On the niqab

I live in Scarborough where a lot of women wear hijab*** or the niqab. Hijabs*** don't bother me. The niqab forces me to look away. It says the wearer doesn't want to meet me, has no interest in the world outside of her culture. I respect that-- their business. That might not be the message she is trying to send but it's the one I'm receiving as a Canadian raised in Toronto during the 70's.

That said, I'm in a pretty heavy twitter argument over whether Harper's response to the niqab is right. I'm actually being mistaken for a Liberal. Should a woman in our free society be allowed to cover her face during the oath of citizenship. Harper says no. I believe he's wrong.

I believe the person taking the oath is ID'd prior to the oath-taking and the choice to cover her face during the oath taking (if based on religious or cultural tradition) should be respected. Who am I to say it goes against Canadian culture? My schooling told me that our culture was whatever we said it was... well ... we said we were pluralistic, we embraced multiculturalism ... Would we say 'no' to a kilt or a sari? A turban or a kirpan? The covering of the face by some Muslim women, except in the presence of their immediate families, seems foreign or strange.... but we invited them... we said come: keep your traditions so long as they are non-violent and don't infringe on the rights of others .... and now we want to say "EXCEPT" ... except Muslim women who choose a niqab.

This is not about oppression. If you are against the niqab because it symbolizes the forced submission of women ... then be against the niqab but you can't pick and choose and say it's fine for women to be subjected to oppression every day except when they are swearing an oath of citizenship.

If it is the garb of oppression, then be like France and get rid of it altogether... don't be wishy-washy and pretend we are enlightening anyone when in fact we are just subjecting them to OUR will instead of the will of their husband or culture ... either way they are not free, so why the moral indignation?

In the end we non-Muslims will never know the dynamic within families where this is the norm, but since many of our families are also messed up in so many different ways... are we really going to get in the way of people exercising their freedoms?

The niqab is not honour killings, it isn't FGM -- it isn't any of our business. If we are going to pick and choose the cultural or religious traditions of our immigrants, it should be in matters that affect the public or their potential safety. A woman wearing a niqab is disconcerting.... to us. Maybe women walking down the street topless is disconcerting to them but by law, we can. But the niqab is not, as some on my twitter feed have suggested, equivalent to chains or KKK robes.

If I was a Canadian, born to a culture where the niqab was expected or acceptable, and I was told that in order to be allowed to swear the oath of citizenship in our free country, my mother was stripped of her choice and her dignity and forced to submit to the will of the government, I might not think this was such a free country after all. I might in fact, choose a niqab as a form of political protest. By pushing back when people test the limits of our willingness to accommodate, we risk alienating the very people we hope will learn to embrace our values of inclusiveness, acceptance, understanding, diversity. It's a lose-lose and Harper should re-think his position.

*** Edited -- originally read burqa, Was corrected by commenters. I actually meant hijab.
canadianna

Ignatieff: Allow me to slag them . . .

. . . whilst I make my graceful exit.

No sour grapes for our humble prophet Michael Ignatieff. Naw, he's a loser, but not a sore loser:

“This is a Prime Minister found in contempt of Parliament. This was a Prime Minister where the accumulations of what we believed to be abuses of power led to a point at which it seemed to me absolutely my responsibility as the leader of the opposition to stand up for the sovereignty of Parliament,” he said (when asked if he miscalculated by forcing an election.)

Ignatieff went on to say that the *just visiting* ads were:

“absolutely unscrupulous campaign of personal attack.” and “I had a very large square put around my neck for a number of years.”

Sniffle.

But, not one to make a fuss, Michael said:

"The only thing Canadians like less than a loser is a sore loser” and he is “leaving politics with “(his) head held high.”

No, Mike what we like less than a sore loser, is a sore loser who takes his parting shots but pretends his still travelling the high road. Today, and throughout the campaign, you accused Harper of contempt for Canadians, abuse of power, corruption, lies, secrets plans to . . . (fill in the blank with any number of scary scenarios) But you have my sympathy because you've endured being called a political tourist. That must've been painful. Why do you suppose that is. My guess? Truth hurts.

Michael, I think you stubbed your toe on the way out.

canadianna

Finally -- Stephen Harper's REAL agenda

Paranoid anyone?

Ignatieff thinks Stephen Harper's raison d'être is to *drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party*

Ignatieff told supporters “Mr. Harper has no vision for Canada, but he has a very sharp vision for the Conservative party of Canada, which is to try to drive a stake through the heart of the Liberal Party.”

Does that mean all those people who called him *Count Iggy* were right?

He went on to say:

"Their politics are a sustained attempt to destroy me and destroy the party,'' Ignatieff said at a final fiery news conference on Sunday.

Whoa! And I thought Stephen Harper was merely a power hungry despot demanding more time in power and bent on the destruction of the country . . .Wow . . . He really lowered his sights by aiming at the Liberal Party.

Silly Iggy. You wrecked it all by yourself..

Whatever the outcome, at least half the results will be the product of voter-fatigue. I'm sure tired of whiny Liberals.

canadianna

Why is Jack a HOAG?

Jack, he's the mack? So says Warren Kinsella, who has all the answers--- yet again. He knows why all you average guys and gals are in a Layton-lovefest. Turns out, Layton's a cool guy -- in Warren-speak a *HOAG* (helluvaguy) --the kind you'd swig beers with at a tailgate -- because of course, that's what we *average* Canadians are all about.

Funny, I don't see it. Jack is personable enough, but if you ask me, he's the kind of guy who'd have been a geek in high school, not someone you'd want to hang out with if you were cool. Not that geek is a bad thing in my mind. I wasn't cool and I did hang out with the geeks -- but let's not pretend he's a major hockey nut or that you'd find him right down there getting into the UFC stuff that's going on now. Jack Layton is anything but the average Joe. What he is, is an elite who passes. And the only reason he passes is because he is so well versed in the game.

Kinsella attacks Harper again as the angry man. Did any of you see that in this campaign? Seriously -- partisanship aside. Harper seemed innocuous to me. Bland, calm and as Kinsella said, uninspiring -- but hardly "an angry guy who doesn’t like the country, let alone the people who live in it." .... where'd that come from besides Kinsella's obvious bias?

I remember the Harper they called angry. Weren't you angry at the Sponsorship scandal and the Liberal sense of entitlement? Wouldn't you be more angry if the media then focused on your anger than the obvious waste, mismanagement and possible corruption within the sitting government. And then to be consistently accused of the *hidden agenda* fiction .... Defending against lies and innuendo makes most people come off as angry. As for *disliking the country (and) the people who live in it* --Harper has endured so many vicious character assaults from the media he must love his country and want to serve its people if he's able to suck it up and take it the way he has, because unlike Jack, Harper wasn't born to this.

The truth is, that Layton is a huckster-extraordinaire . . . the carnival barker . . . the lifelong politician who knows how to shill and Harper is that *regular guy* -- the guy who gets frustrated with the stupidity of people who will ask the same question three times in order to get the answer they prefer. Aren't you that kind of guy? Aren't you the kind of guy who shakes your head at the dramedy of politics? Wouldn't you find it hard to play that popularity contest game?

Anyway, what gets me is these puffed up Liberals who see us as a nation of donut eaters and beer swillers who'd use the same reasoning to chose our government, as we would to choose our drinking buddies. Way to under estimate your fellow citizens, Warren. Who was it that dislikes the people of this country?

Warren? He's gettin' borin'.

canadianna

Election shocker: Harper not campaigning for the Liberals

In the latest of many shocking developments on the campaign trail, it has come to light that Stephen Harper is not championing the Liberal cause as things come down to the wire:

"Today, he (Harper) will tour the country and he will not say a word about the Liberal tax cuts for families," Mr. Dion told an early morning rally at the headquarters of Fredericton candidate David Innes.

Can you believe it? The audacity of the Conservative Party leader -- not mentioning a Liberal promise. You'd almost think Harper supports the Conservative platform rather than the Liberal one. Unthinkable.

Not only that. Stephane Dion has it on good authority that Stephen Harper is either a clever ventriloquist or has the ability to speak to reporters with his mind:

"He will be mute today and he will continue to lie about the Liberal climate-change plan," Mr. Dion said. For the past couple of days, Mr. Harper has stopped scrumming with the reporters travelling with him.

Neat party trick, that -- lying while mute.

It's astounding that the press treats Dion's every utterance as though it is both credible and news.

canadianna

Stop picking on Stephane Dion!

Or he'll stamp his feet and cry!!!

Poor, poor, Stephane Dion. Stephen Harper is picking on him.

The Prime Minister suggested that Dion's attitude about the economy is tantamount to cheering for a recession. Here are a few quotes from Dion after the stock market crisis and some follow up from experts, sometimes in the same article:

But Dion said as badly as the U.S. has performed economically, Canada has done worse and lays the blame for that at the feet of the Prime Minister.

Dion, while in St. John's, Nfld., said that Harper's economic formula is one that will land Canada in a deep recession.

"Their (the U.S.) first six months have been better than ours in terms of economic growth," Dion said.

"(Harper) made bad choices in the way he spends. He spent more than any other government before him," he said. "We've got to stop going in the direction that Mr. Harper is sending us and that is deficit and recession."

Harper urged "a more sober analysis" of the global economic woes.

People should not "turn to complete doom and gloom" scenarios, Harper said at a Monday news conference.

The Toronto Star, September 15

Seems to me that Dion is happy to interprets Harper's policies as 'sending us into a recession.'

And then:

"The Canadian market fundamentals are still solid . . . ," (Industry association president Calvin Lindberg) said, echoing the reassurance about the health of the overall economy issued earlier in the day by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"The Canadian economy's fundamentals are solid," Harper said, stressing that Canada is in better shape that the U.S. to withstand the current financial turmoil and suggesting that the worst of the crisis has already passed. "Our household sector, our government sector, and our financial institutions have solid economic fundamentals."

However, Liberal opposition leader Stephane Dion charged that were it not for the policies of the minority Conservative government, the economy would have been in better shape to withstand the U.S. slump.

"The difficulties in the United States are something we worry about," Dion said, adding "bad choices" by the government have resulted in economic growth being weaker in Canada this year than in the United States.

While most indicators - especially job growth and housing market sales, prices and construction - have been much stronger in Canada than in the U.S., overall levels of economic growth have been stronger there than here - with Canada's economy barely skirting a technical recession of back-to-back quarterly contractions in total output of goods and services and an actual decline in the first half of the year.

The Vancouver Sun, September 15

Note that two men who know a little bit about economics say that our economy is holding steady. The voice of dissent comes from Stephane Dion. It could even be argued that the man is almost hopeful of a recession, just to prove his point.

As the U.S. economy slipped deeper into financial turmoil Monday, Dion cast the Conservative economic plan as an anchor that has dragged Canadians to the brink of recession.

Dion blamed Harper for doing little to protect Canada from the looming economic downturn.

"Stephen Harper has allowed what was a booming economy to hit a brick wall," Dion said.

"Stephen Harper governs for the next day, the next poll. He wants to buy your vote with gimmicks for the next election."

The Liberals have also targeted the Conservative government's economic record in a new TV ad they dubbed "Harpernomics."

The Toronto Star, September 16

There's Dion, suggesting that Canada's headed for recession and it sounds like it would suit him fine. After all, it fits right into the clever and witty "Harpernomics" line. Is Harper really wrong for suggesting that he's practically drooling, hoping for a downturn on Harper's watch?

"He spent a lot, he has no direction and we are close to a deficit and close to
a recession," Dion said.
(...)

"The federal government has entered the 2008-2009 fiscal year with pretty solid momentum at least in the early stages of the year that momentum has continued," said Derek Burelton, an economist with TD Bank Financial Group.

"I think the numbers coming in so far this year suggest that the surplus is declining but we're not looking into an immediate return into deficit."

The GST cut has robbed the government coffers of around $12 billion a year, a move that has subtracted significantly from excess surpluses, Burelton said.

"We're still in surplus territory. No doubt the GST cut has eaten into that," Burelton said.

However, he said, the federal government is benefiting greatly from greater revenue from taxes in the resource sector despite the fact that commodity prices have fallen.

The Tories are projecting a $2.3-billion surplus this fiscal year and $1.3 billion for the next, down from the $10.2-billion surplus for the 2007-08 fiscal year.

Dale Orr, managing director of Global Insight Canada, believes those are conservative estimates and has predicted a $4 billion to $5 billion surplus for this fiscal year.

"There's not much chance of a deficit this year," Orr said.

Orr said the tax base continues to grow more rapidly than was forecast in the budget, offsetting the softening economy. Also, interest rates are lower than predicted, which provides some relief on debt charges.

As well, the government has not included in its forecast the $44 billion collected in Ottawa's auction of wireless airwaves. Orr said many believe the Conservatives will budget 10 per cent of that revenue to be used for over the next 10 years, meaning an extra $400 million of revenue will be coming for the current fiscal year.

Mark Gollom, CBC Reality Check, September 15

Again, Dion says recession, deficit and two experts say not. Is Harper wrong to think Dion almost seems hopeful that the economy will plunge in order to prove his own hypothesis?

One could almost forgive M. Dion for his fallacious belief that all one had to do to become Prime Minister of Canada was to don the red banner, point at the people in blue and scoff, but his reaction to criticism is to whine. Not very becoming of a man who hopes to lead the nation.

It seems inconceivable to Stephane Dion that anyone would question his policies, his demeanour, his strategy of predicting economic decline in order to boost his own fortunes. Instead of trying to justify any of those things, he becomes shrill and childish and blames those who would challenge his narrow world vision.

"Never has a government spent so much to destroy a person and his policies as Harper has towards me," Dion said during a campaign event in Stoney Creek, Ont., just outside Hamilton.

The man has a persecution complex. Politics is a blood sport and Dion seems to bruise easily. Maybe he should stick to what he's good at -- maybe fishing or saving the universe.

canadianna

A picture's worth . . . ?

Regardless of political affiliation, most people say they support our troops. Personal feelings about war in general and the war in Afghanistan in particular, don't seem to factor in.

Why is it then, that Liberals are still bent on portraying our military as ominous in an effort to malign the Conservatives?

A photograph of tanks at the ready, combined with the word 'Conservative' seems to be a favourite stunt of the Liberal Party's communications staff. This image of Light Armoured Vehicles from the Liberal website, is reminiscent of the Liberal television ad yanked during the election last year. Apparently they thought they'd dust off the idea and give it new life in a different format. With so many other aspects of the Afghan mission to choose from, they have chosen one that could be seen as the most menacing. No faces, just an overpowering machine. Subtlety is obviously not their forte.

The NDP doesn't like the Conservatives any more than the Liberals do, and they like the war in Afghanistan even less. Yet the NDP website doesn't misuse the military to make a point about Harper. Their criticism of Harper's Afghan vision and visit is linked to by a photo of soldiers on the ground, with Afghan children in the background. It appears unstaged and seems unthreatening -- no attempt to draw deleterious connections or conclusions.
Maybe I'm being fussy here, but photographs are used to evoke emotion. You'd think that the Liberals would have learned their lesson and if they want to assail Harper, they'd stop using our military as their weapon of choice.

*** I've edited this post because commenters corrected me (thanks) --The photo is not of tanks, but LAVs (Light Armoured Vehicles). The visual holds the same connotation IMO.

canadianna

A Veteran's trust

Our soldiers have to know that even long after they've finished their duties abroad, they and their families will be well served by our government. They put their lives on the line, and they hope that the people back home will support them --- not just their missions, but them. They need to be certain that the government will not turn its back on them or their families should they be disabled or should they die. It's a matter of trust.

Due to a clerical error at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Annie MacKenzie didn't receive her husband's disability pension after he died in 1968. The Department insisted Melvin MacKenzie was not disabled, despite having in its possession, information that he was. Unfortunately, that information was ignored and then never transferred to computer. Mrs. MacKenzie was left to raise their six children on her own, without the financial assistance to which she was entitled.

The government doesn't dispute that they got it wrong for nearly 40 years, but Federal laws governing the Pension Act only allow for retroactive payments going back five years. The family is appealing to today's government to hand over the full amount to which Annie MacKenzie and her family were entitled.

It's shameful that governments can erase errors and ignore commitments, simply by legislating a time-limit clause. Mrs. MacKenzie and her family have been fighting for this pension since 1968. It isn't as though the family just discovered it was owing and are hoping for a windfall. These payments were due, and despite years of attempting to get Veteran's Affairs to rectify their error, nothing was done. No fault lies with the family, so why should they be penalized for a governmental failure?

How this case is handled will serve to show today's soldiers what they can expect from Veteran's Affairs in the future. If we want our troops serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to have confidence that we support them, and will continue to support them when they come back home, showing respect for our WWII & Korea Vets and their widows would be a positive indicator.

Harper should step in and right this wrong, making the payout retroactive to when the mistake occurred.

canadianna

Arts smarts? I think not

Writer Yann Martel is getting worldwide press about his campaign to get more federal arts funding by sending books to Stephen Harper. The first parcel Harper is scheduled to receive is "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" by Russian author Leo Tolstoy.

It's a cute idea really and has obviously garnered attention, which I guess is the point.

A couple of questions though.

If a Canadian author is trying to solicit funding from the Prime Minister of Canada, why is he using a Russian writer to do it? Aren't there examples of fine Canadian writing that might just as easily open Mr. Harper's eyes to the joys of 'art'?

And secondly, how much government funding do you figure Tolstoy received in order to complete this, or any other of his celebrated works?

canadianna.

Threat? Interference? Blackmail?

These are some of the words being used to describe Harper's statement prior to the Quebec election that it is: "necessary to have a federalist government in Quebec" in order to proceed with promised reforms, such as dealing with the fiscal imbalance.

Should he have said it during the election campaign?

Why not?

Why pretend that if Quebec had elected a separatist party provincially, that the federal government should or would deal with that party in the same manner as with a federalist party?

Much of the problem around Quebec is the way we skirt around the issues. I don't like that Harper threw so much money at Quebec (and Ontario) at the expense of others -- but how does one take offense at honesty? The timing? Like Quebeckers aren't smart enough to realize that a strong vote for the Bloc in a federal election can be construed as a 'protest' and not an endorsement of separatism, whereas a strong PQ provincial vote is less likely to seem that way to the feds.

Harper stated a fact. Was he trying to 'influence' voters? Maybe, but I doubt it. Harper is aware that most Quebeckers are far more savvy about their politics than most people in the rest of the country. He wasn't telling them anything that they didn't already know.

canadianna