Monthly Archives: September 2010

Not my government

Conservatives

Here’s a point form list of things that disappointed me about the Harper government, just today. This is for anyone still wondering why we don’t need an election to boot these backward theocrats out of office:

  • The HST (which the federal Liberals supported) is being blamed for the deficit going from $47 to $54 billion. While the transfer payments were only a couple billion each (I thought), I think at very least this adds weight to the argument that Conservatives are REALLY bad at managing the economy.
  • Next, the entire House (except perhaps independent MP Andre Arthur) should be condemned for passing a motion criticizing Maclean’s magazine for calling Quebec the most corrupt province. Perhaps if the Bloc motion had stated why Maclean’s was wrong and not just call it racist, I could support their disagreement, but as far as I can say, Maclean’s made a statement, backed it up, and now everyone is crying about hurt feelings.
  • More to blame directly on Harper is that his government is again lining up to be in contempt of the majority will of parliament by stating it will ignore a motion passed today calling for the reinstatement of the long-form census. Also in that story is the Liberals chickening out on EI benefits.
  • Finally, the good news that an Ontario court struck down laws that prevent prostitutes from working safely was quickly met with a rebuttal that the Conservatives will appeal it as soon as possible.

That sounds familiar

Politics

Dan Gardner has been a consistently good columnist for the Ottawa Citizen and he nailed it today with his comments on the gun registry:

Benefits? There’s lots of rhetoric and high-minded intentions. But that’s not evidence of actual benefit. And as far as I can tell, there is precious little of that.

Of course, this is very similar to what I said almost a year ago when I compared the arguments for the registry (and against it for that matter) to religious and vacuous arguments.

I think my current position is supportive of Layton’s compromise and fix it approach, while allowing those in the caucus who feel strongly to vote against it. However, if the registry falls tomorrow, are we actually suggesting that people are going to run around shooting innocent women and children with their unregistered rifles?

However, the registry is costing a fair amount, although as Gardner points out, the numbers are contested, and that money could go elsewhere.

In the end though, Gardner’s conclusion is important:

The problem with these culturally loaded debates is that they can rob attention that should go to far more important matters. Remember all the talk about gun crime during the 2006 election, particularly after a sensational murder happened in Toronto? Perceptions were way out of alignment with reality. Indeed, even as the politicians were hammering away, gun murders in Toronto were plummeting.

Something else was going on, too: The military was moving to Kandahar in preparation for its toughest mission since the Korean War. But that was almost completely ignored during the campaign.

So what will we miss this time if we waste an election talking about an inconsequential registry?

Peak: Canada doesn’t need the Queen

Canada, Secularism, The Peak

My first article of the new school year is out and addresses comments that Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard made during her latest campaign about dropping the monarchy there.

Canada doesn’t need the Queen
By Ian Bushfield

If you’re anything like me, you spent the latter half of your summer engrossed in news about last week’s historic Australian election, finally decided a full fortnight after their election day. It’s a vote that could have implications for their relationship to the British monarchy, and could be instructive for future Canadian policy.

For those not in the loop, Australia’s ruling Labour Party underwent a bloodless coup d’état a few months back when unpopular Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was replaced by up-and-comer Julia Gillard. She became the first female prime minister of Australia, as well as an atheist who lives with her partner out of wedlock. But like our own Kim Campbell, Gillard seemed destined to lose power as quickly as she gained it as her fortunes turned sour in this election.

But Gillard managed to sneak by with a tie in final seat counts with her opposition, and after some deals she managed to get enough independents and the lone Green Party member to support Labour and establish a coalition government.

I could make lots of comparisons here between our country and Australia, from their natural acceptance of coalitions, to their more proportional electoral system for their senate, or the fact that an atheist was elected prime minister and no one really got upset. But instead, I want to discuss one short quote that Gillard made during her campaign that was almost ignored.

She stated that Australia should seek to become a republic once the monarch changes.

Australia, like Canada, is a constitutional monarchy whose head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, the queen of England and the entire Commonwealth. Meanwhile, France and the USA are republics, which means that the people of either country directly or indirectly elect their heads of state.

In 1999, Australia actually held a referendum to determine whether they should drop the monarchy and instead install a president who would be nominated by a two-thirds majority of parliament. The referendum failed, in part because the alternative presented was a somewhat obscure option that didn’t necessarily have the support of all republicans in the country.

Monarchists defend the status quo using one of two main arguments: tradition, and the political advantages of an unelected head of state.

Tradition arguments can be rejected out of hand, as tradition is what brings us racism, sexism, xenophobia, and most other prejudiced systems. Just because something is what has always been done does not make it the right or moral thing to do. Monarchs are a throwback to theocratic days where people could be hung for the victimless crime of blasphemy with nothing more than a show trial. A monarch is the crown of a caste system where one cannot work their way out of despondency. The divine right of kings (and queens) is an affront to our modern free and secular society.

An unelected head of state is also argued to provide stability and rationality to the democratic process by acting as sober oversight to the whims of the public and politicians. Further, it is argued that by removing the monarchy, we risk consolidating even more power in our already bloated prime minister’s office.

However, as demonstrated by recent decisions of our governor general, the prime minister has little difficulty pushing his agenda through. Parliament has been prorogued twice to end debate that threatened the government. An independent and accountable head of state, separate from the PMO and cabinet, could act as a new focus of Canadian pride, and help to rebuild our crumbling democracy.

There’s many ways that we could establish a Canadian republic, and it is time we start the conversation about Canada after the queen.

Iggy said two good things

Conservatives, Liberals, Politics

Well this is a change from last year’s embarrassment of a caucus retreat for the Liberals (when Ignatieff said he would defeat Harper ASAP then got whipped by his party and retreated back to the vote or abstain with Harper at every opportunity bit).

Today we have Ignatieff blasting Harper for reckless spending (exactly what needs to be said), and also adding a little bit about “playing nice with others.” This is a great contrast to Harper’s scaremongering with coalition talk again.

In the red and orange corner we have talk of cooperation and nation-building. Defence of health care and the environment are priorities, along with sound economic management.

In the blue corner we have talk of boogeymen and the continued denigration of our welfare state.

My new theory is that Libertarians like Harper just never learned to share as children.