Canada’s Debate

If anyone still needs proof that you can’t run a minority government like a majority (or that the Conservatives are trying to do so), then you need look no further. Loyola Hearn’s new Fisheries Bill (C-45) has disappeared into a legislative limbo as a result of a proposed liberal amendment. Being amended, the bill now requires six months of parliamentary debate and a rewrite before it can be granted a second reading. What’s interesting is not that the Liberals are tinkering with a Government Bill, but why (emphasis mine)…

Scott Simms, the fisheries critic for the Liberals, said he introduced the amendment after the government refused to send the bill to a Commons committee for review.

Simms said there hasn’t been enough consultation, and a six-month delay would allow for more debate.

The Conservatives are in the minority; they have been since the election, and it is not a shortfall of one or two seats. They are dependent on the assent and will of the other parties to pass legislation, and you do not get that without consultation and debate. By trying to stifle debate the Tories are playing the “We’re in charge” hand, and doing it far too often, and it’s crippling the country. (more…)

The theoretical framework of Realism draws a lot of flack; some justified and some not. On the blogosphere admitting you’re a realist is akin to admitting that Ayn Rand is your favourite author (don’t worry, I can’t stand her garbage…) Anyways, I saw something on the Colby File that warmed me right down to the cockles. First, he is discussing a genuinely interesting mea culpa from Peter Beinart over his original support for the Iraq invasion. What is really interest however is his own statement:

Not only can’t one have it both ways (have the US intervene and be isolationist), but it’s just plain silly to set “perfection” as the standard by which a country may legitimately intervene.

In writing this, and in agreeing with Beinart, Colby is writing a de facto defence of Realism. (more…)

During my semi-regular stroll around the blogosphere I came across this photograph. Looks fairly unremarkable, no? Consider this then: it’s not a photograph at all, it’s a digital rendering. Now, does that make you feel impressed, or a little bit disturbed. If you said disturbed, you’re still human, and you have taken your first step into what is known as the Uncanny Valley.

David Morris once wrote (explaining Freud) that, “The Uncanny derives its terror not from something external, alien or unknown but– on the contrary– from something strangely familiar to separate ourselves from it.” This characterization is as good as any… and it’s something that we had all better get used to.

Whenever someone engages in a political discussion of the media in Canada, the topic is invariably a question of bias, influence and partisanship… Unfortunately that is not the real issue that Canadians should be concerned with. The continuing trend towards concentration is. Twice today I’ve read articles that chill me to the bone, and neither will attract much attention.

First, there’s this AP story:

Astral Media Inc. said today it has signed a letter of intent and is in exclusive negotiations to buy Standard Radio Inc., Canada’s biggest privately owned radio broadcaster.

The acquisition, rumoured to be worth $1.3 billion, would make Astral the largest operator of radio stations in the country.

At first blush this acquisition doesn’t have the same implications as a merger of television or print media conglomerates. Radio is not a source for news as much as it used to be, but mergers and concentration is a trend that tends to accelerate; and the bigger the fish gets, the hungrier it gets as well.

The second story which caught my eye was from Antonia Zerbisias. While she is writing primarily about the emaciated SunTV, these particular passages are very alarming:

Now the Suns share a national affairs page, a world page, as well as entertainment, lifestyle and money sections. Even the op-eds are shared, although there’s space for some local columns…

What’s more, it raises questions about how much un-CanWest coverage some cities will get. In Vancouver for example, where CanWest owns both the major dailies and TV stations, not even CP will be available with its objective reportage.

Scary stuff. If you don’t believe me, try watching Global Sunday some time and telling me where the National Post ends, and Global Television begins. I can’t see the line anymore.

Just in case anyone is confused, I’ve renamed Popular Culture as Culture and Media and added a Technology category… That will be all. If any of this is confusing, then you’re spending too much time on my blog.

In case you missed it, the Supreme Court earlier today ruled that the Security Certificate process was unconstitutional.

The country’s top court has declared unconstitutional the overly-secretive “security certificate” system used to deport non-citizens suspected of terrorism ties.

But in a unanimous 9-0 ruling released this morning, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed to different ways the law might be re-written to comply with the Charter of Rights’ guarantees of fundamental justice, and given the federal government 12 months to do so.

I can only applaud their decision, as these “certificates” have been a black mark on Canada for years. Basically, if the government feels that someone poses a risk, they can draft a certificate and take their case to a judge behind closed doors, with no representation for the accused and no chance to defend him/herself, and then expel that person… all the while detaining him in a legal limbo that would make Kafka blush.

Now, the usual objection to this characterization is “these men are dangerous terrorists/war criminals/mobsters/etc,” and to that I say “tough tits.” The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear, everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of the person. (more…)

Here’s a seemingly innocuous question: what makes a creature intelligent? I ask as I read this AP story, which describes Chimpanzees fashioning primitive spears and possibly hunting with them.

Researchers report witnessing a chimpanzee skewering a tree creature for supper with a spear-like tool, a rare observation of a long-studied primate in the wild.

“It’s not uncommon to have chimps use tools. But to use them in the context of hunting” is nearly unheard of, said Jill Pruetz, an anthropology professor from Iowa State University who led the research team.

If these little guys discover fire, we’re boned.

Last week I wrote about the latest bout intellectual diarrhoea to come from a Tory “environmentalist.”

This is what is called a logical fallacy; an argument made from a false premise, or using correct logic in a faulty way. More often than not when you encounter a logical fallacy in formal debate, like say in a Legislative body, it is because there are no honest, rational and effective arguments to be made using conventional logic… and when widespread it indicates a paucity of intelligence, or deliberate use.

Jeff Watson, the Tory MP from Essex Ontario had earlier suggested that an economic downturn resulting from Kyoto could result in suicide and depression… which is not necessarily untrue. Now, the Honourable Watson was rightly (and resoundingly) ridiculed for these comments, not because they were factually incorrect but because they were the very definition of fallacious. Still, it would appear that he’s in the dark on this:

Jeff Watson, one of five Tories who were handpicked to help rewrite the government’s centrepiece legislation on the environment at a parliamentary committee, told an opposition MP he didn’t understand why his remarks were ridiculed. “To me he said, this is what he feels his job is - to raise those issues, because he sees the connection,” said NDP environment critic Nathan Cullen.

Dependence on fallacy is the sign of a weak mind. In this case, Watson is relying on argumentum ad consequentiam, which in contemporary terms is known as fear-mongering. It’s an attempt to raise the spectre of potential consequences in order to distract from a rational discussion of the issue. It’s akin to saying “if you elect a Democrat, New York City will be bombed again.” Whether you believe this is true or not, it’s not a statement that adds (or even participates) to a debate or discussion. That is why Jeff Watson is being roundly criticized, and if he doesn’t understand that then I question his competence to serve in a parliamentary position.