Canadian “War on Terror” in Afghanistan reflects back at us a projection of our own fears and anxieties, wishful thinking, short-sightedness, deceitfulness, sloppy reasoning, delusional self-righteousness and ignorance.
Some of us recoiled. Some have turned away.
Last year I wrote a series of posts on Afghanistan:
A rude awakening
A reasonable criterion for military engagement
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part I
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part II
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part III
What Canada learned in Rwanda
The storyline has become more complicated since then --not because of a change in the Afghan situation but because of us and how the mission has become a partisan fight. Two issues, though, press to the front: the new government’s continued failure to articulate a clear and reasonable set of objectives in Afghanistan and the manipulation of information that Canadians need to judge the success (and appropriateness) of the objectives. I will ask about the objectives of the Afghan mission in a later post, titled: No blank cheques.
With regard to manipulation of information, The Globe and Mail reported this week that detainees handed over by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan authorities had been tortured. When the Harper government denied knowledge of torture, the Globe further published an internal report from the department of foreign affairs that described torture and executions of detainees in Afghan jails. Either the government was negligent by not reading the report or they had read the report and were lying when they said they had no knowledge about prisoner abuse. The foreign affairs document released to the Globe and Mail under the Access to Information Act had been heavily edited, although the Globe had access by another source to the unedited document. The edited version of the report had removed all mention of torture which suggests that the government was actively trying to cover up its mistake of either not reading the report or lying about it. The government further muddied the water by arguing that the detainees were obviously Taliban trying to embarrass Canada by inventing accounts of torture. Yet if these detainees were Taliban, then the government must also explain why these individuals had been released from prison by the time the Globe and Mail had interviewed them. Either the detainees were Taliban, and the prison system had failed by releasing them, or the detainees were innocent and telling the truth. There were also chilling intimations by many of the Harper government’s supporters, that torture was not necessarily a bad outcome. Several contradictory accounts were given by different government ministers of how prisoners are monitored. Some of those accounts must be false. And finally, Stephen Harper wrapped himself in the flag and argued, preposterously, that those who were raising questions about prisoner abuse were disrespecting the Canadian troops and that only his party represented the military.
The government is not being honest with us about what is happening in Afghanistan. Emotional appeals to patriotism are not sufficient. Without accurate feedback on the effects of the military occupation, Canadians cannot judge whether to proceed or withdraw. Insulated from the facts, the mission is nothing more than a reflection of our worst failings.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
Prevost
Addressing climate change poses a variety of challenges, the foremost of which is probably changing attitudes. The Globe and Mail carried a laugh-out-loud-funny article today in the Focus section, called “Kings of the road and their million dollar palaces,” about a sub-culture of super wealthy nomadic seniors who own Prevost buses pimped out as recreation vehicles. And they often travel in packs… yes, gangs of happy retired couples roaming our streets… in buses. One such environmentally destructive “club” brazenly calls themselves the “Prevost Prouds.”
Although I do not think of myself as an environmentalist, my blog, Aarons Beard, began a year ago initially because I was upset about Stephen Harper's cuts –more than a billion dollars-- to environmental spending on alternative energy sources and research into climate change and adaptation established previously in the Liberals’ widely acclaimed green budget. I was concerned that these reductions would be forgotten if some people did not speak up for them. As it turns out, I need not have worried. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” hit the theaters almost immediately after and polling consistently indicates that dealing with global warming has become a priority for a significant number of voters. Far from being prescient, it appears I am a child of the times. Since then, Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal party and, in reaction, the Conservative government largely reinstated the Liberal programs, albeit with less money. I am not happy about the inadequate absolute bare minimum strategy of the Conservatives.
As for Prevost buses, it should come as no surprise that even old people like the “bling” too. The retrofitted Prevost costs 1.5 million dollars plus and may be ordered with such necessities as marble floors, gold inlaid wash basins and a defibrillator. A retired couple can travel in a vehicle that would otherwise seat 56 and gets six or seven miles to the gallon. One couple described tows a Hummer behind their bus in case they want to explore smaller roads. The article, by Alan Freeman, is full of similar details on this exclusive sub-culture that left me shaking my head.
I really have no ill will towards these people. I am sure I would like many of them if we crossed paths. And the essential difference between Prevost owners and many others is a bank account containing a few million dollars. The desire for bling, a demonstration of affluence, has had many other names, but is, I suspect, as old as mankind and is not going to go away. The Prevost fetish is symbolic of sunny America: fat, successful and self-contented. The America of the green light. And why not. Behind the purchase of an RV Prevost bus is a web of life experiences and culture wide attitudes that will challenge effective action on reducing carbon emissions for a long time.
Seniors in luxuriant buses is another example of a problem that the military might not be able to solve. My next post will be about the goals of the Afghanistan mission titled, “No blank cheques,” and will appear soon.
Although I do not think of myself as an environmentalist, my blog, Aarons Beard, began a year ago initially because I was upset about Stephen Harper's cuts –more than a billion dollars-- to environmental spending on alternative energy sources and research into climate change and adaptation established previously in the Liberals’ widely acclaimed green budget. I was concerned that these reductions would be forgotten if some people did not speak up for them. As it turns out, I need not have worried. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” hit the theaters almost immediately after and polling consistently indicates that dealing with global warming has become a priority for a significant number of voters. Far from being prescient, it appears I am a child of the times. Since then, Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal party and, in reaction, the Conservative government largely reinstated the Liberal programs, albeit with less money. I am not happy about the inadequate absolute bare minimum strategy of the Conservatives.
As for Prevost buses, it should come as no surprise that even old people like the “bling” too. The retrofitted Prevost costs 1.5 million dollars plus and may be ordered with such necessities as marble floors, gold inlaid wash basins and a defibrillator. A retired couple can travel in a vehicle that would otherwise seat 56 and gets six or seven miles to the gallon. One couple described tows a Hummer behind their bus in case they want to explore smaller roads. The article, by Alan Freeman, is full of similar details on this exclusive sub-culture that left me shaking my head.
I really have no ill will towards these people. I am sure I would like many of them if we crossed paths. And the essential difference between Prevost owners and many others is a bank account containing a few million dollars. The desire for bling, a demonstration of affluence, has had many other names, but is, I suspect, as old as mankind and is not going to go away. The Prevost fetish is symbolic of sunny America: fat, successful and self-contented. The America of the green light. And why not. Behind the purchase of an RV Prevost bus is a web of life experiences and culture wide attitudes that will challenge effective action on reducing carbon emissions for a long time.
Seniors in luxuriant buses is another example of a problem that the military might not be able to solve. My next post will be about the goals of the Afghanistan mission titled, “No blank cheques,” and will appear soon.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
A hunger to win in Central Nova
When I wanted to help out with the provincial election campaign at the age of sixteen, my father drove me out of our riding to another one where he knew the Liberals would not win. He handed me over to someone he knew saying, in essence, here’s a healthy young pair of legs to run around for you, but I want them back after the campaign so try not to let the kid get lost.
On the way over my dad told me that it was a tough riding, the Liberals had no chance of winning it and not to repeat to anyone what he had just told me. Although the people in the riding knew quite well that they wouldn’t win, it’s not something that they would want to hear said out loud. Working the door-to-door in a poor, politically unfriendly riding, he argued, would force me to become a real grit, teach me not to take voters for granted and give me a hunger to win. We lost. Big time.
There was one upset victory in that riding a couple of elections later. I don’t live there anymore.
I won’t pretend that the dynamic in the riding of Central Nova is the same, though I suspect that telling the good Liberals there they can’t win would not be something they would welcome hearing publicly. Who knows what might happen in the next election against Peter MacKay.
On the other hand, I was struck by May saying yesterday that she did not want to be the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics, shaving off far-left votes from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and allowing a George W. Bush victory. The United States would be in a much better place right now if the divisive, hyper-partisan George War Bush had not been elected.
There is a good chance that strategic Green votes in the rest of the country could tip the next federal election in our favour.
Despite the full blast melodrama coming out of the media over this, each side of the argument about Central Nova is a respectable calculation of risk. Maybe it's better not to rush to judgement on Stephane Dions' leadership just yet.
On the way over my dad told me that it was a tough riding, the Liberals had no chance of winning it and not to repeat to anyone what he had just told me. Although the people in the riding knew quite well that they wouldn’t win, it’s not something that they would want to hear said out loud. Working the door-to-door in a poor, politically unfriendly riding, he argued, would force me to become a real grit, teach me not to take voters for granted and give me a hunger to win. We lost. Big time.
There was one upset victory in that riding a couple of elections later. I don’t live there anymore.
I won’t pretend that the dynamic in the riding of Central Nova is the same, though I suspect that telling the good Liberals there they can’t win would not be something they would welcome hearing publicly. Who knows what might happen in the next election against Peter MacKay.
On the other hand, I was struck by May saying yesterday that she did not want to be the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics, shaving off far-left votes from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and allowing a George W. Bush victory. The United States would be in a much better place right now if the divisive, hyper-partisan George War Bush had not been elected.
There is a good chance that strategic Green votes in the rest of the country could tip the next federal election in our favour.
Despite the full blast melodrama coming out of the media over this, each side of the argument about Central Nova is a respectable calculation of risk. Maybe it's better not to rush to judgement on Stephane Dions' leadership just yet.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Le Devoir on Daniel Paille
Even Le Devoir, the Quebec newspaper with sovereignist sympathies, highlighted this morning the bizarre choice of Daniel Paille as the investigator into the polling activity of the Chretien government.
The first sentence reads (translation mine; read the original): “The Conservatives in Ottawa have retained the services of a battle hardened souvereignist to hunt down the federal Liberals” The article goes on to ask all the obvious questions about conflict of interest that you would see in the anglophone press, the obvious questions that the Conservatives did not think through. An anonymous conservative is quoted as saying: “Let’s just say that it (the announcement) didn’t come out the way we had thought it would.”
The article is quite damning and ends with a reminder for those who forgot who Daniel Paille is: “Daniel Paille is a person who got a lot of attention during his short political career in Quebec. Notably, he let the mayor of Montreal, Pierre Bourque, know that he (Paille) was opposed to the opening of a daycare across the street from his residence and he did this in a letter written on official stationary from the ministry of Industry, Commerce and Technology which was his department at the time. Later, he was forced to apologize to the national assembly. […] He was also the father of the controversial Paille plan to assist the start of new businesses. Due to the bankruptcy of more than a quarter of the businesses that benefitted from the plan, the Quebec treasury lost 116.5 million dollars.”
Michael Fortier is in good company. Paille certainly sounds like an Alberta Conservative. ;)
I have a great deal of respect for many "separatist" politicians. There is nothing wrong with a sovereignist serving in the government or heading public inquiries. Quebec would collapse otherwise. But then again, I don’t think anyone in their right mind is suggesting that sovereignists should be excluded from public office. The context of the investigation into the polling practices of the federal government during the period that includes the referendum is however altogether a different thing. The character and history of the candidate who leads the investigation, which in any event is unnecessary because the Auditor General has already investigated the matter, should not allow the perception of bias.
If Michael Fortier is selling it, don't buy it. Vendu tel quel.
Bravo Le Devoir!
Now let's get back to something that really matters like health care.
The first sentence reads (translation mine; read the original): “The Conservatives in Ottawa have retained the services of a battle hardened souvereignist to hunt down the federal Liberals” The article goes on to ask all the obvious questions about conflict of interest that you would see in the anglophone press, the obvious questions that the Conservatives did not think through. An anonymous conservative is quoted as saying: “Let’s just say that it (the announcement) didn’t come out the way we had thought it would.”
The article is quite damning and ends with a reminder for those who forgot who Daniel Paille is: “Daniel Paille is a person who got a lot of attention during his short political career in Quebec. Notably, he let the mayor of Montreal, Pierre Bourque, know that he (Paille) was opposed to the opening of a daycare across the street from his residence and he did this in a letter written on official stationary from the ministry of Industry, Commerce and Technology which was his department at the time. Later, he was forced to apologize to the national assembly. […] He was also the father of the controversial Paille plan to assist the start of new businesses. Due to the bankruptcy of more than a quarter of the businesses that benefitted from the plan, the Quebec treasury lost 116.5 million dollars.”
Michael Fortier is in good company. Paille certainly sounds like an Alberta Conservative. ;)
I have a great deal of respect for many "separatist" politicians. There is nothing wrong with a sovereignist serving in the government or heading public inquiries. Quebec would collapse otherwise. But then again, I don’t think anyone in their right mind is suggesting that sovereignists should be excluded from public office. The context of the investigation into the polling practices of the federal government during the period that includes the referendum is however altogether a different thing. The character and history of the candidate who leads the investigation, which in any event is unnecessary because the Auditor General has already investigated the matter, should not allow the perception of bias.
If Michael Fortier is selling it, don't buy it. Vendu tel quel.
Bravo Le Devoir!
Now let's get back to something that really matters like health care.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Stop!
"Money and the ethnic vote," said Jacques Parizeau
Here we go all over again.
Take the person who dislikes you the most, your rival at work, the nagging relative that never thought much of you, the disapproving neighbor, the person at school who is always making negative remarks about you and have them review your work and publicize their findings. Regardless of what you did, they will make it sound bad. The minor error will become the catastrophic flaw and evidence of loose morals. The complex decisions will be reduced to simplistic and factually inaccurate condemnations.
That is what Michael Fortier, the Conservative muck-raker in Quebec and backroom boy, has announced today. A separatist, Daniel Paillle, from the old Parizeau cabinet will be investigating the polling practices of the federal government within a very limited time frame that almost exclusively targets the Chretien years. The Parizeau government undertook extensive public consultations at the taxpayers expense. They polled. The separatists even used public funds, stashed away for such an occasion, to prop up the Canadian dollar during the referendum. And don’t get me started about the greatest fraud in a democracy, the votes from “ethnic” ridings that were tossed in the garbage on referendum night.
Let’s be clear. There is no impartiality in this investigation. It is not about improving government. It is an attempt to revive the ancient grudge once again. And it will cost $750,000 if not more to indulge in this nakedly partisan manuever. Harper can then commission a poll to see if this "strategy" was effective.
The federal government polled Quebeckers extensively about the clarity act during this period, the courageous legislation that formalizes how to deal with the eventuality of a sovereignist victory in a referendum. The separatists will have a field day attacking Canada with this. The Conservatives really do not know what they are doing if they think that the criticism will be contained to the Liberals. The separatists want to separate from Canada (including english Conservatives from Alberta).
The fiercely emotional allegations…the pettiness…the half-truths…
Here we go all over again.
Stop!
Stop with the tricks and do something real about the environment or health care.
Here we go all over again.
Take the person who dislikes you the most, your rival at work, the nagging relative that never thought much of you, the disapproving neighbor, the person at school who is always making negative remarks about you and have them review your work and publicize their findings. Regardless of what you did, they will make it sound bad. The minor error will become the catastrophic flaw and evidence of loose morals. The complex decisions will be reduced to simplistic and factually inaccurate condemnations.
That is what Michael Fortier, the Conservative muck-raker in Quebec and backroom boy, has announced today. A separatist, Daniel Paillle, from the old Parizeau cabinet will be investigating the polling practices of the federal government within a very limited time frame that almost exclusively targets the Chretien years. The Parizeau government undertook extensive public consultations at the taxpayers expense. They polled. The separatists even used public funds, stashed away for such an occasion, to prop up the Canadian dollar during the referendum. And don’t get me started about the greatest fraud in a democracy, the votes from “ethnic” ridings that were tossed in the garbage on referendum night.
Let’s be clear. There is no impartiality in this investigation. It is not about improving government. It is an attempt to revive the ancient grudge once again. And it will cost $750,000 if not more to indulge in this nakedly partisan manuever. Harper can then commission a poll to see if this "strategy" was effective.
The federal government polled Quebeckers extensively about the clarity act during this period, the courageous legislation that formalizes how to deal with the eventuality of a sovereignist victory in a referendum. The separatists will have a field day attacking Canada with this. The Conservatives really do not know what they are doing if they think that the criticism will be contained to the Liberals. The separatists want to separate from Canada (including english Conservatives from Alberta).
The fiercely emotional allegations…the pettiness…the half-truths…
Here we go all over again.
Stop!
Stop with the tricks and do something real about the environment or health care.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Eastertide Reveries, part Two
A more appropriate title perhaps would be: Bogged Down in Palestine.
On the previous post, Reveries part One, I argued that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes. I think that this applies to the Middle East in ways that I am not ready to defend.
Yesterday, when I reread what I had written for this second post in the series, I felt that it was at once too simplistic and too heavy. Other serial posts that appeared on this blog were easier to construct. Though I am tempted to post what I wrote with revisions and just let it all hang out so to speak, I would only be adding to the noise. It’s a consolation to think that far better people than I have been bogged down in Palestine.
The Eastertide reveries were a way into a number of topics that have been troubling me lately. On the way I did come across interesting material I was not aware of before, notably by Scott Atran
Posts on religion in the Middle East will appear in the future, but at the moment I will only venture to say that I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel, if not necessarily the policies of all of its elected political parties. And, I suspect that resolving numerous problems in the region would be facilitated by paying close attention to how religion organizes the lives of its adherents, or to put it the other way around, how religion is structured as a response to the environmental challenges of its members and to the human mind.
The parts of the Eastertide reveries dealing with Afghanistan and Canadian politics will be posted separately later.
Which in the mean time leaves only… to pray for peace in Jerusalem.
On the previous post, Reveries part One, I argued that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes. I think that this applies to the Middle East in ways that I am not ready to defend.
Yesterday, when I reread what I had written for this second post in the series, I felt that it was at once too simplistic and too heavy. Other serial posts that appeared on this blog were easier to construct. Though I am tempted to post what I wrote with revisions and just let it all hang out so to speak, I would only be adding to the noise. It’s a consolation to think that far better people than I have been bogged down in Palestine.
The Eastertide reveries were a way into a number of topics that have been troubling me lately. On the way I did come across interesting material I was not aware of before, notably by Scott Atran
Posts on religion in the Middle East will appear in the future, but at the moment I will only venture to say that I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel, if not necessarily the policies of all of its elected political parties. And, I suspect that resolving numerous problems in the region would be facilitated by paying close attention to how religion organizes the lives of its adherents, or to put it the other way around, how religion is structured as a response to the environmental challenges of its members and to the human mind.
The parts of the Eastertide reveries dealing with Afghanistan and Canadian politics will be posted separately later.
Which in the mean time leaves only… to pray for peace in Jerusalem.
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Eastertide Reveries, part One
I am sitting outside in the sun without a coat. The air is cool, but relieving relative to what came before. Whatever else this time of year may be, it is not winter.
For those of us who identify Christian, it is Eastertide, roughly, which corresponds roughly to what no one can deny is spring: more comfortable temperatures, new leaves and grass, the beginning of a new cycle. I am glad to be comfortable outdoors again, comfortable and in a frame of mind to think loosely about the future but without the neurotic compulsion of putting unreasonable demands on it.
I am having a spring reverie on a theme that comes out of Africa blows through the middle east and Afghanistan then returns home to Canada and to Quebec and Montreal. It is about democracy and alternatives and the beginnings of new cycles, mundane and not so mundane.
Africa
What comes before the beginning of my reverie is not so pleasant. In Zimbabwe, the leader of the political opposition, was detained recently by the police and beaten. He has opposed the corrupt government of President Robert Mugabe whose policies have led the country to economic ruin. The issues causing unrest are common ones: corruption, distribution of food and wealth, education etc.
While the opposition leader is beaten and should probably be fearing an imminent assassination, the Roman Catholic Arch-Bishop, Pius Ncube, has been permitted to criticize the government, even going so far as to promote a revolution to remove Mugabe, with impunity.
A similar situation many will remember existed in South Africa where the Anglican Arch-Bishop, Desmond Tutu, criticized his government’s policy of Apartheid both within the country and effectively around the world while the future president of post-apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was rotting in jail.
The juxtaposition of reactions to secular or religious opposition is not cut and dry and I am not trying to suggest that it is. History provides innumerable accounts of violent and bureaucratic suppression of religious opposition to power. All I am trying to point to is that some individuals have been able to parlay their spiritual authority into a limited form of free speech. You may kill a priest, but you should think twice about the consequences of killing a “holy” person.
Historically, religion has often played a role in creating space for opposition, harbouring alternatives to the current status quo which may lead to reforms or revolutions. The full implications of any specific instantiation of religious opposition can be viewed as good or bad. The spectrum of political impulses protected by the church in different places at different times and by different religious sects, mocks the attempt to classify them universally as simply right or left wing. Religion can also be turned to amplify the contemporary power structure though it always retains the potential to transform into a vehicle for change –independently about how you or I may feel about those changes. Religious institutions are far less immutable than they may frequently pretend and people are, I believe, generally promiscuous about who delivers solutions to worldly challenges such poverty, education, or access to medical treatment.
I am religious, but don’t ask me to defend all religious views. I am generally in agreement with the opposition of arch-bishops Desmond Tutu and Pius Ncube to the their respective governments, although this may mask other opinions these men may hold that may be unacceptable to me as a Western moderate, such as misogyny, homophobia or virulent anti-Semitism. The overriding issue of providing an alternative to the status quo in their respective countries in a sense temporarily hides these other issues. A case where I personally disagree with specific aspects of religious opposition to the status quo is in the Middle East. Variants of the Muslim faith, turned to the task of opposing the political status quo, harbour political impulses that I do not support at all. I will talk about that in my next post: Eastertide Reveries, part Two. It will build on the point that I have tried to make here that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes.
For those of us who identify Christian, it is Eastertide, roughly, which corresponds roughly to what no one can deny is spring: more comfortable temperatures, new leaves and grass, the beginning of a new cycle. I am glad to be comfortable outdoors again, comfortable and in a frame of mind to think loosely about the future but without the neurotic compulsion of putting unreasonable demands on it.
I am having a spring reverie on a theme that comes out of Africa blows through the middle east and Afghanistan then returns home to Canada and to Quebec and Montreal. It is about democracy and alternatives and the beginnings of new cycles, mundane and not so mundane.
Africa
What comes before the beginning of my reverie is not so pleasant. In Zimbabwe, the leader of the political opposition, was detained recently by the police and beaten. He has opposed the corrupt government of President Robert Mugabe whose policies have led the country to economic ruin. The issues causing unrest are common ones: corruption, distribution of food and wealth, education etc.
While the opposition leader is beaten and should probably be fearing an imminent assassination, the Roman Catholic Arch-Bishop, Pius Ncube, has been permitted to criticize the government, even going so far as to promote a revolution to remove Mugabe, with impunity.
A similar situation many will remember existed in South Africa where the Anglican Arch-Bishop, Desmond Tutu, criticized his government’s policy of Apartheid both within the country and effectively around the world while the future president of post-apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was rotting in jail.
The juxtaposition of reactions to secular or religious opposition is not cut and dry and I am not trying to suggest that it is. History provides innumerable accounts of violent and bureaucratic suppression of religious opposition to power. All I am trying to point to is that some individuals have been able to parlay their spiritual authority into a limited form of free speech. You may kill a priest, but you should think twice about the consequences of killing a “holy” person.
Historically, religion has often played a role in creating space for opposition, harbouring alternatives to the current status quo which may lead to reforms or revolutions. The full implications of any specific instantiation of religious opposition can be viewed as good or bad. The spectrum of political impulses protected by the church in different places at different times and by different religious sects, mocks the attempt to classify them universally as simply right or left wing. Religion can also be turned to amplify the contemporary power structure though it always retains the potential to transform into a vehicle for change –independently about how you or I may feel about those changes. Religious institutions are far less immutable than they may frequently pretend and people are, I believe, generally promiscuous about who delivers solutions to worldly challenges such poverty, education, or access to medical treatment.
I am religious, but don’t ask me to defend all religious views. I am generally in agreement with the opposition of arch-bishops Desmond Tutu and Pius Ncube to the their respective governments, although this may mask other opinions these men may hold that may be unacceptable to me as a Western moderate, such as misogyny, homophobia or virulent anti-Semitism. The overriding issue of providing an alternative to the status quo in their respective countries in a sense temporarily hides these other issues. A case where I personally disagree with specific aspects of religious opposition to the status quo is in the Middle East. Variants of the Muslim faith, turned to the task of opposing the political status quo, harbour political impulses that I do not support at all. I will talk about that in my next post: Eastertide Reveries, part Two. It will build on the point that I have tried to make here that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Flux in the RCMP and Stockwell Day
Questions of serious abuse of power have been swirling around the leadership of the RCMP during the last year. The direction of the federal election last winter was decisively affected by the unorthodox intrusion of the RCMP into the campaign. The RCMP announced by way of a fax to a member of the NDP that there was an investigation into potential misconduct on the part of then Finance Minister Ralph Goodale. The investigation later cleared him of any wrong doing, but only well after the campaign had delivered a Conservative victory. The relation between the announcement and the change in favour toward the Conservatives in the polls was clear. Later this past year, the head of the RCMP was forced to resign in light of misrepresentation he had made to the House of Commons with regard to the disgraceful Maher Arar case. The misrepresentation left the definite impression that the RCMP was trying to cover-up the mishandling of information that led to the deportation of Maher Arar to Syria where he was tortured. And this week shocking allegations were made in front of a House of Commons committee that nepotism and fraud may have been comitted in the administration of the RCMP retirement plan. Those who spoke out against the abuse of power were silenced and punished by the RCMP leadership in a further story of institutional corruption and cover-up.
Clearly, the perception of the RCMP needs to be redeemed in the eyes of the public as well as the rank and file members of this organization which is intimately tied to Canadian history and identity. An investigation must be launched to root out the wrong-doers and more importantly re-examine the structure of our national police force. Good things may come from this investigation.
BUT the minister charged with overseeing the RCMP, Stockwell Day, is currently under the cloud of his own scandal. New evidence has surfaced that he may have criminally misused public funds. The RCMP are currently deliberating whether to proceed with an criminal investigation (see the documents)
I previously suggested that the only honourable thing to do on Stockwell Day's part would be to step aside so that there would not be the perception that he somehow influenced the course of this examination of his potiential misconduct. I even suggested that he resign last Monday which with the media attention focused on the Quebec provincial election would have allowed him to make this move quietly. He did not do the honourable thing.
As the situation now stands, the RCMP is looking at investigating him while he is determining how to investigate the RCMP. The conflict of interest is patent and reflects poorly on both parties. Stockwell Day must resign his minsterial position overseeing the RCMP for his own reputation and for the reputation of the RCMP.
Clearly, the perception of the RCMP needs to be redeemed in the eyes of the public as well as the rank and file members of this organization which is intimately tied to Canadian history and identity. An investigation must be launched to root out the wrong-doers and more importantly re-examine the structure of our national police force. Good things may come from this investigation.
BUT the minister charged with overseeing the RCMP, Stockwell Day, is currently under the cloud of his own scandal. New evidence has surfaced that he may have criminally misused public funds. The RCMP are currently deliberating whether to proceed with an criminal investigation (see the documents)
I previously suggested that the only honourable thing to do on Stockwell Day's part would be to step aside so that there would not be the perception that he somehow influenced the course of this examination of his potiential misconduct. I even suggested that he resign last Monday which with the media attention focused on the Quebec provincial election would have allowed him to make this move quietly. He did not do the honourable thing.
As the situation now stands, the RCMP is looking at investigating him while he is determining how to investigate the RCMP. The conflict of interest is patent and reflects poorly on both parties. Stockwell Day must resign his minsterial position overseeing the RCMP for his own reputation and for the reputation of the RCMP.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Why I voted
Faced with the ballot my knee jerk reaction kicked in and I voted for the PLQ this morning. All the best to Jean Charest, I hope that he delivers this time. Given reports of low voter turn-out, I suspect that the PLQ will do rather well tonight because, for whatever reason, Quebec Liberals get out and vote.
Charest had to confront an interesting problem during the election with Mario Dumont’s vague concept of autonomy. It appealed to me as it does I suspect for many people because it represents popularly and in the short term "none of the above"with regard to separation. The real challenges for Quebec, health care access, competitivity, educational funding, an overwhelming national debt to name a few, have been masked by an old and bitter language (religious/class) dispute. Separation… another exhausting referendum… vote for us just to avoid another referendum… good Quebeckers only vote for us… traitor… faux frere… I am tired of it all. Of course the hard core federalist says: eventually autonomy will take a concrete form and you don’t know what you are getting into. Well, I respond: that is not what it means today. It means, to me at least, a rejection of the never ending talk about the constitution, language rights, the manifest destiny of the nation.
And then I voted Liberal… sigh.
Now as for how this will help Harper. I suspect it won’t or least far less than the great manipulator might think. The vote buying was a cheap trick and I don’t think many are grateful for receiving what Stephen Harper has convinced most Quebeckers is, in any event, owed to them. In addition, Harper's comments about how he would only negociate with a federalist provincial government made it apparent that Harper is not adept in Quebec politics.
Pssst… Steve Harper if you are listening. Is it alright if I call you Steve like your friend George Bush does. Steve, you will deal with whoever we decide to elect as our government. Period.
Stephen Harper’s overtly nationalist Bloc imitation attack ads certainly did not help the Liberals in this election and may have much to do with my feeling of being drawn back into the federalist/separatist vortex. As a Quebec federalist, the ads gave me the creeps for reasons which the creators of the ads could probably better explain.
Charest had to confront an interesting problem during the election with Mario Dumont’s vague concept of autonomy. It appealed to me as it does I suspect for many people because it represents popularly and in the short term "none of the above"
And then I voted Liberal… sigh.
Now as for how this will help Harper. I suspect it won’t or least far less than the great manipulator might think. The vote buying was a cheap trick and I don’t think many are grateful for receiving what Stephen Harper has convinced most Quebeckers is, in any event, owed to them. In addition, Harper's comments about how he would only negociate with a federalist provincial government made it apparent that Harper is not adept in Quebec politics.
Pssst… Steve Harper if you are listening. Is it alright if I call you Steve like your friend George Bush does. Steve, you will deal with whoever we decide to elect as our government. Period.
Stephen Harper’s overtly nationalist Bloc imitation attack ads certainly did not help the Liberals in this election and may have much to do with my feeling of being drawn back into the federalist/separatist vortex. As a Quebec federalist, the ads gave me the creeps for reasons which the creators of the ads could probably better explain.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Stockwell Day
http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=news&id=12598
This is an important isssue. The current Minister of Public Security, Stockwell Day, is responsible for the oversight of the RCMP. In light of new evidence that Stockwell Day may have broken the law and misused public funds, the RCMP must investigate. The only honourable option within the Canadian tradition of responsible government available to the Minister overseeing the RCMP is to step aside from his post while the investigation is undertaken. Anything less than the Minister removing himself from this conflict of interest, as overseer of the RCMP and under investigation by the RCMP at the same time, will in perception and in fact be wrong.
The minister needs to step aside. If he has done nothing wrong which is hopefully the case, he will not be charged.
The minister must step aside by Monday, March 26th.
Otherwise, questions need to be asked about his influence on the investigation into his potential crimes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)