June 08, 2004
Disaster brewing
Robert Mugabe, perhaps disappointed that any attention paid to Africa is going to Sudan these days, is going to abolish all private land ownership in Zimbabwe:
All land, including more than 5,000 former white-owned farms handed over to blacks, will become state-owned and subject to state-issued leases, Land Reform Minister John Nkomo said.
Title deeds of farm properties will be scrapped and replaced by 99-year leases with rent payable to government the state Herald newspaper reported.
"There shall be no such thing as private land," Nkomo said.
Since the farm seizures began in 2000, about 200,000 black families have been allocated former white-owned land. About a quarter were given larger properties for commercial rather than small scale farming.
Hundreds of black farmers also bought commercial farms on the property market that will now be nationalized.
[...]
The government did not intend to "waste time and money" in disputes on seizures of individual farms whose owners held title deeds and other legal documents, he said.
I hope there's a lot of grass in Zimbabwe, because that's all the people will have left to eat before too long.
(via The Shotgun)
Where's Rick Mercer when we need him?
From Brian Mulroney's appearance on Larry King Live the other night:
Mulroney: "Good to see you, Larry. Thank you for having me and delighted to be with you."
King: "My pleasure. Good guy. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister of Great Britain."
Can we win this thing?
The SES tracking poll has been updated, and now the Conservatives are four points ahead of the Liberals - and in terms of personal popularity, Harper is just one lousy point behind Martin.
In the post below, there's an interesting debate going on about Stephen Harper's chances of becoming Prime Minister. When Sari Stein wrote that Harper "doesn't have a chance in hell" of winning, I thought she meant that he was too right wing. What she really means, however, is that you can't form a government in Canada without doing well in Quebec:
In Quebec, the Liberals' lost support is going to the Bloc. In the ROC, it's going mainly to the Conservatives. That puts the Conservatives higher in the popular vote but the fact is, the Tories would be really lucky to pick up even a single seat in Quebec. During the Mulroney years, the Tories consistently needed to do well in Quebec in order to win elections. Harper isn't at that stage... not yet. Maybe in 5 years he will have mustered that support. And it was easier in pre-Bloc years for another party to win votes here in La Belle Province.
[...]
So votes does not equal seats, as you well know. And in this case, I just don't see the Conservatives getting the seats they need to elect a government. They simply don't have the necessary support in Quebec to win seats here, and no government can win without Quebec's support. That's just a political reality on the Federal stage.
This has been true in the past, with the Liberals being guaranteed to win all but one or two seats in Quebec. (The PCs won in 1979 with only one MP from Quebec - but we all know how long that survived, don't we?) With the Liberals guaranteed 72 or 73 seats in one province, that left the PCs desperately trying to win 72 or 73 more seats than the Liberals in the rest of Canada - an almost impossible task, even with a head start west of Manitoba.
But here's the thing: Quebec no longer sends 73 Liberal MPs to Ottawa. The Bloc has won most of Quebec's seats ever since the 1993 election, leaving the Liberals with around 35 Quebec MPs at most. The Bloc is far ahead of the Liberals this time around, and if Martin wins 25 Quebec seats, I think he'll be lucky.
That means the Conservatives would have to win 25 more seats than the Liberals in the rest of the country - hard, but not that hard. The Liberals will likely win most of the 32 seats in Atlantic Canada, but the Conservatives will win all but one or two of the 28 seats in Alberta, thereby cancelling out that advantage. SES now puts the Conservatives ten points ahead in Ontario, ahead by 6 in B.C. and ahead by 7 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
If these numbers hold, I think we'd looking at a Conservative minority government. As for a majority, alas, Sari is right - you can't realistically do it without picking up at least a few Quebec seats.
But thanks to the Bloc, ironically, enough, Quebec no longer decides elections. I'd still prefer it if these miserable traitors didn't exist, but you can't deny that this time around, they've made things much more competitive.
It's finally happened
It's now Harper's election to lose. The latest SES tracking poll has the Conservatives two points ahead of the Liberals:
With three weeks to go in the federal election campaign, the Conservatives have taken a slight nationwide lead over the Liberals, according to an SES election poll. "I think this represents a huge psychological breakthrough for the Conservatives," said SES pollster Nik Nanos.
The survey, conducted for CPAC, the parliamentary channel, shows the Conservatives in the lead for the first time at 34%. The Grits trail with 32% and the New Democrats have 20% support.
Quebec's separatist Bloc stands at 11% and the Green Party has 4%. The number of undecided Canadians has hit 22%.
Although still a statistical tie, it is the first time in more than 10 years the Conservatives have nudged ahead of the ruling Grits, and the news doesn't get better for the Martin team when Canadians are asked who would make the best prime minister.
"Paul Martin's personal numbers are starting to go south," Nanos said.
The daily tracking poll of 600 Canadians, taken June 4-6, shows 27% of decided voters believe Paul Martin would make the best prime minister, down 4% from a previous poll released May 25. Stephen Harper is the choice of 23%, up six points. The NDP's Jack Layton is up four points to 13%.
Still to come: a media firestorm over Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant, who compared abortion to the behading of Nicholas Berg at a pro-life rally. The rally happened a month ago, but the story just happened to hit the CP wire this morning - and the story only makes token mention of a Liberal MP who addressed the same rally and said Canada would have 3.5 million more people today were abortion not legal.
Seriously, what liberal media?
Update: segacs writes that more votes for the Conservatives doesn't necessarily mean they'll win more seats, and she has a point. When one party gets a particularly large number of votes in one part of the country, they can end up with more votes than the other pary but still lose the election. Joe Clark and the Tories won a minority government in 1979, even though the Liberals had more votes - but the Liberals won 74 our of 75 seats in Quebec, almost all of them by massive majorities, whereas the Tories won more seats by closer margins in the rest of Canada. This could easily happen again, with the Conservatives picking up such "wasted majorities" in the West. (We love to mock the Yanks for President Bush getting fewer votes than Al Gore, but the fact is it happens here as well - and, in fact, it's quite common at the provincial level.)
Alas, she also says "Harper doesn't have a chance in hell, and he knows it". That's what they once said about Reagan, Thatcher and Mike Harris. And, on the other side of spectrum, Bob Rae and Tommy Douglas. You see where this is going.
Doesn't he look happy?
Gerhard Schroeder and Jacques Chirac are supposed to be great buddies, but...well, let's just say this picture says it all.
June 07, 2004
Does this mean he won't be signing the condolence book?
I won't give him a link (and, in any event, his website - probably overloaded by a link from Drudge earlier today - doesn't seem to be working), but Ted Rall says Reagan should have been jailed for invading Grenada, that 9/11 "was his" because he allegedly gave Osama bin Laden weapons in Afghanistan, and that Reagan has likely been roasted to a crispy brown in hell by now. (Which is an interesting position for an avowed atheist to take, but never mind.)
So I guess Rall won't mind my saying I intend to celebrate when he dies, right? (Too harsh? Well, I cheered when neo-Nazi leader William Pierce kicked it a couple of years ago, and as far as I'm concerned, Rall's politics - and personality - are no less vile.)
Update: I have to admit it, I already feel somewhat guilty for writing the above post. Don't get me wrong: Rall is pure scum. But if I'm criticizing people for celebrating Ronald Reagan's death, it's unbecoming and hypocritical for me to say I plan to celebrate Ted Rall's death just because I disagree strongly with his writing.
So no, Ted, I don't actually want you to die. I'm not going to sink to your level.
The car that taste forgot
This has been sitting on the Canadian Tire parking lot, waiting in vain for a buyer, this past week:
What kind of sick monster could do such a thing to a perfectly good CRX?
Tarantino v. Mallick
Bob Tarantino's weekly smackdown of Heather Mallick was a bit late this week, and by Sunday afternoon I began to fear I would have to write it. (A scary thought, mainly because it would require me to actually read the column again.) Fortunately, he came through.
Mallick writes about how much she lurves paying taxes, and asks, "whenever you get upset by taxation, egged on by HelmetHead [Mallick's pet name for Stephen Harper, so I guess she can't complain if I start calling her "HatchetFace"], think of an ill-considered purchase. Then figure out what that cash could have contributed to, had it been in government hands. A gleaming new hip for my mother? An extra season of Da Vinci's Inquest? An ice rink for kids on the reserve?"
She has a point there. This fall, should someone pay $25.00 for HatchetFace's new book before it inevitably hits the $1.99 remainder bin, I suspect they'll find themselves bemoaning the fact that their taxes weren't 25 bucks higher.
Some things never change
John Dewey and other well-known intellectuals in an open letter to the Partisan Review, 1939:
"The last war showed only too clearly that we can have no faith in imperialist crusades to bring freedom to any people. Our entry into the war, under the slogan "Stop Hitler!" would actually result in the immediate introduction of totalitarianism over here ... The American people can best help [the German people] by fighting at home to keep their own liberties."
The Angry Iraqi
Public opinion in Iraq is heavily divided, but you'd never know it from reading Reuters stories - which always just happen to feature the most anti-American "men on the street" possible, and little else.
June 06, 2004
Not bad at all
President's Choice 'New Wave' Cola doesn't taste quite the same as Pepsi, but it's pretty darn close.
Most supermarkets have excellent house-brand products now, but only Loblaws (they're known as "Dominion" here in Newfoundland, but it's not the same as the Dominion chain in Ontario, for reasons too complicated to get into here) would think of making two different colas for Coke and Pepsi drinkers. (Their imitation Coke isn't nearly as good, alas.)
Socially Conservative Liberals
Paul Martin is desperately trying to paint the Conservatives as intolerant on social issues, but two of his own MPs admit that their own caucus is deeply divided:
Two veteran Liberal MPs say there is no difference between their party and the Conservatives on abortion, contradicting Paul Martin's claim that there is a "gulf" between the two parties on hot-button moral issues.
Toronto MP Tom Wappel and Sarnia MP Roger Gallaway also say that Liberals are deeply divided over gay rights, with Gallaway going so far as to predict that a free vote on same-sex marriage would be defeated.
"My view is if it were put to the House, which it will be, it won't pass," Gallaway said in an interview. "I think there's enough people opposed to it to knock it down."
Among those opposed to same-sex marriage is Judy Sgro, the cabinet minister sent by Liberal campaign officials last week to heckle Conservative Leader Stephen Harper over his stand on abortion.
Sgro, who supported an Opposition motion last fall reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage, taunted Harper with the question: "Whose rights are you taking away tomorrow?" [emphasis added]
The Liberals' hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. (Editor's note: lest you think I'm praising Tom Wappel, he's the big-hearted fellow who famously refused to help a WW2 veteran in his riding because he voted for the Alliance in 2000.)
If the BBC in 1944 was like the BBC in 2004...
...their coverage of D-Day probably would have looked something like this.
Cynical bastard banned
I know I shouldn't waste time on an insignificant, petty little attention-seeking troll like Robert McClelland. I know I'm just giving him attention he doesn't deserve and that I'm just sinking to his level. But I can't help it.
His response to the death of President Reagan is exactly as classy as one would expect from a man who insists the phrase "F**k Jews" is not antisemitic. But it's in his comments section, where he suddenly announces that Reagan's alleged "aiding and abetting of Saddam's crimes offends me" - pretty friggin' rich from a man who has mocked every effort to remove Saddam from power - that we really see what McClelland is all about.
Reagan's government did support Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, and that's a black mark on his legacy. But he never built Saddam a nuclear reactor, like the French, nor did he sell Saddam the overwhelming majority of his weapons, like the USSR (which - under the sainted Gorbachev, no less - still had military "specialists" in Iraq even after Saddam annexed Kuwait).
And McClelland will never mention any of this when Chirac or Gorbachev kick it. Because he is only interested in thrashing we dreaded "right whingers" to make himself feel important. If he had his way Saddam would still be in power, but now he's conveniently decided support for Saddam is a crime for which Ronald Reagan should "rot in hell".
And this little weasel has the gall to accuse me of cynically bringing up issues like antisemitism, just to slander the Left. Talk about projection.
McClelland can say whatever the hell he wants on his pathetic little "blahg", but he's no longer welcome here. And I'm sure he'll whine about "censorship" and how "right whingers can't handle anyone who disagrees with them".
You go on believing that, Rahbert. In your sleep you're a Viking, and when you're awake you're a bold, brave free speech hero.
Wanker.
Wow
Whatever you're doing right now, no matter how important, drop it and read this. Right now. Don't worry - it will only take a few minutes, and your Dad will still have his legs caught in the gears of that farm combine when you get back.
D-Day
To everyone who fought so that we may be free: thank you.
June 05, 2004
The Reagan legacy
Arthur Chrenkoff grew up in Poland during the era of the Solidarity movement and martial law. And Ronald Reagan was his hero:
The 1980 US Presidential election is the first one I can remember as a child. I recall newsreaders on the communist Polish TV telling us that we should all hope that Jimmy Carter gets re-elected, because Reagan would inevitably lead the whole world into a nuclear holocaust. Looking back, we know very well why the communists were so scared that this cowboy, as he was frequently caricatured in communist propaganda, would get into the Oval Office.
Throughout the 1980s, during the Polish Spring of "Solidarity", and then through the dark winter of the martial law, and the slow decomposition of the system, Ronald Reagan was our undisputed leader in the free republic of our hearts. He was our beacon of hope, someone who understood our condition and spoke about it in our language. The Western sophisticates sneered when he spoke about the "Evil Empire"; we knew it was evil and that it was an empire - we lived in it. They laughed at him when he said that communism is being consigned to the ash heap of history - how ignorant, how simplistic, how unrealistic - we, on the other hand, took heart because we knew that for him it wasn't just an empty rhetoric; he meant exactly what he said and had every intention of seeing it through. In the end, he had the last laugh.
Reagan was one of the few politicians last century who genuinely changed the world, and changed it for the better.
I can't escape thinking that for the United States and the free world it's 1980 again. A bitter enemy, who despises everything that we stand for and cherish, who wants to destroy our civilisation and build their own totalitarian utopia, is on the march, emboldened by years of compromises and appeasement. Will the people turn to a Democrat, who occasionally talks tough but whose heart isn't really in it, or will they choose a Republican, a "war-monger" and a laughing stock to the sophisticated and nuanced crowd, but for the rest of us someone who sees things clearly and is resolved to take the enemy on and consign him, too, to the ash-heap of history?
I know that I will be accused of being too simplistic; I know that there are always hundreds of differences between then and now one can point to, and hundreds of excuses not to do the right thing. But in the end it comes to a simple choice: do you just talk about freedom and democracy, or do you actually do something about it?
Amen.
On a lighter note...
"Then tell me, "future boy", who is president in the United States in 1985?"
"Ronald Reagan."
"Ronald Reagan? The actor? Who's Vice President? Jerry Lewis?"
"What?"
"I suppose Jane Wyman is the first lady. And Jack Benny is secretary of the treasury. I've had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, future boy."
Reagan is dead
He passed away today at age 93.
I was terrified of Ronald Reagan when I was a child. Today, for his role in bringing down a politcal system that murdered over 100 million people in 70 years (and brought unimaginable misery to millions more), I believe he was a hero.
Rest in peace, Mr. Reagan.
Update: unforgettable words from 1985:
"In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind--too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control.
Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace.
General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"
Never forget
It's been somewhat overshadowed by the D-Day anniversary, but this occurred fifteen years ago yesterday:
Flashback!
Saturday morning television from 1984. Too friggin' cool.
I'll never, ever forget Turbo Teen and Mr. T (the latter inexplicably featuring the great man as the driver/bodyguard/whatever for a teenaged gymnastics team, with a really, really annoying little "tough" kid who sounded like Katherine Hepburn). But we didn't get CBS back then (it was channel 22 on cable, and our ancient Zenith floor model only went up to 13) - so I had no idea the centerpiece of their lineup that year was a kids' show starring Richard Pryor.
Yes, a kids' show starring Richard Pryor.
(By the way, TVParty.com has a lot more great stuff like this. Send 'em US$8.45 through PayPal, and they'll give you access to the entire site for four months. And it's worth it.)
Flops Month
I've always been fascinated by Hollywood's biggest bombs, so I have to commend the 'Trio' cable channel for dedicating an entire month to them. Any hack churn out a lousy movie on a low budget, but there's something quite poignant about seeing genuinely talented people throw everything they have - and tons of money - into their dream products, only to watch everything come out so horribly wrong.
(Not that bombs always deserve to bomb. Last Action Hero is still one of my favorite Schwarzenegger movies, and I enjoyed Hudson Hawk so much I bought the DVD.)
Sadly, we don't get Trio up here, and I'd really like to see the documentaries they're premiering this month (Delorean, Final Cut and Flops 101. Anyone out there willing or able to tape them for me?
Two Papal audiences
Pope John Paul II had some critical words for George W. Bush when they met earlier this week:
Pope John Paul II told US President George Bush yesterday the situation in Iraq must be "normalised as quickly as possible" as anti-Bush protests on the first day of his European visit fizzled out under blanket policing in Rome.
As expected, Iraq dominated the agenda in the first meeting between the war's chief protagonist and its sternest critic since the conflict began.
[...]
The highlight of Mr Bush's visit was his meeting with the Pope, a valuable opportunity to sway the important Catholic and Hispanic vote ahead of November's presidential elections.
But it was clear the meeting, while cordial, did little to clear up sharp differences over Iraq.
"It is the evident desire of everyone that this situation now be normalised as quickly as possible with the active participation of the international community and, in particular, the United Nations organisation," said John Paul II.
And he implicitly condemned the recently revealed abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in Iraq, referring to "deplorable events" that had "troubled the civil and religious conscience of all, and made more difficult a serene and resolute commitment to shared human values".
Last February, just before the Iraq invasion began, the Pope met Tariq Aziz, Saddam's vile Vice President. He swallowed the "sanctions" line whole, but needless to say, the issue of prisoners under that Iraqi regime did not arise:
Pope John Paul II urged Iraq to take "concrete steps" to show that it is abiding by U.N. resolutions requiring it to disarm when he met Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz.
The two exchanged views "on the known danger of a military action in Iraq which would further inflict sufferance on a population already weakened by many years of embargo," the Vatican said in a statement.
But when Aziz assured the pope about Iraq's intention to cooperate with the international community, the pontiff urged Iraq "to respect faithfully, with concrete commitments, the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council, which guarantees internationally legality," the statement said.
Reagan's last days
USA Today reports that Ronald Reagan's health has deteriorated quite badly these past few days - and a headline on the Drudge Report (not linked to any story) says his family members are gathering at Reagan's home in Bel Air.
A fearless prediction: if Reagan dies before the Presidential election (which now looks almost certain, sadly), the hot conspiracy theory will be that Bush had him whacked to build "sympathy". Such are the times in which we live.
Long overdue
Behold...the Anti-Chomsky!(via LGF)
Found via that page: Amir Taheri's absolutely devastating review of Chomsky's latest tome, Hegemony or Survival.
Dead Heat
The Globe and Mail says the Liberals are a statistically meaningless one point ahead of the Conservatives nationally - and, more astonishingly, the Conservatives are actually ahead in Ontario:
With 31-per-cent support of decided voters, Stephen Harper's Tories are now 1 point behind the Liberals, which fell to 32 per cent, according to Ipsos-Reid. The poll was conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV News as the campaign reaches the end of week two.
Nationally, the Liberals have fallen 2 points while the Tories have risen 1 point since the last Ipsos-Reid poll released last weekend. The NDP rose 1 point to 17 per cent.
[...]
In Ontario, the Conservative Party, with 35 per cent support, has topped the Liberals (32 per cent) for the first time since 1985. Seat projections give Conservatives between 46 and 50 seats while the Liberals could grab between 49 and 53. The Liberals took most of the province's 101 seats in 2000.
Andrew Coyne has more about the implications of this. (He's got embarassing photos of Warren Kinsella, too.)
June 04, 2004
Why don't we just lock our kids in the basement 'til they're 18?
Just the other day I was writing about people getting a bit too paranoid about keeping their kids away from the sun - and right on cue, schools in Derby County, England have are being advised to cancel field trips if it's too sunny outside:
But now schools in Derby are being told to consider cancelling trips in good weather because of the risk of sunburn.
Derby City Council issued the guidelines because of the link between sunburn when young and increased risk of skin cancer in later life.
It said teachers should consider "postponing or cancelling events... in periods of excessive sun".
The guidelines also advised to teachers to "try to plan external activities, for example, short duration trips, external lessons and sports days, for times when the sun is likely to be at its lowest strength - and the temperature at its lowest".
Teachers should also consider keeping a supply of maximum factor suncream to spray onto pupils, although they are told not to rub it in for fear of being accused of inappropriate contact.
Who needs The Onion these days?
North Korea bans cell phones
The government of the DPRDC has taken away one of the few freedoms it graciously granted to its citizens a couple of years ago:
North Korea has recalled mobile phones from its citizens, nearly a year and a half after the service was introduced in the communist country, South Korean media reports said.
A North Korean official attending an inter-Korean economic meeting in Pyongyang confirmed that mobile phones were banned from May 25, according to pool reports.
"It's true that mobile phone use was prohibited," the official was quoted as saying.
North Korea's mobile service began in November 2002, with products from Motorola Corp. of the United States and Nokia Corp. of Finland on the market in Pyongyang, Yonhap news agency said.
North Koreans were seen using mobile phones last month when the two Koreas held minister-level rapprochment talks, it said.
Experts believe North Korea had introduced the mobile technology to make communications convenient but later realized the device caused floods of foreign culture into the reclusive country, Yonhap said.
Question: how was Motorola allowed to do business in North Korea? (Maybe the phones were acquired from a third party, which is how resorts in Cuba manage to get Coca-Cola and other U.S. products.)
The unbiased BBC
If Nick Cohen is telling the truth in this excellent New Statesman article about the links between George Galloway's RESPECT Party and Islamofascists, it says all you need to know about the Beeb:
Just before the war against Iraq I began to receive strange calls from BBC journalists. Would I like information on how the leadership of the anti-war movement had been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party? Maybe, I replied. It was depressing that a totalitarian party was in the saddle, but that's where the SWP always tries to get. Why get excited?
Oh there are lots of reasons, said the BBC hacks. The anti-war movement wasn't a simple repetition of the old story of the politically naive being led by the nose by sly operators. The far left was becoming the far right. It had gone as close to supporting Ba'athist fascism as it dared and had formed a working alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain, which, along with the usual misogyny and homophobia of such organisations, also believed that Muslims who decided that there was no God deserved to die for the crime of free thought. In a few weeks hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, would allow themselves to be organised by the opponents of democracy and modernity and would march through the streets of London without a flicker of self-doubt. Wasn't this a story?
It's a great story, I cried. But why don't you broadcast it?
We can't, said the bitter hacks. Our editors won't let us.
(via Harry's Place)
Martin has his issue
Stephen Harper, in response to his health critic's assertion that women should have to undergo third-party counselling before having an abortion, says a Conservative government would not introduce abortion legislation during its first term in office, but would allow a free vote on a private member's bill on the issue.
Paul Martin sees an opportunity, and he's milking it for all it's worth:
Mr. Martin called a brief, hastily arranged press conference late yesterday afternoon to respond to Mr. Harper's previous comments on abortion and gay marriage and accused his Conservative rival of trifling with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Mr. Martin said he would never use the Constitution's notwithstanding clause to overturn court decisions that established abortion or same-sex marriage rights. He referred to same-sex marriage as an "acquired right" -- the clearest support he has offered.
"I think that you trifle with the Charter of Rights at great peril to the social cohesion of this country," Mr. Martin said. "And my refusal to use the notwithstanding clause, whether it be for a woman's right to choose, whether it be for gay marriage, or whether it be for other acquired rights, is a very clear indication of the depth of the gulf between Mr. Harper and myself."
In recent days, Mr. Harper has said he would allow Parliament to vote on banning abortion and on the definition of marriage. He said he would use the notwithstanding clause, which allows the government to override the Charter, to ban gay marriage if that is Parliament's decision.
Mr. Martin said he would discourage Liberals from bringing forward such bills. Aides argued that to put into effect any bill to ban abortion or gay marriage would require use of the notwithstanding clause -- because the Supreme Court struck down a ban on abortion in 1988, and lower courts in three provinces ruled a ban on gay marriage violates the Charter -- and that Mr. Martin would block the use of the clause.
I've made it clear that I do not agree with my party leader on the gay-marriage issue, but the Supreme Court of Canada has yet to rule on that issue. Martin is on even shakier legal ground with the abortion question - the Supreme Court of Canada did indeed strike down the abortion legislation of the period in the 1988 Morgentaler decision, but only one of the seven presiding judges - Bertha Wilson, not coincidentially the only woman on the panel - ruled that abortion was a fundamental right. (The other judges who voted to strike down the law left the door open for other abortion legislation.)
If Harper says he'd allow a free vote on the abortion issue, I agree that he should make it clear where he stands. But aside from that, I simply do not see what is so controversial about his position. Historically, free votes (as opposed to the usual voting along party lines, in which members on both sides of the house are forced to vote a certain way, regardless of how they or their constituents feel) have been used for hot-button social issues like this. Indeed, it would be hard to imagine a more appropriate time for them. (Well, some of us feel they're always appropriate, but that's another story.)
My question is for Martin: he's making a great deal about being a "democratic reformer", so if a private member's bill on abortion (or capital punishment, or another social issue) came before the House, would he allow his MPs - including his anti-abortion MPs - to vote freely on the issue?
June 03, 2004
Life officially worth living again
I've been waiting over a decade for this.
"Thank God!"
"Don't thank God, Doreau. Thank Gun."
How Harper should handle the Iraq question
Bob Tarantino predicts that the Liberals are going to try making Stephen Harper's support for the war an election issue - and comes up with the absolutely devastating response Harper should use.
If Harper blows this election for the Conservatives, I think Bob should be our new leader. (And while we're at it, Colby Cosh should be our justice critic.)
The fall of The Spectator
It's not just me. David Frum notes that The Spectator, perhaps motivated by its pathological hatred for Tony Blair, has gone seriously downhill over the past year:
It is truly sad to report that in recent months, the magazine seems to have lost both its mind – and its standards.
There are more examples to recount than you have patience to hear, but consider just this one: a recent cover story by the magazine’s political correspondent Peter Oborne.
Oborne acknowledges that he has been driven to choking fury by the Iraq war. Here he is in the May 15 edition: “Today there is no pleasure in being British. We are almost a pariah nation. … We have been collaborators with the Americans in something so gross, murderous, barbaric and obscene that it defies belief.” Oborne suggests that the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story is worse than the Amritsar massacre, when British troops opened fire on an unarmed Sikh political protest, killing 379 people and wounding 1200. That was a mere “blot” on British history in comparison to the horror of forcing Iraqi prisoners to pose nude.
[...]
What has gone wrong at this once-great magazine?
Three things, I think. First, the magazine’s editor, Boris Johnson, sought and won a parliamentary seat in 2001. Evidently distracted by his obligations as an M.P., Johnson appears to have handed most of his daily duties over to his deputy, Stuart Reid, a journalist who long ago succumbed to a gloomy and obsessive Buchananite view of the world.
Second, many of the magazine’s writers – I think principally here of former editor Frank Johnson (no relation to Boris) – seem feel an intense personal grievance against former owner Conrad Black. Now that Black no longer signs their checks, they can express their animus in safety. Black supported the war, so they oppose it. Had Black opposed the war in Iraq, I do not doubt that many of them would now support it.
Finally, there is the Blair factor. British Conservatives despise Blair with the intensity that some American conservatives used to despise Bill Clinton. They despise him so intensely that they would oppose motherhood and Sunday church service if Blair favored them. (Come to think of it – Blair does favor motherhood and Sunday church service, and the Spectator has run articles jeering at least the first.) If Blair is for America and Bush and the war – then some Conservatives will oppose all three.
I used to look forward to seeing The Spectator's homepage as soon as it was updated on Thursday. Now I feel a sense of dread.
Screedy Goodness
No, as a matter of fact, I do not believe placing a tiny cross in your city seal - in recognition of the fact that the city was founded by freaking Catholic missionaries - violates the principle of separation of church and state. There's a fine line between preventing the government from sponsoring a religion and keeping any sign of religion out of the public eye lest someone be offended, and the ACLU, sadly, crosses that line much too often.
Lileks agrees:
I wouldn’t join a movement that wanted to add a cross to a public seal. But I am dead-set stone-cold opposed to those who, in this instance, want to take one off. Who worries about these things? Who, in 2004, can look at world where some madmen want to shove a crescent down our throats and decide that the most important thing they’re going to do is take the crosses off the city seal?
The crosses represent California’s history - but of course that’s no defense. History, alas, is full of inconvenient details. History can offend. The mere recognition of a historical truth can offend. Apparently that’s the worst thing you can do nowadays: offend. But it has to be a particular kind of offense. Lenny Bruce was celebrated for offending the right people, and this enshrined the act of offending as some sort of brave stance against The Man, The Grey-Flannel Suited Establishment, the whole Ike-Nixon Axis of Medieval, the straights. Gotta offend the straights or you’re not doing your job. The only function the bourgeouise have is to sit there with their mouths open, Shocked. If they’re having a good time, someone’s not doing his job.
But. Imagine if the seal had two female mythological symbols of Peace and Progress, holding hands, and a religious group sued because they said this was a clear example of the state promoting lesbianism. "But, um, historically and allegorically, that’s not what it’s about." Don’t care! We’re offended! We bleed, you heed1 Take it off! No one would give them a second thought, nor should they. But when the ACLU musters a phalanx of lawyers to erase a historical symbol from the city seal, the burghers quail. The burghers fold. In the end the national anthem is John Cage’s “4’33,” which gives everyone an interval of empty silence in which they can construct their own appropriate sentiments.
"Gay Couple Feels Pressured To Marry"
Where else but in The Onion?
Western insecurity
I think George W. Bush is exactly right to compare the war on terror with the wars against Nazism and Communism. But I have to ask whether his simpering, politically correct refusal to use the "C" word speaks to our society's fundamental insecurity about that in which we believe:
President Bush on Wednesday quoted the famous D-Day words of Gen. Dwight Eisenhower -- all but one of them, "crusade."
In a speech in which he likened the war on terror to the Allied struggle against the Nazis in World War II, Bush cited Eisenhower's message to U.S. troops 60 years ago but skipped a word that would have been sure to spark controversy in the Muslim world.
Entitled the "Great Crusade," Eisenhower's message urged on the troops as they prepared to storm the Normandy coast in the first Allied landing in Nazi-occupied France.
The original version went: "Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Forces: You are about to embark upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you. The hopes and prayers of a liberty-loving people everywhere march with you."
Speaking at the U.S. Air Force Academy commencement on Wednesday, Bush quoted the initial salutation and the second and third sentences but left out the part about embarking on a great crusade.
Back when he was still alive, Osama bin Laden certainly didn't worry about whether his rhetoric would offend us. And while I'm certainly not saying Bush should sink that that level, I have to wonder exactly who he's trying to mollify here. Anyone in the Muslim world who already hates America is not going to change his mind because Bush didn't say "crusade", while others may look at this and think it makes America look weak and insecure about its mission - and when you remember Osama's babbling about "strong horses" and "weak horses", that could have catastrophic consequences.
Three years after an attack that killed more people than Pearl Harbor, many Americans - and a majority of those in other Western nations, including my own - seem to be in denial about our being at war. The Islamofascists cannot defeat us militarily, but we can still defeat ourselves.
June 02, 2004
When Liberals attack!
I've been too busy to post at my usual rate today, but fortunately there's not much that needs to be said about this:
Prime Minister Paul Martin is defending his two Liberal ministers who heckled Conservative Leader Stephen Harper on Tuesday, putting it down to frustration.
[...]
Sgro was responding to comments made Tuesday morning by Alberta Conservative MP Rob Merrifield, the party's health critic, who suggested a proposal that women seeking abortions seek independent, third-party counseling.
Harper later scrambled into damage control, suggesting Merrifield went slightly "off message" on the party platform. But Sgro was having none of it.
"Mr. Harper, what rights are you going to take away next?" she demanded of the party leader as he walked out of a Markham motel.
Harper had a terse reply.
"Better get out and knock on doors, Judy. You're going down," he called out to the minister and her supporters as he walked away.
Moments later, McCallum, surrounded by Liberal supporters, waved a letter in his hand as Harper walked by.
"I want to give you this letter, it's an open letter to you," McCallum called out, as reporters moved in with microphones.
"I'll give it to one of my staff," Harper replied.
From there, the event quickly dissolved into chaos. With the shouting of protesters and party supporters growing louder, Harper took refuge in a store. He told reporters he found the Liberal ambush tactic desperate.
"Sending in two cabinets ministers -- they must be running out of shock troops," he commented, then took a swipe at Sgro and McCallum.
Can you say "running scared"?
Update: the Martin campaign might want to pay more attention to the music they're using, too:
And wouldn't you know it, the theme music is U2's Beautiful Day, a reminder that despite his advancing years, Martin is a man who very much wants to be seen as a young thinker.
Still, you have to wonder if anybody on these campaigns ever checks the lyrics of the songs they choose. Have you ever listened to what Bono is actually singing in that song? Here's a sample:
"You're out of luck
And the reason that you had to care
The traffic is stuck
And you're not moving anywhere"
"Heh."
Will Washington's nightmare never end?
I don't know what's worse: that this corrupt, incompetent, paranoid junkie is planning his political comeback, or that he might win:
Former D.C. Mayor Marion Barry may be ready to return to politics. Newschannel Eight is reporting that the man once known as "mayor for life," is expected to announce his intention to seek the Ward Eight seat on the D.C. Council.
Barry reportedly called current Ward Eight Councilmember Sandy Allen to tell her of his plans to oppose her for the Democratic Council nomination in September. The former four-term D.C. Mayor who left office in January, 1999 has worked as an investment consultant specializing in municipal bonds in recent years.
Barry sought and won the Ward Eight seat after serving time in prison for a cocaine possession charge a 12 years ago. He used that seat to return to the mayor's office for a fourth term in 1995. Barry made a brief attempt to return to city council in 2002, but suspended the effort because of personal problems.
(via TalkLeft)
Why I don't go to church anymore, continued
I'm not one of these fundamentalists who believes every single word in the Bible was handed down by the Lord himself, but I have no time for those who would mess with Christians' most sacred book in the name of political correctness, either. And unfortunately, the Church in which I was raised is one of the worst offenders:
But now the 23rd Psalm, undoubtedly the best-known and best-loved in the English language, has had a makeover.
In a new version published by the Church of England, the words: "Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil" are replaced by: "Even if a full-scale violent confrontation breaks out I will not be afraid, Lord." The new version shares with the traditional one the opening line "The Lord is my shepherd", but the psalmist goes on: "He lets me see a country of justice and peace and directs me towards this land" and that His "shepherd's power and love protect me" - instead of "thy rod and thy staff they comfort me".
The 23rd Psalm, rewritten by Pastor Kameeta, of Namibia, is included in the book Pocket Prayers For Justice And Peace, which has been compiled by the charity Christian Aid and will be published in October by Church House Publishing, the Church's books division. A Church House spokesman said: "It is not the Church's new official version of the 23rd Psalm. All the prayers are focused on issues such as debt, the developing world and fair trade.
What's next? A new version of Genesis, in which the forbidden fruit is deemed a genetically modified organism?
(via Tim Blair)
