Who's holding Halton hostage?

In the world according to Garth, when Emerson switched parties, it was wrong -- no, not just wrong -- but "unprincipled" and "unethical". Everyone involved was deemed unscrupulous and Emerson was being "disloyal" to his constituents. But that was then and it was someone else . . . how different things appear when the shoe is on the other foot.

Garth doesn't believe loyalty is an issue in his act of opportunism, because he's doing this for his constituents. He knows that a lot of them don't understand that right now, but he thought about it long and hard for them. He feels assured that although they elected Garth the Conservative, and put up with Garth the Independent, that surely they will embrace GARTH the LIBERAL.

An Independent's voice is often unheard. Now, as a Liberal, Garth will have status again -- and that should make his constituents happy. He can be a lone voice of reason within the Liberal Party, the same way he was a lone voice of reason in the Conservative Party. The team doesn't matter -- just as long Garth is there to show it the one true way.

His cynical offer to run in a by-election is typical bravado. With full confidence that Harper is not going to suddenly change his stand on party swapping, the hollow gesture cost Turner nothing and gives the odour of sincerity to this latest stink. Garth pretends he received no inducement for turning in his Independent tag, and yet in one fell-swoop he has gone from impotent and unelectable outsider, to a member of the 'party-in-waiting'.

My position on floor-crossing hasn't changed -- but his has. He can pretend that his grand challenge to Harper to hold a by-election means something, but it only means that Garth is a savvy enough politician to know a good sound-bite.

Garth says:

If I resign immediately, the prime minister can leave my voters held hostage for up to six months without a by-election and without an MP, which could well mean they’re not represented at all until after the next election. Excuse me if I do not trust Stephen Harper, but I don’t.

Apparently Garth didn't trust his constituents enough to remain an Independent for the duration of this parliament, and join the Liberals when the next general election is called. Maybe he didn't trust the Liberals enough to believe that they'd keep that seat open for him to run when election time comes.

He calls Harper untrustworthy, and accuses him of potentially holding Halton voters 'hostage' had he resigned his seat altogether to force a by-election. He writes this without any hint of irony. The voters of Halton elected Garth Turner. As a Conservative or an Independent, Garth could live up to, and speak up for, the principles that got him elected, but whether it's income splitting, the military or child care -- Garth Turner has just signed over his principles to a Liberal Party that shares none of his ideals or political values. Who's holding Halton hostage?

That's okay, I guess. What difference does it make if the party doesn't reflect his beliefs --- Garth can make it over in his image and ruminate about it on his blog. So what if the Liberals are notoriously more rigid in their demand for caucus secrecy, and caucus solidarity than the Conservatives --- Garth has an unshakable record on those fronts. And if it doesn't work out, that's okay. Someone else will be to blame.

Poor Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper's gotta be smirking.

canadianna

How will we cope without daddy's money?

One would think that a broad-based coalition of more than 700 member groups, fighting for women's equality for nearly 30 years, would have a strong enough base to support itself financially instead of whinging to government for sustenance.

Member groups of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women can afford to make pins, posters and postcards to protest the government about their funding, but are apparently unable think up ways to finance their continued administration without government assistance.

The proceeds from their button sales will not go to help women and their fight for equality, but to fund continued protests against funding cuts. Clever use of resources, eh?

The biggest problem with Status of Women groups is that they believe they are the one true way with the divine right to determine women's interests, when in reality, they neither reflect nor represent the vast majority of women. Their vision of choice for women is never about real choice, but about quieting the voices of those who disagree with them.

I'm always suspicious of people who want to talk about 'women's issues' as though childcare and violence are the exclusive concern of women, and as though there is a Communal Women's Mind that advises us on all matters 'feminine'. And, it dismisses all the men who share our concerns, whatever they might be.

The NAC and its member groups claim to want equality, but their representatives hold themselves out as less than equal by being incapable of meeting challenges with creative ideas rather than silly slogans and protests.

If they are as 'needed' as they believe, then private and corporate funding is as accessible to them as to any other group in need of donations. Why do they find it so difficult to prove their worth and solicit and obtain funds from outside government?

When they can do that, then they deserve to be taken seriously.

canadianna

Dion shouldn't be so selfish

Were he ever to become Prime Minister of Canada, Stephane Dion would likely serve Canada loyally. Despite his dual citizenship, Dion is hardly likely to side with France on matters that go against our national interest, but given that Quebec, the Liberals and France tend to hold similar positions on many political matters, it's unlikely that Dion's loyalty would ever be tested anyway.

But that isn't the issue.

The question should not be whether Stephane Dion can be loyal to Canada while he holds dual citizenship with France, the question should be -- if Stephane Dion is not expected to renounce his French citizenship while coveting the highest office in the land, what kind of precident does that set for future political aspirants whose dual citizenship is with a less 'friendly' or perhaps a hostile nation?

Dion's attitude is one of self-interest, a hallmark of Liberal rule.

Ask yourself how the Liberals would react if a Conservative leader had dual Canadian/US citizenship regardless of the circumstances by which it were acquired.

No situation is isolated. This controversy is bound to come up again in the future as more and more people hold dual citizenship and at least some are likely to enter politics.

If Dion is not expected to renounce his French citizenship as part of his journey toward the PMO, then how could we demand anyone renounce foreign citizenship, even if their alternative citizenship is with a beligerant nation?

Dion's resistance to discussing the matter is troubling. He obviously doesn't have the ability to think outside himself, and he hasn't the foresight to envision how this might play out in the future when it is no longer about him.

This is disappointing, but not surprising in a Liberal leader.

canadianna

Dion's citizenship -- answer please??

I've been trying to find out, but haven't yet -- the news reports say he has dual citizenship because his mother is Paris-born. Was this automatic at the time of his birth or did he actively pursue it?

I wonder if dual citizenship was available to the children of Brits who came to Canada in those days, or just to the French? I don't actually remember dual citizenship being available to anyone until recently.

If he sought it out, I would like to know when.

I only wonder, because it is implied that French citizenship was never his choice, but that it just fell on him by accident of birth. He has said nothing to counter this. Actually, he seems somewhat uncomfortable talking about it. Testy even.

Anyone who knows the answer -- please post. I find it hard to form a fair opinion without that detail.

Thanks.
canadianna

Climate Change? Ask France

The French environment minister is 'shocked' that Canada has 'abandoned' Kyoto targets.

Put aside that Ambrose insists that we're still 'committed' to Kyoto -- because that's irrelevant.

During much of recent history, France has danced with the devil while haughtily dishing out self-serving advice to other nations about everything.

The UN has decided to accept the science that says carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, climate change and extreme weather patterns around the world. Okay, maybe. I wonder though, if nuclear bombs detonated under the ocean might also have contributed to climate change -- just a wee bit.

As recently as 1995, France still conducted nuclear testing. France carried out 176 test blasts at the Mururoa and neighboring Fangataufa atolls from 1966 to 1995 despite world-wide condemnation. Even the US (a more likely target of a nulear attack with arguable more reason to 'need' testing) stopped testing three years earlier, after the tensions of the Cold War had abated.

Perhaps France believes their nuclear testing was environmentally friendly. Maybe they believe their overt and deliberate acts of environmental vandalism were okay because France's faux pas don't stink.

Canada's honesty is refreshing. Unlike previous governments who thought if they kept talking, no one would notice their lack of action, the Conservatives have set out our starting point. They're telling us where we are -- and where we are is right at the very beginning of working on something that should have been in the works since it was negotiated back in 1997. That isn't passing-the-buck, it isn't playing the blame-game -- it's accepting the facts that were handed them on election day. It isn't where Canadians would like us to be, but it is the reality. Pretending that we can reduce emissions to 1990 levels would be a lie. It might pacify the masses like previous governments chose to do when they had no plan of action, but the Conservative strategy seems to be to play it straight. We can't do it.

France needs to stop looking outward to see demons -- otherwise they might become smug.

canadianna

Out of the mouths of knaves

"We would have had -- had they not messed it up! -- things actually happening by 2008, " John Godfrey said. "Secondly, she's wrong, that we didn't have a plan."

"It's just not fair," he sniffled. "We could have done great things if we'd had more time and here they are on the world stage saying they won't let us use Kyoto to divide the country . . . and we thought we'd found a new way. . . a way to stick it to Alberta and please Quebec while making Ontario think we actually gave a damn about something other than power -- political power of course, not wind power -- only dorks care about wind power. Hell, wind can't vote, can it? No, of course that's convicted felons. Well, she should just shut up or I'm going to hold my breath -- right here, right now. And you can't stop me. I'll turn blue and die and it will be all Rona's fault."

The reliable, honest, upright and scrupulous Kofi Annan has deep and troubling concerns:

Although he didn't mention any country by name, outgoing UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called on voters to punish politicians who fail to fight for the environment. "I think the population and the voters should take the lead to let them know they consider climate change seriously and that there may be a political cost," he said. He painted the climate change issue as one of the world's most pressing problems. "Climate change is not just an environmental issue, as too many people still believe. It is an all-encompassing threat," he said.

"Personally, I think if we all just worry about the climate, we will be able to forget about trivialities like genocide and rogue terrorist states," Annan added, checking his watch. "We need to concentrate on the things we can't control, so we won't have to deal with the things that we could control if there wasn't so much darn money coming our way that are blinded by the graft." Annan pounded his fist on the table. "There is no greater way to avoid scandal and controversy. Divert attention and keep talking. It's our motto at the UN and it is the key to my family's great success and good fortune."

Both men feel certain that someone out there takes them seriously and neither sees the ineffective, scandal-ridden natures of their respective organizations as an issue in their personal credibility, but both men admit they make more sense when they aren't talking.

canadianna

It's an award I can live with

"The majority of Canadians are firmly and strongly behind living up to our Kyoto obligations," said John Godfrey, the Liberal environment critic.

Says who?

Where were the Liberals on the environment these past many years --- doing nothing -- nothing that is except chanting 'we are committed to Kyoto' and hoping the mantra would stick. Well, I am firmly and strongly against giving money in the form of credits, to other countries whose environmental records suck more than ours does.

Developing countries, like India and China are exempt from Kyoto -- so while Canada could chose to break its economy for quick compliance to a treaty is supposed to reverse our emissions to the levels of nearly 20 years ago-- these major polluters can continue to spew with impunity -- in fact they can increase their emissions of greenhouse gases without guilt and without censure because they are not subject to penalties or even targets.

How do you like that? These are two vast countries, both with surging economies and populations larger than all of the rest of the world combined. The consumption levels and emissions levels are only likely to grow because there are no restraints in place to control them -- but WE should take steps to potentially devastate the booming economy out west because???

Well, there's the rub -- there is no reason. The most we could do is be a good example to the developing nations, because no matter how much or little we emit or consume, our puny output is not enough to affect world levels of carbon monoxide one way or another -- especially while countries like China and India have no expectations placed on them at all.

Don't get started about the US and all they consume and emit - and their refusal on Kyoto -- the US has enough environmental watchdogs and agencies that at least there are homegrown targets. China and India are kind of lacking in the area of environmental lobbying.

So long as developing countries have no expectation of having to reach a position of compliance with Kyoto and while they are not forced by their own populations to take control of their greenhouse emissions, Canada has no choice balance fiscal concerns with reasonable targets that will actually affect the air we breathe.

If they want to call us fossils for our apporach to climate change -- I can live with that. Better to be a fossil, than to delude ourselves that Kyoto is doable or can make a difference -- and then pay millions for the privilege of the pretense.

canadianna

Do you hear what I hear . . .

What colour is this: BROWN.

If you're like most adults, you got it wrong. Our adult minds are programmed to read information. Our senses tend to take the back seat when competing with our learned thought processes.

Keep that in mind as you read a poem I've written to mark events in parliament. It might take a minute to work out the rhythm, but I'm fairly sure there is one. (Don't worry, I haven't quit my day job.)

THE BITCH THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN . . .

Conditional sentences for kid porn on the net,
new sponsorship charges, won’t deal with that yet.
North Korea, Darfur, who really cares?
Belinda’s been wronged, what else compares?

The matter’s decided, but we won’t let it be
not with that mean-talking man roaming free.
Mr. Speaker must listen, then listen again
until those terrible words are etched in his brain.

"You already have her," the man might have remarked
And we Liberals just know he meant that she barked.
We remember his gesture to her empty chair
and the cruel implication that a doggie sits there.

The bad man denies ever saying those words
but Liberal MPs know what they heard.
To the trivial world, we’ll remain blind
while we shoulder this burden for all female-kind.

"He’s a liar, a sexist, a dishonourable lout!
We know what we know, we heard that man shout!
Ruin any career! Blacken anyone’s name!
It’s in defence of all women – not political gain.

You'll listen, and listen and listen some more.
The words at the bottom will help you be sure.
If the sound was inscrutable the first time -- well then,
just be sure that you play it -- again, and again.

Keep reading the captions right there on your screen;
reread it and listen, you'll know what we mean.
Listen while reading – those same words you will hear
Don't worry, your eyes won't play tricks on your ear.

Accused of a gesture and a meaning implied
and if that's not enough, we'll prove that he lied.
We’ve printed the words, so you’ll hear that it’s true
If you just keep on reading it, you’ll hear it too.

canadianna

Not the Medium -- the Malice

Yesterday in the comment section of Garth Turner's blog, I wrote:

Garth, if you were any more full of yourself, you'd explode.

Well, I think he has -- at least his brain.

In his latest blog entry 'The chasm', St. Garth of Petulance expounds upon his ejection from the Tory caucus. One would have thought there was no glowing cliche left for him to use about himself, no singley-held principled stance not yet exhausted by his already endless exposition on all things Garth. One would have been wrong.

St. Garth portrays himself as champion of populism and martyr to the cause of 'freedom'. The lone Conservative MP with principles and conviction, Garth speaks of his heroic staring down of "the we-know-best PMO which now has an icy grip over establishment politics".

He blames the chasm between the Conservatives and himself to the Party's anachronistic nature and his own digital accumen. He uses the progressive momentum of the Internet to symbolize his own advanced stage of intellectual evolution and an analogy of rigid men 'in suits' to represent the Stephen Harper government and its puppet MPs.

From the beginning, when Garth spoke out against the Emerson appointment, he has characterized himself as a lone voice of ethical conscience within a party of mindless or mercenary followers and now he blames the Internet for his downfall. He seriously thinks Stephen Harper's disapproval of a modern method of communication is why he was turfed. Delusional.

Think about it.

It's your first day in a new job and you say publically on your celebrity blog that your boss has behaved unethically and that anyone who doesn't agree with you is unprincipled. How long do you keep your job?

Back in February, Garth acted like the press sought him out, as though his criticizm of Harper on his blog played no part in their seeking his opinion. For a time, Garth Turner was the name on all lips -- a man of honour, falling on his sword for the sake of integrity. And since this is precisely how Garth speaks and writes about himself, the publicity he received as reward for his brave stance acted as an inducement to sustain the image and engage in further acts of disrespect.

Note that I use the word 'disrespect'.

Throughout his blog there are various claims of moral superiority, most of which tend to imply his colleagues are morally inferior. There are smatterings of denigrating terms, like 'homophobe' and 'hats and horses' colleagues, etc. His blog oozes with pious righteousness and contempt for those who fail to adopt his point of view. Dissent doesn't have to be disrespectful or dismissive or derisive, but Garth Turner has taken smug sanctimony to its limits.

Disagreement within parties is hardly new. There are bound to be differences of opinion about direction and policy in any group larger than one -- but Garth still can't see that it wasn't his opinions, or even the medium he used to express them -- it was the whole tone of his blog and the divisive nature of his commentary.

When the cabinet appointments were announced, these are some of the things he said:

First, I pledge to remember every day that my job is not to serve the party or the prime minister, but rather the people who sent me here.

. . . why I wanted to return to Ottawa. It was not to be a minister with a limo, but, as I exlained, to try and empower elected people more, to make them relevant and free, so the voters would also become more empowered.

***These first two statements imply that he is the only Conservative MP to feel this way.

By the time I got to Parliament Hill, I was infused with the spirit of a new era in government, stated on the belief that we would see freedom reign in the Chamber and that the days of subjugation of MPs by the prime minister's office were numbered. . .

***Here he tackles his boss head on.

Everybody who makes up the government should be elected. They should be elected as members of the party that forms the government. Anybody who switches parties should go back to the people. To do otherwise is to place politicians above the people . . .

***He makes a pronouncement and anyone who disagrees doesn't care for democracy, just power.

But my comments were deemed not helpful, even though I chose them carefully and pulled some punches, suggesting Minister Emerson be given a little time before deciding on whether or not to get elected as a Tory.

***I've only pulled the stuff from his blog. His interviews were equally provocative. It is provocative because Turner presumes his own reaction to the appointment is the only legitimate one and given more time, even the unprincipled Mr. Emerson will see the errors of his ways.

I was just hoping that this time I would not be asked to choose -- between party and principle. I chose principle. My deepest loyalty is to what I believe . . . The Minister may decide not to take the heat. . . But he should still have the conviction to get elected a member of the team he chose. The same team I chose, and fought like a warrior to join . . . hopefully he will decide that's the right course of action.

I will try, at first, to get my government to champion these causes. If it does not, I will champion them myself. How will that happen? Well, just watch me.

***Between party and principle? The arrogance is astonishing.

Bold and defiant, yes, but also reckless and insulting. Turner could have disagreed with his boss and party without questioning their integrity and showing disdain. He could have said:

People are aware that I believe an MP should go back to the people should he decide to switch parties. In Canadian history, this has not been the established practice, and while I personally would want to do that were I in Mr. Emerson's position, our system of government elects a person, not a party. Mr. Emerson is the MP for Vancouver Kingsway regardless of what party affiliation he holds. He is under no obligation to resign his seat and I doubt the Prime Minister is going to change over a hundred years of precedent.

Mr. Harper did not support anti-floor crossing legislation when his party was on the other side of the equation last year, nor did he demand a byelection. He has been consistent in his views and I respect that. Not one Liberal supported a bill to limit floor crossing that was presented to Parliament just last fall. Perhaps in the next sitting of the House, if I, or someone else puts forward a bill setting out conditions for such a move, some Liberals might be inclined to support it now. At least we'd see if their current attitude is because it's happened to them, or if they are truly committed to a change in the practice.

There is room for dissent and diversity within the Conservative party, but when a demagogue persists in antagonizing his co-workers, the result will be tension and distrust. Turner's Emerson reaction was the first in a series of overtly hostile acts that placed Garth Turner on the outs -- not just with the PMO but with his fellow Conservative MPs -- the same people he hoped pass along to, the ideas and goals of the interested souls who communicate with him electronically. They should listen to a man who sees them through the prism of contempt?

A blog that waxes romantic about its own author is narcissistic tripe. It might have remained harmless self-promotion had Garth not made his attitute towards his colleagues so apparent.

It isn't the medium that brought him down, it wasn't even the message -- it was the malice towards the Garth-proclaimed 'homophobes' and the rural 'hats-and-horses' crowd. When you have that much contempt for so many parliamentarians and so many Canadians, it's bound to bite you in the ass eventually -- especially if you post it on your blog.

canadianna

He used WHAT word?

Today in the House, Belinda asked for an apology from Peter MacKay:

“Mr. Speaker yesterday during question period the minister of foreign affairs used a very inappropriate word to describe me.”

Anyone hearing this would assume that MacKay had stood in the House of Commons and called her a bitch. He wouldn't have been far off the mark, but the accusation against MacKay is that he said -- 'You've already got her.' There's a distict difference between implying she's a bitch and actually calling her one.

Belinda says that this kind of thing will have a 'chilling' effect on women who think about entering politics:

“It goes beyond this. It is really, I think, a reflection of the character and of the attitude of this government towards women. The fact that no one would take responsibility for this kind of a comment today, I think shows that,” she told reporters.

When a woman is a fully grown up person, capable of holding her own in the public eye, speaking up for herself, handling pressure and standing up to criticism -- then this sort of incident won't have a 'chilling effect' on her desire to enter into politics. The huffy response of Belinda & her shrill, patronizing chorus demonstrate that Liberals think that women need coddling. Hardly a progressive attitude.

The Liberal leadership debate actually opened with the 'great-eight' warbling about the need for more women in politics. There was even the suggestion of targets -- a certain number of women fielded as candidates in the next election. Seems they have little faith in women to take charge of their own destinies -- so like everything else, they want to engineer it.

They just don't get it -- whenever they take offense at a verbal slam directed at a woman, they demean women. By huffing and puffing they're making out that our frail souls and tender confidence can't handle pressure.

We are not so weak that we can't defend ourselves, and most of us don't identify with the Stronachs of this world, so there's little worry we'd think MacKay was taking a jab at all women in the person of Belinda. This was not about what Peter or conservatives think of women, it's about what one guy thinks of his ex -- and it's not even that -- it's about rude comments in the House of Commons which are given and gotten by everyone. Making it about gender might make a more interesting news story, but if they are really concerned about 'civility' in the House, they'll decry all incidents of rudeness -- not just the ones by men toward women.

Why did no one rush to Ken Dryden's rescue last year, when Rona Ambrose called him an 'old, white man'? Could it be because the Liberals believe men are capable of defending themselves? What does that say about their opinion of women?

canadianna

Dissent and Derision

Various members of the media attribute Garth Turner's 'suspension' to his willingness to speak out against the party or party policy:

There is little evidence that the allegations against Turner are anything more than a trumped-up excuse to get rid of an MP who says what he thinks.

In the simplest sense Don Martin is right -- Garth's outspoken attitude is the trouble, but Martin's suggesting that the trouble is with the Conservatives rather than with Garth. He seems to think they're making a pre-emptive strike and removing Garth before Rona Ambrose's environmental message is released, so that whatever Garth says to hammer that message will seem like sour grapes rather than the brave voice of reasoned thought, speaking out against the Harper-power structure.

That might be true if Garth could be taken seriously, but from the very first caucus meeting Turner has proved himself to be a buffoon. I wrote a post back in February -- St. Garth -- Patron Saint of the Petulant and Self-Righteous. You' ll find the actual blog posts from the days following tend to destroy his 'caucus confidentiality' credibility straight from the get-go. Where Don Martin seems to think the party is worried about Turner leaking or reacting to policy secrets, these first few posts show him betraying the more personal aspects of the meetings --and it's that sort of gossipy, ill-considered, prattling which most of his caucus must find obnoxious and unacceptable.

Take this example from February:

February 7, 2006 -- We had national caucus this morning. I cannot tell you what was said (well I could, but I won't), because caucus only really works when people know it's private (. . .) I knew there would be MPs in there pissed at not having made cabinet, and showing it in their body language (and there were). . . . I knew that my coming back here after being away for 13 years, walking in to a party once again in power might irritate others who toiled for years in opposition (and that happened, too.)

This was the day after Cabinet was announcements. Garth says he can't divulge caucus business, and then goes on to give two examples of conflict within caucus. The man can't be trusted. How free will caucus members feel to express themselves with Garth present, knowing that he's posted about concerns they spoke of privately?

I don't follow Turner's blog because I find it such a swaggering mass of self-aggrandizing pap, but his blog post after the recent Montreal shooting were so bizarrely insensitive and derisive that I read it. Garth used the tragedy to question the priorities of his rural caucus-mates and suggested that they put the rights of duck hunters ahead of the safety of the community:

And we won’t get near the problem if some of my hats-and-horses colleagues continue to lament over farmers and duck hunters who want to blow holes in birds and animals for the simple joy of it.

This puerile simplification of two serious issues is precisely what makes Garth a detriment to the party -- not because he disagrees with come of his colleagues on the merits of gun-control, but because he expressed his disagreement using insulting and provokative language intended to portray a segment of our society as consumed with violent blood-lust.

Turner remains unrepentant. In a post which seeks to explain his perception of the divisions between rural and urban Canadians, instead of trying to make amends or smooth things over, he seeks to amplify his US vs THEM version of citizenship and party membership:

The brand of Conservativism that I have called hats-and-horses is based on three elements, it seems: (a) Rural values, agrarian experience and rugged individualism, (b) A well-defined moral code based on deeply-held core religious beliefs and, (c) the indomitable and self-possessed spirit of the West, as once embodied by the Reform Party. The marriage of these themes defines the new Conservative Party, and the sheer strength of them was enough to swamp the influence of the other legacy party, Progressive Conservative. The reality, depth and strength of this was not entirely clear until that blessed day when the new Conservative Party won government. (. . .) My refusal to play the role requested of me will, I am sure, lead to my political demise. But each day I am an MP will be spent answering to the voters and taxpayers first, and my political master second. (...) And this brings me back to the hats-and-horses (them) versus the “infa-red” (actually, that should be ‘infra-red’), which is me. More sparks.
To the HAH gang my message is simple: You need politicians like me to remind you that lots of the country’s voters do not shoot ducks, criticize gays, till the land, avoid Toronto or go to church. But they’re still good and decent people, raising families the best they can, often in changing environments rife with challenges, and building Canada. They need champions, too, and not just ones with red ties and blouses.

With the possibility of an election in the next eight to ten months, the Conservatives don't need a self-proclaimed analyst to apportion traits and characteristics to this group and that. Turner is an isolating bigot at a time when unity is important -- not unanimity -- but at least public politeness. Turner has a poor opinion of many fellow party members and he wears this contempt like a mantle and then writes as though the rural constituency of this country and the party has somehow offended him and needs to be put back in its place.

Garth Turner isn't worth the trouble. Rather than holding his own government to account, Turner's specialty was alienating people -- no wonder his caucus-mates wanted him out -- his outspokenness was never meant to influence change or facilitate communication -- it was meant to inflame emotions and inflate his ego. One negative person can blight the confidence and enthusiasm of an entire group -- Garth Turner seems like the kind of guy who could suck the life out of a room just by walking in. No one needs that.

canadianna

Terence Finlay is a coward

Terence Finlay is the former Anglican archbishop of Toronto. This past June, he performed a marriage for a lesbian couple.

The Anglican church is divided on the issue of same-sex blessings --- let alone actual marriages, but Finlay's personal connection to the couple superceded his commitment to his church and his obligation to uphold the decision of the most recent synod, which put off a decision on same-sex unions and maintained a moratorium on same-sex blessings.

Courageous, no?

NO.

A brave man would have taken a stand when it meant something. A brave man would have announced his remarkable philosophical transformation regarding homosexuality before acting on it. (Finlay fired a priest in 1991 for being in a gay union, and in 2004, shortly before he retired, he reprimanded a priest for . . . you guessed it . . . performing a same-sex blessing).

Finlay took his stand when it conveniently cost him nothing. He is retired, so he can't be fired. His pension can't be revoked for an act that occured after his years of service (and likely couldn't have been even if he'd had felt strongly enough to perform a marriage/blessing prior to his retirement). And, although his actions undoubtedly carry symbolic weight, he is no longer in a position where he will have to take direct heat from members of his communion.

The only consequence for his choice to turn his back on his fellow Anglicans is that his license to perform marriages has been revoked --- until the end of 2006. Tragedy. He must be suffering.

Even Anglicans who support same-sex unions should be angry that Finlay chose to flout the decisions of synod and to do it weakly, timidly, and secretly, without personal sacrifice and without conviction.

His selfish actions only serve to exacerbate tensions in an already troubled faith community. Some will see Finlay as being a 'leader' in a cause. The timing of Finlay's ethical evolution suggests weakness, either a weakness of character that held him back from acting on, or even acknowledging his conversion to same-sex advocate or a lack of confidence in the doctrinal and spiritual validity and righteousness of his actions.

canadianna

Fred V. Morrone

Ferdinand Morrone was a husband, a father, and a grandfather. He was sixty-three years old when he was murdered by Islamic terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center.

In interviews given after his death, his wife Linda, remembered him as a man who lived his job but managed to live his family life as well.

Morrone held a bachelor's degree in political science from Stockton State College and a master's in public administration from Rider University. His first job in law enforcement was with the Franklin Township Police Department, and he joined the New Jersey State Police in 1963. He had a reputation as a driven investigator and retired from the force a lieutenant colonel.

On the morning of September 11th 2001 Freddie was miles away from the WTC, but Morrone, who was Superintendent of Police for the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, left the safety of his office in Jersey City and rushed to midtown Manhattan the moment he heard that a plane had crashed into the north tower.

No one who knew him was surprized that Freddie Morrone would jump right in, taking command of the rescue operation. Witnesses last put him on the 45th floor, heading upward, as he encouraged the employees on their way down.

Morrone spent most of his career as a New Jersey State Trooper. One of his last assignments as a State Trooper was assisting the FBI in the investigation of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

By the time he became head of the Port Authority three years later, Morrone, along with good friend Noel Cunningham, had been quietly campaigning for stricter maritime security measures. The two were worried about a group of Islamic radicals called "al Qaeda". As the memory of the 1993 attack faded in the minds of Americans, and while no further attacks took place on US soil, calls for greater security went unheard.

The Port Authority has 1,300 officers who patrol bridges, tunnels, airports, a bus terminal, marine terminals and the PATH rail system. The force is the 26th largest police department in the nation. Morrone is credited initiativing many improvements in security and efficiency within the Authority, most of which were the result of his concerns about terrorism. He created a residential training program at the Port Authority Police Academy. He toughened training standards for new recruits. He helped create the International School for Airport and Seaport Security, and implemented a program for training officers to use portable heart defibrillators. Morrone established bike patrols at airports, a scuba team, a Commercial Vehicle Inspection Unit, an Airborne Services Unit and a Motorcycle Unit.

His family has said in media interviews that Freddie was just learning to relax a little and play some golf. Beyond the job, they knew Mr.Morrone a guy who tried to get to 6:30 a.m. mass as often as he could, a man who demanded the most of himself while showing understanding for the frailties of others, a man who thought outside his own needs in order to fill the needs of family, friends or employees. He was quick to listen and deliberate in action.

Freddie Morrone's life and selfless actions on September 11th have been memorialized in tributes and awards.

The IAASP's Fred Morrone Education Fund

The New Jersey State Law Enforcement Purple Heart

A high-speed ferry was Christened in his name, in honour of the 36 Port Authority officers who died on 9/11.

The tributes to the dead of September 11, and the stories of the survivors, tell of men and women who achieved, who accomplished great and good things, who worked and succeeded. They are people whose lives did, and continue to make a positive difference in the world.

The hijackers didn't realize that it isn't how a person dies that makes him a hero or gives blessings, it's how a person lives. People like Freddie Morrone knew that, and lived it.

To read more tributes to victims of 9/11, visit:

canadianna

Bill 208: Protection or pacifier?

I've taken some heat for my suggestion that Alberta's Bill 208 should die.

Like most of you, I believe neither the Charter, nor the Civil Marriage Act will protect people who do not accept same-sex marriage -- but if these won't protect the rights of those who disagree -- I fail to see how some new law is going to do the trick. This law reiterates the protections laid out in the Civil Marriage Act -- which makes it redundant:

11.1 No person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under this or any law of Alberta, solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Alberta Bill of Rights, or the expression or exercise of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

Compare to Civil Marriage Act:

3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

And, while this bill might give comfort to those who seek its protection, but it is unlikely to give the protection it promises -- which makes it futile.

A couple of commenters say that the Civil Marriage Act seeks to protect only clergy, but I don't read that. Bill 208 explicitly seeks to protect clergy and marriage commissioners, but the Civil Marriage Act mentions only 'person(s)'. It will take a challenge and a judge to make 'person' mean anything but 'living human being' -- although we know how easily that can happen.

The Alberta bill goes on to make changes to two other Acts -- one identifying clergy and marriage councillors specifically, and another identifying teachers and students specifically. Most people believe that this bill is forward thinking and will prevent lawsuits and other punitive action against teachers/students/clergy/marriage commissioners. I respectfully disagree. Specifically identifying these particular people as 'protected' weakens the meaning of the word 'person' in the first clause. If all persons are protected from punitive action when they exercise their right to freedom of religion, conscience, belief, expression, etc. -- why does Bill 208 feel it necessary to identify specific persons for more emphatic protection -- if 'person' is an all-inclusive term, breaking it down into subgroups in order to grant particular protection is either redunant, or assumes that 'person' doesn't include all people -- and then we have to worry -- by identifying specific groups does that mean all other 'persons' are excluded from this protection? Kind of muddies the waters, doesn't it?

One commenter says that marriage commissioners in Newfloundland have already been fired for refusing to perform same-sex marriages and I find that disturbing -- Have they sought legal advice or filed a complaint with a Human Rights Commission? I would hope so. I doubt it will help, but it's important not to let these things pass.

I'm well aware of the Brockie case and the Christopher Kempling case mentioned by different commenters, and I think Alberta Girl summed it up well in my comments section:

Gay activists will not stop until they have forced their will, through the courts, on this country. Even if Bill 208 passed, (which by the way the majority of Albertans believe should pass), gay activists would take it to the courts until those whose values do not accept the gay lifestyle are forced to perform unions(marriages), teach about the gay lifestyle. They will not rest until they have psuedo acceptance of their lifestyle. I say psuedo acceptance because are you really accepted if you had to force someone to accept you and your lifestyle? Me thinks not?

Last spring when the SSM debate was still raging, I argued vociferously against it. My opinions haven't changed. I have no illusions about the Charter, or the Civil Marriage Act. I am not against Bill 208 in principle, but I am against creating a false sense of security.

My post was not a disagreement with 208, it was simply a lament at its futility.

If anyone is interested, I've written extensively on same-sex marriage and the potential ramifications:

The myth of the moderate (May 24, 2005)

Same-sex marriage debate in 7 parts (ONE) (TWO) (THREE) (FOUR) (FIVE) (SIX) (SEVEN)
(May 25, 2005)

Sounds good on paper (May 26, 2005)

As C-38 heads towards law (June 22, 2005)

Response to commenters (June 23, 2005)

Religious bigotry (June 26, 2005)

Public funding, public rules? (June 27, 2005)

Are any rights sacrosanct? (July 13, 2005)

How did we get here? (July 15, 2005)

Same-sex rights, the RC Church and the UN (July 16, 2005)

It's all about sex (July 25, 2005)

Two tier democracy (December 19, 2005)

Whose values are these anyway? (January 14, 2006)

Activist judges-- never! (January 19, 2006)

Expressing my views . . . (January 21, 2006)

canadianna

Bill 208 should die

Alberta's Bill 208 seeks to prevent people who hold certain jobs (teachers, clergy, marriage commissioners) from being penalized for acting on their conscience regarding same-sex marriage.
At a protest rally on Friday, gay activist Julie Lloyd said:

"This bill would make it open season on gay and lesbian Albertans. What this bill does is strip back basic human rights protection.'

That, of course, is hysterical nonsense -- but still, the bill shouldn't pass.

I don't recall anyone having being fired or sanctioned for not performing a same-sex marriage and I don't believe anyone has been fired or penalized for having refused to teach on the subject of same-sex marriage. So far, so good.

It is scary that the Alberta Legislature feels the need to present a bill that would protect dissenters. Dissent should be protected under the Charter, shouldn't it? Our freedom of religion and conscience are entrenched in that document, aren't they? But still we feel uncertain that disagreement with certain laws and government policy will be protected.

I guess it's the often intolerant rhetoric of the heterophobes and the religiophobes that provokes people into feeling that this kind of legislation is necessary:

Opponents rallied on the steps of the legislature Friday to say the bill would enshrine in law the dehumanization of gays similar to what blacks once endured in the United States and South Africa.

Opponents label the legislation a malignant tumour.

“This will do nothing more than create a widespread moral panic in which gay and lesbian issues are seen as a moral contagion,” said Kris Wells, who works in educational policy studies at University of Alberta.

Ms. Lloyd said clergy already have the right not to go against their beliefs to perform same-sex marriages. She said the bill only helps civil marriage commissioners deny service “because of intolerant beliefs.”

She said the bill, if passed, would allow employers to fire gays and let landlords evict gay tenants with impunity “because they're exercising a belief against same-sex marriage.”

Nevermind that the last statement is irrationally extreme -- these kinds of statements are ferociously anti-freedom, anti-self-expression, and suggest that there is only one opinion allowed in this country, and only belief system that can be used in public. Bill 208 might have brought those opinions to the newspapers this time, but these rigid attitudes are always there, festering and being fostered within our academic institutions.

The Charter says that we have freedom of religion and we have freedom of expression. Same-sex marriage is legal, but as of yet, there is no law imposing agreement with same-sex marriage -- in fact, section 3.1 of the Civil Marriage Act says:

Freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.

The Charter doesn't give us freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression "except" when it comes to same-sex partnerships-- there is no 'except'. The limitations that exist in the Charter are not to our freedoms, but to governmental interference with them.
And, just so we wouldn't be worried that our government was rejigging a centuries-old, universally established element of a sacred institution to conform to the radical mindset of 21st century 'liberal' elites -- parliament put in the above clause. No section of the Civil Marriage Act imposes the belief in its correctness -- only its legality.

Let Bill 208 die.
If the Civil Marriage Act is applied as written, protection for dissenters exists federally.
If ever the "freedom of conscience and religion and expression of beliefs" clause is ever challenged, and if the Charter is for real and for the protection of everybody, Bill 208 is redundant.

People who insist that beliefs should be legislated or that religion should be checked at the door of public sector jobs are the epitome of intolerance. Rather than give them more reason to name-call, vilify and proselytize about those who disagree with them, let's see how the existing legislation and our hallowed Charter fare.

canadianna