On Israel . . . France should talk

Jacques Chirac's reaction to the Israel/Lebanon crisis is quoted at timesonline:

"One may well ask if there isn’t today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon - its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport. And for what? I find honestly - as all Europeans do - that the current reactions are totally disproportionate. In the Middle East we are currently in a situation of great fragility and instability. We are in a dangerous situation, a very dangerous situation. We must be very, very careful."

This is the same man who tempered his criticism of footballer Zinedine Zidane's head-butt in the World Cup final by saying that it was 'unacceptable' but that it must have been 'provoked'. The French leader is saying that disproportionate violence on the soccer pitch at an individual level is mitigated because nasty words are a sufficient instigator for a physical assault.

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

As recently as 1995, France was still conducting nuclear testing. France conducted 176 test blasts at the Mururoa and neighboring Fangataufa atolls from 1966 to 1995 despite the protests of much of the rest of the world. Even the US (a more likely target of an incoming attack) had stopped testing three years previous after the tensions of the Cold War had abated.

In 1985, France was responsible for the sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior before it could protest French nuclear testing. (Talk about a pre-emptive strike.) That action by the French killed someone -- and recent documents show that France actually tried to blame Britain for the attack. The French response to non-violent protest --murder. Hypocracy thy name is France.

Then there's France's response to anti-French protests on the Ivory Coast. Between 20 and 60 Ivorians were killed during protests after France destroyed the Ivorian air force following attacks by the loyalist army that killed 9 French peacekeepers. France acted unilaterally and did not seek approval from the UN, despite there being 6,000 UN Peacekeepers on the ground who were potential targets for retaliation. Apparently France felt justified in not simply destroying the former colony's air force, but in killing people who protested that action. In fact, the French spokesman said that the reaction was 'moderate and restrained'.

Oh, and let's not forget France's special relationship with Saddam. The Oil-for-Food scandal has not shamed the French, despite people at the highest levels of their government being neck-deep in the affair. It is not unreasonable to think that if France had not been dealing duplicitously and illicitly with Saddam Hussein between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, that the Iraq War might well have been averted altogether.

Had France, Russia and China not been selling arms and raking in billions from Saddam, they might have seen the wisdom of calling Saddam's bluff rather than that of the US and Britain. Instead, the three sanctimonious nations correctly calculated that the left-tilting world would perceive the war to be aggression on the part of the US -- an insatiable lust for oil -- nevermind that these three are more dependent on Mid-East oil than is the US.

These three, with France at the fore, pretended to prefer peace, despite knowing full-well that a show of solidarity by the Security Council against Iraq's repeated breach of conditions laid out for the cease-fire, might have caused Saddam to back down -- instead, the three postured for the world press, openly slamming the US and lobbing accusations at Bush, while hiding their dirty linen behind their 'virtuous' anti-war facade. These three countries are hardly anti-war -- just look at their recent histories of use of force against less threatening adversaries.

Peace was never their goal -- shielding their misdeeds from scrutiny and maintaining the flow of bribe money-- with the bonus of sticking it to the US and Britain --that was their aim.

Forget whether there were WMD in Iraq, that's irrelevant -- Iraq had continually violated the UN Resolutions that had suspended hostilities in 1991. The Security Council had adequate reason to threaten a resumption of war to protest Saddam's non-compliance. Had every member of the Security Council been onside with the threat of war, actual war might not have been necessary.

Israel is responding to the breach of its border, the abduction of its soldiers and assaults on its population by an unreasonable and intractable enemy. As Hizbollah's missiles rain down on civilian targets in Haifa, ask yourself what France would do if it had to walk a mile in Israeli shoes? Sixty years ago, France might have thrown up its hands but its recent past shows that when it serves its own purposes, France is ready and willing to use excessive force to get its way or to seek vengence -- even when its own civilians are not at risk and when acting with force might put international troops in harm's way -- yet somehow Chirac feels entitled to suggest Israel should back off and use restraint when dealing with overt acts of war, which threaten not only it's population, but which could if left unchecked, threaten its very existence.

With its dodgy dealings in world affairs France is not a paragon of peaceful virtue. It is a nation that speaks out of both sides of mouth, and Jacques Chirac should just shut up.

canadianna

Misplaced sympathy

Women are not responsible for their own actions and can be controlled by the whims of strong men.
People with disabilities should not be held to the same standards as their 'able' peers.

Well, you could be forgiven for getting that impression after reading about an Edmonton court's decision not to hand a jail term to a woman with cerebral palsy who engaged in at least one sex act with her 6 year old son and who posted nude pictures of him on the Internet.

Justice Mary Moreau said the woman was 'spared' jail time because that would pose “unusual hardship”. This 'mother' imposed unusual hardship on her child --- and yet because she did it to 'please' her Internet lover, whom she was obliged to 'obey' -- this woman is being saved from jail time because of her gender and her disability.

The woman must perform 60 hours of community service, take counselling and treatment and is banned from using the Internet for the first three months.

This is punishment?

The newspaper says:

The woman suffers from cerebral palsy and has very restrictive use of her hands and difficulties with speech.

The judge said that the "physical infirmities and psychological vulnerabilities" of the woman played a role in her decision, and said that the woman was a "particularly vulnerable disabled victim," who was exploited by a "sexual predator." The judge said that the woman is classified as a low risk to reoffend and a jail sentence would be "considerably harsher" for her than for others.

Look how this reads . . . what about equal treatment for the disabled? The woman's infirmities didn't prevent her from operating a webcam and sexually abusing her son -- how could they possibly be relevant to a jail term when all government facilities are obligated to be accessible to the disabled?

Justice Moreau thinks that this women should be treated differently from other pedophiles and sexual offenders because she has determined the woman to be mentally and physically fragile. What does that say to the woman's child? That his violation at the hands of his mother is secondary to the mother's infirmities?

This woman was not the 'victim of an Internet predator' as the judge says -- that child was the victim of his mother. Period.

The criminal behaviour of this woman should not be excused simply because she was warped enough to act on the perverted ideas of someone she met on the Internet. She is guilty. She put herself above her child. She was not a victim trying to please her Internet lover --she is an adult who was pleasing herself by pleasing her lover.

People have to be held accountable for their own actions regardless of gender or disability. We have to stop excusing criminal behaviour --- even when perpetrator is pathetic.

canadianna

Degrees of sick and twisted

Thanks to Dr. Roy for catching the Globe & Mail editorial (click the title link to get around the subscriber wall).

The Globe's comment is about one of the cases I wrote about early this morning -- that of the 32 year old father who had been sexually abusing his daughter for two years, since she was 24 months old. The Globe has praise for the Quebec appeals court judges:

On balance, however, the appeal court did its job properly by looking dispassionately at the facts, and reducing the sentence accordingly.

According to the Globe, people like me jumped the gun because:

(The appeals judge) could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that rape had occurred. She noted that, while the young girl had been taken to see medical doctors for evidence of penetration, no such evidence was produced in court. The trial judge had not explained why she had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It might have been the photos. Or maybe it was the fact that the guy was convicted of sexually assaulting a six year old when he was 17. Maybe it was the testimony she heard first-hand.

But let's pretend for a moment that it never happened. Let's pretend this whackjob just simulated intercourse with an infant, took pictures and distributed them on the internet. The logic here is that if penetration didn't occur, daddy doesn't deserve that vast ten year maximium allowed for 'the worst cases'.

And maybe that's the problem -- 10 years maximum for the worst cases of sexual assault? Each sentence sends a message to the sexual predators in our midst and if ten years is the best we can do to punish the 'worst' perverts out there, we're already falling down on the job.

The Globe lauds the court for 'looking dispassionately at the facts' and maybe that's what disturbs me most. How can anyone look dispassionately on violation of a little child? Even if it was 'only' simulated, the man has sexually assaulted his daughter. A father who would even simulate sex with his infant daughter is scary and dangerous. Penetration should not be the determinant for whether something is equal to 'the worst'. Sexual violation is sexual violation.

The editorial cites examples of what it has determined is the 'worst' abuse, then makes the comparison:

Perhaps the worst known case involved a Russian girl, Masha Allen, now 13 (she has spoken publicly under her own name about what she endured), who was adopted by a Pennsylvania man when she was 5 and victimized until age 10. The man received a sentence of 35 to 70 years. In another case, an Edmonton man was jailed for 14 years last summer for sexual offences against his two stepchildren and two of the stepchildren's friends, ages 5 to 9. He set up a webcam on top of his computer and forced his stepdaughter to engage in sex while she could see a man watching on the screen.

Yet the Quebec case, horrifying as it was, was not comparable to these other two cases.

I wasn't aware there are degrees of sick and evil. This father, while twisted, was apparently not quite twisted enough to rate the harshest sentence the law would allow and Globe thinks that's just swell -- but that is a road we should not be going down -- comparing sexual assaults on children and saying 'this one isn't as bad as that one'.

The Globe got this one vastly wrong -- if anything, they should be advocating for tougher sentences for all sexual offenders rather than applauding a court for reducing a sentence when, in the Globe's own words:

The appeal court made some questionable assertions. For instance, it said the father's relative youthfulness -- he was 32 -- was a mitigating factor. No 32-year-old should have the excuse of youth. The court also said he had no criminal record, with the exception of a sexual assault on a six-year-old when he was 17. Some exception. And the court said the sexual assault on the little girl had not been done in a violent context of gagging, threatening or hitting her. It seems obvious a child that age is so vulnerable that the worst tortures are possible without resorting to heavy weapons. That hardly should have been a point in the father's favour.

Sick and twisted, is sick and twisted. Fifteen years wasn't enough for this guy, let alone nine.

canadianna

Canada - Great place to be a pedophile

Below is a list of news stories from the past 10 days or so.

The first case is of a father, who began raping his daughter when she was just 24 months old. He took pictures and uploaded them to the internet. He was sentenced to 15 years, but the Quebec appeal court has since reduced it to 9, because this was not the worst case of sex abuse ever and while there was penetration of a baby -- apparently there was 'no violence'. The judge sounds as warped as the rapist.
Pedophile's sentence too harsh, court rules

The next is the case of a 22 year old who went to Bosnia as a civilian contractor. While there, he witnessed 'very significant atrocities' including dead bodies -- so of course when he came back to Canada he needed a way to take his mind off things -- downloading pictures of children being raped eased the trauma of being a witness to other people's suffering. This guy has to perform 100 hours of community service. Maybe he can ease the suffering of victims who've faced the trauma of being witness to other people's tragedies by teaching them how to download kiddie porn.
You'd have to wonder if witnessing the suffering of others excuses one from any responsibility in downloading child porn -- how much could you get away with if you actually suffer yourself?
Trauma pleaded in child porn case -- No jail for man who witnessed atrocities

We tell ourselves we're a civilized society. We are shocked by the Dutch political group that would legalize child pornography, and eventually child-adult sex. We ask ourselves 'how could they?' and yet our judges are treating child rape as a non-violent crime and finding excuses to give child porn collectors house arrest and community service.

Child porn as therapy???? Child rape non-violent???

These are our judges saying these things -- the people who 'interpret' our laws and mete out punishment to violators --they are saying that those who rape babies and watch other people rape babies are not criminals.

What is to deter a pedophile from raping a child --a nine year sentence? By the time he gets caught, (not usually after the first) he might just think it's worth it -- because after a third off for good behaviour it's really only six years.

And why would anyone worry about downloading child porn? House arrest? Big deal. Community service? It's the community that's being punished there.

I've no doubt that in some not-so-distant-future that being a pedophile will be just another sexual orientation and it will be argued that if it's legalized, then at least the creeps wouldn't have to kill the kids.

It's a sick world and the lawyers and judges here should be as ashamed as the sickos in these articles.

Having child porn earns 14 months

House arrest for convicted former school teacher

Child porn collector gets 15 months

No jail time for convicted sex offender

Pedophile gets house arrest for child porn

Our children deserve better.

canadianna

Boycott CUPE

Oh, that's right. We can't. We're hostage to their political agenda.

Regardless of which side of the issue you come down on, CUPE Ontario's unanimous decision to support a motion to boycott Israel should cause concern.

With religious, political or charitable organisations, members are typically aware of the outlook and aims and have joined freely and are free to leave should the reality of the association not match the member's personal vision. CUPE membership is compulsory for most people who work in the public sector. There is no freedom from this association if one's job falls under the framework of the government. Almost sounds unconstitutional -- freedom of association should also mean freedom from association -- but for those whose employment is unionized, such freedom doesn't exist.

Likewise, as citizens, we have no option but to use the services provided by public sector employees. They provide essential services, and if we disagree with the political agenda pushed forward and imposed by the union, there is no method by which we can express our displeasure or outrage.

CUPE Ontario's news page was devoid of any mention of this vote this morning (I have tried to access the page since, but my connection keeps timing out) but this is the full text of the resolution as reported by Judeoscope.

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.

2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution194.

3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

BECAUSE:

• The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law. • Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid; • CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.

I downloaded the CUPE B.C. education campaign and I was shocked by the half-truths, lies and opinion-presented-as-fact, unabashedly set out in this pious booklet. CUPE Ontario plans to follow their lead and I think it's vile.

The Preface of this booklet says that 'Trade unions deal principally with wages and working conditions, but (they) also serve as human rights organizations'. CUPE sees itself as a social activist group -- but unlike PETA, Greenpeace and Amnesty International, CUPE forces public employees to join, imposes dues on those employees and does not allow members to resign the union unless they also give up their jobs.

The 896 CUPE members who voted on Saturday (the Jewish sabbath, by the way) who represent 200,000 public sector workers, arrived at their meeting with no mandate to vote on an issue that is complex, emotional and controversial -- and yet they did just that.

With this vote, CUPE has not only suggested that members boycott Israel -- they are forcing all of its 200,000 Ontario members to financially support an agenda with which they might vehemently disagree.

You might not be a CUPE member, but without the ability to boycott public services, you are indirectly financing their proposed propaganda campaign.

canadianna

Say What?

Hyperbole and activists go hand in hand, and by doing so, they tend to diminish their cause.

Take for example Doreen Silversmith, member of the Feminist Organization for Women's Advancement, Rights and Dignity (FORWARD).

Ms Silversmith spoke to the press this week about the state of affairs in Caledonia, and about a UN report released Monday that cited several areas of concern with regard to Canada and discrimination.

Here are a couple of quotes from Ms Silversmith:

"It's all interconnected. You see the product of (neglect) in what's going on in Caledonia right now. Human rights are an illusion (in Canada).
(...)
We want to hold Canada up to its promises. The genocidal practices that the country is doing to our people must stop."

That's right -- genocidal. I know, I know -- some people like to use the term 'cultural genocide' to refer to the irradication of the language and heritage of a race group. The use of the word 'genocide' in this fashion has always irked me. Since the beginning of time, cultures have changed, grown and evolved -- sometimes due to invaders, sometimes simply as a natural progression. Historically, most invaders have to some extent, erased or irreversibly altered the culture of the native inhabitants of the conquered land. It is part of our global history --not just Canadian history, not just British/French history, not just Western history -- it has happened throughout the centuries in societies both east and west. Some conquering nations have long since fallen and some conquered nations are extinct. Only in the late 20th century did the expectation of compensation, reparation or restitution attach itself to historic injustices and iniquities.

But Ms Silversmith doesn't even use the modifier 'cultural' in reference to the 'genocide' that she says is being perpetrated against her people by Canada. The implication is more cynical when considering the continuing reality of genocide worldwide.

Whatever Ms Silversmith's grievances are, her attitude does nothing to advance her cause, and in fact tends to alienate people like me who might otherwise be willing to listen.

canadianna

Free advice to NPs Don Martin: Look in the mirror

The fourth paragraph of Don Martin's column today (subscriber only) is a promise that this piece is not:

"a tired rant about Harper holding journalists in disdain, which he does and we'd best get used to it because it's going to get worse."

If you want to read the rest, you'll have to buy a NP, because I stopped reading there. Whatever Martin had to say after that would likely be a lie, because that statement was.

In the previous two paragraphs Martin wrote that Stephen Harper had bypassed the podium set up by his staff and had instead, started up the stairs. Martin says:

"Having reached the desired altitude for showcasing his superior attitude in vintage Brian Mulroney style, Stephen Harper turned to lord over the assembled media with his message.

Free advice to the Prime Minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two."

Martin spews this sort of venom, then expects us to trust him that the rest of his piece is a balanced observation of the Prime Minister and his actions?

Advice to the columnist: Your inability to keep the personal jabs out of your writing belies your disdain for the PM. Don't expect me to take you seriously when you tell up front that your column isn't a rant, when you started it with a rant.

Don Martin's column might well be filled with the wisdom of the ages, but I couldn't get past his lie -- that his column had nothing to do with the animus between Harper and the media -- and I couldn't get past the fact that he tried to sell it immediately after slagging Harper with no less than three insults in the previous three sentences.

If the press wants us to see Harper as a bad-guy for his treatment of the media, they'd do well not to hit us over the head with it -- it makes them seem angry and petulent -- the exact qualities they attribute to Harper and claim to reject on our behalf. Better that they get to the point and in writer's terms-- show don't tell -- or better still, let Harper show how terrible he is, if in fact he is.

Martin's repeated personal attacks shut out any hint that what he has to say might be worthwhile. It's too filled with rage to be objective.

A scan of the rest of Martin's column uncovers the use of the words:

contempt, churlish, disregard, angry-Albertan, bitter and hard-done-by personality, furious . . .

Martin is apparently describing Harper with all of these adjectives, but I think he's projecting just a wee bit -- he could just as easily be describing himself.

canadianna

Ah, to be flawless like Peggy Nash . . .

There are those who believe Harper is being 'petulant' for not putting forward another nominee to head the proposed public appointments commission after Gwyn Morgan was rejected as 'unsuitable'.

Morgan has a impressive credentials and is respected in the business and academic communities. His sin apparently, is expressing an opinion on immigration and multiculturalism that doesn't jibe with the left-lib, politically correct world-view.

Already we've had Maurice Vellacott resign because, by supporting one group in a criminal case (the police), it has been inferred that he is racist against another group (aboriginals). His opinion undoubtedly the wrong one -- not because it's actually wrong which it might well be -- but because it is not 'correct'. It would be the wrong opinion, even if it were factually accurate and verifiable because it doesn't automatically assume that the aboriginal side is always the right side.

Vellacott's other infraction is that he named Beverley McLaughlin as being the justice who suggested that the role of a supreme court judge was god-like, when in fact it was Rosalie Abella who believes she is a deity.

Harper gave them one. He accepted Vellacott's resignation -- but now he's considered petulant because he's not going to have another of his nominees shoved out for spurious reasons?

Go back a while to the days when Martin was PM. Remember Glen Murray -- rejected as chair by members of the roundtable on the environment because he had zero qualifications beyond being a Liberal who ran but lost in the previous federal election. And what did Paul Martin do? No, he didn't shut down the committee, but nor did he put forward another nominee -- he simply imposed his will on the committee members and Murray took the job and all the perqs.

Holding and expressing opinions that are neither racist, nor inflammatory should not disqualify a person from a job. Multiculturalism remains an experiment -- and Morgan is not alone in believing it's costs might outweigh its value. And, in the same vein, I don't believe Morgan was suggesting that certain 'racial' groups are responsible for violence, but rather some cultural groups don't drop their baggage when they set foot in Canada. Is this true? Well, we all know that not all Jamaicans or South East Asians are bad people. We know that most immigrants from all countries just want a better life and truly do try to achieve it here in their chosen land -- but we also know that economic and social conditions in the home countries of some immigrants lend themselves to violence. Suggesting that we watch the trends and choose our immigrants wisely and encourage them to become Canadian is hardly controversial, it just makes sense.

Morgan's biggest fault seems to be that he singled out two cultural groups. It might not be 'politically correct' to have done so, but funny, while the MP who introduced the motion to reject Morgan as commission chair, NDP MP Peggy Nash, called his remarks about Jamaican and South Asian 'deeply offensive' she never actually came out and said he was wrong. Hmmm . . .

canadianna

Is murder just so common now?

Yesterday, a young Ryerson student was murdered. An arrest was made last evening over the supper hour -- and yet the Toronto SUN's front page story for today was:

MILLIONS HELP 25 YEAR OLD T.O. VIRGIN GET LUCKY ON eLAY

Is it because people probably heard the news last night? Or maybe because 'domestic' - type homicides are fairly common? Sure, the tawdry sex story is more sensational -- but is it really news? Is some guy's sex life more more important than a young woman having been murdered in her home?

Is it just me, or is the emphasis on sex in everything getting overwhelming?

Mostly, I like the SUN. Often they'll have a sports win on the front page, or a celebrity, but not usually when there is actual big news in the city. This piece about they guy and his virginity might be an oddity or human interest, but it's also kind of smutty for a newspaper that gets left on tables in McDonalds etc.

Even if there were no murders in the city, no robberies, no important national news -- I think today's front page is tasteless.

canadianna

On Seeing Da Vinci

Someone lent me The Da Vinci Code ages ago, long before it became such a big deal. I started to read it, then I put it down -- not because I was offended by the subject matter, but because I thought it was poorly written.

My oldest daughter read the book, and both she and my oldest son want to see the movie. Although I don't really want to add more cash to Dan Brown's coffers, we'll likely go see it.

A few of my friends have taken me to task for not reading the book but others are shocked that I would consider seeing the movie -- let alone allow my kids to see it or worse -- take them to see it.

My kids are smart people. I trust their instincts and their intellects. I've given them my POV on God, Jesus and all things spiritual and religious. They know my expectations of them when it comes to what they do and where they go, but at 13 and 15 I believe they are old enough and mature enough to read a book or watch a movie and determine whether they think it's fact or fiction. They are old enough to be facing these questions whether I'm there or not, whether I 'allow' it or not -- and they will form opinions without my help whether I like it or not.

With very few exceptions, I don't censor what my kids read. Their selections so far have been within my comfort zone -- although my oldest has read a couple of books that made me cringe (and thankfully, gave her the same reaction). My son's taste in reading rarely goes past the sports page, but yesterday we made a trip to Chapters and he wanted the Jose Canseco autobiography. I bought it for him and he finished it tonight (should've gone to the library.)

I'm more cautious when it comes to movies -- but really, they haven't asked to see anything that I felt was too violent or too raunchy, so it hasn't been an issue.

The Da Vinci Code is fiction -- they know that going in -- older copies of the book actually said "A Novel" on the cover. Even if the theory posed by Dan Brown seems interesting or plausible to the kids, shielding them from ideas or controversy will do nothing to sustain their faith if it is so shakey it can be shifted by a book or film.

While I respect the opinions of those who choose to stay away and keep their kids away, I think it's my responsibility as a Christian parent to allow my kids to see the world and choose their path. I always pray it will be the right one (though not necessarily the one I've chosen). I've provided them with a foundation; it's up to them now to build on it. Maybe this movie will make them read more to understand the history better, or maybe they'll shrug and say 'what's the big deal'. I won't keep them from it because I believe that if I were to impose my thoughts on them and insist they refrain from seeing a movie because of its premise, I would be giving the impression of power and value to Dan Brown's fiction -- it would send the message that I believed this book/movie was so significant that it could influence my kids more than I have.

I'm not offended by fiction. Dan Brown's 'theory' will not change my understanding of biblical history. It will not shake my belief system. It won't shatter my faith. If I've been doing my job properly so far, my kids will come out of the theatre knowing they were watching a drama, not a documentary -- and if they have any questions, I'll be there to help them find the answers.

canadianna

Teaching Time

I can't count the number of times my daughter's homeroom teacher was absent this year, and same with my son's core teacher. The school is effectively paying two teachers -- the regular one and the sub, each time a teacher is off school. Absenteeism has been epidemic amongst the teachers at this school all year. Sometimes it's illness -- but other times it has been 'seminars' etc. -- professional upgrades that I thought were supposed to be done either on 'Professional Development Days' or during the summer. Such doesn't seem to be the case at this school.

This week, my daughter's homeroom teacher told the kids they had to have all of their assignments in by May 29th because marks go in on the 31st for report cards. My daughter asked 'if the marks go in on May 31st why do we have to come to school until the end of June?'

The teacher's answer? 'That's not an appropriate question. Let's move on to something appropriate.'

The question my daughter asked was a valid one. The teacher's problem is that there is no valid answer.

There are 29 school days left -- of them, 13 can be used to teach and evaluate -- what are the rest for? Why do we send our kids to school in the month of June? I know in the past my oldest two kids couldn't hand in work past June 10th and I thought that was bad -- but May 31st?

Public schools should be run like high school -- the marks should be submitted to the office on the last day of school and report cards should be prepared and mailed in the summer. As it is the last month of school is spent with kids washing desks and taking down the classroom decor and teachers assigning busy-work that has no affect on grades. The Board of Ed. knows this, but they and the teachers continue to pretend that the teachers are working in June -- because if they weren't, there would be no reason to pay them.

In June, many elementary school teachers will become $4,000/month daycare providers. We'd do well to remember this the next time they're whining about prep time and classroom hours.

canadianna

Taking Responsibility

Ezra Levant and the editorial staff of the Western Standard made the decision to run the infamous Danish cartoons. The magazine is an independent enterprise, answerable to its subscribers. If subscribers have a problem with Ezra’s decision, they can cancel their subscriptions, or protest by way of letters. Occasional readers have been warned of the magazine’s intentions and can choose to pick one up at the newsstand, or not.

Last week, I said that printing the cartoons in Canada was not a free speech issue, because no one had attempted to prohibit their publishing here. An innocuous statement by the Foreign Affairs Minister praising Canadian media for not printing them, was not an order to refrain. Government had not directed media, it was simply commenting on the situation as it stood. So, in my opinion, there was no compelling reason for the media to offend a segment of our population in the name of informing the public, particularly when the cartoons are widely available to anyone who wants to see them.

Then Ezra Levant announced his intention to print the cartoons. Before the magazine had even hit the newsstands or mailboxes, The Islamic Supreme Council of Canada responded by lodging a criminal complaint. One would presume this was done in hopes of stopping the magazines from reaching customers. That action by this group -- and the simple fact that they felt free to try to take away the right of the Western Standard to exercise editorial judgement over the content of their magazine – prior to publication no less -- has changed this from an issue of ‘choosing not to offend’ to a free speech issue.

Today we read in the NP that new Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor has said that the publication of these cartoons ‘puts our troops at risk’. Three weeks ago, no Canadian media outlet had printed the cartoons and yet a Canadian diplomat was killed and Canadian soldiers criticly wounded by a murder-by-suicide bomber in Afghanistan. Terrorists decided to kill and maim, without cartoons as an 'impetus', and yet Minister O’Connor wants us to conclude that if in future, Canadian troops meet with violence, in a war zone, where radical Muslims despise and murder Westerners in the name of their god, that Ezra Levant is somehow culpable.

It all comes down to personal responsibility. If we accept that each of us is responsible for our own actions, then we have to conclude that if a maniacal psychopath murders people, he will do so regardless of what Ezra Levant prints in his magazine. Extremists can say it was the cartoons, American foreign policy, the greed and decadence of Western civilization – they can use any excuse they want, but nothing ‘causes’ someone to commit murder except the utter lack of respect for human life.

Minister O’Connor has given Islamic extremists an out. He has told them that if they commit atrocities against our citizens or against our soldiers, that instead of placing blame where it belongs – with them – Canada will look to Ezra Levant and say ‘see what you made them do.’

The ‘causes’ of murder-by-suicide bombings are a sense of entitlement, a lack of self-control and the realisation that the Western victim societies will look inward, and blame themselves, rather than force extremists to accept responsibility for their own barbarity. When radical Muslims decide to blow up people to 'make a point', they have exited the realm of civilized discourse and their sensibilities are not worthy of respecting.

And now, the European Union is going along with the insane anti-blasphemy idea put forward by the United Nations. Cultural and religious sensitivity is something that should be encouraged, not coerced. Irreverence and satire are legitimate and valuable forms of expression --they are part of the cultural inheritance of English-speaking countries. We test our institutions – cultural, political and religious – when we examine them with humour and skepticism. This kind of scrutiny enables us to grow – it helps us to separate what is essential from what is unimportant, what is holy from what is chaff. It prevents us from worshipping false idols, and gives perspective to issues and ideas that we take too seriously, or not seriously enough. Expunging these avenues of discourse from our conversational tool-box is a radical, ill-conceived plan. It will close the doors of communication rather than quell disagreements.

Drawing a co-relation between the cartoons and potential future violence perpetrated by Islamic murderers is a dangerous connection. It simplifies Islamic terror to ‘cause and effect’ – but words and cartoons don’t cause people to behave with violent frenzy.
Suggesting that printing these cartoons ‘puts our troops at risk’ is a short step from excusing or justifying future violence, as being in response to their publication by the Western Standard.
If A happens (the cartoons are published) and B happens (violent Muslims kill Canadians), it doesn’t follow that A caused B.

Did it ever occur to the Muslims who kill people in the name of their religion, that their violence and intolerance is not ‘sparked’ by cartoons, but rather, the cartoons were sparked by Muslim violence and intolerance.

If I have to order it from their website, I'll grab a copy of the Western Standard this month. And if radical Muslims kill our soldiers in the days and weeks ahead -- I'll blame the killers.

canadianna

Who's More Qualified?

One would think that after having an old white guy and a billionairess sharing the Ministry of Human Resources & Social Development, that having someone from a more average background would be considered 'refreshing' despite her lack of political experience in these areas.

Today Carol Goar of the Toronto Star takes issue with Harper's choice of Diane Finley for that role. Apparently a male celebrity (Ken Dryden), and a woman who has achieved the only work experience she's known through nepotism and the political connections of her family (Belinda Stronach), are more qualified to represent the interests of the unemployed and ordinary women and families than-- well -- an ordinary woman.

Goar's column implies that Finley's background in agriculture and business do nothing to prepare her for her new role where she will handle tough issues like EI and daycare. The choice of a novice, Goar reasons, means either Harper intends to withdraw Ottawa from the policy making aspect of the department, allowing provinces to take over (how novel, a federal government allowing provinces to make policy within their jurisdiction) or that "no one in Harper's inner circle has given much thought to the social affairs ministry." Goar goes on to say that once the big five portfolios are filled, the rest is just "plugging the remaining candidates into available openings."

The real concern to Goar seems to be the announcement that the Choice for Childcare allowance would being on July 1st and Harper's affirmation that a Conservative government will withdraw from the childcare agreements. Goar says:

The rookie minister will be no impediment to Harper's plan to dismantle Canada's embryonic child-care system.

Impediment? I would think Diane Finley will be the implementer of the change. I doubt Harper would delegate such heavy responsibility to someone he believed incapable of the task. In a minority parliament, Harper doesn't want to be running Ministries. He wants Ministers who can manage on their own.

Both Dryden and Stronach were political neophytes when they assumed their roles as Minister. Neither had a background that would suggest an understanding of the needs of the average family, the ordinary woman, the unemployed. Neither speaks French, where Diane Finley is bilingual. It would seem if we're grading on potential, Finley equals or betters the previous novices by virtue of her simple background and her language skills.

Goar says:

the 48-year old businesswoman who represents the riding of Haldimand-Norfolk, has never displayed any interest in social issues.

And a 38 year-old business woman representing Aurora did? You have to wonder what criteria Goar used for determining that anything in Stronach's or Dryden's life experience, let alone their work experience or political experience would make them better as Ministers of HRSD than Finley -- unless it's simply the party affiliation that renders Diane less qualified.

canadianna

Skating avoids controversy

I tuned in to CBC's coverage of the Pairs Figure Skating. Rest assured there will be no repeat of last year's controversy where the French judge was allegedly told to vote for the Russians in exchange for the Russian judge's vote for the French Dance Team, initially denying Jamie Sale and David Pelletier the gold.

This year, rather than the scores being out of 6 and listed by judge country at the bottom of your screen, the scores are totalled for us -- Technical Elements + Program Components - Deductions = Total

For those of us who have watched figure skating and despised the politics so evident with the judging, at least it will no longer be evident. Instead, political or personal bias will be hidden. This does nothing to assure that vote-buying is not a factor. In fact, it's simply a way for us to be kept out of the loop.

I don't know what real efforts have been made to clean up the judging, but it would seem this superficial change will only aggravate viewers who liked making the comparisons between individual judge's scores, for each skate.

Well, not giving us all of the information is a way to avoid scandal, but it does nothing to ensure that judging irregularities will be noticed or prevented.

canadianna

St. Garth--Patron Saint of the Petulant & Self-Righteous

Ethical: Being in accordance with the accepted principles of right and wrong that govern the conduct of a profession.

No less that 166 Canadian Members of Parliament have crossed the floor since 1921. Not one has ever resigned his seat to seek approval of that decision from his constituents in a byelection. Rather than simply suggesting he'd like to change the status quo, Garth Turner has taken the extra step and insisted that David Emerson set precedent.

Turner's blog predicts his own banishment to the rafters in the House and the basement of government. He laments that he is not being allowed to speak his mind (while doing precisely that), and criticizes Harper for trying to strong arm him into toeing the party line.

My problem with Garth isn't his opinion. It's the way he has expressed it. He could have stuck to his principles without showing contempt and disrespect for both the Prime Minister and the entire Conservative caucus. Instead, the way Garth tells it, he stands alone -- one man with principles and a spine, floundering in a sea of unprincipled jellyfish.

Disagreeing with leadership isn't new to the Conservative Party. It's something conservatives do because it's part of who we are. We won't dance to a tune we don't hear. Refusing to dance is not offensive. Pointing at the dancers and telling the world they are wrong-- nay, not simply wrong, but unethical and unscrupulous because they don't hear your tune -- that's just arrogance. Garth has not left any room for the possibility that it isn't his opinion Stephen Harper finds objectionable, it's his attitude. Garth has been disloyal, indiscreet and self-aggrandizing.

Here is what Turner could have said when asked what he thought of Emerson crossing the floor to sit in a Conservative Cabinet:

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.

The above response would have made his point, respected the positions of others, and focussed questions on the Liberals. Instead, here are some selected quotes from Turner's blog (I haven't included any of the whining about his future in th party):

February 6, 2006
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.

(MPs) shouldn't each be just one more vote in the House supporting the government, or one more name on the party ballot, but instead independent people who are here to reflect the views and hopes of those who sent them.

* note that Garth doesn't think Party loyalty is an integral part of his being an MP, yet he's insisting on it from David Emerson.

** Garth believes in the independence of MPs -- no toeing the party line -- but then suggests that unless David Emerson serves under the Liberal banner he was elected with, or is elected under the Conservative one he has chosen, his integrity is in question. Garth's independence matters, Emerson's doesn't. Garth intends to be true to himself, rather than to his party -- fine, but if party line doesn't matter to Garth, then why be concerned about which party Emerson belongs to, so long as he serves his constituents well?

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.)

(Harper's) style is collegial, and after the meeting he sat there and talked to whomever wanted to talk, until they were all done. I have witnessed many leaders in action from Trudeau to (John) Turner, Mulroney to Chretien, Martin and Harper, and it was the first time I had seen one listen.

* this is the day after the Cabinet announcements. Mr. Turner first tells us that he cannot 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?

** Apparently Harper gave Garth a chance to express himself, and actually listened to Garth's concerns, but when Garth later realised that Harper hadn't fallen into line with Garth's way of thinking, Garth decided to go on the offensive.

February 9, 2006
. . . 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.

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. . .

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 . . .

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 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 (resigning and running as a Tory) ( . . . ) Canadians are reasonable, even forgiving. Just be reasonable back.

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.

* Garth wants to be more relevant and free, but doesn't allow the same for David Emerson.

** There it starts: he had hoped 'the days of subjugation of MPs by the prime minister's office were numbered'. By this time, Turner has expressed himself to reporters, on Mike Duffy's show and was under fire from Harper's office, not for a few answers to reporters, but for over-stating his case to whomever would listen. Not only did he question the boss' political judgement, he questioned his integrity -- which goes to motivation. All that on live TV.

***He states unequivocally that his is the only principled point of view, therefore both Harper and Emerson are unprincipled.

****As though he has taken a leadership role, Turner decides that Emerson should have time to think about his misdeeds, like a naughty child sent to his room. Should Emerson draw a conclusion that doesn't include resignation, judge & jury Garth Turner, concludes Mr. Emerson is a coward who has no integrity.

*****I'm not questioning whether he's right or wrong in his opinion, and neither am I fond of situational ethics but if Mr. Emerson believed he could better serve the people of Vancouver Kingsway, and BC and Canada in a role in government, in Cabinet, would it have been ethical of him to turn it down in favour of remaining loyal to his political party? Garth has left no room for any opinion but his own. He has drawn conclusions about Mr. Emerson's motivations, casting aspersions on his character.

****** Now, not only are Emerson and Harper wrong and unprincipled because they don't share his views, they are also unreasonable.

******* He anticipates his government will not stand up for the cause of a better democracy -- basically telling his readers that these appointments are just the beginning of a pattern. His whole tone suggests impure motives on the part of Mr. Harper. Turner's opinion of his party and its leader is low, and he presents himself as the lone champion of goodness and truth -- then he invokes Trudeau as an exclamation point.

February 10, 2006
And, yes, I will be making good on my personal commitment to the democratic process, tabling a private members bill forcing an MP who turns his or her back on a party to go back to the people for support. It's time we put voters back in charge. And it's a shame it ever came to this.

* Garth's public is petulance not valour. He has painted himself as the only person in the Conservative caucus with a commitment to the democratic process. Whether or not you agree with his sentiments, Garth should have let his groupies write this kind of stuff and let history determine its truth.

The expectation of loyalty is not exclusive to politics. Loyalty does not imply a blind willingness to follow a leader or an expectation of collective thought. In times of crisis, families and sports teams deal with disagreements in private and present a united face to the public. This public show of solidarity ensures that no matter the resolution of the contentious issue, no one loses face. It's a matter of respect.

I don't believe it was Garth Turner's opinion that drew the rebuke of the Prime Minister, and I don't believe he was asked to chose between party and principle. Turner was likely asked to be a team-player, but Garth's vanity was more compelling than giving his leader the benefit of the doubt and showing respect for his caucus. Shameful that Turner's expectations of David Emerson have exceeded his expectations of himself.

canadianna