Soccer and the headscarf

What difference does it make if an eleven year old girl plays soccer wearing a headscarf?

Those who suggest it has something to do with 'safety' are blowing smoke. It doesn't.

This whole incident has to do with conformity. Those who've come down against the headscarf in this case are expecting this kid and her family to conform to 'Canadian' norms. They aren't interested in whether the headscarf interferes with the girl's play or if by some weird fluke it could become part of some entangled mess that could strangle her or limit her vision -- because neither is a reasonable concern. The game is being supervised and watched by dozens of adults. A yank on the headscarf is no more likely to injure or kill this girl than a tug to the hair, and one would have to have an expansive imagination to concoct a scenario where a headscarf could hurt someone other than the wearer. Where is the risk?

Rules are rules. Nonsense.

Rules are bent and changed all the time to fit in with the reasonable expectations of participants. Prior to this incident there was no rule about headscarves. There was a rule about jewelry, which makes sense. Jewelry is optional and decorative. It is not generally part of a religious tradition or custom. It could be ripped off during play causing harm to the wearer or it could cut another player coming in contact. Injuries are unlikely, but because there is a certain potential for harm when a person wears a ring, bracelet, earrings or a necklace while playing sports, the rule is not unreasonable. This non-rule regarding headscarves has only become an issue because the ref decided to make it one. Yes, I am aware he is Muslim, but that doesn't preclude him from being a jerk on a power trip.

I do wonder if the headscarf is so important to this girl for religious reasons, is she wearing long pants or something to cover her legs, but either way, I still believe a ban on headscarves is unfair.

I also wonder if Sikh boys or men have faced this problem? Anyone know?

canadianna

Bragging Moment -- Canada Games 2007

My 17 year-old niece Lisa will be playing hockey in Whitehorse next week. Lisa is a goalie for Team Ontario and is competing at the Canada Games.

The Canada Games, you ask?

You'd be forgiven if you didn't know that Canada's elite young athletes are up North representing their provinces in speed skating, skiing, hockey etc. If it weren't for my niece, I wouldn't even know the Canada Games exist, which makes me wonder why the government of Canada and the provincial governments aren't doing more to promote this showcase of young talent.

This would be a perfect opportunity to show how 'ParticipAction' can pay off -- or they could just promote the Canada Games because these kids have worked so hard to get where they are in the sports they love. The provinces these young people represent would do well to show their pride before and during the competitions -- not just in the case of a win.

I've often wondered where our Olympic competitors come from -- what route did they take to make it to the top of their sport? Here is one of the stepping stones to the Olympic dream and how many Canadians will know about it, let alone watch? Why is there so little in the news about these high achievers?

A lot of these kids are like my niece. They have dedicated their lives to pursuing their dream and yet they also excel academically and personally. Lisa, for example has an average above 90% in her final year of high school and is heading to the US on a full hockey scholarship next year. We hear so much about the bad kids -- I'd like to hear someone in the media or government talking a bit about these good ones.

Tune in if you can. The Games started on the 23rd and go right through until March 10th. TSN is showing some of the events and so is APTN.

Lisa and Team Ontario play Newfoundland on Monday, and PEI on Wednesday. I can't see that either game will be televised in the Toronto area (I've checked both TSN and APTN listings for next week and they're showing other games, but not Ontario). If anyone notices listings for Ontario Women's Hockey, please post in the comment section.

These kids deserve the glory these couple of weeks will bring. They represent our hope for Canada's future. They are ambitious, talented and committed young people, and you shouldn't have to be a family member to know that they're out there, working hard and representing their home provinces. Canada should be watching.

Go Ontario!

canadianna
2nd EDIT: See Sheila Copps in today's SUN.

EDIT: candace has pointed out that I had missed some coverage -- and apparently the government was well represented at the games (apologies).
I guess the fact is that the coverage is there, but it's one of those things you don't see unless you're looking for it. I've only been flipping through the papers lately, and often I have only one ear on the TV during the news -- assuming most people are like me, they might not be aware.
Glad to see that it isn't as buried as I thought. Thanks Candace for the heads up.

"Pimp up your crib"

Does that kind of language offend you? It really bothers me.

My ten year old is off school with a cold. Last week he told me about an ad he'd seen where they used those words. I told him that he must have misheard. This morning when it came on, he called me in and I heard it myself.

Those words were being used to advertise a new website for kids called "The Big Rip". I've been to the site and it seems harmless enough. Kids play games, post videos and chat. What bothers me is that this was being advertised using those words 'pimp your crib' during Jacob Two-Two on YTV. He was watching YTVWest between 9:30 and 10 a.m. EST, which means the show aired between 6:30 and 7 a.m. here on YTVEast .

That show and the website are geared toward kids 8 to 12, but no doubt younger kids are watching too. Am I alone in thinking that this kind of language is vulgar and inappropriate, despite its recent emergence in popular culture and media?

When we blur the lines that delineate child and teen or between teen and adult, we are saying that what is acceptable for one group is acceptable for all.

Language matters. Words can elevate or corrupt. They can inspire or degrade. That's why the way we speak to and around children is so important. Perhaps ripping a foul word and modifying its meaning in order to make use of it commonly, serves a purpose amongst the younger generation -- maybe it makes them feel edgy and shocking. Maybe they need that to validate their feelings or some other such angst-ridden thing. Or maybe it's an juvenile form of rebellion. In most societies when the young rebel, the older generation looks at them and thinks 'they'll learn' but our boomer TV execs and media seem to get swept up in the excitement of saying dirty words and actually expand their usage -- the Toronto Star recently had a contest 'Pimp My Kitchen'.

"Pimp" might have a dual meaning these days, but most dictionaries I can find maintain the commonly understood definition. Either way, it doesn't belong on a TV station geared to kids. Let the teens and twenty somethings have those ugly words and keep them on their MTV -- but when it comes to YTV and young kids, they should keep it clean.

email YTV via Corus Entertainment.

canadianna

Throwing good money . . .

Prior to the vote on Kyoto, the Liberals issued a call to action to thwart Stephen Harper and the nefarious Global Warming Deniers (GWD):

Our goal with this vote is to force the Conservative party − a group of long-standing global warming deniers in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence − to recognize that this is a global crisis that requires a global response – with Canada taking the lead. This is the vision Stéphane Dion has worked hard to promote.

It would seem that Dion has worked harder at promoting the vision than he ever did taking action.

I don't deny global warming. It might be happening; I just don't know -- but I do know that even if the world is heating up, that Kyoto is not the answer.

The left has managed to link Kyoto with a cure for global warming. Rather than debate the science, critics are more and more apt to point out that if mankind is contributing to the problem through industry, then with or without this bizarre treaty, the world's temperature will continue to rise because the treaty doesn't address global warming, but rather the global economy.

But of course, that inconvenient truth is lost on those who use buzzwords and sound-bites to advance a flawed agenda. Rather than taking a step back and ascertaining realistic fixes for the environment, they bleat on about conservatives not 'caring' about the environment. They pretend that if we would obey the unrealistic and ruinous targets imposed by this piece of paper, that countries like China, India and Pakistan would suddenly jump on the CO2 reduction bandwagon.

What incentive does Kyoto provide for any of the developing nations to curb their CO2 emissions? None. In fact, there is a financial incentive to ignore any growth in their own CO2 production. Should we fail to reach our targets, we must pay them -- and yet there are no guarantees that the money we use to buy these credits will be spent on a developing nation's environmental action plan. There are no enforceable strings on this bonus cash -- so, not only can developed nations continue to pollute so long as they buy credits, no environmental demands are made on developing nations. Exactly how does this equate to a reduction in CO2?

Of course, the environment isn't really the issue:

The Conservatives have amassed a multi-million dollar war chest which they intend to use to twist and distort the truth. Please consider a donation of $100 today and help our Liberal Team speak up for all Canadians on issues like the environment, and also ensure we are able to take our positive message door-to-door in the next election campaign.

So while twisting and distorting the truth to suit their own ends, the Liberals beg their faithful to reward their party's long-standing inertia on this file. Good stewards don't throw money at a failing endeavour. Maybe that's why the Liberals are broke.

canadianna

Reading In

Today Andrew Coyne gives us a history lesson. His purpose seems to be to defend the Charter against critics who see it as not rooted in Canadian history. Most of what he says I wouldn't challenge because I'm not a historian or a scholar. But when he comes to the end of his piece, he says:

Has that expanded the powers of the courts?(. . . ) A happier example was the "persons case," an important advance for women's rights achieved by the simple expedient of redefining who was included in the category of "persons" eligible for Senate appointments under section 24 of the BNA Act. Today we would call that "reading in."

Coyne is arguing that a decision to recognize women as persons for the purpose of Section 24 of the BNA Act, is analogous to the Supreme Court's decision add a new category of subgroup in need of protections listed in Section 15 of the Charter. But I don't think the argument holds up.

'Person' is a word that has always encompassed both genders. The court recognized a historic injustice when it noted that women had always been ‘persons in matters of pains and penalties, but not in matters of rights and privileges’. It rewrote no definition; it simply acknowledged the full reality of the existing definition.

The section of the BNA Act that summarizes the qualifications of a Senator uses the word 'Person' and uses the (until recently) non-gender-specific pronoun 'he'. None of the other criteria specifically excludes women, as women were allowed to be landowners, they could be residents of a province and they could accumulate money. Since women were already 'persons' for the purpose of punishment, no justification could be made for excluding them for purpose of privilege. Women were not added to the existing definition of 'person' in the 'Persons Case' -- it was simply established that they were always there and no one up until then had acknowledged it.

The inclusion of women might not have been on the minds of the authors of the BNA Act, but their exclusion could have been assured by the simple addition of the word 'male' in front of 'persons'.

Section 15 of the Charter is not so vague. Not only does it specifically list criteria under the equality provisions, the framers debated the inclusion of sexual orientation and intentionally left it out. (That was Trudeau and the gang for all you liberals).

Coyne questions those who criticize the Charter by invoking the Magna Carta and other historic documents:

If it's really important legal innovations you want, you have to go back to the advent of the written law, and the rise of an independent judiciary to interpret it. Much criticism of the Charter, and the constraints it places upon the discretion of policy makers, seems in fact to be a complaint about the written law in general. Fair enough: It is a radical idea that those who govern us should not be allowed to govern by fiat, but should have to put it in writing. Or at least, it was radical, circa 1215, though I rather thought Magna Carta had settled the question -- a written document, if memory serves, as was the Bill of Rights of 1688, the Act of Settlement, the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and all the other legal documents that are a part of our constitutional heritage.

By adding sexual orientation to Section 15, the Supreme Court was not simply remedying an historic injustice, or correcting a misinterpretation, or correcting the misapplication of a statute. It was governing by fiat. Apparently Coyne finds that okay since they are neither elected nor policy makers. I don't get it.

Coyne suggests that the Charter is in the tradition of Canada's historic freeness. He points to recent accusations of judicial activism by the Supremes:

To be sure, the common law is as much a part of the British inheritance. But if it's "judge-made law" you're on about, it's an odd point to raise. The series of legal rulings in recent years upholding gay marriage, in particular, sometimes held up as the height of judical impudence, overturned no statutory definition of marriage, but rather another judge's ruling dating from before Confederation (and from another country to boot).

Marriage was a word like mother. It required no 'legal' definition. It required no statute. Historic tradition and centuries of precident gave us our understanding of the word. Perhaps, given time, it might have evolved to include forms beyond the one man/one woman version we held here, but the courts of the land were impatient. They imposed a new meaning of the institution and in doing so, they have restricted the freedoms of those unready to embrace this expanded version. Unlike 'person' which both in law and in practice has meant to include both genders, the only universal element of marriage has always been the opposite gender requirement. Other elements vary culture to culture -- number of people, age, familial relation, even consent -- but the opposite gender requirement held firm until the 21st century. So, although no statute was overturned, let's not pretend same-sex marriage was as simple as filling in a blank.

No harm of course, because no one has to believe anything they don't want to -- that is, until they do.

The Charter pits the rights of individuals to freedom of speech, conscience and religion against the equality rights groups listed or read-in to Section 15. With regard to same-sex marriage:

You have the right to believe what you want, so long as you don't act on it.
You have the right to say what you want, but not in public.
You have the right to express yourself, but not if it hurts someone's feelings.

The 'Persons Case' might have challenged the ideas held about a woman's place in society, but it didn't prevent anyone from expressing their opinion. It didn't stifle debate. The role of women in government and in society grew from there, but not because people were afraid to challenge the prevailing laws -- but because women proved themselves capable and deserving.

The rulings regarding marriage, as vague as they were, were not intended to open a closed door for marginalized people, but to create a new door which would make the old one obsolete. You can argue that it's a good thing, but please don't pretend that it won't eventually infringe on the rights and freedoms of those who choose to disagree with the change to marriage.

canadianna

World to Garth: stop gossipping and grow up

I confess that I don't read Garth Turner's blog regularly. When he's doing something particularly foolish, I'll drop by to check out his spin.

Today I was stopped in my tracks by Garth quoting Garth on John Baird. He's writing a piece on how unsuitable Baird is for Minister of the Environment, and quotes a post he made when Baird was first appointed:

I probably know John Baird better than you do. I don’t traipse around official Ottawa on his arm, the way Laureen Harper does . . .

I don't know what the rest of today's post says. I just stopped reading. I couldn't get past this statement, first made on January 8th and repeated today.

Turner would probably say he meant nothing by it. He would likely say that it was irrelevant to the point he was trying to get across. Why then, did he include it? What exactly is he trying to say about Laureen Harper?

The mention of Laureen might just have been name-dropping back in January when it was first written-- a way to show he was aware of who was in the good-books while he was shunted off to the dog house. But Garth has reiterated an irrelevant statement made by Garth, and is using it to support his opinion that Baird is ineffective as Environment Minister and Garth Turner knew he would be . . . It does nothing to advance his argument or to validate his premise. There can be no reason for its inclusion except that it's a bit of gossipy insinuation.

To those who would suggest I'm making a big deal out of nothing . . . my guess is that John Baird hangs out with a lot of people on the Hill, probably a lot of Conservative MPs. Everyone knows that Lurleen needs an escort to official functions when Stephen Harper is away, and John Baird has filled that role. Why not say 'I don't hang out at the pub with the guy like (Clement, Moore, Ambrose . . . anyone) . . . why Laureen?

When the only function of the statement at is to show his own distance from Baird, why did Turner make special mention of the Prime Minister's wife -- twice?

What a tiny, little shade of a man that guy is.

canadianna

No Men Need Apply

Liberals plan to increase the number of women running for the party in the next election. To reach their self-imposed quota of 33% female candidates, it seems they believe the 'fairest' option is to simply bar men from running in certain ridings.

Apparently it doesn't matter that a man might be more qualified, better the right gender than the right candidate.

The most galling thing here is that Liberals appear to believe that women can't possibly be expected to win if they are competing against a man -- so their answer is to simply remove the competition.

Progressive thinkers might believe that this is necessary to increase the number of women running for and elected to parliament, but there are two bizarre principles being floated here. First, that there must be more women in parliament, and secondly, that the only way to get that done exclude men from the process.

For fifty years or more, dozens of women of all parties have proved their mettle by following the nomination process that's been in place and winning. Does the Liberal Party dismiss their successes as anomaly? Do they think this new generation of young women is frightened of politics? Or do they just think that women are too fragile to compete?

Women are not helpless and needy. We don't need to be led by the hand -- those who want to run, find their way. To suggest otherwise is to say that we need to be treated like children who don't know what's good for them or worse, like morons who haven't enough sense to see opportunities and seek them out.

Voters want competence from their candidates and parliamentarians. In the rush to push more women onto the political stage, Liberals seem willing to ignore quality in the name of number parity.
If they impose the selection of 80 more women candidates to meet their target, there's no question that some quality male candidates will be shoved aside simply because of their gender. And the Liberals think this is both fair and correct.

If they're going to force the numbers to fit the goal of 33% women candidates, why not go the extra step and in any remaining ridings, bar whites from running? If they truly want to reflect the diversity of the nation, impose quotas for all races.

Liberals pretend they believe in gender equality, but by not allowing the natural outcomes of the nominations process, they are telling women that they don't believe they are good enough to compete with men and win. Or maybe the ruling elites believe that the local Liberal riding associations are made up of misogynists who would choose a man over a women regardless of qualifications.

Call it parity, equality, or balance -- it smacks of paternalism and implies that without special assistance, most women couldn't cut it in politics. If that's the case, if females who are potential Liberal candidates require the manipulation of the selection process to ensure somethings as basic as their nomination, how suited are they for the job?

When equality is forced, quality is bound to suffer. The playing-field is already level. Women today are aware of their career options and should they choose the political arena, they should be playing the same game with the same rules as everyone else. And if Liberals think they can't -- it's the Liberals who are questioning the value of women.

We don't need more women in politics -- we just need fewer idiots.

canadianna

RESIGN

Smug as usual, Garth Turner is blaming everyone else for his lack of conviction. He won't resign until Stephen Harper calls a by-election. Nothing is ever Garth's fault, he wouldn't be where he is today if other people would just do what's right.

While I maintain that a party-swapping MP is not obligated to go to the people until the next general election, Garth Turner does not. He believes an MP should serve under his party's banner, and, should he choose a new party, that the MP must go to the people and be elected in his new party of choice.

To that end, Garth has issued a challenge to the Prime Minister (from Garth's blog):

Today in Question Period I asked the prime minister two questions:

(1) Will he immediately work towards calling by-elections in Halton, Vancouver-Kingsway (Emerson) and Mississauga-Streetsville (Khan), so we three members can be accountable to the people?

Stephen Harper did not answer. Instead he had House Leader Peter van Loan stand up and say I could resign if I want. So, I said,

(2) If the prime minister calls a by-election in Halton today, I will resign my seat today, so the people of the riding are without an MP only for a few weeks before the vote. Will he do that, yes or no? And if I quit, will he ensure Wajid Khan also resigns, for a by-election for that floor-crosser?

Turner is playing a game here, pretending that because he doesn't "trust" the Prime Minister to ensure Halton's constituents maintain federal representation, he is stuck in a limbo of Harper's making -- a situation he implies can be alleviated 'if only' Stephen Harper would call a by-election.

Two things -- first, the other members are under no obligation to resign their seats simply because the great and pious Garth Turner thinks it should be so. Like it or not, members of parliament must be allowed the freedom to follow their conscience on matters of party affiliation. Imposing party loyalty under threat of removal from parliament would be a severe blow to the freedom of members to be true to their principles. Regardless of the cynical and mercenary reasons that some MPs switch parties, MPs must have the freedom to govern their own political destinies, and because eventually all of them must face the electorate, their motives and movements will eventually be judged.

Second, and more importantly -- according to Elections Canada, a by-election can only be called when a parliamentary seat is VACANT. Until Garth chooses to resign, the Halton seat remains occupied. Only when a seat is vacant:

. . . the Speaker of the House of Commons informs the Chief Electoral Officer by means of a Speaker's warrant. If the Speaker is absent, or if it is the Speaker's seat that is vacant, two members of the House of Commons may address the warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer.

So Garth, if you're so desperate to go to the people, and you're so sure that you're right, take a risk like the maverick you pretend to be --- stop blaming Stephen Harper -- do what's right and get your ass out of that chair.

canadianna

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