Gordon Stamp and the unity vigilante

Someone writes a letter to the editor, name withheld. The person is venting about his employer, his country, his wife . . . whatever. Another person with the means, or through duplicitous actions, uncovers who this person is and 'outs' them -- is that fair? Is it right? I don't know, I'm really just asking -- but I do think it's particularly odd when the outter is anonymous himself.

Personally, from all I've read, what Gord Stamp said was a fairly typical Albertan response to frustration with having no voice in confederation. Now, even the voice of frustration is being silenced. The guy was working for the Conservatives, so my guess is that he felt Canada was worth his spare time -- he was willing to take action to make it work because despite private reservations about the outcome of the upcoming election, he must believe in Canada. Feelings, reactions, thoughts, opinions and ideas are all still legal in Canada. Each of them is subject to change, to circumstances and, if they are subject to scrutiny, they shouldn't be treated as toxic unless they are advocating something illegal.

Was his talk treasonous? Was it illegal? or was it the bravado that comes from the relative anonymity of venting on a forum or a blog?

Is there nowhere that people can say what they think anymore without it becoming more than what it is?

I've read through much of what Stamp wrote and I have to say I believe the reaction is over-blown. There were no personal attacks. He called Ontarians 'stupid eastern voters'. He suggested that others in Alberta also feel ready to bolt when they contemplate the idea of five more years of Liberal hegemony -- and that some of those people have ties to the Conservative Party. Big whoop!

Has no one ever had a family fight, walked out, slammed the door, and shouted 'I'm outta here'. In a family, you try to understand what drives a person to speak like that -- you don't bolt the door behind them. In Canada, we seem to only have that kind of compassion for Quebeckers.

There are a good many Quebeckers working in government, taking a Canadian paycheque, who have now, or in their past, entertained the notion of an independent Quebec. Canada has survived. Paul Martin has embraced them -- one lives in the Governor General's mansion, another is his Quebec Lieutenant and a Cabinet Minister. But a volunteer in a party that hasn't even formed a government gets fired?

Yes, people have the right to react to Stamp's comments as they see fit -- and I suppose the Conservative Party wants to distance itself from people who use what is considered 'extreme' rhetoric -- but let's face it, Quebec has been separating since I was a little kid. Everyone listens. Everyone cares. We hold up banners that say 'my Canada includes Quebec'. An Albertan suggests that the Liberal status quo -- imposed on him and his province by Ontario -- would feed separatist forces in Alberta and he's treated like a traitor. We listen seriously to avowed separatist Gilles Duceppe -- allow him a voice in federal election debates -- but this volunteer -- who is working for a party that has no intention of splitting up the country -- he must be punished because he is the voice of extremism? Give me a break.

I've been thinking about Stamp a lot since yesterday when I went to visit Candace on Planet X. Through her post, I was led to LackofGreyMatter or BucketsofLostBrainCells or maybe it was Bouquets of Grey, the anonymous stalker blogger who seems take perverse joy in twisting daggers and dancing on graves as a public service. In the comment section, he tells Candace:

That this matter may have caused Mr. Stamp some personal pain is not anything that I take any pleasure in. I do believe, however, that I've done your party a service by exposing him and allowing you to do the right thing.

That was about 12 hours after having written a post entitled: More Stampy Goodness where he continues to do '(y)our party a service' and trying to flush out more operatives in the thriving and nefarious Alberta separatist movement.

It continues today, the newest post slamming 'contingent Canadians' -- those who say there are limits to what they can put up with from government. Buckets goes into a 'my country, right or wrong' soliloquy that brought tears to my eyes. No, really. He speaks of his love of nation and says "I like who we are and what we're becoming" vowing only to vote for people who feel the same:

"no matter what mistakes its people or governments make."

It's unconscionable that in a free country anyone might feel differently from Mr. Bucket -- and then have the audacity to actually express that feeling. You'd think we were living in a bloody democracy or something. Mr. Stamp and his separatist ilk don't love the fact that waste, sleaze, corruption, lies, and arrogance are being normalized by an autocratic regime, which through a decade or more of manipulation have managed to vilify any religion, philosophy or political thought-process that doesn't fall into line with their own? For shame, Mr. Stamp. For shame!

It isn't only that I don't find Mr. Stamp's opinions offensive, or even very shocking (which I don't) given the political climate in this country. Heck, if the Liberals get in again, I want to separate -- It's that -- rather than listening to what Stamp was saying, the Conservative Party and or/ Peter Goldring, his MP, allowed his fear of public sentiment to drop the axe without even giving a nod to the fact that what Stamp said resonates with a lot of people -- not all of them Albertans but all of them Canadians.

Buckets admits that the sum of Gord Stamp's work in the Alberta separation movement has been talking separation ‘after the next election’ since the early Chretien days. And while Stamp loses his position, the phantom Bucket slithers and trolls and gossips, looking for fresh meat to skewer in his smug, creepy way.

We woo Quebeckers who threaten separation and shun Albertans who even think of it.

Liberal Canada. Like it or shut up.

canadianna

Fred at GayandRight is in agreement with John Moore (I believe it is the same John Moore who is a CFRB talk-show host) who writes in the National Post today:

A Red Tory has nothing to fear from the Conservatives except that it's clear they're as cravenly desperate for power and as intellectually bankrupt as the Liberals. Nothing makes this clearer than the promise to lower the GST. Economists appreciate why consumption taxes are superior to income taxes. But since there are probably about 10,000 economists and 30 million consumers in Canada, the promise to knock two points off the GST is a great cheap sell. Most galling is that the measure was proposed by Harper, who is an economist (. . .) Sadly, the Conservatives, unsure of their ability to attract centrists on merit, have become the political equivalent of strangers with candy.

It doesn't take an economist to determine that a simple income tax cut is not going to make much difference to the average Canadian who makes $32,000/year. It will make no difference at all to those who live at the poverty line. It won't help people who work part-time, or pensioners who are on a fixed-income. It won't help students. It won't help people who are living off a disability pension. It won't help many of us who are living paycheque to paycheque.

Think about your monthly bills -- hydro, natural gas (or heating oil), telephone, cell phone, cable tv, internet service, All of these are subject to GST. Most people, rich and poor, have to pay at least some if not all of these bills. A 5% GST would make a difference monthly. Not a huge difference if you're a Paul Martin or even a Jack Layton -- but in the course of a year -- a significant one to the vast majority of us who apparently don't matter in John Moore's world.

Conservatives historically have been seen as the party of the wealthy. This bid to make everyone's monthly bills just a tad less onerous is a welcome one. It includes even those of us who doesn't have money to save and invest.

While the NDP and Liberals claim that they are parties working for 'the people' -- their antagonism towards the only tax relief that will actually benefit all Canadians is perplexing. I have no problem with income tax cuts, and from what I understand, the Conservatives have never said the GST cut will be to the exclusion income tax cuts or any other kind of tax cut -- but why do these socialist parties who claim to represent people like me -- despise the only kind of tax cut that would benefit the people they claim to speak for -- a single parent, working two part-time jobs and struggling to make ends meet?

I also take exception to Moore's recollection of events last Spring:

My first inkling that the ground was shifting beneath our feet came last February with the tabling of Ralph Goodale's budget. Flush with money, Goodale announced a raft of radical new expenditures. My immediate reaction was, "This is hopelessly bloated." Stephen Harper's immediate reaction was, "This is a budget we can support."

Moore's blithe assertion that Harper supported the budget is just plain wrong. Harper held that this was not a budget on which he would choose to try to defeat the government. There is a vast difference between acceptance and support and Moore's failure to see the distinction detracts from the value of his arguments.

People like Moore seem to be looking for an excuse to vote Liberal -- as he calls them -- "the creeps we know" -- Unlike Moore, if I disagreed with the Conservatives significantly enough, on enough issues, I still wouldn't be marking the ballot for the party that has proved it will squander or steal public money.

It takes a fair amount of contorting to conclude that because the Conservatives have offered tax relief to poor people that they are "as cravenly desperate for power and as intellectually bankrupt as the Liberals". Moore's inability to think outside the conventional economist wisdom about consumption tax vs. income tax shows he is thinking in terms of theoretical realities -- income tax cuts might stimulate growth and investment -- but Harper's GST cut will affect real people every day.

At least Fred says Harper's tax policy would never tempt him to vote Liberal. People like Moore who would rather vote for the 'creeps' need to be honest with themselves. If they would vote Liberal because of Harper's tax policy, then they really aren't 'Red Tories' as they might to claim. They're Liberals, through and through. Short-sighted and too lazy to think.

canadianna

All things come to him who waits - provided he doesn't die first

"Our veterans connect generations and Canadians. As a country and as individuals, we gain in pride and in purpose from their deeds and their service." Paul Martin

Mr. Martin's touching sentiments don't extend to connecting veterans with the money the government owes them.

The Liberal website suggests that Harper's proposed Veteran's Bill of Rights is a rip-off of a Bill C-45, which passed through the House in April:

This morning in Victoria, Conservative leader Stephen Harper announced that he would enact a Veterans’ Bill of Rights to ensure their needs are being met by the Government of Canada particularly in the area of health benefits.
This is a good idea. So good that the Liberal government did this when we brought forward a new Veterans’ Charter (Bill-C-45) in April of this year, and passed it through the House of Commons on May 10, 2005.
Mr. Harper and the Conservatives actually supported the government’s initiative at the time. Now, they are imitating it.

The government website says:

Over the years, Veterans Affairs Canada has been a world leader in providing care and support to war service veterans.

I think many Veterans would tell you otherwise (remember the accommodations provided -- at their expense --for the Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa this year), but more than that, The Legion magazine talks of how the new Veteran's Charter was pushed through parliament when parliament was on the verge of collapse in the Spring, and interested parties were given only two days notice to read through the 50 - page document. There was no time for any changes or amendments. Many veterans are concerned about the wording of the bill and believe that it didn't go far enough to protect and help those with complex disabilities. The bill received all party support because to have voted against it would have been 'to vote against veterans' but the Conservatives listened to the concerns of veterans and have attempted to address them with new legislation.

The Liberal record of handling veteran's affairs is abysmal -- they nickel and dime them, just biding time until the last of them die off. And now this Liberal government, a government awash in waste -- a government so willing to misuse public money -- begrudges those who've served our country interest on funds the government was supposed to be managing for them. The 4.6 billion amounts to the cost of the gun registry, and a couple of those unauditable 'foundations' the Liberals are so fond of.

Let them appeal -- it just gives undecided Canadian voters another shining example of the Liberal propensity to say one thing, while doing the exact opposite.

canadianna 1:20 am

UPDATE: I've just read in the Toronto Sun that Cliff Chadderton is against this payout because he believes it will not benefit many veterans. He says only 100 or so are still alive and the money will end up with distant relatives etc.

I have the utmost respect for Mr. Chadderton -- and I have to agree. The government should pay the veterans who are still alive or their wives, and the balance of the money should be used to compensate other veterans who have been denied benefits for filling out the wrong papers after WWII, the Aboriginal veterans who have been virtually ignored, etc.

This money should not be a windfall for relatives of veterans. I don't know if an appeal of this award is necessary to accomplish these goals, but if so, the government should lay out it's intentions and guarantee that the amount of the judgement will be spent on veterans -- not their extended families and not more bureaucracy.

Laws don't reflect modern reality

One is out on parole, the other is a young offender. Shocking, eh?

Neither has been charged with the murder of Jane Creba, although there seems no doubt with the list of charges, that police know they were there.

According to the National Post:

(20 year old) Thompson is facing eight charges relating to Monday’s incident, including pointing a firearm and discharging a weapon “at a large group of unknown persons.” He is also charged with possession of a restricted weapon, possession of a loaded weapon, possession of a stolen weapon and violating the terms of his parole order, issued on Oct. 6. (. . .) Constable Wendy Drummond of the Toronto Police Service said Thompson has not been charged in the fatality or the other casualties. “We are still awaiting forensic tests on the weapon for that,” Const. Drummond said.

So if this guy's bullet hit someone and didn't kill them, or instead hit a wall or a window, he could pretty much get a pass.

The police can only charge them with what's on the books -- but 'discharging a weapon at a large group of unknown persons' is really a charge? Like if the group were smaller, or he knew them, it would be okay?

And if you participate in a gun-battle on a main street, and someone dies -- does it matter if your bullet is the one who struck the victim? Shouldn't all of them be charged with murder if their actions led to her death? And all of them -- regardless of aim, were shooting on a crowded street -- so all of their actions led to her death.

And what of the victims who didn't die? One is still in 'critical condition' -- so modern medicine is able to save this person, and the charge will likely be a less serious 'attempted murder' or some sort of assault with a weapon --- but the intent to kill, or the disregard for this person's life by the gunmen, should not be mitigated by the victim's survival -- the recovery of those who were shot, shouldn't reward the gunmen with lesser charges.

The laws on murder need to be rethought. It shouldn't matter that by luck or through medical intervention, a gun you've discharged doesn't end up killing a person. The death is secondary to the intent or the disregard for human life when it comes to charging and punishing the accused. If the police can prove through ballistics that these men were there and were shooters, should they be any less culpable because their bullets weren't fatal?

Modern medicine has made it so that many who once would have, won't die of injuries inflicted by would-be murderers. Modern weaponry has made it such that the discharging of a weapon can do incredible amounts of damage and can never be excused as accidental, and deaths that result from the discharging of these weapons can never be dismissed as unforseen, or unintentional.

It's time the law caught up.

canadianna

Scandal saturation point

I understand the Income Trust thing in the limited way that people without financial or mathematical acumen do. I get that a significant amount of trading occurred which it appears may have benefited a select few people who had early information.

Maybe the masses are not seething at the possibility of yet another Liberal scandal because Liberal scandals are never easy. They are complicated, dealing with secret information, a legion of characters with connections and relationship that are difficult to keep track of, and they deal with money in sums incomprehensible to someone who makes under $30,000/year (which most means most Canadians).

Theft, deception and incompetence on the scale the Liberals have managed to achieve is wearying. That's how it works -- the Liberals succeed by wearing people down.

While I don't believe Ralph Goodale was directly responsible for any leak that may have occurred, it is amazing how two successive Liberal Finance Ministers have been oblivious to either overt wrong-doing, or careless negligence, carried out by people within their scope of scrutiny.

If Goodale passes this test with the public, the Liberals have a good chance of pulling this election out of the fire. Given that the investigation will continue beyond the election, he remains an innocent, though slightly accused man. That might be good enough for some to continue to shrug and say 'what's the big deal'.

M.K. Braaten writes about tonight's CTV news coverage, saying that it doesn't look good for the Liberals. I'm trying to share his optimism.

Hopefully, scandal-wearied Canadians will be listening as this continues to unfold but I fear we're approaching scandal-fatigue.

canadianna

Root-excuses for gangs and guns

"If there was any silver lining in this it could be that maybe white middle-class people would care more about the risks that are out there for other members of our community." U of T criminologist, Mariana Valverde in today's Toronto Sun.

"Yesterday's shootings in Toronto serve as a painful reminder that we cannot take our peace or our understanding for granted. I think more than anything else, they demonstrate what are in fact the consequences of exclusion. I was in Toronto not long ago and met with a number of members of communities in the Jane and Finch area . . . and the young people talked to me about the void in their lives, and what hopelessness and exclusion can bring." Paul Martin, Liberal leader

First -- there is no silver lining. There can be no silver lining in the death of young girl at the hands of vicious, souless thugs. Sentencing reform could have come without her death . . . should have come without her death -- things never should have been allowed to get this far. The only deterrent to this kind of crime is to lock them up and throw away the key. Maybe if criminals knew they'd never get out, EVER again -- maybe they'd think twice. Prison time must be punitive. We know all that without the death of an innocent child.

Unlike Ms Valverde and our Prime Minister, I thought the violence downtown on boxing day was the act of criminals who realised that because of their age, or who through experience with a lack of serious penalties (should they ever be caught), had no compunction about choosing murder as the answer to their grievances. It never occurred to me that it was our fault because we don't care and we have created a dark void into which excluded people fall, helpless to prevent themselves from pulling guns on crowded streets and killing innocent people.

Forgive me if I don't care when young men with guns, shoot other young men with guns. My only concern has ever been the innocents who might be caught in the cross-fire.

Ms Valverde suggests we (white, middle-class suburbanites) will 'care more' now that this has come to one of our own. Like this is something new.

Remember these names? In 1983 Barbara Turnbull was shot and paralysed in a convenience store robbery in Mississauga; 23 year old Vivi Leimonis was murdered 1994 in a botched robbery at Just Desserts in Toronto; in 2004, Louise Russo was paralysed in a drive-by shooting at a sandwich shop in North York, and now Jane Creba. There are others, but I remember these few names because they are women whose ages were similar to mine at the times of the events, and now with the last one, I have a fifteen year old daughter.

People already care -- but don't expect us to shed tears for the thugs who become 'victims' of a street life they have a part in shaping and maintaining.

Unlike the elites, it didn't take this murder for us to know things are out of hand. We see the violence as already affecting us -- even when they aren't killing our kids. It's just that unlike those who comment from ivory towers, we have no warm and fuzzy illusions about after school programmes being more than just another place for a drug deal. We have no grand visions of violent criminals flushing their drugs, handing over their guns and getting jobs at the Zellers or Canadian Tire.

I don't believe in warm and snuggly social programs -- I believe in punitive justice as a deterrent to violent crime.
I don't believe a kid who knows he can make $3,000 a week selling crack or meth, is going to become a model citizen because of a work co-op programme.
I don't believe that 'children' who are 15, 16 or 17 should be shielded by their age, from the real consequences for the violent crimes they commit because of a law designed to protect kids who swipe a pack of gum.
I don't believe violent criminals will grow a soul if they go to anger management or other useless therapy programs.
I don't believe in rehabilitation -- I believe in retribution.
I don't believe in collective guilt -- I believe in personal responsibility.

Ms Valverde and Mr. Martin are laying the blame for violent crime at the feet of the average person. I'm not biting.

People who behave in a violent, anti-social manner should be excluded from society. But they should be excluded through incarceration in jail where they belong. Maybe then they wouldn't have a chance to influence the little ones in their communities for whom there is still hope. Maybe if they were kept in jail where they belong, those who come up behind them might realise that crime doesn't pay, that there are consequences for every action. And even if locking them up and throwing away the key does nothing to deter even one other criminal -- at least the criminal who is locked up will be out of our midst and unable to cause harm to society again.

Mr. Martin can blame poverty, hopelessness etc. He can give all the root-causes he wants -- but that is a major insult to all those who live in low-income, high-crime areas and who manage to instill values in their children. It is an insult to all the poor people who realise that poverty is just the state of your bank account, and that the measure of your character is where you create your riches. These people need the government to back them up. They need to be able to say to their kids 'no excuses'. Instead we have staged sympathy, wrong-headed solutions (hand-gun ban), collective guilt and governmental inertia when it comes to violent crime.

The criminal sucks the hope and potential from children in tough neighbourhoods -- and the government ensures the hope remains extinguished by doing nothing to remove the criminal element from their midst. What good will it do to get tough on handguns, if they don't get tough on the people who use them? Good people in poor communities want the criminal element locked away. Only when these gangster role models are gone, can the kids within these communities see past the gang culture to a positive future. At-risk youth are most at risk from the influence and the crimes of the criminals in their own neighbourhoods.

canadianna

Update: I was thinking about other people -- innocent people -- who've been victims of gun crime and gang violence recently -- 11 year old Tamara Carter, riding a TTC bus with her mother in November 2004 -- shot in the face. In October of this year a TTC bus driver was shot and critically injured.
There are still more. How quickly we forget -- and that's the problem. They go out of the newspapers, out of our thoughts until the next time. And that's why it's so easy for the government to ramp up the rhetoric when something like this happens and to drop it down and ignore it when the current tempest has passed.
People are suggesting that the reaction to this was because this was a young white girl. We didn't know who she was until last night. What we did know, was that she was shopping with her family, not carrying a gun, not a part of the gang culture -- not a part of the problem. That's what caused the reaction. It isn't racism that makes us sit up and take notice now -- we've taken notice every time -- but this time, there is an election campaign on and maybe our outrage will be heard.

canadianna

Losing Christmas

My son had a holiday concert at school on Friday. It wasn't a Christmas concert -- and I have no problem with that, because it's true. All of my kids go to very multicultural schools. Most of the kids at the schools are Muslim, with minorities who are Hindi and Christian, and an even larger minority have no religion. Having a Christmas concert would be unrealistic and would be pandering to a vocal minority of parents who resent the cultural changes our society is still adapting to.

Other years, presentations have been done to explain Eid or Ramadan, Chanukah, Diwali, Kwanzaa etc. and the presentations about Christmas have all been to explain 'Santa Claus'. The Christmas songs are of the 'Frosty the Snowman' genre. All of the other religions are portrayed with reverence and while the Christmas one is usually fun, there is no explanation of the underlying reason for the season. This has always bothered me, but I'm not the sort to make a fuss, so I've said nothing.

This year it was different. This year they acknowledged the Christian aspect of Christmas with a raucous, loud, hip-hop rendition of 'Silent Night' because the real song is 'boring.' I've found the same thing with television -- some kids shows have taken Christmas hymns and put funny lyrics to them -- the Arthur Christmas special did this several times, having one of the younger characters not know or misunderstand the words of 'We Three Kings' and 'The First Nowell' and sing something entirely off base.

The fact is, I'd rather the school have ignored the traditional carol rather than bastardize it. For those of us who celebrate the birth of Christ, the traditional carols are not boring. It isn't that I don't have a sense of humour. Unlike "Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree" and "Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer" etc. hymns are songs of worship and I resent their being abused by the secular establishment for a laugh. The message the school conveyed by using this hymn was that traditional Christian worship is a drag and that it needs real world influence to make it worthwhile.

I have adapted to the secular culture. I don't say Merry Christmas unless I know I am speaking to Christians. I don't expect a Christmas concert at the public school when I have a church around the corner. I don't expect religious music when I'm shopping at the mall.

But I also don't expect to hear sacred Christmas hymns with their words changed for a laugh (as was done in 'Arthur's Perfect Christmas'), or the music 'updated' to suit a contemporary audience as was done at my son's Christmas concert.

Silent Night is the quintessential Christmas carol because of its simplicity. It doesn't require rapification to make it relevant. It is relevant because its sweet melody is like a lullaby and its words are welcoming the birth of the Christ child. A hip-hop score might be fine to liven up 'Blue Christmas' or 'Winter Wonderland' but it isn't appropriate for a sacred hymn.

We don't lose Christmas when the secular world celebrates along side us with its Santa Claus, its Star Wars and Dale Earnhardt holiday tree decorations, its 31 day advent calendars that celebrate the coming of the new year, we don't lose Christmas when the secular world ignores the birth of Christ in its 'holiday' festivities -- but we risk losing Christmas if we do nothing when the secular world appropriates the sacred songs and symbols of Christianity and holds them up to ridicule and scorn.

I will be writing a letter to my son's Principal and asking that future winter festivals exclude mention of Christ, unless they handle it with the same respect and dignity afforded the other religions represented. Better excluded than distorted in parody.

Anyway, Merry Christmas all.

canadianna

Two tier democracy

Paul Martin says we must have higher expectations of our PM than we do of our MPs. The Prime Minister must not contravene the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- but individual MPs are welcome to their own 'vision'.

It's funny, but he didn't think all of his MPs were entitled to their own 'vision' when he imposed his vision on Cabinet Ministers and made them vote with him on same-sex marriage under threat of expulsion.

That the same-sex marriage issue has exposed the 'bigoted', 'ignorant', 'regressive' opinions of individual MPs who represent the Liberal Party, doesn't phase Mr. Martin. Their rejection of the 'Charter' is not a worry to him because only HE is obligated to uphold the Charter -- but then, if Mr. Martin accepts candidates who believe that certain Canadians are not entitled to Charter protection -- is he really defending the Charter? It would appear that in his rush to vilify Mr. Harper, Mr. Martin has illuminated the dark secret of the Liberal Party -- some Canadians who are represented by Liberals, are represented by people who would not stand up for their 'Charter rights.'

From the Toronto Star:

Last spring, 34 Liberal MPs voted for a Conservative motion that would have halted Liberal legislation to extend marriage rights to gays and lesbians. Martin brushed aside the apparent contradiction, saying, "The issue is not what does an individual MP say — an individual MP is entitled to his or her vision. "The issue is what is the role and responsibility of the prime minister of the country. And the role of the prime minister of the country is to support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is not in any way, shape or form to call the Charter into doubt, that's the fundamental difference."

The inconsistency of his position seems to be lost on Martin. Apparently, he doesn't understand that in this twisted view of the world, he would actually be 'defending the Charter' from his own MPs. And if these men and women are against fundamental Charter rights for a segment of the population -- then how does he justify allowing them to serve under his party's banner?

Could it be that Martin knows in his heart that the issue of same-sex marriage -- far from being a Charter issue -- is actually a legislative issue. His assertion that same-sex marriage is a Charter right goes out the window with his acceptance of any members of his caucus voting against it. A right is a right, and if Martin truly believed that gay marriage was a 'right' he couldn't allow dissent on the issue.

Martin has proved this weekend that he doesn't even believe what he says on the same-sex issue, but it provides him with the ammunition to call Stephen Harper all sorts of names: 'unfit' 'regressive' and to spout off about 'rights' as though if it weren't for Liberals, Canadians would have none at all.

Charter rights, are 'human rights' and cannot be a matter of opinion. They can't by opted out of by churches on the basis of religious freedom, they can't be opted out of by MPs on the basis of freedom of conscience. Charter rights are rights about which there can be no choice. The either exist or they don't -- an individual's 'vision' doesn't come into it.

Mr. Martin has proved he knows this -- and yet he still wields his sword of disingenuous piety. Martin is a man without principles. His stand on this issue stretches credulity -- and yet he had the effrontery to suggest Stephen Harper was unfit for the PMO.

Martin's views are offensive to those on both sides of the issue and his lack of a core belief system is scary when put in conjunction with the enormous amount of power concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office.

canadianna

Paul Martin's actions don't match the yatter

As Paul Martin dons the cloak of self-righteousness and proclaims himself the champion of the Charter and of 'rights' in general in Canada -- he might want to re-think the validity of his position.

Martin has suggested that Stephen Harper is not fit for the PM's Office because he will re-introduce the same-sex marriage issue to the House and allow a free-vote.

If Harper is not fit to be Prime Minister due to his stand on this issue, what about the Liberal MPs who voted against same-sex marriage? (And who would likely welcome the opportunity to do so again in a truly free vote?) MPs like John McKay, who as a Parliamentary Secretary, asked for, and obtained from the PMO, a special dispensation to vote against Cabinet and against same-sex marriage? If same-sex marriage is a Charter right -- why did Martin allow any members of his party to vote against it? Was it because he knew he had the numbers, so it didn't matter? If it's a right -- a Charter right-- it matters.

Over the past quarter century (maybe longer) the Liberals have managed to convince the Canadian public that there is only one right view on many subjects -- the Constitution/Charter, bilingualism, health care, immigration, and same-sex issues among them.

What Paul Martin has made clear in his diatribe against Harper, is that his view of the nation and its future is so narrow as to only include those who subscribe to a collectivist Liberal-defined (John Duffy-defined?) vision.

The Prime Minister of Canada has proclaimed Stephen Harper unfit to lead the country because he holds an opposing view on what Martin, by his actions, has proved he knows to be a morality or legal-rights issue -- not a Charter, or human rights issue.

When Martin says that same-sex marriage is a Charter issue -- he is saying that any opposition to it is unConstitutional. You can't 'cherry pick' Charter rights, right? Which means the vote in the House was moot anyway -- the decision was already there in the Charter and Parliament was simply affirming it.

But if that's the case, if same-sex marriage is a Charter right, then it was a Charter right prior to the vote -- then what of the Liberal dissenters? How does he allow them to run again when they have voted against the Charter rights of their fellow Canadians? Or, is only the Prime Minister obligated to defend the Charter and not his members? But how does a man defend the Charter, when members of his own party continue to believe and act in a manner that goes against the Charter?

Either same-sex marriage is a right, and it is unconscionable to support the candidacy of anyone who would vote against it -- or it is a legal issue to be decided by parliament. Paul Martin is trying to have it both ways by imposing a one-dimensional Liberal-framed vision of what constitute rights and what is wrong.

Even if you are for gay marriage -- Paul Martin's impassioned 'Charter hero' rhetoric doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He shouldn't be given a pass on the inconsistency between his actions and his words.

canadianna

Polite society and a woman's place

If you can't stand the heat . . .

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and
agree with me, that's not their job. -- Margaret Thatcher

During tonight's debate, in response to a question about the lack of civility in the House of Commons, Jack Layton and Paul Martin concurred that if you want parliament to be more civilised, the answer is to elect more women.

Maybe we could make Question Period one big coffee klatch. We could all bring our knitting, and when things are going bad we'll share cheesecake or ice cream and when we're done for the day we can do the group hug thing. We could discuss movies or books instead of politics, because in politics people disagree and that would be mean. We can't have mean. No, not with ladies present. --What a shockingly sexist attitude.

Some of the nicest people I've ever met were men and many of the nastiest were women. Rude comes in both genders and is irrelevant to an ability to govern. Polite people would elevate the tone of the house -- not just polite women.

Paul Martin actually suggested that women he's met have said to him that they would consider running for politics except for the behaviour in the House of Commons at Question Period.

Most women I've seen in action in the House could hold their own -- and anyone who can't doesn't deserve to be there. Diane Albonzy, Rona Ambrose, Sheila Copps, Elsie Wayne, Libby Davies, Deborah Grey, and even Carolyn Parrish -- strong women have served this country without fretting over the verbal sparring that occurs when the government has to face its critics during QP.

Too many people have a misguided notion of what QP is all about. It's all theatrics. The questions are submitted ahead of time and the answers are well-scripted by research teams. It's raucous and generally unproductive -- but it isn't what 'makes this government work'. All the work is done behind the scenes in committees etc.

The suggestion that women would elevate the tone might have been an attempt at flattery, but it reeks of paternalism and condescension. It stereotypes woman as gracious and sweet -- virtues yes, but hardly universal to the gender and the implication by two political leaders, that these qualities are exclusive to women and might somehow transform the workings of the House, does a great disservice to the gentlemen and strong women who already participate in the governance of this country and manage to do so with good manners.

The most shocking thing about this, is that while Jack Layton and his members do seem to try to maintain dignity and decorum in the House, the most vilely offensive comments most often come from the Liberal side -- and more often than not they are directed at women on the Conservative side.

Women, though perfectly capable of all aspects of governing -- are not the answer to changing the timbre of the House. If we want members of parliament to be respectful to one another, they must first be respectable. With our current governing party, this is not the case.

Scott Brison for one, has proved to be as uncivilised out in the real world as he is in the House. It isn't a matter of gender, it's about manners. I'd much prefer the antics during question period to having a sitting MP tell a member of his constituency that she could kiss his ass. Politics is a dirty game but it's this sort of trash talk outside of the House the Liberals should be worried about -- and if he's so concerned about the sensibilities of women -- why has Martin remained quiet about this ignorant remark made to a woman by one of his Cabinet Ministers? Why has there been no apology forthcoming?

And while we're at it, why was it a woman (Jean Augustine) who was asked to step aside in favour of Michael Ignatieff?

Women don't need a patronising attitude from two liberal political leaders in order to be confident about our abilities to serve in government -- we need to be given strong roles where our voices will be heard. The NDP, the Bloc and the Conservatives all realise this and have given women significant and prominent roles. Of all the parties, the one severely lacking in that department is the Liberal Party.

More talk, less action -- the Liberal way of governing.

canadianna

Is Martin really standing up for Canada?

Even conservative bloggers had difficulty with the US envoy's speech to the Canadian Club, most believing that he hovered very close to the line of interfering with an election. Some even believe Watkins' remarks will do the Liberals more good than harm, because Martin is seen as standing up to the US, playing into the anti-American sentiments that seem to surge at election time.

In response to the rebuke, Paul Martin says:

"I will defend Canada -- period. I will defend the Canadian position, and I will defend our values, and I will defend our interests against anybody."

But he's not defending Canada. He's defending himself -- and what's more, he's defending himself with yet another lie.

Martin is trying to pretend that the envoy was calling him out for talking about the softwood lumber issue:

He (Martin) acknowledged he has been critical on two issues -- the U.S. refusal to accept a panel decision in favour of Canada in the softwood-lumber dispute, and the Americans' foot-dragging on climate control. However, he denied he's raising the issues to score political points.

"The position that I have taken on softwood lumber -- that the Americans ought to honour their agreement [in the Free Trade Agreement] -- is a position that I took, that I have taken for some time, long before any election campaign was contemplated."

Now, please correct me if I'm wrong -- but since the beginning of the election campaign, I haven't heard Paul Martin mention softwood lumber -- not until now. And now it is only being brought up to deflect from the fact that last week he very publically insulted the US on the global stage at the UN conference on global climate change.

Not once after the PM's quote in this news article, nor in any other coverage I've read, does the reporter make his/her way back to the point that Martin's speech on the US environmental record created this animus in the first place. They just let him blither on about softwood lumber as though it had something to do with anything.

None of the quotes I've seen from Wilkins' speech even contain the words: softwood lumber. Wilkins made no defense of the US's actions or stands on this -- but he vigorously pumped their environmental record compared to ours. But Martin's comments to the media in response to this speech shows he is trying to dodge the bullet. He's pretending that Wilkins' remarks to the Canadian Club were in response to something Martin might have said back in October about softwood lumber -- and much of the media coverage has just let that slip by as though it were true.

Surprisingly, the Globe & Mail editoral makes the point well.

The US envoy has no place in our politics, but Martin doesn't deserve a pass for the very public ripping he gave them last week. He used innuendo, lies and evasion to promote a negative image of the US on the world stage. It might get him the votes he wanted, but it has also drawn negative attention from the US -- not just government, but the public as well. That's hardly the way to defend Canada's interests.

If Paul Martin is going to defend Canada's interests, who is going to defend our interests from him?

canadianna

2 + 2 = whatever liberals say it does

Today in the NP (subscriber only) John Duffy (beer & popcorn co-believer) enlightens readers by 'decoding' Stephen Harper.

Apparently, there are 'carefully constructed' secret phrases all of us right-wingers use to send out coded messages to those who are 'us' -- all the while sending 'reassuring signals' to 'them' (those poor sods who didn't get that special decoder ring in their box of ammo.)

I won't worry about copyright. I'm almost certain Duffy would want to get his message out, lest we all fall for Stephen Harper's cryptic verbal cyphers:

Mr. Harper says: On child care, I will give parents a choice.
He means: I will immediately dismantle the Liberal national child-care program, which is flowing billions of dollars somewhere (who really knows where, after all this is the Liberals we're talking about. Daycare programmes are provincial jurisdiction so the money the Liberals are sending could go to build daycare centres or it could be going to create jobs for bureaucrats who are friends of Liberals or maybe it's going to be stuffed into plain brown envelopes and left on restaurant tables, or perhaps it'll go to buy beer and popcorn).

Mr. Harper says: I will have a free vote in parliament on same-sex marriage.
Mr. Harper means: I know, free is a word that successive Liberal governments have tried to expunge from the memories of Canadians. What I mean, is that each member of parliament will be allowed to vote his or her conscience. Conscience is another word that kind of got messed up under the Liberals. Anyway, a free vote gives legitimacy to which ever side wins the vote. If same-sex marriage wins, then opponents won't be able to say the vote was illegit. If the traditional definition of marriage were to win, we'd have to see. By the way, the 'notwithstanding clause' is not scary. It is a legitimate tool of our Constitution -- or else, why did the Liberals (who were in power during the drafting of the Constitution) allow it to be put there?

Mr. Harper says: On abortion rights, my party defeated a resolution to strike them down.
Mr. Harper means: My party has a policy on abortion -- even though many of our members are personally against abortion on demand, our policy states that the issue won't be visited by us when we form a government. We allow differing opinions within our party, but we realise there are some we can't act upon. A quick search of the Liberal website says they have no such policy. Why aren't Canadian women terrified?

Mr. Harper says: I will cut the GST by 2%; you deserve a break.
Mr. Harper means: Tax cuts of all sorts are a conservative idea. You know, lower taxes, small government. Remember, a surplus is only a good thing when it comes to your family's budget -- not the government's.

Mr. Harper says: I will get tough on polluters.
Mr. Harper means: The Liberals believe that treaties and speeches are good for the environment. Since signing Kyoto, Canadian greenhouse gas emissions have gone up 24% over 1990 levels – that’s 30% above target. (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change report entitled Key GHG Data) Apparently Mr. Martin's hot air isn't working.

Mr. Harper says: My priority is tougher enforcement against criminals.
Mr. Harper means: I won't confiscate the legally owned, legally used property of Canadians, because I believe in property rights. The gun registry hasn't prevented 50 gun murders in Toronto this year, but it has cost a couple of billion dollars. Call me anything but Liberal, but I don't think that's value for the money.

Mr. Harper says: It is the responsibility of a prime minister of any party to have good relations with the US.

Mr. Harper means: Paul Martin is an idiot. You don't tick off your closest trading partner in order to score cheap political points in an election. Whether you like George Bush or not, the US is going to be next door for a long time after him, and after the Liberals are out of power. It's irresponsible to consistently antagonise an ally to try to provoke a fear response in your electorate. You can respectfully disagree on issues. Not all arguments have to be about creating fear and putting other people down. If you want to work with another nation on trade, it isn't good business or politics to spread innuendo and lies.

Okay, maybe this isn't exactly what John Duffy wrote, but if you have your decoder ring handy, you'll know what he meant.

canadianna

Diversionary attack

I got this from Canoe.ca, but since it's a CP story, you'll find it anywhere, likely with the same mis-information. It's Martin trying to divert attention from Scott Reid/Income Trusts/anti-American environmental statements/handgun banning (take your pick) and put some heat onto Harper about the same-sex marriage thing:

However, Martin notes the law allowing same sex marriages in Canada cannot be reversed without using the notwithstanding clause.

Harper has been fairly quiet about his plans to repeal the same-sex marriage legislation since he was asked about it at the beginning of the campaign for the Jan. 23 election, and said a Conservative government would put an end to the practice. (emphasis mine)

Martin's scaremongering is vile, but typical. The media mis-information is also typical, but I find it much more disturbing.

canadianna

Why do Liberals hate Canadians?

When Scott Reid suggested that Canadian parents would use Stephen Harper's Choice in Child Care Credit to buy popcorn and beer, he was not using the wrong words to make his point about Harper's promise -- he was making a point about what he thinks of us.

It's no wonder the Liberals fear democracy -- they loathe Canadians.

They pander to us, bribe us, scare us in to submission -- all because they don't trust us to make decisions about our own money, about our families, about our society, or even about our use of words.

They close off any avenue by which people might express an opinion contrary to the Liberal way -- and they do so by demonizing any opposition to their way of thought as un-Canadian. I used to think this was just a lust for power and control, but I've come to realise that the thought process of the Liberal Party was apparent in Scott Reid's unguarded comment. He is representative of the Party because the Liberals have demonstrated through their manner of governance that Liberals have no respect for the people they govern. From election gag laws to hate speech laws, the Liberals have proved that they don't trust the average Canadian to exercise 'proper' judgement even in areas where the government really has no place.

And now, rather than allowing us to exercise our own judgement about the care of our children, they accuse us of preferring to squander money on trivialities.

An apology is not enough. Scott Reid could have said: car payments, mortgage payments, snowsuits, winter boots, dental visits, piano lessons, heating bills, putting gas in the car . . . He might have used any example of not using the money for daycare, in order to suggest that the money in the Conservative plan might not be used by parents to pay for child care -- he chose to say 'beer and popcorn' because this flippant, off-the cuff comment is precisely what he and his party really think of us.

canadianna

Announcement or Campaign Promise -- There is a Difference

Read these two quotes, keeping in mind that although Paul Martin is still Prime Minister, the government has been dissolved and we are in the midst of a hotly contested election campaign.

Audio Link: "That's why I'm here today on behalf of the people of Toronto, to thank the Prime Minister for his announcement and to thank the Attorney General for his announcement, because today's announcement will start getting those guns off the streets of Toronto (...) Mr. Prime Minister I could not think of a more important announcement for the people of Toronto than the banning of handguns, and I want to thank you for your leadership."
-- David Miller, Mayor of Toronto

Audio link: "Prime Minister, a handgun ban, you can count Ontario in! (...) Ontario supports a handgun ban and will work with the federal government to implement a handgun ban. . . and now with this information we will have the opportunity to have additional RCMP Officers to boost our law enforcement arsenal" --Michael Bryant, Attorney General of Ontario

The Prime Minister's promise to ban handguns is nothing compared the audacity of our Mayor and the Ontario Attorney General. They flanked Martin yesterday during his 'announcement' and did not simply endorse any old election promise, but rather, they welcomed the information -- and in the case of Miller -- did so on my behalf!!

The statements of Miller and Bryant are irresponsible. Given the staging of yesterday's event, an observer might be forgiven for believing that Paul Martin had the power to enact a handgun ban effective immediately by proclamation.

David Miller and Michael Bryant have overstepped their positions, not simply by endorsing a party and a candidate for Prime Minister -- but by attending a campaign speech in their respective roles of Mayor and Attorney General, and pretending a campaign promise is a major announcement of actual legislation.

canadianna