Will it never end? Yet again, Prime Minister Harper is engaging in "Do as I say, not as I do" antics.
Today, Prime Minister Harper announced that he intends to appoint 18 (Conservative) Senators to the "House of sober second thought." Yet, even before he was elected two and half years ago, he's been on the platform of reforming Senate by having them elected, and working to that end. The reason for this quite transparent...he faces losing a non-confidence vote in the House at the end of January, when MPs return from their unscheduled vacation (i.e. the PM requested proroguement ends). So, why not stack the Senate with as many Conservatives as possible before he leaves? His enduring legacy.
Another example of Prime Minister Harper saying one thing, then doing another to suit his purposes. As always, there's plenty of spin. Apparently, these newly appointed Senators are going to be asked if they would step down, should an elected Senate come into being. I'll believe that when I see it.
If I can paraphrase that famous quote that's been bantied about Parliament Hill over the past several days (with apologies to Mackenzie King):
Senate elections, but not necessarily an elected Senate.
Prime Minister Harper's mother is quick to admonish people for calling him Steve, but has anybody told her about Stephen's fibbing?
Wings Over The World
December 11, 2008
December 09, 2008
You Can't Lead From Behind
There are two basic tenets of Leadership (I made it upper case "L" on purpose) that I learned many years ago:
1. Lead by example, and
2. You can't Lead from behind.
In the political mess that is happening in Canada these days, there has been little of either lately...until today!
Let me start with the top. Prime Minister Harper has shown little of either even before election day in October 2008. During the election campaign, he denied Canada was going into recession and that there was no need for Canada to go into deficit to get the country moving again. The Conservatives formed a minority government and Canadians heard from their Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that there will be a "technical" recession, but that Canada will have a small surplus. Prime Minister Harper stated on election night, and again in the Throne Speech, that he was reaching out to the opposition parties to work with them to help Canada through these tough economic times. Instead, Mr. Harper came out with an economic statement that was widely regarded as regressive to Canadian rights and a blatant attack on the finances of the opposition parties, yet had nothing that would stimulate the Canadian economy. He had his head in the sand.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Chief confirmed that there will be a deficit this year. The Bank of Canada reduced their prime rate by 75 points (0.75%), which was 25 points more than economists expected, because of the Bank of Canada's fear of a deepening recession. Yet, the Conservatives have not introduced any significant economic stimulus (aside from their "tax breaks" since becoming the governing party in 2006), and Parliament has been suspended until the end of January 2009, when the Conservatives are expected to introduce their budget, albeit two months early.
Cap all of this off with an economic crisis that turned into a political crisis, because the opposition parties formed a coalition to counter the Conservatives, with Prime Minister Harper getting proroguement of Parliament from the Governor General. And Prime Minister Harper raising the rhetoric by making all of this a unity crisis because the coalition includes the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec sovereignty party.
One last thing about Prime Minister Harper, if he was really concerned about the economy. If he really wanted reduce the cost the political parties were exacting from the public purse, then why did he appoint 38 cabinet ministers, six more than he had prior to the election, with their higher salaries, additional staff and perks like limos for their use? These are not the actions of someone who Leads from the front, or by example.
But let us not forget the Liberal Party. Their divisions go back to when Paul Martin was making his bid to replace Jean Chretien as leader several years ago. There was bitterness between both camps that went beyond Mr. Martin's ascension to Prime Minister, until at least his downfall, if not after. And it appears as if more of this was going on as supporters tried to get Mr. Ignatieff elected as leader during the last leadership race that Stephane Dion won, and possibly again as the race heated up to replace Mr. Dion.
Canadians only have to look to their neighbours south of the border to see a real example of Leadership. President-elect Obama suffered many political attacks from within the Democratic party, as he sought to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 election. Mr. Obama suffered further attacks as he faced off against the Republican candidate John McCain, to win the election. Did President-elect Obama show vindictiveness towards his political foes? Is he waiting to be inaugurated to tackle the economic crisis in America?
President-elect Obama has reached out to his opponents, in order to work with them to do what's best for Americans. He made his Democratic Party leadership foe Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State. The President's representative to foreign nations. He retained Mr. Gates as the Secretary of Defence, a Republican, to ensure continuity while America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has invited Mr. McCain for discussions, to work with him. He has announced his planning of an economic stimulus package to get the American economy moving again. Something he can't actually implement until he is inaugurated on January 20th. These are the actions of a Leader.
What a sorry state Canadian politics are in at this time. The one bright spot is Bob Rae. Today he announced that he was withdrawing from the Liberal Leadership race and is putting his full support behind Mr. Ignatieff to become the new Liberal leader, so that the party (and coalition) can prepare for the resumption of Parliament. This is a man who has had many years in political life. He lead the Ontario NDP, became premier and went into federal politics with the obvious intention of becoming the Liberal leader, and possibly Prime Minister, which would have been the crowning achievement of his political career. In the best interests of the party, the country and the Canadian people, he has stepped down, thus potentially ending the possibility for him to become the leader of the party (because of his age).
Bob Rae is a man who not only Leads from the front, he leads by example!
Many politicians can learn from Mr. Rae...including Prime Minister Harper.
Wings Over The World
1. Lead by example, and
2. You can't Lead from behind.
In the political mess that is happening in Canada these days, there has been little of either lately...until today!
Let me start with the top. Prime Minister Harper has shown little of either even before election day in October 2008. During the election campaign, he denied Canada was going into recession and that there was no need for Canada to go into deficit to get the country moving again. The Conservatives formed a minority government and Canadians heard from their Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, that there will be a "technical" recession, but that Canada will have a small surplus. Prime Minister Harper stated on election night, and again in the Throne Speech, that he was reaching out to the opposition parties to work with them to help Canada through these tough economic times. Instead, Mr. Harper came out with an economic statement that was widely regarded as regressive to Canadian rights and a blatant attack on the finances of the opposition parties, yet had nothing that would stimulate the Canadian economy. He had his head in the sand.
The independent Parliamentary Budget Chief confirmed that there will be a deficit this year. The Bank of Canada reduced their prime rate by 75 points (0.75%), which was 25 points more than economists expected, because of the Bank of Canada's fear of a deepening recession. Yet, the Conservatives have not introduced any significant economic stimulus (aside from their "tax breaks" since becoming the governing party in 2006), and Parliament has been suspended until the end of January 2009, when the Conservatives are expected to introduce their budget, albeit two months early.
Cap all of this off with an economic crisis that turned into a political crisis, because the opposition parties formed a coalition to counter the Conservatives, with Prime Minister Harper getting proroguement of Parliament from the Governor General. And Prime Minister Harper raising the rhetoric by making all of this a unity crisis because the coalition includes the Bloc Quebecois, a Quebec sovereignty party.
One last thing about Prime Minister Harper, if he was really concerned about the economy. If he really wanted reduce the cost the political parties were exacting from the public purse, then why did he appoint 38 cabinet ministers, six more than he had prior to the election, with their higher salaries, additional staff and perks like limos for their use? These are not the actions of someone who Leads from the front, or by example.
But let us not forget the Liberal Party. Their divisions go back to when Paul Martin was making his bid to replace Jean Chretien as leader several years ago. There was bitterness between both camps that went beyond Mr. Martin's ascension to Prime Minister, until at least his downfall, if not after. And it appears as if more of this was going on as supporters tried to get Mr. Ignatieff elected as leader during the last leadership race that Stephane Dion won, and possibly again as the race heated up to replace Mr. Dion.
Canadians only have to look to their neighbours south of the border to see a real example of Leadership. President-elect Obama suffered many political attacks from within the Democratic party, as he sought to be the Democratic candidate for the 2008 election. Mr. Obama suffered further attacks as he faced off against the Republican candidate John McCain, to win the election. Did President-elect Obama show vindictiveness towards his political foes? Is he waiting to be inaugurated to tackle the economic crisis in America?
President-elect Obama has reached out to his opponents, in order to work with them to do what's best for Americans. He made his Democratic Party leadership foe Hilary Clinton, Secretary of State. The President's representative to foreign nations. He retained Mr. Gates as the Secretary of Defence, a Republican, to ensure continuity while America fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has invited Mr. McCain for discussions, to work with him. He has announced his planning of an economic stimulus package to get the American economy moving again. Something he can't actually implement until he is inaugurated on January 20th. These are the actions of a Leader.
What a sorry state Canadian politics are in at this time. The one bright spot is Bob Rae. Today he announced that he was withdrawing from the Liberal Leadership race and is putting his full support behind Mr. Ignatieff to become the new Liberal leader, so that the party (and coalition) can prepare for the resumption of Parliament. This is a man who has had many years in political life. He lead the Ontario NDP, became premier and went into federal politics with the obvious intention of becoming the Liberal leader, and possibly Prime Minister, which would have been the crowning achievement of his political career. In the best interests of the party, the country and the Canadian people, he has stepped down, thus potentially ending the possibility for him to become the leader of the party (because of his age).
Bob Rae is a man who not only Leads from the front, he leads by example!
Many politicians can learn from Mr. Rae...including Prime Minister Harper.
Wings Over The World
December 07, 2008
Canadians to Decide: Coup or Dictatorship
What's happening in Canadian politics these days is very disconcerting. It seems as if Canadians must decide between a coup d'etat...or a dictatorship.
Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative minority government was supposed to provide the Canadian public with an economic statement that would allay fears Canadians had about the economy. Instead, they made a blatant attack on public funding of the opposition parties that would effectively bankrupt them. They also intended to roll back pay equity and suspend the right to strike for public service employees.
In response, the opposition parties (Liberals, NDP'rs, and the Bloc) banded together and came to a coalition agreement to oppose the Conservative government. This caused the Conservatives to back off on their plans. In addition, the possibility of a non-confidence vote in the House prompted Prime Minister Harper to request of Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until January 26th. That means no debate in the House until then. As strange as it may seem, experts have said that all of these actions are perfectly legal within the Canadian Constitution.
Some people (including the Conservative government) have called the coalition of opposition parties an attempt at a coup d'etat over the democratically elected government. If that's true, then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government have become a dictatorship. Because the opposition parties individually could not mount an effective defence to the Conservatives, the parties banding together and forming a coalition has scared the Conservatives into thinking their government could fall. By closing Parliament until the end of January, they have effectively taken away the right of the Canadian voters' representatives from being heard in the House. This sounds too much like the actions of a leader of a small African country trying to tenuously hold onto power. The difference being there aren't any tanks around Parliament Hill or the Prime Minister's residence...yet!
The black humour in all of this is that Canadians have fought and died in foreign lands to combat coups and dictatorships. Canada has a long history of supporting democracy and ensuring the people of a country retain their right to choose those that would represent them in government. But the actions of the current Canadian government does not provide leadership by example.
In this time of economic instability, Canadians need to know that their political leaders are responsible and doing what is needed to ensure the best outcome for the country. Now is not the time for pettiness. At first, I thought proroguement was a bad idea. And from the standpoint of democracy, it is. However, it gives the chance for everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It also gives the Liberals the opportunity to change leaders. It's obvious the Canadian people could not stomach Mr. Dion leading the country, especially during these times. Whether the Liberals appoint an interim leader (such as the Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale) in advance of the leadership convention in May, or quickly choose from the leadership candidates, that needs to happen as soon as possible so that they can prepare for the resumption of the sitting of the House.
Proroguement of the House also gives the Conservative government the opportunity to put partisanship aside and come out with a budget that helps Canadians. That will be something the opposition coalition could support, and allow the Conservatives to continue to govern.
What Canada needs right now is political leadership (not partisanship) and stability. If the Conservatives can't provide it, then the opposition coalition should be given the opportunity.
Wings Over The World
Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative minority government was supposed to provide the Canadian public with an economic statement that would allay fears Canadians had about the economy. Instead, they made a blatant attack on public funding of the opposition parties that would effectively bankrupt them. They also intended to roll back pay equity and suspend the right to strike for public service employees.
In response, the opposition parties (Liberals, NDP'rs, and the Bloc) banded together and came to a coalition agreement to oppose the Conservative government. This caused the Conservatives to back off on their plans. In addition, the possibility of a non-confidence vote in the House prompted Prime Minister Harper to request of Governor General Michaelle Jean to prorogue Parliament until January 26th. That means no debate in the House until then. As strange as it may seem, experts have said that all of these actions are perfectly legal within the Canadian Constitution.
Some people (including the Conservative government) have called the coalition of opposition parties an attempt at a coup d'etat over the democratically elected government. If that's true, then Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government have become a dictatorship. Because the opposition parties individually could not mount an effective defence to the Conservatives, the parties banding together and forming a coalition has scared the Conservatives into thinking their government could fall. By closing Parliament until the end of January, they have effectively taken away the right of the Canadian voters' representatives from being heard in the House. This sounds too much like the actions of a leader of a small African country trying to tenuously hold onto power. The difference being there aren't any tanks around Parliament Hill or the Prime Minister's residence...yet!
The black humour in all of this is that Canadians have fought and died in foreign lands to combat coups and dictatorships. Canada has a long history of supporting democracy and ensuring the people of a country retain their right to choose those that would represent them in government. But the actions of the current Canadian government does not provide leadership by example.
In this time of economic instability, Canadians need to know that their political leaders are responsible and doing what is needed to ensure the best outcome for the country. Now is not the time for pettiness. At first, I thought proroguement was a bad idea. And from the standpoint of democracy, it is. However, it gives the chance for everyone to step back and take a deep breath. It also gives the Liberals the opportunity to change leaders. It's obvious the Canadian people could not stomach Mr. Dion leading the country, especially during these times. Whether the Liberals appoint an interim leader (such as the Liberal House Leader, Ralph Goodale) in advance of the leadership convention in May, or quickly choose from the leadership candidates, that needs to happen as soon as possible so that they can prepare for the resumption of the sitting of the House.
Proroguement of the House also gives the Conservative government the opportunity to put partisanship aside and come out with a budget that helps Canadians. That will be something the opposition coalition could support, and allow the Conservatives to continue to govern.
What Canada needs right now is political leadership (not partisanship) and stability. If the Conservatives can't provide it, then the opposition coalition should be given the opportunity.
Wings Over The World
December 23, 2006
O Christmas Tree...Where art thou?
"White Man's Guilt" or religious intolerance?
This is the scenario: Madam Justice Marion Cohen bans the display of a Christmas tree at the entrance of her courthouse and relegates it to a side hall. As senior judge of this particular courthouse in Toronto, she has the authority to do so.
Her reason? It was given to the staff via an e-mail that went like this, "However beautiful Christams trees may be - and I do find them beautiful - a Christmas tree is a traditional Chrisitian symbol. The message to many who attend our court and are confronted with this symbol is that they are not part of this institution. I do not think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they enter is a Christian symbol."
Of course the media was plastered with this incident. A week later it still gets written about in the newspaper. What was the fallout? Jewish groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree being displayed at the front entrance. Muslim groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree at the front. The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty apparently discussed the issue with the Madam Justice to no avail. Not one politician or religious group came to her defence, that I saw. Then why did she do it?
Is this a case of "White Man's Guilt?" That a White person feels guilty of past oppressions, or is trying too hard to be politically correct in order not to offend anyone. There is another possibility that I have yet to hear anyone broach, because they're probably too afraid to, lest they be labelled racist. And reading this, that may be your first reaction. But let may say it, read the rest of this posting, then judge me. You can even go as far as to submit your comments. So here it is... Her name is Madame Justice Marion Cohen. I'm not certain if she is, nobody's mentioned it, but the name appears Jewish to me. Is this a case of her be offended by this Christian symbol and using her position to get her way? Only she knows the true answer to this.
In a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Toronto, there is a giant Menorah. During Hanukkah, it is lit. It's in a very public place. What do you think the reaction would have been had somebody had the cajones to ban this important Jewish symbol from the public space, or relegate it to some hidden area?
No. Religious symbols such as a Christmas tree or Menorah should not be banned from public spaces. Canada is made up of a diverse population with many religious beliefs. The Canadian Constitution even guarantees the right to practice your religion without fear of persecution. Isn't the banning of a Christmas tree from the front entrance of a courthouse religious persecution? This is the act of a single person, not a government mandated policy.
I work for a company that has many non-Christians working for it. I do not harbour any ill will if some of them leave early because they must pray at sunset, or they take Jewish holidays off, or they take a few extra days during Christmas, even Orthodox Christmas, to be with their families. It's part of the diversity that makes up this country.
The ill will I do harbour is towards those that are intolerant towards those of other beliefs, and they get away with it under the guise of "equality" for all. Banning a Christmas tree is not equality.
Madam Justice, why don't you come out and tell us the real reason you banned the Christmas tree. If you did it because of what I suggested, then say so and apologize for it. You stand alone because nobody has come to your defense.
To those that may try something similar in the future, using the Madam Justice's incident to justify your actions, this will just lead to an escalation of religious intolerance. We have enough intolerance in this world, we don't need to start a war with this incident as the genesis.
Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Holidays
Wings Over The World
P.S. Take note that I did not include a Muslim symbol because I'm not familiar with as public a symbol as those I mention for Christians and Jews. I do not mean any offence. I would have included one had I been aware of one when I wrote this. I just wanted to head off any comments.
This is the scenario: Madam Justice Marion Cohen bans the display of a Christmas tree at the entrance of her courthouse and relegates it to a side hall. As senior judge of this particular courthouse in Toronto, she has the authority to do so.
Her reason? It was given to the staff via an e-mail that went like this, "However beautiful Christams trees may be - and I do find them beautiful - a Christmas tree is a traditional Chrisitian symbol. The message to many who attend our court and are confronted with this symbol is that they are not part of this institution. I do not think it is appropriate that the first thing people see when they enter is a Christian symbol."
Of course the media was plastered with this incident. A week later it still gets written about in the newspaper. What was the fallout? Jewish groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree being displayed at the front entrance. Muslim groups were interviewed - they had no problems with the tree at the front. The Premier of Ontario Dalton McGuinty apparently discussed the issue with the Madam Justice to no avail. Not one politician or religious group came to her defence, that I saw. Then why did she do it?
Is this a case of "White Man's Guilt?" That a White person feels guilty of past oppressions, or is trying too hard to be politically correct in order not to offend anyone. There is another possibility that I have yet to hear anyone broach, because they're probably too afraid to, lest they be labelled racist. And reading this, that may be your first reaction. But let may say it, read the rest of this posting, then judge me. You can even go as far as to submit your comments. So here it is... Her name is Madame Justice Marion Cohen. I'm not certain if she is, nobody's mentioned it, but the name appears Jewish to me. Is this a case of her be offended by this Christian symbol and using her position to get her way? Only she knows the true answer to this.
In a predominantly Jewish neighbourhood of Toronto, there is a giant Menorah. During Hanukkah, it is lit. It's in a very public place. What do you think the reaction would have been had somebody had the cajones to ban this important Jewish symbol from the public space, or relegate it to some hidden area?
No. Religious symbols such as a Christmas tree or Menorah should not be banned from public spaces. Canada is made up of a diverse population with many religious beliefs. The Canadian Constitution even guarantees the right to practice your religion without fear of persecution. Isn't the banning of a Christmas tree from the front entrance of a courthouse religious persecution? This is the act of a single person, not a government mandated policy.
I work for a company that has many non-Christians working for it. I do not harbour any ill will if some of them leave early because they must pray at sunset, or they take Jewish holidays off, or they take a few extra days during Christmas, even Orthodox Christmas, to be with their families. It's part of the diversity that makes up this country.
The ill will I do harbour is towards those that are intolerant towards those of other beliefs, and they get away with it under the guise of "equality" for all. Banning a Christmas tree is not equality.
Madam Justice, why don't you come out and tell us the real reason you banned the Christmas tree. If you did it because of what I suggested, then say so and apologize for it. You stand alone because nobody has come to your defense.
To those that may try something similar in the future, using the Madam Justice's incident to justify your actions, this will just lead to an escalation of religious intolerance. We have enough intolerance in this world, we don't need to start a war with this incident as the genesis.
Merry Christmas
Happy Hannukah
Happy Kwanzaa
Happy Holidays
Wings Over The World
P.S. Take note that I did not include a Muslim symbol because I'm not familiar with as public a symbol as those I mention for Christians and Jews. I do not mean any offence. I would have included one had I been aware of one when I wrote this. I just wanted to head off any comments.
December 14, 2006
Not playing with a full deck
I heard it reported that there is speculation Prime Minister Stephen Harper is going to shuffle his cabinet in the New Year.
Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.
My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)
Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.
Wings Over The World
Hmmm....Less than a year and he wants to move people around. Maybe it's been tough to muzzle the cabinet ministers he currently has and he wants some real wallflowers surrounding him. Or maybe Ms. Rona Ambrose is getting too much flak over the Conservative policy on the environment that he wants somebody with tougher skin holding the Environment Minister's post.
My suggestion. How about Mr. Harper shuffle his position to Mr. McKay. I stated previously that Peter seems to have (mostly) gotten over his break up with Belinda. Of course there's the occasional comment in the House that has a bit of bitterness in its tone. But I'm sure that would disappear once he takes over the top job. (Maybe they broke up because a compounding of their names doesn't sound as good as Brangelina or Bennifer -- Pelinda? Beleter?)
Yup, maybe a little cabinet shuffle will do the government good. If only we could get rid of some of the jokers in the deck.
Wings Over The World
December 07, 2006
Stephane Dion. Liberal leader or "modern man?"
I've written about dual citizenship before. This issue came up last summer with the whole evacuation-of-dual-citizenship-Canadians-from-Lebanon-during-the-strife-that-went-on-with-Israel thing. My conclusion was that as long as the Canadian government has a policy to support dual citizenship, that they need to support their policy, not just when they think it's convenient. The important thing was there not be two class of citizens, within that policy, unless specifically stated otherwise (I added this last bit for the purpose of this entry).
The exceptions to dual citizenship should be made clear to the people who immigrate to Canada, or Canadians seeking other citizenships, as well as what the consequences of their actions would be.
One policy that should be implemented, and has been making the news of late, is that some politicians and political appointments currently hold dual citizenship. The most recent case to make the news? The newly minted federal Liberal leader, Stephane Dion. He also holds French citizenship, through his mother.
Mr. Dion's defence? He doesn't think it's an issue. He "is 100 percent to Canada first." Well, if that's the case, then he should give up his French citizenship. Even if there is no conflict of interest, he should take the high ground because there is a perception of a conflict of interest. Ask any lawyer and they'll tell you the same thing.
If you decide to go into Canadian politics, or the politics of any country for that matter, you must renounce citizenships of any other country that you may hold. Canada's Governor General Michaelle Jean renounced her French citizenship when she felt the pressure. And why not? As Canada's appointed head of state and commander-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces, there should be no question of her loyalty to Canada and its citizens.
So why is it that Mr. Dion is choosing not to renounce his French citizenship? I can't even venture a guess.
In fact, it has been reported that approximately 40 of the over 300 MPs in Ottawa have dual citizenship, represented by three of the major parties (Conservatives, Liberals and NDPers). None of the other parties have the right to criticize Mr. Dion (let he who is without sin, cast the first stone comes to mind), but that doesn't make it right. In fact, NDP leader Jack Layton stated that Mr. Dion should renounce his French citizenship, although he qualified it by saying that the leader of any party should do so. Why did he qualify his stance? His wife Olivia Chow, who is a part of his NDP caucus, holds dual citizenship. You can bet Mr. Layton would have gotten an ear full over dinner that night if he pressed harder.
When you hold public office, then you must renounce any significant allegiance outside of Canada, especially citizenship. More so for Federal politicians than lower levels of government, because by their very nature, they are dealing with foreign governments. If Mr. Dion becomes Prime Minister and an issue regarding France comes up, will he excuse himself from the debate, as well as the vote? Not acceptable! If in the future you return to private life, then I see no issue with regaining renounced citizenships. I'm sure most countries would allow this.
Politicians, because they are public figures and our representatives in government, are held to a higher standard. They are a reflection of their constituents and their country, in the eyes of the rest of the world. To Stephane Dion (Liberal), Vic Toews (Conservative), Tony Clement (Conservative), Olivia Chow (NDP), and all the rest in Ottawa who hold foreign citizenships I say this, renounce any citizenships and significant allegiances outside of Canada, or step down. Simple as that.
Don't believe that this is good idea? Just ask separatist Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe. He doesn't see a problem with Mr. Dion holding dual French citizenship. Do I need to say more?
Wings Over The World
(photo courtesy of www.ctv.ca)
November 27, 2006
Is Quebec a Nation?
Before I begin, let me provide you with a couple of definitions from my Oxford dictionary:
Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.
Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.
The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.
The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.
This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.
I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.
The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!
The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?
Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?
According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.
Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.
This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?
The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.
The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.
The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.
Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.
Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:
Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.
Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.
Wings Over The World
Nation: large number of people of mainly common descent, language, history, etc., usually inhabiting a territory bounded by defined limits and forming a society under one government.
Federal: 1. of a system of government in which several States form a unity but remain independent in internal affairs; concerning this whole and not the separate parts. 2. relating to or favouring central government, as distinguished from government by separate provinces, etc.
The French definition of Nation was taken from here and is: L'ensemble des personnes nées ou naturalisées dans un pays et vivant sous un même gouvernement. It loosely translates to: Assembly of people originating or naturalizing in a country and living under the same government. Strictly speaking, not quite the same as the English definition.
The issue: is Quebec a nation? I cannot speak from a French viewpoint, since I’m not a Quebec Francophone. But I would like to explore this notion from an English perspective.
There has been a lot of discussion in the media lately about recognizing Quebec as a nation, since Prime Minister Harper entered a motion to recognize Quebec as a nation “within a united Canada.” Here is Hansard’s transcript of the speeches by the party leaders in the House. This act effectively took the wind out of the sails of a motion that was to be tabled by the Bloc Quebecois (herein referred to as “The Bloc” as they are more commonly known in English Canada) the following day to just recognize Quebec as a nation, with no mention of Canada. Was this an end run by the Conservative government, or are they playing right into The Bloc’s strategy? Politicos are taking sides and fewer and fewer are mincing words.
This issue has dogged the country since the time before the Confederation of Canada in 1867, going back to when Wolfe defeated Montcalm on The Plains of Abraham in 1759. A primer on the formation of Canada can be found on Wikipedia.
I cannot accept a Quebec Nation, not only because of the definition of the word (for reasons that will become clear), but also because of the logic the Separatists are using.
The Separatists use the argument that they are from a French tradition, with a distinct language and culture, therefore they are separate from the rest of Canada. Using that logic, if you accept Darwinism, and the fact that homo sapiens got their start in Africa, as well as the fact that people of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, et al live in the Americas, then by extension, we are all African-Americans, regardless of the colour of our skin!
The lunacy of this statement gives you a glimpse at the untenable Bloc position that Quebecers are one of the founding groups of Canada, therefore they must be recognized as a nation. They refuse to allow that Acadians, Newfoundlanders, Albertans and even Ukrainians were also founding groups of Canada. Also, that Canada is currently a country that has large groups of ethnically diverse immigrants. Canada is a country of immigrants, with diverse languages and cultures, made up of people where a significant portion of the population do not claim English or French as their first language. If the rest of Canada confirms that Quebec is a nation, by the Spearatists definition, does that mean the predominatly English-speaking people of Westmount, a neighbourhood in Montreal, also be recognized as a nation by the Quebec Assembly (provincial government)?
Should we declare any concentration of an ethnic group as a nation? Should the Chinatown of each city be declared a nation (the Greater Toronto Area has at least two major areas, with several smaller ones)? Should a predominantly Ukrainian neighbourhood in Saskatoon be declared a nation? What about a bunch of environmentalists in Vancouver? Where does it end?
According to the 2001 Census data, 9.97 million people cited the British Isles (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh) as their origin, and 4.71 million have French (French, Acadian) origins. But you must also consider that 2.74 million are of German descent, 1.32 million are Aboriginals, 1.27 million are Italian, 1.09 million are Chinese, and 1.07 million are Ukrainian. Using Separatist logic, all of these groups, and more, should be recognized as nations.
Although the French definition, and common viewpoint within Quebec, may allow Quebec to be a nation within a united Canada, that is certainly not the view of Separatists and their arguments to get Quebec voters onside. There can be no acceptance of the Bloc’s notion of Quebec as a nation, because let’s face it, if they are able to get official, legal, recognition as a nation, a sovereign nation is just an adjective away.
This act is isolationist. If the Separatists are trying to be isolationists, what reactions would they invoke? Will it cause other provinces to pull the plug on publicly-funded French programming? Will those Francophones living in other provinces be isolated from their “homeland” because of this short-sightedness? Isn’t this something the Bloc would vociferously campaign against; that which is exactly what they’re trying to do to non-Francophones within Quebec? What better way to promote Quebec/French culture than to spread it amongst all Canadians, using the province of Quebec as a basis of a concentrated grouping of the culture?
The Bloc, a.k.a. “Blocheads” as coined by some political commentators, would lead you to believe that recognizing Quebec as a nation protects their language and culture. But the gains Francophones have made within Canada outweigh any possible additional benefits. They have gained equal language status in the Federal and New Brunswick governments, with Ontario providing more and more services in French. Access to French language and culture is available across Canada, if not from cable companies, certainly from satellite providers. The Quebec government has a lot of autonomy in their governing at the provincial level (they control some aspects that no other province has the legal authority to do). What possible additional benefit could they want? Equal status as Canada on the world stage? Representation at the United Nations? The Bloc think they can do all of this while retaining the Canadian Dollar as their currency, and retaining their Canadian passports.
The Bloc was formed by Lucien Bouchard and his cronies in 1990 for the sole purpose of separating Quebec from Canada. When he formed the Bloc, he stated that it was a temporary party and that it would only last until the next Referendum. The sovereigntists were narrowly defeated in 1995, but the Bloc did not dissolve. They just won’t go away until they do win a referendum, which apparently they will hold at least once every decade. Reminds me of a two-year old that kicks and screams and cries until they get their way.
The reality is a sovereign Quebec would not last long. Economically, it is unlikely they could make a go of it, while still retaining their current standards. Some nations from around the globe that have tried might give some insight into Quebec prospects. A Quebec currency would have little effect on the world markets. Exporters and importers would demand to do business in US Dollars or Euros. Inflation in Quebec would likely rise to unmanageable levels. The standard of living would decline. Quebec’s only resource is its mineral deposits, which are finite, and its hydro-electric generating capacity. They are a net importer of oil, so their treasury could not fall back on oil’s rising prices. But as their population grows, less and less of Quebec’s resources will be available for export. In the end, if they do not return to the Canada fold, they will be forced to join the United States (who would remove their new found freedoms), or the European Union, where they would have to fall in line with the other member states.
Canada deserves Quebec, just as Quebec deserves Canada. Not in a derogatory, nyah nyah manner, but in an ethnically diverse, tolerant, and prosperous sense. All the cultures that make up a Federal Canada make the country the envy of the world. What other country has taken within its borders and made citizens such a diverse group of cultures, where the people have learned to live and govern together? Where multi-culturism, rather assimilation rule? Sure its citizens have their difficulties, just like any family. But that does not mean it should just be chucked onto the garbage heap. The Quebec culture has come to symbolize Canada, just as much as the scarlet tunics of the RCMP and maple syrup have. It's part of the citizens' Canadianess.
Let me leave you with one final definition from my Oxford dictionary:
Notion: general concept under which (a) particular thing may be classed.
Quebec is a notion, not a nation. Much like Newfoundlanders, Acadians and Albertans are. I'm not trying to diminish Quebec's contributions to Canada. On the contrary. The country is stronger with Quebec, as well as all these other groups and more, than without. The acts of a few “Blocheads” kicking and crying and screaming RE-COUNT should not change this. If anything, the Blocheads should be sent to their room without any supper.
Wings Over The World
November 24, 2006
Reverse Onus a Constitutional Challenge?
I think not.
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
Yesterday, Prime Minister Harper announced the intent to introduce “reverse onus” legislation to stem the tide of gun crimes. In a nutshell, reverse onus means that the defendant must prove that they are not a danger to the public if they receive bail, rather than the prosecution proving that they are.
Until the wording of the legislation is released, we’re not sure how it will be employed. However, the PM has stated that it will only kick in during a second offence, after a previous conviction of a gun-related crime. I’ve been a critic of many of Mr. Harper’s ramblings, but I must give him kudos for this one.
The fact that, “Some lawyers were outraged by the move, arguing it would create a false impression that gun crime is being addressed, while potentially imprisoning innocent people along with criminals,” is a non-issue. Defence lawyers and civil libertarians should just keep quiet on this one.
If you are convicted of a gun crime, and you are caught with a gun in your hand during the commission of another crime, what possible scenario could there be that you’re “innocent?” Yes, there may be insufficient evidence to convict, but that doesn’t mean you aren’t potentially a danger to the public.
The statistic they reported is that out of 1,000 crimes committed involving a firearm or restricted weapon this year in Toronto, 40% were committed by people on “bail, parole, temporary absence or probation.” I’d certainly want the potential of a 40%, or more, reduction in gun-related crime, wouldn’t you?
This is not a Constitutional challenge, as the potential legislation has been presented thus far. This is a case where the societal good outweighs any benefit that might come from striking the legislation down. And the Justices will concur. Gun crimes are getting out of hand, and a simple slap on the wrist punishment is insufficient. Certainly, prevention is key. Let’s find ways to keep our kids getting involved with gangs. But failing that, a little tough love might be in order.
To the defence lawyers I say this: How about you save taxpayers a few bucks in court costs and stop rattling your sabres over a Constitutional challenge? If your client has been caught with their hand in the cookie jar for a second time, and they’re “innocent,” they’ll have the opportunity to give reasons to the judge to allow bail.
Wings Over The World
November 22, 2006
Buying Votes...Selling "Traditional Family Values"
The Canadian Conservative government never ceases to amaze, and delight me (in a forehead slapping “DOH!” kind of way).
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
Their latest antic? Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, was floating some possible budget ideas in an obvious attempt at gaining media, and thus voter, reaction to his proposals. One item that stuck out and got some media play was the idea of income splitting. In short, if one spouse made significantly more than the other, then the higher income earner can assign some of their income to the lower wage earner in order to reduce the couple’s tax burden. The greatest benefit from this scheme coming from the lower income spouse not generating any income at all.
Of course, the media’s usual man-in-the-street reactions were required, because the issue dealt with money and politics. Usually, I’m not one to pay attention to these, except for maybe a little bit of levity, since occasionally I hear a comment coming out of someone’s mouth that is one step above the antics of monkeys at the zoo. However, some people did make some interesting comments for this story. And it wasn’t just about what they said, but also what they didn’t say.
Those that were married obviously liked the idea. But the single people made a good point. Income splitting “discriminates against single people.” Of course it does. But it’s just this kind of tax break that gets good political mileage, just like a GST cut does, even though a GST cut is worse than just giving everyone an income tax rate cut across the board, like the Liberals did just prior to the election.
What these man-on-the-street interviews didn’t highlight is the fact that an income splitting scheme not only discriminates against single people, more specifically, it discriminates against single parents, the people that need a tax break the most! In addition, because the greatest benefit of the scheme comes from the maximum disparity of the two incomes, it also encourages one of the spouses to stay at home and be with the kids!
What the media failed to do is put two and two together and realize that income splitting is just another perk for the traditional family values agenda being pushed by the Conservatives. If you’re good and are married (soon to be defined as between a man and a woman, if the Conservatives have their way), then they’ll reward you with some tax breaks. One of you stays at home with the kids, and they’ll reward you even more.
Shameless.
I fear that the majority of Canadians are not going to penetrate the Conservatives’ thinly-veiled attempts at society regression through political points achieved where it hits Canadians the most…their pocketbook. What I mean by society regression is that the Conservatives are attempting to reduce or relinquish the gains people in our society have achieved, through the courts, as well as through legislation. Societies change and from my other postings, you’ll see I’m a proponent of community standards. Obviously, there is a large segment of society that supports things like gay marriage, and single parenthood. But these things don’t fit in with the Conservative agenda, because their support base comes from those that support “traditional” family values, sometimes referred to as the “religious right.” The split flows along party lines between the Conservatives vs. everyone else (with maybe the exception of the Bloc Quebecois – don’t know enough about their platforms). But it’s interesting to note that this split is represented in the Canadian population between the city and rural populations, as well as Western and Eastern Canada. Don’t believe me? Have a look at the colours on the map representing the party affiliations of our representatives in the House of Commons.
I don’t like the agenda the Conservatives are pushing, but that doesn’t mean I approve of the leadership the Liberals provided over the previous 12 or so years. They made plenty of mistakes too. But that doesn’t mean I think NDP leadership would fare any better, because I think Jack Layton is a media narcissist, interested more in getting his face on the six o'clock news than in good governance. Can we hope that the Liberal leadership convention will elect the best candidate…or the most popular? Someone that could lead the party not only to victory in the next election, but someone who will do what is right for the majority of Canadians? Time will tell.
To the Canadian electorate I say this: get involved with the election process, whether it’s running as a candidate, volunteering as a campaign worker, letting your representative know your thoughts and feelings during their mandate, or just spending a few minutes before you vote to see what each of the candidates/parties are promising and casting a critical eye, before you mark that X on your ballot. When you do vote, don’t just look at party affiliations, or how good the candidate looks, or any other specific thing. Look at the total package and make your choice. And certainly don’t vote based just on how it affects your pocketbook. Case in point, the GST tax cut was the worst financial promise made in the last election (from an economic standpoint), yet it put the Conservatives in power.
One person, one vote. Make your thoughts known to your MP throughout their mandate. If you don’t like how they’re representing you? Vote with your feet.
Wings Over The World
November 21, 2006
The “N” Word
Michael Richards, a.k.a. “Kramer,” is in hot water for sure! If you haven’t already heard, then watch it on YouTube.
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
I think that this incident brings up a very interesting point. The common complaint is (usually from White people): Why is it alright for African-Americans (I will call them “Blacks” from this point on in the interest of including groups of people that may not be considered African-American, but are affected by this) to call each other the “N” word (I refuse to use it even in written form), but a White person, even if saying it to a friend in the same context as another Black person would say it, is labelled a racist?
With regard to Michael Richards’ performance, reading the subtitles of the incident and seeing his reactions in the video, I believe he was trying to push the comedic envelope, like many artists do, thinking his tirade could be part of his act that night, a little improv on his part. But it also looks like it got out of hand and he didn’t know when to stop, or where to go next, and that’s why he walked off stage. I also want to point out that the audience member also made a racial slur to Mr. Richards, but nothing is being said about that in the media.
Getting back to the “N” word, Wikipedia has a history of the term. That word did not start off being a racial slur, it was only a term used to describe Black people, and even used in English Literature texts. It was only when Blacks were being oppressed and that the oppression was widely recognized, did it come to be a racial slur, on par with some of the others mentioned in the Wikipedia entry.
I recall that the now cancelled TV series Boston Public, had an episode devoted to this subject. In this episode, two very good friends, students in the high school, one Black and one White, were being playful. The White student called the Black student the “N” word, in the same manner and context as one Black person would call another Black person. The Black friend took no offence, but another Black student in the class did. The teacher of the class, the Michael Rapaport character, being the cutting edge teacher, wanted to discuss the subject in an open forum in class. Of course, he had his ears pinned back by the school staff because, it was explained, he was White and had no right leading this kind of discussion since he could not empathize, not having had the “Black experience.” Even the Black principal (Chi McBride) was in turmoil, deciding whether this subject should be broached. In the end, the principal lead the discussion in class with the teacher looking on (from outside the class), in approval.
What does all of this teach us? Have we gotten to the point where the “N” word should be expunged from the English language? Should we even allow for Blacks to use it amongst themselves? Is this a case of re-appropriation of the word by the people suffering from it, much like the term “Dyke” has become amongst Lesbians? Since Lesbians have re-appropriated the term, is it okay for people outside the Gay and Lesbian community to call them that, or is it still seen as derogatory? And if it is still seen as derogatory for a heterosexual to call a Lesbian a Dyke, will it be acceptable some time in the future? Which brings us back to the “N” word. If the Black community accepts the use of the word, then will it ever be acceptable for people outside of the community to use the term in a non-derogatory manner?
There was a time when Blacks were referred to as “Coloured People.” That too has been demonized somewhat, in deference to the term African-American. But what of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People)? Do they continue to use the term because of the organization’s history/tradition, or is it still acceptable to call a Black person a “Coloured Person”?
I could go on, but let me wrap this up and we can continue this discussion through the comments section.
We are a community, whether that means the entire World, or just one small block in a large city, or even a group of people that have a common thread. The acceptance or rejection of anything, a word, a deed, or anything else, is based on the community standard. If the “N" word is acceptable in some circles and not in others, then maybe a discussion needs to occur to decide whether the term gets expunged from the English language, or not. We should determine whether the word should be re-appropriated so that it is empowering, rather than derogatory. Why is it that it is common and accepted in hip-hop circles, but I just can’t imagine one Black lawyer saying it to another Black lawyer in the financial district?
Yes, Michael Richards went a bit too far during his comedy act. It was reported that he didn’t use the term during the performance that followed. He is making public apologies for using the “N” word, whether it is in fear of his career, or he is truly sorry. Only he knows for sure which applies. He received harsh criticism from every quarter, and it continues to be newsworthy a couple of days after it occurred. However, I think the audience member that made the racial slur towards Michael Richards should also apologize, because he certainly didn’t take the high ground during the incident.
Racism has no place in our society, regardless of your origin. It is emotionally harmful and oppressive. Do your bit in stamping it out.
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)