The Liberals - a 'hair of the dog' solution?

The Liberals will fix health care.
Who broke it?

The Liberals will clean the environment.
Who ignored it?

The Liberals will cut your taxes.
Who over-taxed you?

The Liberals will establish ethics guidelines.
Who broke all the rules?

The Liberals will pay your tuition.
Who made the cost of attending university prohibitive?

The Liberals will help seniors with their savings.
Who cost seniors millions by threatening to tax Income Trusts?

The Liberals will defend our borders.
Who hasn't?

The Liberals will fight for farmers.
Who didn't?

The Liberals will save national unity.
Who continues to tear the country apart?

The Liberals will take care of your pre-schoolers.
Are you sure these are the people you want to trust with your children?

canadianna

All citizens need tax relief

According to the most recent statistics (pdf file), over a million children in Canada live below the poverty line. Of those, over 1/4 had at least one parent in the work force full time, but with employment that didn't bring them to the income tax cut off. The rest had parents who either worked all year, but only part-time, or were on some sort of social assistance. Either way, these parents were below the Low Income Cut Off -- meaning they would not pay income tax. Many of these children live in single parent families.

So -- over a million children live in families where no income tax is paid because they live below the Low-Income Cut Off --how will the Liberal tax policy benefit them?

It won't.

An income tax cut means nothing to people who don't make enough money to pay income tax.
Not making enough to pay income tax doesn't mean that families are not working. Many are. It simply means that their wages don't reach the poverty line due to things like lack of education, lack of training, or lack of Canadian experience or due to circumstances like location and job availability.

Do you only matter to the Liberals if you earn enough to pay income taxes?

A simple 1% cut in the GST will make a real difference to these families, where a 1% cut in the lowest tax bracket and an increase of the personal exemption won't.

So why should the working poor subsidize the those who live below the income tax cut off?

They won't.

A reduction in the GST will offset any minor benefit a worker would receive from the 1% cut to the income tax rate.

Poor families -- those below the income tax cut off and those in the lowest income tax bracket -- pay monthly bills. Their expenditures vary, depending on income, but most pay utilities, telephone etc. Lower income families who have the luxury of a car, have to pay insurance. Most renters pay some sort of rental insurance. Everyone needs clothing and boots. All are subject to GST.

It surprises me that Jack Layton and the NDP are against any tax cuts, but particularly the Conservative plan which will benefit their primary constituency -- children and families living in poverty.

Some conservatives lament that Harper's plan isn't conservative enough. My understanding of fiscal conservatism insofar as taxes go, is that money belongs in the pockets of the citizens, not in government coffers. The more money the people have to do with as they choose, the better for the economy. Although income tax cuts might spur investment, a cut in a consumption tax won't discourage it, so in that sense it's neutral. Conservatives should welcome any tax reduction, especially one that benefits all Canadians, not just those above the poverty line.

Over one million children live in families below the Low Income Cut Off. These people are citizens, too. Harper's plan enables them to share in tax relief. What has Paul Martin got against that?

canadianna

What choice, Mr. Martin?

The Liberal's other new tv ad 'Choices' features Ujjal Dosanjh slamming Jack Layton for saying he'd work with Harper (which we all know isn't quite the case -- but anyway). In it he says:

"You either believe in universal health care, or you don't.
You either defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or you don't.
You either keep Canada out of Iraq, or you don't.
You either want a Harper government, or you don't."

When asked about the two new ads, Dosanjh said that the Liberals were trying to define the ballot question as one of Canadian values:

"We stand for the state," said Dosanjh. "The state can do good in people's lives. Mr. Harper doesn't (believe that)."

I suppose the multi-billion dollar ballot question is -- who decides what role the state should play in people's lives?

Dosanjh represents a government that 'stands for the state' and myopically refuses to concede that individual choice should determine when the government will have a place in the lives of its citizens.

As it stands in this free country, we are not allowed to choose to pay for our own health care. This universal institution is not something we can choose to opt out of if we feel it is not meeting our expectations -- let alone some arbitrary bureaucratic expectations determined by the provinces.

And now the Liberal's new universal child care plan -- 'the first new social programme in 40 years.' It's another social programme that begins with a mandate to be of assistance to families and will become so entrenched in our psyche, that to consider using a childcare arrangement outside of the state purview will be deemed unCanadian.

Paul Martin criticises Harper for a 'fend for yourself' approach to social issues. He's got it wrong. Harper's is a 'decide for yourself' approach. Social safety nets are supposed to support you, not ensnare you. They should be there if you need them, should you choose to use them. They shouldn't be imposed by the state on its citizens.

Dosanjh has confirmed that the Liberals 'stand for the state'. And while they are standing for the state, standing for themselves, it is inconceivable to him that we, the citizens might have something to say about how close they stand to us.

You either believe in freedom, or you don't.

canadianna

Give us your red Tories, your soft NDP & your Green

Here is the text of the new Liberal ad featuring Ujall Dosanj and David Emerson -- Get the Job Done:

BC is booming. We'll work hard to keep it that way.
We're leading the Canadian economy in job growth.
Defending charter rights for minorities and investing in child care.
And Paul Martin is standing up to the Americans to get the right deal for BC on softwood lumber.
The fact is British Columbia's interests count in Ottawa like they never have before.
There's much more to do with your support we'll get the job done.

Did the Liberal ad really say that?

"The fact is British Columbia's interests count in Ottawa like they never have before."

Well there you go, British Columbia -- looks like you're in.

How can they do this with a straight face? I know different ads play to different provinces because of their diverse needs -- but this comes out and says -- 'hey, you haven't been strategically significant until now -- but suddenly it seems we need you and guess what, we're really going to listen to you this time.'

Of course that's if the Tories' Quebec numbers keep moving up and the Libs keep dropping like a stone. Strike another one for the party of national unity.

Maybe I'm just being picky.

canadianna

I've caught the meme

Thanks to Angry for getting me with the latest "tag" meme: list five weird things about yourself, then tag five others to do the same.

1 My children always say I don't open my mouth when I speak. It's like words come out, but the lips don't move. I don't see it myself, but then, I'm not looking. My daughter thinks it's Freudian -- maybe I'm afraid of something I'll say.

2 I always buy ugly eyeglasses because they're cheap, and I figure that I'll never wear them anyway because I wear contacts. But then, invariably, I lose one of my contacts. And worse still, my glasses are held together with a twist tie ( you know where the little screw should go to hold on the arm). It used to be worse; it used to be with duct tape. No. I don't wear them in public.

3 I manage to burn myself every time I cook. I have a bunch of kids, therefore I cook every day and I have the scars to prove it.

4 There are four kids in our house -- and I went out and bought two puppies this summer. They are cute, but I'm almost convinced that I'm certifiable. When I want the kids to help out, I keep telling them that they wanted these dogs, but I think they know it was me all along.

5 I can't spell to save my life. All the while I'm posting, I'm turning to my oldest daughter (aka Human Dictionary) and saying "how do you spell . . ." If you see misspellings, it's because she wasn't around to ask.

Now I'd like to hear some weird things about:

Linda at The Great Pumpkin
Martin at The G-gnome Rides Out
Kateland at The Last Amazon
Jamie at Crittermusings
Bill at Strong World

canadianna

Having negative thoughts

I'm not sure how much effect election advertising has on voting intentions, but I believe it has had a serious affect the Liberals.

On December 30th, the Conservatives released their 'They'll Go Neg' ad.

On January 2nd, the Liberals released two new ads. Neither show much imagination or thought. Neither makes mention of any person or other party. One of them seems to be implying a negative (when it suggests that 'one leader -- will protect minority rights') but it's subtle enough.

The ad with Paul Martin dusting off his political record could have been pulled out of storage from the last campaign. He talks of the Liberal glory days of deficit slaying and debt reduction. If it isn't old, it had to have been cobbled together quickly because that record is simultaneous with the 'sponsorship years' and the 'transfer slashing years' which leaves him open to criticism for taking credit for the 'positive' things that happened on his watch, while seeing and hearing no evil at the same time. And of course, the 'positives' are all subject to interpretation. Many would say that the state of health care in this country is a direct result of Martin's transfer reductions to the provinces. Had he had time to think, Martin likely wouldn't have wanted to run on that record.

In the other ad they talk about Paul Martin as though he alone governed this country over the past twelve years:

'one leader' is responsible for the lowest unemployment in 30 years (because he changed the criteria for collecting EI and the method for calculating the unemployed skewing comparisons between pre-1995 and post-1995 numbers)

'one leader' reduced the deficit by $42 billion (by gutting tranfer payments to the provinces and creating a fiscal nightmare for all of them -- and all of us)

'one leader' had eight straight balanced budgets (I believe that's a lie. A balanced budget doesn't have a whopping surplus that can be used to line the party coffers or be given in perqs to Liberal friends. A surplus means over-taxation -- maybe that's why Mr. Martin isn't bragging -- because 'one leader' created many surpluses and put them in unauditable foundations -- so we'll never know how much or who's got it. Funny -- this party, which was in such debt last year, and which was forced to 'put aside' some money to pay back Canadians for their misdeeds, is now rolling in dough -- Steve MacKinnon, National Director of the Liberal Party of Canada . Coincidence?

'one leader' united the provinces to lower health care wait times.(after 12 years in office, they call this an accomplishment. Harper's answer to him said it all.)

'one leader' will protect minorities (except when it's politically incorrect)

'one leader' believes in a compassionate Canada (compassionate? He's still trying to impose himself and the rest of his myopic, pocket-picking miscreants on Canadians. That seems pretty harsh to me.)

The recent Conservative ads are being called negative by CTV (title link) but that's a matter of perspective. Besides, having made major policy announcements everyday, it isn't as though slamming the Liberals is all they have -- that's the gravy.

Martin is still trying to 'go neg' on the campaign trail, but I wonder how long the Liberals will restrain themselves on television and in print, just to try to prove the Conservatives' ad wrong.

I give them until the debates are over. Martin doesn't do well under pressure, and the pressure is buiding. I have a feeling he'll be trounced from all sides, and the Liberals will have no choice to drop the gloves.

canadianna

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