Canada’s Debate

I just came across this post at Red Jenny’s blog and it is DEFINITELY worth checking out. I don’t agree with everything the author says, but his case is incredibly persuasive; the West needs to withdraw from Afghanistan quickly and completely.

Washington’s strategic aims in Afghanistan appear to be non-existent unless they need the conflict to discipline European allies who betrayed them on Iraq. True, the al-Qaeda leaders are still at large, but their capture will be the result of effective police work, not war and occupation. What will be the result of a NATO withdrawal? Here Iran, Pakistan and the Central Asian states will be vital in guaranteeing a confederal constitution that respects ethnic and religious diversity. The NATO occupation has not made this task easy. Its failure has revived the Taliban and increasingly the Pashtuns are uniting behind it.

The lesson here, as in Iraq, is a basic one. It is much better for regime-change to come from below even if this means a long wait as in South Africa, Indonesia or Chile. Occupations disrupt the possibilities of organic change and create a much bigger mess than existed before. Afghanistan is but one example.

I was reading this post over at Diva Rachel’s blog I started thinking, “damn, she’s right.” Then I got to the end:

The tourist dollars alone would pay for the speed train(s) within 10 years. (Not counting domestic tourism.)

We are losing out on a great resource. Free foreign cash flow.

And I don’t see anyone addressing this issue.

Now, I know I may be spitting on the legacy of my blogging forefathers, but don’t we have at least a partial responsibility to think practically when we discuss (or critique) politics? Is the shotgun approach (which I am certainly guilty of employing) to “solving” Canada’s problems legitimate? To wit, I’m going to make a top-ten list of specific things I would like the Federal government (for example) to address. I’d like you all to do the same.. (Continue reading…)

Thankfully, the House of Commons decided to let two provisions of it’s post 9/11 security system elapse yesterday… but that’s not really what I want to talk about. Rather, I want to talk about Harper’s strategy of trotting out some victims of the WTC attacks.

Along with her daughter Erica, Maureen Basnicki (right), whose husband Ken was one of 24 Canadians killed in Manhattan’s twin towers 5½ years ago, said MPs would seriously diminish Canada’s capacity to fight terrorism if they didn’t vote to extend the preventive arrest and investigative hearing provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act. Basnicki made the comments during a news conference in Ottawa today.

Along with that quote the Toronto Star ran a grim picture of this woman, looking stern and resolute, to reinforce whatever ridonkulous point they’re making. (Continue reading…)

I am many things; writer, frisbee enthousiast, unemployed slacker, Jewish, balding… and none of those traits (or my assorted chronic joint injuries) causes me as much grief as my seemingly unlimited loyalty for the Toronto Maple Leafs.

Today the team has once again reminded me that unwaivering loyalty comes with a heavy price: inevitable betrayal. This is a team that has for years operated under the illusion that it is just a step or two away from the playoffs despite all evidence to the contrary… this has left it in a competitive limbo where it can neither perform up to management expectations, but is unable to go through the redevelopment that a team on the outside can afford to take.

Once again management has decided to take a relatively mediocre team and add a component which can neither guarantee modest success (the playoffs) or even offer hope of real success (a championship), all at the cost of youth and a chance at rebuilding.

While part of me applauds their ability to operate confidently despite a complete and utter lack of competence, the less-cynical part of me dies a bit more each and every time they try and pull this shit.

The Liberals are accusing the Conservative government of plumbing new partisan depths by politicizing Government of Canada departmental websites…

The website of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada carried the minister’s statement, which concluded with a jab at the Liberal opposition.

“At a time when the Opposition parties are being soft on security and soft on terrorism, Canada’s New Government remains unwavering in its determination to safeguard national security,” said Day’s statement.

This is beyond deplorable. I dare anyone to defend this behaviour… go ahead and try.

In an earlier post this morning the subject of accommodation came up, and then in the comments section the subject of equality was broached as well.

This of course all stems from the “debate” happening in Quebec over “reasonable accommodations” towards religious groups like the Hasidim and Muslims; and it is only fair if I offer some terms for the discussion, at least so far as it is likely to take place here.

Reasonable Accommodation: Making an “accommodation” for a person which does not infringe on the rights of another person or group… So, letting a girl wear a thin piece of fabric on her skull during a soccer game is reasonable because it realistically has no impact on the rights’ of others. However, banning men from a public le mans class would not be reasonable because you are protecting some peoples’ rights by denying the rights of others.

Equality: I see a lot of people suggest that this means treating everyone the exact same… and I wonder what exactly is wrong with those people. If this were true then there would be no wheelchair ramps or audible pedestrian signals. Equality means creating an environment where everyone has the same opportunity to express their rights; sometime this means building a ramp, other times it means taking their religious beliefs into consideration.

Like it or not, religion is protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with as much weight as sex, age, or any other personal attribute, which means the freedom to express that religion is a fundamental right as well. Finding a reasonable balance between someones’ religious expression and the existing “rules” of society isn’t necessarily easy, but it wouldn’t be a political issue either; if we were to follow the simple formula set out above.

Ok, so that’s a lousy name for a rather inconsequential story. Anyways, in case you’ve been ignoring the mainstream newsmedia (in which case I tip my hat to you), there is a story making the rounds about a 11-year old girl who was ejected from a soccer game in Quebec for refusing to remove her headscarf. Turns out that headgear of any kind from the league is prohibited.

Of course this immediately reignites the debate over “accomodation” of immigrants… But lets get real here. These are the facts. The rules for a youth recreational soccer league do not make any consideration for headgear. The ref (also a Muslim) enforced the rules because, quite simply, she had no choice; and instead of rewriting the rules to say”with the exception of religious headdress” we instead have a “debate.”

Here’s a curious thought: the rest of Canada hasn’t gone all apoplectic over immigrant populations, but we keep on hearing about it in Quebec… kind of like we hear about it in places like France and Germany. The common thread? Ethnic nationalism…

Makes me wonder just what people are trying to defend.

Well I’ve been getting a tonne of trackback SPAM which Bad Behaviour wasn’t picking up, so I’ve activated the Askimet plugin. Apologies if a comment gets caught as SPAM.