The news today is full of the “death of the coalition”. Don’t believe it. The coalition hasn’t died at all, it has just changed members: Michael Ignatieff, who never felt comfortable with those left-wing types, chose to climb into bed with Stephen Harper instead.
Ignatieff himself points out many of the flaws in the new Conservative budget: it does not protect the unemployed; there is nothing to encourage conservation and the protection of our planet; it actually discourages pay equity for women and does not contain a plan for getting us out of deficit when things improve. I would add that it depends on provincial and city governments for some of its numbers, as well as increases that were scheduled for 2009 anyway.
Ignatieff was in an extremely powerful position. Both the NDP and the Bloc had come out against the budget. He could bring down the government with one vote. He could have used that power to demand concessions, to require that the Tories fix the flaws, or go down to ignominious defeat. So what did he say? “Okay, but we’ll be watching you.”
The government, he says, is on probation. Isn’t any minority government, all the time? And it would appear that they don’t have much to worry about. Iggy has shown his true colours, and they are Tory blue.
I feel tired and frustrated today. I was hoping that – for once – what the majority of the people wanted would actually matter. 62% of us voted against the Conservatives. We don’t want them in charge, and we don’t agree with their ideals. But apparently that doesn’t matter in this “democracy”. No wonder our last election had the lowest turn-out ever.
Obviously our system needs changes. I don’t know what the answer is right now, but the status quo clearly isn’t working.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Nothing to salute
Ottawa was too cold today for the 21-gun salute that traditionally opens Parliament. I’m not sure if that means anything or not. The Speech from the Throne lasted 8 minutes, and promised us "a difficult year — perhaps a several difficult years." Maybe there was nothing to salute.
For a government that is normally tight-lipped, they have been leaking like a sieve about this new budget. It sounds like they are planning to use the worst financial crisis in years as an opportunity to cut taxes. Big surprise. Apparently they haven’t figured out that when you are forced to run a deficit that is not the time to cut taxes.
I realized the other day that with all this talk of tax cuts, helping the middle class, yadda, yadda, I have absolutely no expectation that things will improve for me. Harper will help his friends because he wants to, and some of the very poor because he has to if he doesn’t want to be replaced, but the ones in the middle will get stuck paying for it.
Jack Layton is already planning to vote against the budget, because it is a Confidence vote, and he has no confidence in the government. That doesn’t seem quite fair, but I do understand. He obviously has the same feeling that I do.
Of course, the budget can, and likely will, go through without him. And Harper will smile that nasty smile of his, and go on playing President a while longer.
I still think a coalition would be a good idea. There would have to be talk and agreement and actual compromise. The politicians would all learn a lot.
For a government that is normally tight-lipped, they have been leaking like a sieve about this new budget. It sounds like they are planning to use the worst financial crisis in years as an opportunity to cut taxes. Big surprise. Apparently they haven’t figured out that when you are forced to run a deficit that is not the time to cut taxes.
I realized the other day that with all this talk of tax cuts, helping the middle class, yadda, yadda, I have absolutely no expectation that things will improve for me. Harper will help his friends because he wants to, and some of the very poor because he has to if he doesn’t want to be replaced, but the ones in the middle will get stuck paying for it.
Jack Layton is already planning to vote against the budget, because it is a Confidence vote, and he has no confidence in the government. That doesn’t seem quite fair, but I do understand. He obviously has the same feeling that I do.
Of course, the budget can, and likely will, go through without him. And Harper will smile that nasty smile of his, and go on playing President a while longer.
I still think a coalition would be a good idea. There would have to be talk and agreement and actual compromise. The politicians would all learn a lot.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Who would have thought?
Who would have thought, eight years ago, that in 2009 we would be happy and relieved to hear that the United States is eliminating torture, returning to the use of habeas corpus and allowing scientists to present their results freely?
While I am thrilled that Obama is stepping in and making necessary changes so quickly, the fact that they need to be made at all is a frightening reminder of just how close the Americans came to a fascist dictatorship.
Until shortly before the election, in fact, there were those who were convinced that Bush would find some method – a terrorist attack, a war with Iran – to prevent it, and remain in power. Possibly the economic crash prevented just that – we will never know.
But finally there is an intelligent, reasonable man in charge; a man with his hand on “the button” who can at least pronounce “nuclear”. And he is wasting no time in undoing some of the previous regime’s worst deeds. Guantanamo is to be closed, torture outlawed. He has hired real scientists to advise him.
And since this has been done in only a couple of days, it makes me hopeful that there will be continued improvements. An end to illegal wars would be nice, and to spying on people without just cause and a warrant. I would even like to see them turn “Customs and Border Security” (scary) back into “Customs and Immigration” (friendly), as it used to be.
Undoing eight years of Bush rule is not going to be easy, but Obama has already made a good start. Bush took a country that had the love and sympathy of the world on September 11, 2001, and made it a pariah. Hopefully Barack Obama will be able to undo at least some of that, and turn our neighbour back into a friend.
While I am thrilled that Obama is stepping in and making necessary changes so quickly, the fact that they need to be made at all is a frightening reminder of just how close the Americans came to a fascist dictatorship.
Until shortly before the election, in fact, there were those who were convinced that Bush would find some method – a terrorist attack, a war with Iran – to prevent it, and remain in power. Possibly the economic crash prevented just that – we will never know.
But finally there is an intelligent, reasonable man in charge; a man with his hand on “the button” who can at least pronounce “nuclear”. And he is wasting no time in undoing some of the previous regime’s worst deeds. Guantanamo is to be closed, torture outlawed. He has hired real scientists to advise him.
And since this has been done in only a couple of days, it makes me hopeful that there will be continued improvements. An end to illegal wars would be nice, and to spying on people without just cause and a warrant. I would even like to see them turn “Customs and Border Security” (scary) back into “Customs and Immigration” (friendly), as it used to be.
Undoing eight years of Bush rule is not going to be easy, but Obama has already made a good start. Bush took a country that had the love and sympathy of the world on September 11, 2001, and made it a pariah. Hopefully Barack Obama will be able to undo at least some of that, and turn our neighbour back into a friend.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Half want Harper out
According to an EKOS poll conducted January 15 – 17, a full 50% of Canadians would prefer a coalition government led by Michael Ignatieff over the current Harper Tory rule (43%).
This is particularly interesting given that Iggy himself has not shown any great love for the coalition, though he has agreed to vote against the upcoming budget if it is not what he thinks Canadians want.
While Stephen Harper, with his disrespect for the Parliamentary system and his palpable disinterest in the economic woes of the average citizen, carries much of the responsibility for the desire for change, I suspect that some of it lies with our neighbour to the south.
Harper and George W. Bush got along well (who can forget "my buddy Steve"?), with shared right-wing views. A new, Democratic, government in the U.S. is less likely to work well with the Conservatives. And, since the Americans are our major trading partners, that is a serious consideration.
A coalition headed by Michael Ignatieff could be very beneficial at this time, and apparently the majority of the people see that.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. Harper is not a fool, and will almost certainly put forward a budget, when Parliament resumes, that will win reluctant acceptance. But always keep in mind, Harper: most of us want you gone.
This is particularly interesting given that Iggy himself has not shown any great love for the coalition, though he has agreed to vote against the upcoming budget if it is not what he thinks Canadians want.
While Stephen Harper, with his disrespect for the Parliamentary system and his palpable disinterest in the economic woes of the average citizen, carries much of the responsibility for the desire for change, I suspect that some of it lies with our neighbour to the south.
Harper and George W. Bush got along well (who can forget "my buddy Steve"?), with shared right-wing views. A new, Democratic, government in the U.S. is less likely to work well with the Conservatives. And, since the Americans are our major trading partners, that is a serious consideration.
A coalition headed by Michael Ignatieff could be very beneficial at this time, and apparently the majority of the people see that.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely to come to pass. Harper is not a fool, and will almost certainly put forward a budget, when Parliament resumes, that will win reluctant acceptance. But always keep in mind, Harper: most of us want you gone.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Canada and Obama
According to several polls done for his inauguration, the majority of Canadians say that they like Barack Obama, but, well, they don’t really trust him.
I can understand those feelings, and share them. While Obama will be a relief for the entire world (except maybe the Bush family) after the last eight years, I fear that those who expect him to solve all of the problems from which we currently suffer will be badly disappointed.
He plans to get out of Iraq, he says, but will then send the troops to the “good war” in Afghanistan. Good war? That would be the one Canadians are dying in, and we are planning to leave (for sure) in 2011. We don’t need the Americans painting it as the good war. (What does that mean, anyway?)
One of his promises was to review NAFTA. Well, all three countries involved in NAFTA dislike it, so that may not be bad. But the economy is not in a good place, and you can bet that the Americans will be looking out for themselves.
Ah, the economy. Bush’s neo-conservatives brought it down; can Obama put it back on its feet? As with Humpty Dumpty, it is much easier to destroy an economy than it is to put it back together. Even a new president with the best possible plan will not find it a simple task to undo the damage that has been done. A recession is unavoidable, with only the length and degree in question. Hopefully he will start from the bottom, with the workers, and build up, rather than start at the top and hope things will "trickle down" as they have failed to do for some time now, but at this point we will not recover without pain.
Will the U.S. become less paranoid under Obama? That is also not likely to happen quickly. "Homeland Security", border walls, lists of people not allowed on planes, all of these developed fairly rapidly, but even if Obama believes them to be unnecessary, it would be political suicide to remove them the same way.
Neither the United States, nor the world around, should expect miracles. Canadians are right to like Obama without expecting too much out of him. But a little is better than nothing, slow improvement better than continued collapse. Hopefully the Obama government is at least the first step in the right direction.
I can understand those feelings, and share them. While Obama will be a relief for the entire world (except maybe the Bush family) after the last eight years, I fear that those who expect him to solve all of the problems from which we currently suffer will be badly disappointed.
He plans to get out of Iraq, he says, but will then send the troops to the “good war” in Afghanistan. Good war? That would be the one Canadians are dying in, and we are planning to leave (for sure) in 2011. We don’t need the Americans painting it as the good war. (What does that mean, anyway?)
One of his promises was to review NAFTA. Well, all three countries involved in NAFTA dislike it, so that may not be bad. But the economy is not in a good place, and you can bet that the Americans will be looking out for themselves.
Ah, the economy. Bush’s neo-conservatives brought it down; can Obama put it back on its feet? As with Humpty Dumpty, it is much easier to destroy an economy than it is to put it back together. Even a new president with the best possible plan will not find it a simple task to undo the damage that has been done. A recession is unavoidable, with only the length and degree in question. Hopefully he will start from the bottom, with the workers, and build up, rather than start at the top and hope things will "trickle down" as they have failed to do for some time now, but at this point we will not recover without pain.
Will the U.S. become less paranoid under Obama? That is also not likely to happen quickly. "Homeland Security", border walls, lists of people not allowed on planes, all of these developed fairly rapidly, but even if Obama believes them to be unnecessary, it would be political suicide to remove them the same way.
Neither the United States, nor the world around, should expect miracles. Canadians are right to like Obama without expecting too much out of him. But a little is better than nothing, slow improvement better than continued collapse. Hopefully the Obama government is at least the first step in the right direction.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Canadian Shame
Stephen Harper has done something no other Prime Minister, not even Mulroney, has been able to accomplish: make me ashamed of my country.
I was raised to be proud of Canada, and that was never very hard to do. It has been a peaceful, helpful country, respectful of the human rights of others and respected internationally.
Then Harper’s Conservatives, probably the most fanatically right-wing group to ever lead the country, managed to squeak into power. And I see headlines like the one today: “Canada votes alone for Israel” (Toronto Star). Yep. Out of 47 countries represented on a UN human rights council, Canada was the only one to oppose a motion condemning the attack on Gaza. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? In a hide-your-head-in-shame kind of way.
And just in case I thought I could lift my head in time for the next election, Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader and pseudo-American, agrees with Harper.
I don’t care what Harper and his cronies say when speaking for themselves, but when I hear “Canada says … “ and it is something totally antithetical to my views (the whole peaceful, respectful of human rights thing), I start having problems. I am part of Canada. I don’t say it is okay to massacre children, thank you very much.
I’m waiting to hear from the rest of the country.
I was raised to be proud of Canada, and that was never very hard to do. It has been a peaceful, helpful country, respectful of the human rights of others and respected internationally.
Then Harper’s Conservatives, probably the most fanatically right-wing group to ever lead the country, managed to squeak into power. And I see headlines like the one today: “Canada votes alone for Israel” (Toronto Star). Yep. Out of 47 countries represented on a UN human rights council, Canada was the only one to oppose a motion condemning the attack on Gaza. Makes you feel proud, doesn’t it? In a hide-your-head-in-shame kind of way.
And just in case I thought I could lift my head in time for the next election, Michael Ignatieff, Liberal leader and pseudo-American, agrees with Harper.
I don’t care what Harper and his cronies say when speaking for themselves, but when I hear “Canada says … “ and it is something totally antithetical to my views (the whole peaceful, respectful of human rights thing), I start having problems. I am part of Canada. I don’t say it is okay to massacre children, thank you very much.
I’m waiting to hear from the rest of the country.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Arrests in Bountiful
Some arrests were finally made for polygamy this week in the B.C. community of Bountiful. Personally, I don’t have especially strong feelings either way about polygamous marriages between consenting adults (more on that later), but I was happy to see the arrests.
There has been a law on the books for over 150 years in Canada stating that polygamy is a crime. Yet it has been going on, quite openly, with nothing being done. This makes a mockery of our justice system. We need to either enforce the law, or decide that it is wrong and take it off the books. The time has finally come to do one or the other.
The two men arrested are planning to fight the law, not the charges. However, I believe that their decision to fight it on the grounds of religious freedom is a poor one. If something is really wrong – rape, murder, theft, assault – then it should not be allowed to some on the grounds of religious freedom. And if it is not wrong, then we should not be spending time and money chasing down perpetrators.
Which brings me back to the “consenting adults” issue. No matter the outcome of the polygamy trial, the fact that some of the wives were reportedly under the age of consent, and thus the victims of statutory rape, at the time of the marriages, is a separate issue. If this is the case, the men should be convicted of this, with no “religion” excuses.
Freedom of religion in our country means that a person cannot be refused a job or persecuted in some other way because he is of a “different” religion. It does not give someone freedom to commit a crime in the name of his god.
There has been a law on the books for over 150 years in Canada stating that polygamy is a crime. Yet it has been going on, quite openly, with nothing being done. This makes a mockery of our justice system. We need to either enforce the law, or decide that it is wrong and take it off the books. The time has finally come to do one or the other.
The two men arrested are planning to fight the law, not the charges. However, I believe that their decision to fight it on the grounds of religious freedom is a poor one. If something is really wrong – rape, murder, theft, assault – then it should not be allowed to some on the grounds of religious freedom. And if it is not wrong, then we should not be spending time and money chasing down perpetrators.
Which brings me back to the “consenting adults” issue. No matter the outcome of the polygamy trial, the fact that some of the wives were reportedly under the age of consent, and thus the victims of statutory rape, at the time of the marriages, is a separate issue. If this is the case, the men should be convicted of this, with no “religion” excuses.
Freedom of religion in our country means that a person cannot be refused a job or persecuted in some other way because he is of a “different” religion. It does not give someone freedom to commit a crime in the name of his god.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Peter Kent and Israel
A couple of elections ago “celebrity” candidate Peter Kent ran in my riding of St. Paul’s, where he was easily defeated. I have rarely been happier to be able to say I did not vote for someone. The man almost made me lose my breakfast on the subway this morning.
The ridiculous title in this morning’s Toronto Star tells the story: “Israelis hit school, Ottawa blames Hamas”. Kent, who is now the minister of state for foreign affairs, is quoted as saying "Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for this and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel."
Let me spell it out for you, Peter, since you are obviously too dim to figure it out for yourself: Israel bombed a school and murdered 42 innocent people. Israel is responsible for this. Israel has now murdered over 500 people since they broke the truce between the two peoples.
Hamas sending rockets into Israel, which usually hit nothing, is bad. They create fear, and there is always the possibility that someone may be killed. This fades, however, in comparison to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli army.
And guns and rockets are not the only weapons Israel is using against the civilians of Gaza. Those who die from lack of proper food, sanitation, medical supplies and electricity don’t even make the casualty list.
Israel appears to want a ceasefire that returns to the status quo ante, minus the rockets. That is not going to happen. People like Mr. Kent seem so willing to wear the shoes of the Israelis, subjected to rocket attacks, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are refugees in their own land, most of them unemployed and dependent on aid, surrounded by Israeli security guards with settlements and fences blocking off more and more of the land that they do have.
Until the inhabitants of Gaza are treated with the minimum of respect due all human beings, they will fight for that. It will be a losing battle against the large Israeli army, supported by the Americans, but they feel they have little choice.
Tell me, Mr. Kent, if your family were trapped and starving in Gaza, what would you do?
The ridiculous title in this morning’s Toronto Star tells the story: “Israelis hit school, Ottawa blames Hamas”. Kent, who is now the minister of state for foreign affairs, is quoted as saying "Hamas bears a terrible responsibility for this and for the wider deepening humanitarian tragedy. The burden of responsibility is on Hamas to stop its terrorist rocketing of Israel."
Let me spell it out for you, Peter, since you are obviously too dim to figure it out for yourself: Israel bombed a school and murdered 42 innocent people. Israel is responsible for this. Israel has now murdered over 500 people since they broke the truce between the two peoples.
Hamas sending rockets into Israel, which usually hit nothing, is bad. They create fear, and there is always the possibility that someone may be killed. This fades, however, in comparison to the slaughter of Palestinians by the Israeli army.
And guns and rockets are not the only weapons Israel is using against the civilians of Gaza. Those who die from lack of proper food, sanitation, medical supplies and electricity don’t even make the casualty list.
Israel appears to want a ceasefire that returns to the status quo ante, minus the rockets. That is not going to happen. People like Mr. Kent seem so willing to wear the shoes of the Israelis, subjected to rocket attacks, while ignoring the fact that the Palestinians are refugees in their own land, most of them unemployed and dependent on aid, surrounded by Israeli security guards with settlements and fences blocking off more and more of the land that they do have.
Until the inhabitants of Gaza are treated with the minimum of respect due all human beings, they will fight for that. It will be a losing battle against the large Israeli army, supported by the Americans, but they feel they have little choice.
Tell me, Mr. Kent, if your family were trapped and starving in Gaza, what would you do?
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Hypocrisy and hate
Americans can be very interesting people. They are, reasonably enough, completely, totally and absolutely against terrorism. Unless, that is, the terrorism is against a country they don’t like (such as Cuba), in which case they may let the terrorists (Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles) live in their country under government protection.
They are also very firmly in support of democracy; so much so that they have been willing to impose it by force. So when the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas to represent them, one would assume that the U.S. would applaud the success of a fair and free election. Not exactly.
In fact, it seems there is only one thing that the United States does stand completely behind under all circumstances, and that is Israel.
The position of the United States in the current Israeli attack on Gaza is so bizarre that it would almost be funny if we were not talking about people’s lives. On being informed of the Israeli attacks that have taken over 400 Palestinian lives, Condoleeza Rice came out with the following statement: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." George W. Bush had similar remarks. Are they watching the same news stories I am?
It is little wonder that the Arabs link the Americans so closely with the Isrealis – the Americans do it themselves. Not to mention the fact that it is American money and weapons that keep tiny Israel going in the first place. And an American veto that stops the United Nations from so much as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Yes, Israel is responsible for this attack on Gaza. In no way am I “letting them off the hook”. However, if not for their powerful friends, the will of not only the Palestinians but the rest of the world would have a great effect in stopping them. That cannot happen as long as they have the unmitigated support of the United States.
If the Americans want to know “why they hate us”, they should take a close look at their position in this massacre.
NOTE: I understand that the position of a government does not represent the will of all individuals in a country. My use of “the United States” and "Israel" in this article refers to the governments of the countries.
They are also very firmly in support of democracy; so much so that they have been willing to impose it by force. So when the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas to represent them, one would assume that the U.S. would applaud the success of a fair and free election. Not exactly.
In fact, it seems there is only one thing that the United States does stand completely behind under all circumstances, and that is Israel.
The position of the United States in the current Israeli attack on Gaza is so bizarre that it would almost be funny if we were not talking about people’s lives. On being informed of the Israeli attacks that have taken over 400 Palestinian lives, Condoleeza Rice came out with the following statement: "We are deeply concerned about the escalating violence. We strongly condemn the attacks on Israel and hold Hamas responsible." George W. Bush had similar remarks. Are they watching the same news stories I am?
It is little wonder that the Arabs link the Americans so closely with the Isrealis – the Americans do it themselves. Not to mention the fact that it is American money and weapons that keep tiny Israel going in the first place. And an American veto that stops the United Nations from so much as calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
Yes, Israel is responsible for this attack on Gaza. In no way am I “letting them off the hook”. However, if not for their powerful friends, the will of not only the Palestinians but the rest of the world would have a great effect in stopping them. That cannot happen as long as they have the unmitigated support of the United States.
If the Americans want to know “why they hate us”, they should take a close look at their position in this massacre.
NOTE: I understand that the position of a government does not represent the will of all individuals in a country. My use of “the United States” and "Israel" in this article refers to the governments of the countries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
