The Upper Canadian

And Now for the Weather

2006-12-12T09:55:00.000-05:00

We had winter for three days last week, vile cold windy days, that compelled me finally to haul out my bulky winter coat and coffee-stained scarf for the first time this season. Then there was glorious beautiful day Sunday that melted most of the snow, then wet and gloomy since, but mild. Pretty typical December weather, I thought to myself this morning as I cleared the last of the rotting ice from the big water barrels by the barn, at least I won't have to haul water from the house. Then I stopped myself, and asked: since when was real winter weather exceptional in the middle of December?

A disconcerting thought. I spent an eternity of a winter in England once upon a time about 20 years ago (don't ask) and the weather was similiar: a damp dark squib of a day would be followed by a damper, darker, squibier night. But if a southern Ontario winter is starting to resemble the English, in England the weather is looking decidely more southernish. All of Europe, in fact was subjected to bizarre weather last week which included a tornado (!) in London, and record warmth prompting roses to bloom in southern England, spring flowers on alpine ski runs, and short sleeves in Rome.

Another disconcerting thought. Real, Environment Canada-type meteorologists (as opposed to climatologists, another breed entirely), forecasting day to day, are usually loath to ascribe this or that weather phenomonon to global warming: it's hard to extrapolate a trend from one event. Instead they'll talk cautiously and a little ambiguously about the Icelandic low fluctuations or El Nino or the effect of chilly Siberian air masses hitting warm water. Getting a flat statement from a meteorologist connecting December rose pruning in Hampshire to climate change is like pulling teeth from a broody chicken. Thus it was a little unsettling hearing one meteorologist talk last week about the weather in Europe. When asked if the weather in Europe was attributable to global warming, the meteorologist replied without hesitation, "Oh yes, absolutely." And this isn't the first time this month I've heard meteorologists make explicit the connection.

Somehow, I liked it better freezing in a bitter December wind, trudging through snow with frozen toes and listening to meteorologists hedge their bets.

The Lovejoy Factor

2006-12-11T12:03:00.000-05:00

In any debate, matters have come to a pretty pass when someone brings up the children a la Mrs Reverend Helen Lovejoy. As the harpy, gossiping, hypocritical wife of the nondenominational minister from The Simpsons, Helen Lovejoy intervenes in almost any debate by shrilly crying, "Will someone please think of the children?"

As a rhetorical trope, the children card is most often played near the end of a debate, to disguise and divert attention from serious issues raised by your opponent. Who can oppose the children, after all, without seeming monstrous? And so it went with the debate on the government's marriage resolution last week. Same sex marriage, we were told by parliamentarians who supported the traditional definition of marriage, wasn't a rights issue, wasn't about the government's shameful attempt to deprive an identifiable minority their Charter rights, wasn't about the freedom of churches, like the United Church or the Quakers (among others) to marry whom they please, against a monolithic version of Christianity championed by the religious right and the Roman Catholic hierarchy, wasn't about (least of all) homophobia, as exemplified by the vile and disgusting web traffic on the right side of bloggerdom. It was really about the children all along.

The Children's Advocate

A selection, by no means exhaustive, of parliamentary wisdom on children during the marriage debate:

Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC): The debate over traditional marriage should be a debate about rights, I agree. However, in the blind dash to put a patchwork of rights together, have we ignored the rights of children? Again, let me make a direct appeal to my fellow parliamentarians. For the sake of future generations, for the sake of our country, let us remember the children. . .

. . .

We need a debate to review the impact, not just on people who wish to marry but one that also reviews the impact of that decision on the most vulnerable among us, our children.

Again, my request is simple and clear. For the sake of democracy, for the sake of our children, for the sake of future generations and for the sake of the future of our country, let us have a full, open and honest debate.

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.): The second, and more troubling, consequence is that we will need to redefine parenthood and limit children's rights. We already see the same sex couples, who are inherently sterile, asking courts to declare that their child, conceived by whatever means, is in fact their child, regardless of the biological rights. As Margaret Somerville has said, “society to become complicit in intentionally depriving children of their rights with respect to their biological family”

Mr. Pierre Lemieux (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, CPC): I will now speak on the impact of marriage on the most valuable and yet the most vulnerable members of our society, our children. I believe children thrive in families and families are based on marriage. While the essence of this debate concerns adult relationships, we must recognize that the debate on marriage has a direct impact on the welfare of our children.

As it is the goal of the government to protect its citizens, particularly its most vulnerable citizens, it is, indeed, appalling that the previous government turned its back on the most important and fundamental component of our country, our children.

Mr. Rod Bruinooge (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians, CPC):My elders have clearly told me that small, isolated aboriginal communities must continue to teach their children that marriage is between a man and a woman. One elder told me, “What message would we be giving our communities if we did not teach our children the importance of traditional marriage?"

Mr. Bev Shipley (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, CPC): This is a stern reminder that children have rights, rights that need to be taken into account. It is a reminder that our personal lifestyle preferences should never take precedence over those of our children.

Mr. Chris Warkentin (Peace River, CPC): In the same way that my heart is dedicated to ensuring that my child is protected, our collective heart should be set on ensuring that our nation's children are given a voice in this debate.

So what about the children? Do opponents of same sex marriage really have the rights of children at heart? You have to wonder. In almost an obscene irony, the day of the marriage vote an NDP member got up during Question Period and pointed out to the government that that 4,779 children were served in Toronto homeless shelters last year. Chris Warkentin, does that violation of rights --- the right to shelter and security --- trouble your conscience in the least? 1 in 6 children --- 1,196,000 of them --- live in poverty. Let us remember the children, indeed, Harold Albrecht. Any talk of children's rights from our esteemed parliamentarians is a parody, when 1 in 5 children in our country will go hungry today.

To be fair, the most vocal opponents of same sex marriage, the religious right, have not been silent in using children to tug at the heartstrings: I heard Charles McVety of Defend Marriage Canada at least twice speak out in the mainstream media about children's rights in the context of the marriage debate. Meanwhile, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, the umbrella organization of conservative churches in this country, is "deeply concerned" about the rights of children but is doing . . . nothing, or almost, about the issues of child poverty, homelessness or hunger. No letter writing campaigns, no lobbying MPs, no pressure on the Conservative government they helped to elect.

That rushing sound you hear is the sense of proportionality going out the window. Balanced against the putative and wholly speculative rights of the children of gay and lesbian families, we have actual children, in their hundreds of thousands, who are living lives of dire misery with proven consequences for the well-being of our country. If we are going to speak about the rights of children, let us --- and our political and religious leaders --- get our priorities straight.

Tim Horton's on the Dustheap of History, or, The Maple Dip Is Better for You. Really.

2006-12-06T14:20:00.000-05:00

I'm feeling ugly today. I was going to rant, really just a little, about the fetishization of December 6 as the day of mourning for women, but another national sacred cow has infinite more appeal: Tim Horton's.

Is anyone else getting just a tad irritated with Tim Horton's or am I alone in this?

We can talk about the metastasis of Tim Horton coffeshops on virtually every street corner of the land, their contribution to car culture and uglification of our neighbourhoods; we can talk about the appropriateness of a national icon being foreign owned; we can talk about the slightly sinister, Orwellian overtones of their latest advertising slogan ("Always Fresh. Always There."); we can talk about how we're beeing branded and blanded to death by the sheer ubiquitousness of Tim's; we can talk about how true community is really created in small family-owned and run restaurants and cafes, not in a prepackaged plastic-and-laminate soulless franchise operations staffed by the surly and the underpaid; we can talk of the silly public relations stunt of shipping a Tim's to Afganistan, complete, it seems, with the aforementioned surly employees.

Or we can talk about the "Always Fresh" food.

The fact is, Tim Horton's isn't really that healthy, being loaded with salt and simple sugars and fat. The twisted cruel irony is that Tim's core product --- doughnuts --- the food associated with overweight cops and Homer Simpson, is actually healthier for you than, say, a bagel or a muffin.

Consider this:

A maple dip doughnut contains 210 calories, 8g of fat and 190 mg of sodium.

A flaxseed bagel (marketed for the anti-carcinogenic properties of flaxseed) has 310 calories, 5 g of fat and 580 mg of sodium. Add the cream cheese --- and you would have to have a heart of stone not too --- and you're adding 144 calories, 18 g of fat and 190 mg of sodium. Total: 454 calories, 23 g of fat and 770 mg of sodium. Don't even think about getting that bagel buttered too.

12 grain bagel --- well, that should be healthier. It's got grains! 12 of them! Sadly, no. 310 calories, 6 g of fat, and 600 mg of salt. With cream cheese: 454 calories, 24 g of fat and 790 mg of sodium.

Then we come to the wasteland of muffins. Take the wheat carrot muffin, for example, which somehow conjures up visions of happy glossy eyed vegans: you get grain and vegetables all together! Except that is has 400 calories, an astonishing 19 g of fat, and 660 mg of sodium, albeit in a tasty little package. All you need is a side order of blood thinners, 'cause that fat is going straight to your arteries.

So much for the food. In Tim's defence, I have to say the crap you get at McDonald's or Burger King is probably worse by an order of magnitude, but that, unfortunately, isn't saying much.

The funny thing is, I like Tim's coffee. I drink it by the gallon. I'd take it intravenously if were possible. So when a faceless corporation starts to irritate the likes of me, it's probably time for them to watch out. We're a fickle lot, us consumers. Any hint of criticism, a whiff of ennui, the slightest nuance of negativity and we're gone. Just ask Mother's Restaurants. Or Eaton's. Or K-Mart.

Blogging note: Posts have been a little scarce the last week or so, owing to work and personal committments on both our parts. And the season of joy and frantic consumerism is upon us. Well, we'll do what we can.

The Uses of History

2006-11-29T12:14:00.000-05:00

Truth is the first casualty of war, and sometimes the last. Or so it would seem. Veterans in Calgary are incensed about a display at the Canadian War Museum which they describe as "offensive" and "hurtful." The curious thing about the display --- part of a series of panels describing Canada's effort during the Second World War --- is that it's essentially true.

The offending panel reads:

The value and morality of the strategic bombing offensive against Germany remains contested. Bombers command aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although bomber command and the American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead and more than 5 million homeless, the raids resulted in only a small reduction in German war production until late in the war.

Untrue, says Art Smith, veteran and former Tory MP. "Our targets were not cities," he says. "They were military objectives . . . such as busting dams or (hitting) munitions factories. The only exception in my 34 tours was Berlin which we were sent out to do as best we could to destroy it because we were getting the same in Britain."

Well perhaps, but the boatloads of archival footage of German cities devastated by Allied bombing show a slightly different picture. Or consider the words of Air Marshal Arthur "Bomber" Harris: "In Bomber Command we have always worked on the principle that bombing anything in Germany is better than bombing nothing."

The objection from veterans seems to be that the display imples Allied bombing of Germany was futile and that veterans were complicit indiscriminate bombing of German civilians. The efficacy of the Allied bombing of Germany has always been a source of heated debate (hence the word "contested".) German war production was scarcely affected by the bombing, and even rose in some instances, but it has been argued that the cumulative affect of the bombing was sufficient in its drain on resources and on civilian morale to hasten Germany's defeat. The morality of killing civilians is, of course, another question. One premise is that in total war, everyone is a combatant. The difference between the civilian who makes the bullet from the soldier who fires it is more apparent than real. It's a premise, I might add, I find repulsive as a general rule of warefare, a justification for mass slaughter.

In context, a couple of points are to be made. As the last veterans of the Second World War die out, there seems to be an effort in popular culture to ensure their legacy. A flurry of documentaries has come out: programming at TVO and the CBC seems to be littered with them. But they all tell a common story: the Second World War was the "last good war," a "necessary war," fought by the "greatest generation" for liberty and democracy. A whole mythology --- coloured by high emotion, sentimentality and notions of duty and sacrifice --- has been created and facts and history be damned. Especially if they are uncomfortable and detract from the myth. In truth, any realistic or accurate appraisal of the Second World War, will have to wait until the last veteran dies.

It probably isn't a coincidence that the legacy-building provides a gloss to the present war on terror, complete with nostalgic pointers to patriotism and solidarity minus the blood, the filth, and the civilian casualties. In an era where we're told that we must fight the good fight on the war on terror, what could be more apt than references to that other good war?

Whitewash included.

Message to the House of Commons: Please Vote and Put Us Out of Our Misery

2006-11-22T08:26:00.000-05:00

Justice Minister Vic Toews announced yesterday that just in time for Christmas, the same sex marriage resolution would finally go to a vote in the Commons, where it's expected it will be soundly defeated.

Thank you, Stephen Harper, thank you. Merci beaucoup. I'm breathing a sigh of relief because, frankly, I'm sick of writing about same sex marriage. It's wearing me down, I can't sleep at night and the Norwood liquor store has had to order in extra cases of Graham's Late Bottled Vintage. I can't take it anymore.

I'm sure we're all suffering. The issue is a rash that won't go away. We've marshalled facts, spent countless hours pouring over vile and bigoted websites, watched the machinations of various right-wing fundamentalists, parsed motives of various politicians and even had a few chuckles at our brothers and sisters on the right side of bloggerdom tying themselves in knots over the issue. The only satisfaction, apart from having same sex marriage (please God) settled once and for all, is seeing a sop tossed by the Prime Minister to his social conservative base going down like a tequila shooter at Friday night cocktail hour. But enough is enough already!

There. That's off my chest. Now for the obligatory analysis, one painful word at a time. The government's motives for holding the vote at this particular point in time and space are bit puzzingly, to be sure. Clearly his allies on the religious right want the vote delayed, preferably until the Conservatives get a majority, so they can get another shot at overturning the legislation. (They're the separatists of the Conservative coalition: they're waiting for "winning conditions.") They won't be happy the government is pushing forward. Same sex marriage advocates, on the other hand, with timing and momentum on their side, wanted the vote yesterday. The delicious irony of this situation is that Stephen Harper may well become the happy-faced poster boy for same sex marriage, even as he votes against it.

Maybe, just maybe, the government, eyeing a spring election, has just woken up to a few home truths. Foreign policy is in disarray, and environmental policy is a fiasco. They're trailing in the public opinion against the leaderless, hapless Liberals, and that party is about to anoint a new Chief Scourge. The polling numbers in Ontario and Quebec suck. Maybe the Prime Minster has decided ditching social conservatives and their unappealing policies --- symbolized by the debate over same sex marriage and the ugly rhetoric emanating therefrom --- in order to charm the fat moderate centre without whom he can't get a majority. As for losing the base, well, who else are they going to vote for? It's the classic tactic of successful right-wing politicians: marginalize your captive core supporters to appear more moderate than you really are.

Well enough of that. As I said, writing about same sex marriage now is like pulling teeth, though admittedly the inevitable bigot eruptions from the likes of Bishop Henry and Charles McVedy will make tempting targets. But the agony is about to end. Again, thank you, Steve. You've made life tolerable once more for this blogger, at least. I promise never, ever to mention same sex marriage again after the vote if you do likewise. Is it a deal?

Of Poodles, Creationists, and Anthropological Tourism

2006-11-21T10:24:00.000-05:00

Just when you think the wackos can't get any wackier, something comes along to smack you upside the head. Case in point, creationist complaints about about the American National Science Foundation engaging in, um, a little science:

Our tax dollars are “at work”!

Earlier this year, the National Science Foundation (NSF) awarded a $2.5 million grant to the New York Hall of Science to develop a “Life changes” program in order to “prepare young children (ages 5–12) to understand the scientific basis of evolution.”

The grant application made it clear that this four-year research project will study those evolutionary concepts most likely to resonate with young children. (By the way, NSF’s annual budget is over $5.5 billion—virtually all of it comes from your tax dollars.)

Drawing upon educational development psychologists, biologists, and museum personnel, this research project will result in a 1,000-square-foot traveling exhibit. And it will have tie-ins to the University of California–Berkeley’s “Understanding Evolution” website (another NSF grant recipient—more of your tax dollars being spent).

This traveling “science” exhibit is designed to indoctrinate young children across America in a morally bankrupt faith-based belief system: the evolution of man from non-living matter! But that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Faithful, closed-minded scientists / earnest educators worldwide are preparing myriad such evolutionary indoctrination exhibits and programs to coincide with the 2009 celebration of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his infamous book, On the Origin of Species). And these exhibits seem to be particularly targeted at young children—they will ardently market the idea of evolution as if it were fact!

Remember folks, there's an evolutionary biologist lurking under every bed and behind every bush, waiting to prey on the innocent minds of our young people. Won't someone, oh someone please think of the children?

Meanwhile the fundamentalist organization issuing these jeremiads on evidence-based science has much bigger agenda: a "creationist" museum (surprisingly called The Creation Museum), purpose-built to expose the manifest errors of Darwin. The 50, 000 sq foot building, located in prime Bible-belt country in suburban Cincinnati, Ohio, "will counter evolutionary natural history museums that turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture." The museum will show us, interspersed with such displays as "Noah's Workshop" and demonstrations of Cain knocking Abel on the head, exactly how dinosaurs and humans co-existed. "Other surprises are just around the corner," reads the promotional website. "Adam and apes share the same birthday. The first man walked with dinosaurs and named them all! God’s Word is true, or evolution is true. No millions of years. There’s no room for compromise."

All this and dinosaurs too!

According to a Guardian article, it's the "weirdest museum on earth." And also some pretty weird attitudes, as if the creationist clap-trap wasn't enough. On the mention of the difficulties posed to creationism by those paleolithic remains of protohumans, this strangely unchristian answer is given: "There are no such things. Humans are basically as you see them today. Those skeletons they've found, what's the word? ... they could have been deformed, diseased or something. I've seen people like that running round the streets of New York." (One wonders what New Yorkers think about that. Not to mention the coded racism.) Or take the museum director's odd obsession with poodles: his office is stocked with the stuffed variety. "Poodles are degenerate mutants of dogs," he explains. "I say that in my lectures and people present them to me as gifts."

The Creation Museum is at great pains to point out it's within easy driving distance of us Canadians living in southern Ontario and Quebec: we're victims all, apparently, of Darwinist propaganda. But don't visit it for the worthless science. The Creation Museum suggests new possibilities for the jaded tourist, tired of the mere splendours of Versailles or Angor Wat. Rounded with visits, say, to Graceland, Disney World, Civil War battle sites and Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcating Network, with frequent stops at Waffle Houses along the interstate, such a road trip would provide priceless insights into American social anthropology. What more could you want?

The Upper Canadian and the BBC: Close Working Partners, Specifics of Contract Soon to be Announced

2006-11-21T06:58:00.000-05:00

Last Friday the BBC published "African bloggers verdict on al-Jazeera" on bloggerdom's response to al-Jazeera International in which our piece "English al Jazeera Disappoints" was extensively quoted.

Needless to say, we, at the Upper Canadian, are pleased as punch that our comments found their way onto the front page of BBC Africa and into the international news.

Now only if the New York Times and the Guardian would take our calls. . .

Rice Lake Merlot 2037 VQA

2006-11-20T11:15:00.000-05:00

An interesting, older piece from RealClimate on the relationship between climate change and viticulture: it seems England is getting a leg up on winemaking, and incidentally makes the point that past instances of global warming have absolutely nothing to do to with the present technical debate on climate change:

For the sake of argument, let's accept that medieval times were as warm in England as they are today, and even that global temperatures were similar (that's a much bigger leap, but no mind). What would that imply for our attribution of current climate changes to human causes? ....... Nothing. Nowt. Zero. Zip.

Why? Well, warm periods have occured in the past, and if not the medieval period, then probably the last interglacial (120,000 years ago), certainly the Pliocene (3 million years ago), without question the (Eocene 50 million years), and in particular the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (55 million years ago), and so on. Current theories of climate change do not rely on whether today's temperatures are 'unprecedented'. Instead they examine the physical causes of climate change and match up what we know about their physical effects and time history and see which of the multiple drivers or combination can best explain the observations. For the last few decades, that is quite clearly the rise in greenhouse gases, punctuated by the occasional volcano and mitigated slightly by the concomittant rise in particulate pollution.

Meanwhile, in the backwoods of Upper Canada, viticulture is getting a toehold in some unconventional places, driven by the relentless mechanics of climate change. Even here in the Kawarthas, which lays entirely on the wrong side of the Oak Ridge Moraine, and thus is deprived of the balming influence of Lake Ontario, a few hardy horticulturalists are experimenting with vinifera grapes with some success. With a little effort, one can envisage in 20 or 30 years tidy rows of Reisling grapes crawling up and the down the drumlins, boutique ice wine shops on Queen Street, Lakefield, and perhaps in a few sheltered locations, Pinot Noir crowding out the ticky-tack cottages on Chemong Lake or Stoney. Land speculation for prime terroir in Peterborough County is only a matter of time. Oil company executives will be unloading soon-to-be worthless stock; next we'll see Hollywood-types will be cruising the back concessions in Hummers, scouting out winery sites. It's a boom waiting to happen, the next big thing. Really.

I have a few acres of gravelly south-facing slopes, perfect for low-yield, high quality produce. Call me. I mean it.

The Niqab and I

2006-11-17T12:57:00.000-05:00

"Many women find it difficult to breathe or see in niqab when they first start wearing it." --- How to Hijab: Your Comprehensive Guide to the Islamic Dress Code for Women and Men

Like most people I feel fairly conflicted about the niqab, the full face covering worn by some Muslim women, and about the practice of hijab, the veiling or covering of Muslim women in general. On one hand, my civil libertarian instincts tell me people can wear whatever they like, as long as they don't frighten the horses. On the other, the hijab is a powerful symbol for Westerners of the religious and cultural subjugation of women, even if some Muslim women wearing hijab deny any oppression at all. We all have seen the pictures of the Taliban beating women wearing burqas; we were all horrified by reports of Saudi religious police forcing panicked schoolgirls back into a burning dormitory because they weren't appropriately covered.

The reality of hijab?

The hijab also raises some troubling issues, especially for those of us on the progressive side of things who support multiculturalism, questions that the Left is sometimes reluctant to address. Hijab poses the dilemma of wanting to be culturally sensitive and inclusive while at the same time supporting the rights of women. The central question: is it possible to support the practice of hijab and critique it at the same time? I would argue that yes, we can argue for cultural inclusivity and tolerance (as opposed to to the utterances of Jack Straw and the Archbishop of York). At the same time we should challenge the religious basis of hijab --- religion being a fancy justification for oppression. We should insist that hijab be seen it its proper cultural and social context, not as divine revelation, even if we risk accusations of religious intolerance and offending cultural sensitivities.

We can't deny, though, the religious importance of wearing hijab, based on a verse from the Quran: "Oh Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and wives and daughters of the believers, to extend their outer garments around themselves, so that they would be distinguished and not molested. And God is All-Forgiving, All-Merciful." (Qur'an, 33:59) The verse refers to Mohammed's immediate family; later, traditional interpretations extended this command to all Muslim women in varying degrees from a complete veiling covering all parts of the women's body save for one eye to an injuction to dress "modestly". God provided this command for several reasons: to "protect" women from the gaze of men, to encourage women to be modest and focus their thoughts on God and their families, to demonstate Islamic "separateness" from the unfaithful and as a reminder to the faithful that women should be honored. A fairly representative passage from one of many webpages on the hijab summarizes it thus:

Other . . . reasons [for hijab] include the requirement for modesty in both men and women. Both will then be evaluated for intelligence and skills instead of looks and sexuality. An Iranian school girl is quoted as saying, "We want to stop men from treating us like sex objects, as they have always done. We want them to ignore our appearance and to be attentive to our personalities and mind. We want them to take us seriously and treat us as equals and not just chase us around for our bodies and physical looks."

A Muslim woman who covers her head is making a statement about her identity. Anyone who sees her will know that she is a Muslim and has a good moral character. Many Muslim women who cover are filled with dignity and self esteem; they are pleased to be identified as a Muslim woman. As a chaste, modest, pure woman, she does not want her sexuality to enter into interactions with men in the smallest degree. A woman who covers herself is concealing her sexuality but allowing her femininity to be brought out.

Sincere, perhaps, but one gets a whiff of Pollyanna, of a romanticized version of Islam-as-ideal against the reality of Islam-as-practiced. As Irshad Manji says, we need to "dare the romance of the moment" (The Trouble with Islam Today, p. 213) by asking hard questions, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

A few questions of my own:

Question 1: If the Quran allows "no compulsion in religion," then why are women compelled to veil by law ---secular or shari'a --- in the majority of Muslim-majority states? One of the abiding ironies of the hijab/niqab debate that only in the West Muslim women have the relative freedom to choose their dress. Why is this so? The standard argument seems to be that the more extreme forms of hijab (and views on gender relations in general) are "cultural" phenomenon. But can you actually parse culture and religion so easily, especially when the trend, abetted by Saudi funding, is to adopt Wahhabi-style norms in far flung outposts of the Islamic world?

Question 2: To what degree is the hijab a product of social norms of 6th century Arabia and the eastern Mediterranean? Evidence suggests that veiling women was common in this era and locality, and was restricted to women of elevated station. How was Mohammed influenced by his culture?

Question 3: What's the role of class in wearing hijab? A couple of small anecdotes to illustrate. A few weeks ago CBC news broadcast a debate, of sorts, between three women on hajib. Two of the women wore a form of hajib, one of them covered completely, including the niqab. All of them were "professional women" of one kind or another. Meanwhile, when I go to Toronto, I often stop at a mom-and-pop Muslim-owned Middle Eastern deli on Lawrence Avenue, which possibly makes the best chicken schwarma in the Western hemisphere. Mom wears a headscarf only, has bare arms and chats warmly with her male customers while manning the grill. I won't belabour the point.

Question 4: What's the implicit message of the hijab --- especially the stricter versions --- for Westerners, particularly non-Muslim women? If we are to take at face value claims that hijab is for modest, pure, God-fearing women, are non-Muslim women then impure, immodest and destined for hell? And what about children? Even more disturbing are the implications of veiling young girls.

Question 5: How does wearing the hajib --- again in its rigid version --- affect relations between the sexes and in the larger community? Does it create unnecessary barriers? Is this a good thing? A writer on a Saudi Arabian dissident website makes the following observation on the new sartorial discipline:

When you see your dear aunt or sister after a long absence you expect them to run to you with overt joy and open arms to kiss you and hug you with her bare hands and uncovered head. Now, she meets you coolly with her head tightly wrapped in a scarf and hands tucked in black gloves and she barely shakes hands with you. Funny jokes and joyful laughs have completely disappeared, replaced by austere religious formulas and clichés, as if every minute of our lives should be used solely and exclusively preparing our souls for the grave and life after death.

You no longer see women walking down the streets, only moving bodies completely draped in black. You call your friend on the phone and if one of his women folk answer you on the other end you no longer hear the polite niceties and sweat utterances used by ladies in the past – only harsh barking and rough answers because it is no longer permissible for women to be nice and polite with men.

What is happening to us?

(I would strongly encourage readers to read the entire article.)

Question 6 (and last): What's the relation between the hijab, feminism and traditional Islam's view of sexuality? A complex and difficult question, to be sure. Assuredly traditional Islam (and I use the term carefully) has a poor dim view of modern Western feminism (not unlike, one might add, the opinions of conservative Protestants and Catholics) and a "separate but equal" notion of gender identity. Is the wearing of hijab really a rearguard action against inevitable modernism and modernization of Islamic thought? In the West, it is a patriarchal culture's attempt to maintain control over women?

As progressives we need to respect choices --- religious, sexual, political or otherwise --- but respect, I think, does not mean silence or acquiescence, especially when those choices challenge our fundamental beliefs. Fair enough that Muslims demand respect from us, but respect in my definition does not mean the end of debate, and unthinking acceptance would be disastrous. A kind of cultural and social negotiation is going on in Canada and in other places in the West. The fact is that Islam is a major religion in Canada, and Canadians need to adapt to that reality while --- let me stress --- remaining faithful to its liberal principles.

If Islamic dress codes are a kind of cloaked (!) form of repression towards women, it has no place in society, and we should be vociferous in our objections. Yet it's important to remember positions are hardening on both sides of the debate, and that the issue of the niqab and hijab is a surrogate for the right to attack multiculturalism in general. Still, we need to speak up. We are not doing ourselves --- or Muslim women --- any favours by shutting up.

In Defence of Rona Ambrose. Sort of.

2006-11-16T12:17:00.000-05:00

Rona Ambrose is having the bad hair week from hell. (Okay, tacky reference to her coiffure. I know it's wrong. Very wrong. And sexist. Sorry.) First she's viciously ambushed at Nairobi by those snaky Liberals and ingrates from the Quebec delegation, then she's late, then she's sliced and diced by various U.N. functionaries, and if that isn't enough, gives a speech resembling the post-prandial wanderings of the Peterborough County Senior Euchre Club Awards Banquet. And that's only in three days. It's enough to make any girl cry.

Though Ambrose has been thoroughly pilloried (here and here and here, and also here, here, and here) including by your humble ob't servant, repeatedly, I have to wonder: how much of the blame does she really deserve?

Before you fall out of your seats in fits of excessive jocularity, consider this: in days of yore, traditional constititutional theory held, a la Bagehot that the Prime Minister was primus inter pares, first among equals. In practice, in the Canadian polity, this hasn't been true for some decades, as successive prime ministers have concentrated power in the Prime Minister's Office, the first and last resort of government policy. Stephen Harper's New Government is just the last extreme example of this tendency. Ministers of the Crown, holders of the great offices of state are reduced to a brigade of brainless barking seals, unable to pee without express authorization from the PMO. It isn't coincidental that when the Glorious Leader trots out some new initiative, the minister actually responsible is carefully placed in the backdrop as some vacant-eyed golem, ready to spring into life at the word of some PMO flunky.

Which brings me back the the tribulations of Rona Ambrose. The Conservative green plan and the subsequent fiasco at Nairobi was orchestrated not by the scientists and advisors within Environment Canada --- who in any case weren't included in decision-making process --- but by those whip-like minds in the PMO. Unfortunately for Rona Ambrose, she now has to weather the volleys of horse fruit from the likes of me, importuned by a policy she had virtually no voice in creating. Because she's the minister responsible.

Stephen Harper, keen politico that he is, will let Ambrose twist slowly in the wind as the symbol of government incompetence and have her take the fall for the policy he ultimately approved. Then he'll sack her. No mud will stick on him. In such ways are teflon politicians made. If we let them.

English Al Jazeera Disappoints

2006-11-15T18:47:00.000-05:00

Having my curiosity piqued by all of the ballyhoo, I spent much of this evening watching al Jazeera's English channel debut via the Eutelsat-Hotbird satellite. While expecting new insights, different perspectives and a view from the Gulf, I can honestly report that I am neither excited nor impressed: it was just another ho-hum international news station full of BBC World, ITN and Sky News broadcasters.

To be fair, al Jazeera is trying to build a reputation as being a moderate news station: remember, al Jazeera's reputation is such that, amongst Americans at least, it is thought to be Bin Laden's official soapbox, a perception that drove George Bush to consider bombing the news-station's Doha headquarters during the Iraq War. Obviously, English al Jazeera is meant to be a kind and familiar face to western viewers design to improve the general opinion of the Qatar network.

Yet, the end result of such middle of the road tactics is mush. In the few spare minutes between the ads, tonight's offering had a small piece on the elections Congo, civilian deaths in Iraq and Darfur, a pickled interview favouring an American, and a live report from Gaza which had the (bad) luck of having an Israeli bomb of going off in the background. My favourite for the evening was 48, a Lonely Planet TV styled video travelogue of an attractive blond Australian, Amanda Palmer based on the concept of spending 48 hours in off the beaten track cities like Damascus.

The new and sexy Al Jazeera

It is not that it was bad journalism or even bad travel TV, it was just not what I had hoped for. Clearly, Ms. Palmer is intelligent and insightful; maybe--probably-- someone I'd ask out for a date, if the possibility arose. But she speaks no Arabic and spent half an hour of my time wandering around Damascus like any other traveller/tourist might. Which is of course fine for Lonely Planet TV. As a contrast, at the same time BBC World was broadcasting a detailed analysis of the Nairobi Conference. Now you be the judge: which one would you watch?

But that is only a tell-tale of why al Jazeera doesn't work. If you travel to most Arabic countries, Al Jazeera is the standard television diet. In Tangiers, satellite dishes hang practically off of every building and the network blares in most tea houses, a scene repeated across the Arab world. If a pan-Arabic movement were ever to take hold, al Jazeera would be its glue.

What al Jazeera failed to realize about the power of broadcasting in English is that it transcends borders and cultures and that is what a good international broadcast should reflect. Yet, while choosing its staff, Al Jazeera has hired a small band of primarily British and British sounding journalists who have no special knowledge of the Middle East, no special understanding of Arabic culture or language or Islam, with the exceptional Arab who makes it onto the screen. The nightly newscast, for example, was hosted by ex-BBC broadcaster and great guy Stephen Cole, in London. In fact, the whole broadcast felt distinctly British, in a provincial kind of way, complete with western prejudices, Australian weather and a penchant for the quick soundbite. Instead of getting an alternative view of world news from Doha see from they eyes of the people in the Middle East, we get London in Qatar. Ugggh.

The alternative would be, of course, seeking out journalists from Pakistan, Egypt, Palestine, Turkey, India, Morocco or dozens of other countries from the Middle East and around the world who are told to report the news as they see it. Doing this might achieve the reputation of a genuine news alternative, as its Arabic-language sister has done. More importantly, it might have created a network to rival CNN, the BBC or FOX in the Third World and Europe. This, of course, won't happen as long as al Jazeera (English) remains a poor copy of BBC World.

Pity, that.

The Smoking Gun on Torture?

2006-11-15T15:20:00.000-05:00

The American Civil Liberties Union today issued a press release on two as-yet unseen documents related to the CIA's practice of extraordinary rendition --- the practice of detaining and "interrogating" prisoners in third countries. These two documents, thus far embargoed, apparently authorized the CIA to engage in this practice, which has been internationally condemned and has caused political headaches in several European capitals. According to the ACLU, the directive was issued right from the top:

The two documents in question are a directive signed by President Bush granting the CIA the authority to set up detention facilities outside the United States and outlining interrogation methods that may be used against detainees, and a Justice Department legal analysis specifying interrogation methods that the CIA may use against top Al-Qaeda members.

In legal papers previously filed before the court, the CIA claimed that national security would be gravely injured if the CIA were compelled to admit or deny even an "interest" in interrogating detainees. But in a letter to the ACLU dated November 10, the CIA reversed course and acknowledged that the Justice Department memorandum and presidential directive exist. The CIA continues to withhold the documents.

A smoking gun? Maybe. Interesting that in an apparently unrelated move, the new U.S. Senate will open investigations on extraodinary rendition. The new chair of the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Carl Levin, has indicated that he's "not comfortable" with current CIA practice. Said Senator Levin: "I think that there's been some significant abuses which have not made us more secure but have made us less secure and have also, perhaps, cost us some real allies, as well as not producing useful information. So I think the system needs a thorough review and, as the military would say, a thorough scrubbing."

Clearly these two documents will play a prominent role in any proceedings. The bipartisan honeymoon --- such as it was --- between the newly elected Democrats and the Bush administration is clearly over, barely a week after the election.

Update: Great minds blog alike. Liberal Catnip posted on the very same subject at the exact same time; her take is well worth reading.

Miscellaneous Quotes from the Nairobi Conference on Climate Change

2006-11-15T06:23:00.000-05:00

Andy Atkins, of Tearfund, a U.K. relief agency:

“There is a scandalous lack of urgency about these talks. There is widespread agreement around the world that climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity, but you would not know that listening to some of the debates here in Nairobi. It is like being in a small sinking boat and everyone is debating when we should start seriously bailing out the water. We are seeing a shocking lack of urgency.”

“We need a major investment of political will this week, with more effort from nations on different sides of negotiations to reach agreement. We are calling on the British Secretary of State for the Environment David Miliband and fellow ministers from around the world who arrive midweek, to ensure that this climate change summit does not go down as one that failed millions of poor people around the world whose lives and livelihoods are already being adversely affected."

Kofi Annan:

"The Nairobi Conference must send a clear signal that the world's political leaders must take climate change seriously. There remains a frightening lack of leadership."

Rona Ambrose on Canada's Role:

"Canada's here to be constructive, to show progress. Our delegation is doing a fantastic job on the ground, making progress and working with other countries on the key issues.

Rona Ambrose on Canada meeting its Kyoto Targets:

"Canada is on track to meet all of our Kyoto obligations except for our target."

Steven Guilbeault, Greenpeace:

"[O]ne of the first things her government did when they came to power was abolish pretty much anything that existed in terms of implementation measures."

Rona Ambrose on Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change:

"As you know, Yvo de Boer himself said he recognized the challenge Canada is facing."

Yvo de Boer on Rona Ambrose:

"It's not that Canada hasn't committed to the 2012 levels they signed up to in the Kyoto Protocol. My understanding is that the Canadian prime minister and the minister of the environment indicated that the Kyoto targets are unachievable. I'm very much looking forward to Madame Ambrose arriving so I can ask her what the implications of that announcement are."

Lucienne Robillard on Rona Ambrose's performance as president of the climate change talks:

"(She) is missing so many meetings that her international colleagues are thinking about putting her face on a milk carton."

Snap.

Nairobi Fiddles While the World Burns

2006-11-14T14:23:00.000-05:00

There's been a barrage of reports pelting the delegates at the U.N. Conference on Climate Change, none of them with good news: before the conference even opened, there was the Stern Review, then a report that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by a half a percentage in 2005 alone, then a report on the widespread extinction birds face , a depressing report on the impacts on subsaharan Africa, increased outbreaks of disease, melting icecaps at both poles and so on, all calamitous singly, and apocalyptic in their totality. And there's news today about a U.N. report to be released in February that will significantly "strengthen"(!) the scientific argument on the veracity of global climate change, and which the one of the authors hopes "might provide just the right impetus to get the negotiations going in a more purposeful way."

Fat chance, if this week's festivities in Nairobi are any gauge. Given the importance of the outcome for our future --- a Green Irish MP compared it, without much exaggeration, to the negotiations at Versailles following the First World War --- progress has been astonishingly slow. Actually reducing carbon emissions after Kyoto expires in 2012 seems to a zero-sum game for the various delegations; developed nations are refusing to commit to post-Kyoto targets unless developing nations start to come on board, which of course, they are refusing to do.

And then there's the Canadian news coverage of the conference, which in contrast to the real news is appallingly shallow, being focussed on the state of Rona Ambrose's hair and the (justified) public flogging she received at the hands of Opposition MPs and the Quebec delegation.

(I have to admit a bit of schadenfreude here: having provincial delegations conduct foreign policy always seemed to me to be one of sillier initiatives of the Conservative government, and one they would live to sorely regret; seeing the Government hoisted by its own petard always gives a particular thrill. The Government, of course, is reacting with shock and outrage. "Highly inappropriate," sniffed Ambrose's spokesman."The minister invited them to come over here, so the fact that they're going out and doing that is only going to undermine Canada's position here. It's not helpful at all." But what do you expect when you give the car keys to the kids?. But I digress.)

More to the point, perhaps, is what the Conservative government intends to do in relation to Kyoto. The Government's policy is a shambles. Ambrose has indicated she intends to "listen" to critics and adjust the Government's policy accordingly. This we can safely read that this minister has no ideas except a thoroughly discredited and internationally condemned "green" policy that even the Government appears to disbelieve. Ambose, putting on her brave face, insists Canada is making a "productive" contribution to the talks. How, exactly? By being the world's scapegoat and public whipping boy?

Meanwhile, the dance part of the program, the meeting of ministerial types in Nairobi, begins today. There's some faint hope that a consensus will emerge. Frustration is being expressed even at the ambassadorial level. Reports the Irish Times:

Japanese ambassador Mutsuyoshi Nishimura, described climate change as a deadly serious business and said if countries were unwilling to discuss the stabilisation of emissions at this summit, he wanted to know when they would do so.

"Our job starts by looking at a global long-term vision and whether it is aspirational or otherwise," Mr Nishimura told fellow delegates.

"I will go home unless we are willing to send a global message to the world that the UN is moving to achieve stabilisation of the climate," he added.

In the delicate, subtle language of diplomacy, this is the equivalent of a slap in the face. Let's hope all the delegations at Nairobi get the message.

The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Gets Tactical

2006-11-13T13:06:00.000-05:00

After polling MPs, The Toronto Star found a largish number of them --- 141, to be exact --- would vote against the reopening the same-sex marriage debate in Parliament. Not quite a majority (60 MPs failed to reply to the survey), but probably enough to cast the issue into the oblivion it so richly deserves. And so on and so forth.

Sometimes though, the most interesting parts of newspaper articles come in the 23rd para (or in this case, the 51st), somewhat distantly "below the fold." Here we get Janet Epp Buckingham's take on a "compromise" position on same-sex marriage, one that avoids having to use the dreaded notwithstanding clause:

But it might be possible, Epp Buckingham says, to revert to the "one man-one woman" definition of marriage so long as gay and lesbian partnerships are legally recognized with civil-union status or some other designation.

Eh? What's that? Janet Epp Buckingham, of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada endorsing "civil union" status for gay and lesbian citizens? Aren't gays and lesbians aren't part of some demonic conspiracy to corrupt children and banish shag carpet from the homes of the nation?

My head is spinning. But wait: maybe Epp Buckingham is doing a little spinning on her own. The fact is the EFC, which she represents, has consistantly opposed each and every piece of legislation advancing the rights of gays and lesbians for the past decade from addition of sexual orientation to the federal human rights code to the extension of spousal benefits to same sex couples.

And: aside from the fact that the civil union bus has long left the station and is now in the vicinity of Iqualuit, Epp Buckingham's remarks just after the marriage bill was introduced to Parliament in 2005 revealed the nuclear option for the religious right: she believed then that the best course of action was to introduce a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Charter of Rights to prevent gays and lesbians from marrying, thus avoiding all that nastiness and bad press with the notwithstanding clause and denying citizens civil rights. Similiar amendments in American state constitutions have been framed in such a way not only to prohibit marriage, but to prevent gay and lesbian couples from obtaining survivor and inheritance rights, benefits, and to force children from their parents.

Colour me skeptical, but I doubt that Epp Buckingham has had a Damascene conversion to the cause of gay rights. Claiming now to support "civil unions" has the smell of a tactical retreat --- like the current proposal from the evangelical right for Parliament to "study" same sex marriage. The true purpose is to provide camoflage for what the EFC and their fellow-travellers really want from a putative Conservative parliamentary majority. In our heated pre-election period, one suspects a message has been passed from the Conservative Party bunker: tone down the rhetoric. Be nice. Don't attack gays as much as you think they're Satan's spawn. We'll treat you well once we get the majority.

Bush's Slow Road To Impeachment: A Reflection

2006-11-13T07:29:00.000-05:00

It would seem that the world sighed in relief with the knowledge that the centre of power took two steps to the left last week. At the same President Bush, obviously shaken by the turn of events, seemed nervous throughout his various public utterances on the shift in American politics, repeating how he sees the need to get over partisan politics and even praised the Democratic win.

Just what is in the air? Is it that Rumsfeld has been shown the door? Does this mean that Bush is relieved that he (likely) won't be able to follow through with plans of world domination? Or is it that Bush is worried that an embittered Democratic Party will be seeking revenge for the last fifteen years of public humiliation and stolen elections?

Now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has the reigns, all hell could break loose. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard wrote in the Telegraph:

After snatching the House with the closest thing to a crushing mandate ever likely in a system biased in favour of the incumbents, the Democrats now have their hands on the investigative machinery of Capitol Hill. They can hire lawyers and detectives; they can subpoena documents and compel witnesses to testify under oath; they can mount show trials - or indeed real trials - subjecting their enemies to torment under the glaring klieg lights of the world media.

This is a powerful weapon, as Bill Clinton learned when Newt Gringrich stormed the House in 1994, breaking the half-century stranglehold of the Democrats. Newt’s Republicans did not rest until they had impeached the president for perjury and abuse of office in the Paula Jonnes/Lewinsky saga - even if the meaker Senate later opted for acquittal...

If the top echelons of the Bush administration have done anything wrong over the last six years in power, they can now expect to see every vile detail exposed in one of those menacing wood-panelled chambers on the Hill.

Already there are signs that crimal investigations into the Bush administration will be the faire du jour for the next 24 months. The Washignton Post has run an op-ed by Ahmed Rashid calling for the impeachment of Rumsfeld:

The first and most important act for a newly elected U.S. House and Senate is to impeach Donald Rumsfeld. The defense secretary waged incompetent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, undermined the U.S. military, introduced torture, destroyed U.S. credibility worldwide, lied to theAmerican people, caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, failed to catch the perpetrators of 9/11 despite access to unlimited funds and caused the U.S. to enter a long period of isolation from the world.

Once Rumsfeld is in the sights, there is no reason not to go after Bush himself. As Ed Koch, former mayor of New York predicted, there are many who are seeking to topple the president:

I expect that [Rep. John] Conyers as chairman [of the House Judiciary Committee], now with great freedom, will do anything he can to commence such impeachment or investigatory activity, and we'll see whether Pelosi will prevent it.

Pelosi has already signalled, strongly, that any talk of impeachment or prolonged investigation is off the table. But for those who've been on vacation, Bush is on the political agenda and in John Conyers' sights for several reasons: i) constitutional authority was exceeded when he falsified intelligence and lied to Congress and the American people in order to invade Iraq; ii) subverting democracy and the constitution through illegal surveillance of US citizens as well as violating international treaties through "extraordinary renditions", secret prisons and torture. All said, Conyers in his 350 page report The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in the Iraq War, and Illegal Domestic Surveillance found that the Bush administration had violated 26 laws and regulations. And that doesn't even begin to touch topic such as Haliburton and corruption.

Whether a Democratic Congress --- its sights already trained on 2008 and the presidential election --- has the stomach, or the testicular fortitude to proceed with large-scale inquiries remains to be seen. All politics aside, if the U.S. is to regain any credibilty among its allies and well-wishers, if it is to restore a healthy, functioning democracy at home, housecleaning is in order. Two kinds of corruption afflict the American body politic today: the banal, everyday steal-from-the-public-purse kind exemplified by war contracts, and a deeper sort manifested by the wholesale abandonment of the founding ideals of liberty and justice in favour of darker principles of cynicism, public manipulation, and police-state tactics. It is the latter corruption that is worrisome. Having watched this corruption in the American republic metastasize for the past 6 years, a thorough purge would be welcome and necessary.

Whatever the outcome, with a large gobblet in hand, the Upper Canadian toasts those who are in a position to right wrongs and persecute the wicked. Let's hope they do so.

Canadian Press Misstates Number of Dual Citizens at 4 Million; Real Number Buried in the Hamilton Spectator

2006-11-10T16:54:00.000-05:00

With the issue of Canadians holding dual citizenship becoming the whipping boy for the minority Conservative government, it is not hard to think that this error by the Canadian Press was an error at all.

Hamilton Spectator - News: "The Canadian Press reported incorrectly yesterday that Statistics Canada says four million Canadians have dual citizenship. In fact, the number is 691,310. As well, The Canadian Press had no basis for reporting that the number of dual citizens tripled from 1991 to 2001."

The Missing Minority Report: The Stern Review's Lost Opportunity

2006-11-06T07:29:00.000-05:00

In early twentieth century Britain, unremitting poverty was feared to be leading towards severe social unrest, societal breakdown and general revolt. As a result, in 1905 His Majesty's government established a Royal Commission on the Poor Law (1905-09) of which noted Fabian Beatrice Webb was appointed member. As an expression of her disagreement with the Royal Commission, Beatrice Webb, along with her husband, wrote and published a minority report, calling for the abolishment of the Poor Laws and the transfer of responsibility to other groups. The Webbs' argument was that the government should work towards preventing poverty rather than focusing solely on relief efforts. This document is often cited as the impetus of the British welfare state.

One hundred years later, the Labour Government commissioned another LSE academic Nicholas Stern to research and write the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change which considered arguably the most pressing problem of our generation and our children's generation. The fact that environmental issues have returned to the high table cannot be dismissed. Surely, it is commendable that a state as influential as the United Kingdom has brought environmental issues to the forefront.

That crazy tree hugger, Nicholas Stern

Stern's basic premise is that atmospheric and ecological degradation will cost the world economy dearly: by the year 2050, a total decrease of up to 20 per cent of world GDP, bringing economic mayhem to all.

Stern introduced two important concepts on CO2 emissions: stabilization and reductions. As he wrote:

The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.

Ultimately, stabilisation – at whatever level –requires that annual emissions be brought down to more than 80% below current levels.

Stabilized means several things for Stern, depending on whether a short or long term perspective is taken. As Stern argues, in the immediate future, emissions are unlikely to reach a plateau at 430 ppm, so a an initial top rate should be established at 450 to 550 ppm, which can be achieved through spending 1 per cent of GDP. In other words, Stern reckons we can keep spewing out pollution at rates superior to currents emissions to avoid the worst impacts. Yet, in a near contradictory statement, he admits that by 2050 total emissions need to drop by 60-80 percent, which of course begs the question, how much would an 80 per cent drop in CO2 emission cost?

Stern suggests that an annual 1 per cent GNP investment in green technologies will resolve help this issue. He also suggests, strong policy is needed, where carbon is regulated, low carbon technologies are developed, and barriers to energy efficiency are removed.

All of this, of course, makes perfect sense now and even more sense in the context of the United Nations Climate Change Conference starting today in Nairobi. Indeed, with the release of the Stern review, the British have adroitly positioned themselves to set this week's agenda. From the reaction of think tanks and NGOs throughout Britain we can also expect something of a love-in this week: the British branch of the WWF, which mustered itself to say, like Stern, that "paradigm shift" was needed, while the Tyndall Centre outlined the need for a 60 percent reduction by 2050, one of the possibilities that Stern himself suggested. Undoubtedly, it is nice that a key Western government is returning the environmental agenda to the high table and that Whitehall and the NGOs are singing the same tune. To cite the cheerleader of this review --- the 1 percent solution --- one has to wonder if spending such a sum to establish CO2 emissions at higher than today's levels is a solution at all.

Yet, as with the Webb's minority report on the Poor Laws, a dissenting, if not radical, voice needs to be heard about the current environmental conundrum in the halls of government. For the greener-of-mind, the Stern review leaves a bittersweet sensation that more is needed, now. And this frustration that is only likely to grow stronger as governments seek consensus between science and capital, while avoiding true leadership.

Duly Noted

2006-11-05T15:50:00.000-05:00

Being an Irregularly Compiled Post on Irregular News. And Some Stuff Worth Reading.

Too Bad They Flew Air Canada

Toronto Pearson voted "Best Global Airport 2006" by the Institute of Transport Management

And We Also Use Chicken

KFC Changes Secret Recipe

What Peter McKay Really Means

Spector joins Stronach dog figh

If You're a 29 Year Old Virgin, You Don't Need the Help

Abstinence message goes beyond teens

Or Are You Just Happy to See Me?

Airport screeners fail to see most test bombs

And Yet, He's So Lifelike

Bob Barker retiring after 50 years on TV

The Real Story on the Alliance/PC Merger

Modern Humans, Neanderthals May Have Interbred

The Olympics Had Nothing to do With It

In Major Shift, China Requires All Death Sentences to be Approved by Highest Court

Doing Her Part for Democracy

Author Coulter investigated for voter fraud

Liars, Damned Liars and Fox News Pundits

Bill O'Reilly Needs Help: Fox Host Demands Letterman Apologize for Pointing Out Fox Host's Inaccuracy

Which has Nothing to Do with the Above

Fox News Ratings Take a Steep Tumble

Worth Reading

How Jesus Endorsed Bush's Invasion of Iraq

Are the wingnuts preparing for midterms or Armageddon?

Stephen Harper's Press Gallery Put Down : A Report from Canada by Ira Basen

Mourning the Norwood Co-op

2006-11-04T07:05:00.000-05:00

Last I week I learned the Norwood Co-op is closing, a victim of poor sales and the general poor state of the family farm. The Co-op, for those from Toronto, is a combination hardware store, feed depot and general farm supply. The staff know all the locals by their first name, and we theirs. Have a problem with rats and don't want to use poison? The Co-op knows an answer. Need a thingamabob for the barn? The Co-op will have it, or knows where to get it. It's an unfortunate loss for Norwood, and one that is symptomatic of the genteel decline of small towns and villages all over the country.

Like most rural residents, I have a somewhat schizophrenic existance, shuffling between town and country, city and farm. Trips into "town" --- Peterborough, and the "village" --- Norwood, need to be thought out fo maximum efficiency of time and gasoline. Completion of multiple errands at once is always the goal. I was thinking of this making the trek into Peterborough the first time a couple of days ago for chicken feed; previously, always, I had gone to Norwood. I realized driving along Highway 7 I have hardly any reason ever to go into the village. Trips to the Co-op for scratch grain were always accompanied by stops at the hardware store or the grocery or the post office; in Norwood, if need be, you can fax a letter, order the Christmas turkey at the butcher's, buy liquor and get your computer repaired. It's remarkably self-sufficient. But for me at least --- and I suspect many other people --- regular trips into Norwood "to run errands" are about to come to an end, unhinged by the the Co-op's closure. Money spent in the village will now be spent in Peterborough, and businesses will further suffer and close, creating even less reason to go into the village --- the classic vicious circle.

Out of a sense of loyalty --- or guilt --- I will try to go into the village whenever possible. In practical terms, though, my conscious sporadic shopping in the village will hardly outweigh the money I regularly spent there, nor that of others who went into Norwood for the Co-op. In reality too, all the major expenditures of my life are carried out in Peterborough; there I bank, consult my insurance broker, shop for furniture, books, appliances; there I have my dentist and doctor. Norwood has always drawn a only a fraction of my income. But still I will try, and I hope others will too.

Norwood won't exactly dry up and blow away. It's an easy and convenient drive for commuters into Peterborough or even, for the adventurous like me, to the eastern marches of Toronto suburbia. "Heritagification" --- the transformation of the village into a heritage show piece like other villages in the region, like Millbrook or Warkworth seems possible too: Norwood has good bones and a likely location. But an importance piece of the village's identity and economic rationale is gone all the same. In a sense the closure of the Co-op symbolizes the end of a dream for small towns everywhere, of the prosperous family farm, of self-sufficient, snug little communties, the quintessential Ontario towns with red-brick store fronts proud of their history, idiosyncratic, and romantically and helplessly optimistic about their futures. It bespeaks a future of industrial farming, global economics and mass identity and consumption. For those of us who live in rural communties, the loss is incalculable and inconsolable.

Harper Bets on the Wrong Horse, Canada Loses

2006-11-01T12:44:00.000-05:00

A possibly apocryphal story has Nortel, the Canadian telecommunications giant, donating oodles of cash to the 1992 campaign to re-elect the senior Bush in the hope of securing millions of dollars of contracts from the U.S. government. Bush lost, of course, but the Clitonistas were mindful of Nortel's treachery and essentially froze the company out of the bidding process for some years afterwards.

Fast forward 14 years, another election, and the Democrats are poised to win back both houses of Congress and create that most pathetic of spectacles, a lame-duck presidency. Canada and Canadian foreign policy are suddenly on the wrong side of political argument, a fact which will not escape the new tenants, as they grapple with contentious issues in Canada-U.S. relations.

In the American constitutional order, it's true that the executive branch is the superior one in the realm of foreign affairs. But in practice, the legislative branch holds a great deal of power. Legislation on border security issues, for instance, or soft-wood lumber need pass congressional scrutiny. The thousand dollar question is how a newly-minted Democratic Congress, bitterly and profoundly hostile to the Bush Administration and all its works, is going to view the sorcerer's apprentice, Stephen Harper?

There is some indications in this regard a meme is already in the making. A story floating around the AP wire this morning explicitly makes the link between the sagging fortunes of Bush and Harper:

Canadian Conservatives who hitched their wagons to the White House are finding their popularity fading with those of their allies in Washington.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives ousted the Liberal Party in January after nearly 13 years in office, pledging to thaw Ottawa’s frozen relations with Washington and ease the country to the right on social and economic issues.

Canadians were eager to try someone new and improve ties with the U.S., though President Bush is widely disliked in this country. Now, with his poll numbers sagging, Harper’s honeymoon appears to be over.

To be honest, the intent of the article is to report on Harper's sagging poll numbers. But it points to the perception among American opinion makers that Harper is a (somewhat) Canadianized clone of Bush. Harper himself makes direct reference to his ideological and political affinities to the Bush Administration, casting himself and the government as the unwavering, loyal friend.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow," said the Victorian statesman, Lord Palmerston. For those who admire this precept, one has to wonder at the appropriateness and wisdom of attaching Canadian policy to the wagon of a foreign government on the basis of ideological, rather than national, interest. This Conservative goverment's unrelenting love affair with the Bush administration will find few admirers in a Democratic-controlled Congress. In the polarized hothouse atmosphere of U.S. politics, Harper will be rightly seen as a partisan flunkie, shilling for a discredited and lame-duck presidency. The damage to Canadian interests could be enormous, and this from a government intent on improving relations with Washington. It will be interesting to watch our New Government try to catch up with the new reality. Maybe daily, compulsary contemplation of Lord Palmerston's maxim will help.

Halloween is Hell

2006-10-31T22:46:00.000-05:00

Some Christian fundamentalists have wrestled with the idea of Halloween for a long time. Too much Satanism. Too much witchcraft. Too pagan. Too much money for candy. The solution? Instead of handing out chocolate and gumballs, build a Godly House of Horrors that takes the wee darlings STRAIGHT TO HELL. These "Hell Houses" are seen in some Christian circles as an attractive alternative to Halloween's all-out devilry. And in this case, a hilariously funny example of Art imitating Life, a pastor plays Satan.

"YOU HAVE DIED AND GONE STRAIGHT TO HELL!" a tall man wearing a long, black, hooded cloak bellowed over a bullhorn Sunday night as the first busload of about 30 teens and a handful of parents were herded through dark corridors lined in black plastic.

The group moved from room to room, witnessing scenes depicting what the church says are the consequences of "bad decisions involving violence, sex and drugs."

In one scene, a girl was lying on a gurney where a masked man in surgical scrubs pretended to perform an abortion. A toilet was sitting nearby apparently to collect the aborted fetus.

A fenced-in cell housed a few denizens of "hell," including a pedophile trolling the Internet for a young victim, a meditating Buddhist, and two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.

Personally, I'll take the chocolate.

Obfuscation and Spin: Our Federal Government in Action

2006-10-31T13:58:00.000-05:00

The mighty dynamic machinery that is our federal government sprung into action today in response to global climate change, and decided to take a pass. Ottawa has chosen, apparently, on an entirely new approach to climate change: study the thing 95 ways to Sunday, parse, dissect, analyse the options, strike a Royal Commission, review, review again, dissemble, and finally (it's expected) proclaim the whole business unfit for human consumption.

How else to explain this reaction?

The federal government will seek a "comprehensive review" of the 1997 treaty when negotiators from 165 countries meet in Nairobi, Kenya, federal officials told a background briefing Monday. Canada wants to focus on "the longer term," said officials, who cannot be identified under the rules of the briefing.

The Nairobi Conference on Climate Change is set to begin next week. Canada is setting a delegation of 40, excluding oddly enough, environmental groups whose expertise might serve the government in a positive way. "Longer term" means, in Tory-speak, 44 years, the length of time it will take to do a comprehensive review.

That boat is already sailed, or to use a Peterborough County vulgarism, the federal government is pissing in the wind of global opinion. One of the purposes of the Nairobi conference is to kick start negotiations for designing a successor to Kyoto, to reduce further greenhouse gas emissions. A "comprehensive review" of the whole process will not be on the table. Or shouldn't be: it will be interesting to see if the federal government, in concert with other anti-Kyoto governments, attempts to sabotage further negotiations.

Meanwhile the Glorious Leader has drawn "comfort from the Stern report, noting it is frequently critical of progress under the Kyoto Protocol." A lovely sentiment, but pure unmitigated spin. Stern does argue the Kyoto Protocol doesn't go far enough. But he also says "The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol embody the core principles of a multilateral response to climate change." (p. 454) For a government repudiating the principles of Kyoto --- well, words like "cynical", "hypocrisy", "piles of manure" come to mind.

The 1% Solution

2006-10-30T13:14:00.000-05:00

Among the salient points of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is the estimated cost to stabilize and perhaps reverse its effects. Nicholas Stern shows costs will rise to 1% of world GDP by 2050, an enormous sum in aggregate, but one which he thinks is entirely feasible and necessary. In the first place, Stern argues that the costs of doing nothing, including a general economic decline and possible world depression, far out weigh the costs of implementing controls on greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, the world economy will grow by approximately 200% in industrialized countries ad by 400% in developing countries by 2050, and, as Stern puts it, an "annual cost rising to 1% of GDP by 2050 poses little threat to standards of living." Moreover, Stern points out that costs of acting on controlling carbon-based emissions will increase over time, or as he says, "are likely to rise significantly as mitigation efforts become more ambitious or sudden, suggesting that efforts to reduce emissions rapidly are likely to be very costly." In other words, it's better to act now, and let the cumulative effects of technological advancement pay for themselves, than wait and try to do too little too late at a staggering cost.

There is a an enormous sense of urgency about addressing the problems of climate change. In responding to the the Stern report, British Prime Minister Tony Blair got it --- and directed a truly earned slap at recalcitrant governments, like the U.S., China, Canada and Australia:

What is not in doubt is that the scientific evidence of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is now overwhelming. It is not in doubt that if the science is right, the consequences for our planet are literally disastrous . . .This disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future many years ahead, but in our lifetime. Unless we act now . . . these consequences, disastrous as they are, will be irreversible. There is nothing more serious, more urgent, more demanding of leadership - - - here, of course, but most importantly in the global community. [Many thanks to Politique Vert for tracking down the quote.]

Unfortunately at this juncture in history, the doubters club --- among them the most important and dynamic economies in the world --- lack any sense of urgency or leadership at all, beholden to entrenched interests, domestic political or ecomomic concerns and an ideology which obfuscates the scientific evidence. In the race to the bottom in tax regimes, it's hard to see any nation stepping up to the plate and imposing a 1% cost on the economy. Fiscal conservatives will object to any new taxes on principle, and especially for a cause they reject as ideologically inspired. In any case, they will intone with a ponderous gravity suited for the high church of finance, the market is the cure. ("Climate change," says Stern, "presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.") Stephen Harper might be (from our point of view) the most egregious example of denial and whitewash, but he's hardly the only one.

The irony is that Canada is in one of the best positions of any nation, economically, to act. The Canadian GDP in 2005 was $1.023 trillion, and the budget surplus last year was $13.2 billion, which works out to be 1.35% of GDP. As a nation, we have the cash to act on global climate change. There really is no excuse for our shameful "green" plan. Do we have the will? If Margaret Wente is representative, probably not. In one of the most dumb-ass things ever said by a Globe and Mail columnist ---- and that's a very long history --- she stated

Who knew the fate of Earth was up to us? And though it pains me to say this, it's not. Canada accounts for half of 1 per cent of the world's population and 2 per cent of its emissions . . . We could shut down all of Canada tomorrow, and the impact on climate change would be wholly undetectable.

Morals, ethics, responsibility, those values conservatives constantly remind the Left they're lacking, have nothing to do with it. Sad to say, this represents the attitude of our elites, or a least a significant portion of them: it won't effect us. They're right, in a way. They have a shield of power and money, just as Canada has in relation to, say, Lesotho. The trick is persuading those in power that ultimately a little altruism and leadership --- 1% to be precise --- is necessary for the safety of us all.

Batman Bush Saves the US from Dora the Exploradora, Robin Harper Gawks in Awe

2006-10-29T17:30:00.000-05:00

It was quite sad watching Mr. Harper stand alongside presidente-elect Calderón last Thursday, mumbling a few words about how Canada sympathizes with Mexico on Washington's new plan to build a 1200 km stretch of barbed wire fencing to keep all those nasty wetbacks out of God's country (or what was Mexico) but stressing how Canada's situation is really different from Mexico's. It is sad for two reasons: first it shows how Ottawa doesn't have a clue about empathy in Latin American relations; second, it became blatantly obvious that powers-that-be in Ottawa are like bunch of frogs in steamy water, unaware that they're soon to be cooked. They just don't want to admit that Canada is only a step behind their other North American neighbour.

According to Washington, all America wants is to be safe from drug smugglers, terrorists, illegal immigrants and other riff-raft. As George Bush said "[w]e have a responsibility to secure our borders... We take this responsibility seriously." If that is the case, it won't be long wait for the Great Wall of the United States (a gimmicky version of the Chinese original to be sure) separating the Middle Earth from the barbarians across the 49th.

The Thin Edge of the Wedge

But admit it Mr. Bush, you're not worried about the grape and lettuce pickers slipping across the border. After all, they help your neighbours clean scrub on their ranches! Fess up, you're worried about Dora the Explorer, the toddler phenomena par excellence. You're worried about her Spanglish, her charming mejicana smile, her catchy songs and how the US is becoming more and more latino by the minute.

In fact, the idea of Mexicans taking over the US one Dora at a time has some people writing their way into a frenzy. As Cinnamon Stillwell wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle in April of this year,

Indeed, there's more than one way to conquer territory, and a demographic takeover is often more effective than a military one. Mexican nationalist sentiment in favor of "reconquista" or reclaiming the southwestern United States, otherwise known as Aztlan, is no longer confined to the fringes. It has now become a popular sentiment, intoned by Hispanic politicians, professors, activists and students.

Apparently, enough congressmen, Minutemen, and ordinary American citizens shared the same belief and had the clout to convince Bush that a wall was needed.

Needless to say, the Upper Canadian stands with Diego Armando Maradona and presidente-elect Felipe Calderón Hinojosa in condemning the wall. As Calderón said in Mr. Harper presence,

Es deplorable la decisión del Congreso y de Estados Unidos de ir adelante con la ecisión de construir el Muro. No se resuelve nada con eso.

[The decision taken by Congress and the United States to move ahead with the Wall's construction is deplorable. This will resolve nothing. ]

Just where are your cojones Mr. Harper?

When Torture Isn't

2006-10-29T13:49:00.000-05:00

One of the joys of wisdom tooth extraction --- a unique form of torture --- is guiltlessly watching television pap on some really good opiate-based analgesics. Seeing Oprah Winfrey stoned on Percs last Friday was particularly instructive and entertaining. O's very special guest was Bill O'Reilly, self-proclaimed scourge of the secular-humanist-liberal-left, "culture warrior" and relentless cheerleader for the Bush Administration. On narcotics, it was all blah blah gay marriage blah blah ruining Western civilization blah blah traditional values blah blah --- hardly a hackle to be raised.

I opened an eye, though, when O'Reilly started blathering on about torture and Gitmo and waterboarding:

Now on Guantanamo Bay, it's very interesting. I've been there twice now. We need information to save lives. And according to Brian Ross — I think the best investigative reporter in the country right now — they captured Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, one of the 9/11 plotters, and they water boarded him, which means they tied him up and they dunked him in water . . . Now, they dunk Khalid Sheikh Mohamed in the water until Khalid Sheikh Mohamed said, 'Hold it. I'll tell you who my friends are.' They nailed 14 of them and they stopped, according to Brian Ross — not Bill O'Reilly — about a dozen terror plots that would have killed tens of thousands of people.

So you have to make a decision, ladies and gentlemen, whether you waterboard somebody or let 5,000 people die, all right? And that is a tough decision to make. I admit it. But I'm gonna come down . . . [Do] you take the guy's eye out? No. You cut his fingers off? No. You dunk him in water to save 5,000?

I'm dunkin' that guy all day long.

[Applause]

Fortunately O'Reilly doesn't have to worry about Washington's torture vernacular. What's waterboarding and what's dunking? Clearly, they're one and the same. He understands this and so does the audience. Strange, then, that the semantically nuanced American Vice President, Dick Cheney is getting into trouble over this very point.

When asked by a right-wing radio host whether "dunking in water" was an appropriate interrogation technique, Cheney replied, "It's a no-brainer for me."

[B]ut for a while there, I was criticized as being the Vice President "for torture." We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in. We live up to our obligations in international treaties that we're party to and so forth. But the fact is, you can have a fairly robust interrogation program without torture, and we need to be able to do that.

It's a no-brainer that, for most people, the radio host was referring to waterboarding, and Cheney himself was referring to waterboarding. Bill O'Reilly says the two are the same. Not so for the Vice President, whose subtle mind can simultaneously split hairs with a mere glance and count the number of angels on the head of a pin and decide when torture is torture and black is white. No sir. As Cheney later clarified at a newsconference aboard Air Force 2, it was all about the water-dunking: anything else is an unwarranted conflation, because waterboarding is torture and "we don't torture."

Q So it was not about water boarding, even though he asked you about dunking in the water?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything about water boarding. Those were all his comments. He didn't even use that phrase.

Q He said dunking in the water.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't say anything, he did

Got that? The upshot is that if it's called waterboarding, it's torture; if it's called dunking, it's a "robust interrogation program". Even though both are exactly the same. (Nudge, nudge, wink, wink: ever get the feeling American intelligence policy is being scripted by Tom Clancy?) It's enough to make Orwell rotate out of his grave and into orbit. But just to be perfectly clear, here's a suggested short list of substitute phrases for various kinds of torture (excuse me, "advanced interrogation techniques") so we know when torture isn't torture. Others will suggest themselves to the reader. You just need to call it something else.

Old: waterboarding
New: apple dunking

Old: sleep deprivation
New: all night pillow party

Old: electric shocks to genitals
New: foreplay

Old: sensory deprivation
New: meditation

Old: nail pulling
New: manicure

Old: contortion
New: stretching exercises

You're welcome.

London: 51°30' N. — Labrador City: 52° 54' N.

2006-10-28T13:20:00.000-04:00

An article in the Guardian yesterday reported the Gulf Stream, the enormous North Atlantic current responsible for keeping western Europe balmy, shut down, stopped, ceased, what have you, for ten days in 2004.

Researchers are not sure yet what to make of the 10-day hiatus. "We'd never seen anything like that before and we don't understand it. We didn't know it could happen," said Harry Bryden, at the National Oceanography Centre, in Southampton, who presented the findings to a conference in Birmingham on rapid climate change.

Without the Gulf Stream, average European temperatures would be 6C colder than other places at similiar latitudes. But is it leading to the somewhat fanciful doomsday scenario portrayed in The Day After Tomorrow, where thermohaline circulation breaks down completely? Not quite. But still:

Lloyd Keigwin, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in Massachusetts, in the US, described the temporary shutdown as "the most abrupt change in the whole [climate] record".

He added: "It only lasted 10 days. But suppose it lasted 30 or 60 days, when do you ring up the prime minister and say let's start stockpiling fuel? How can we rule out a longer one next year?"

One anomoly does not a trend make. But added to the bizarre weather seen over the North Atlantic in the past couple of years --- hurricanes making landfall on the Iberian peninsula, for instance --- as well as other disturbing trends, such as the increase in overall sea surface temperatures and decreasing oceanic salinity, I wonder (in a purely subjective, non-scientific and off-the-cuff way) if something isn't seriously out of whack. How does it all relate to climate change? What's noise and what's signal? Nobody knows really, including the climatologists. Something is up, though. And the science is doggedly struggling to fill in the gaps.

Getting Real on Climate Change

2006-10-27T08:58:00.000-04:00

Nick Stern --- Sir Nicholas Stern, to be correct --- is one of those heavy duty British civil servants with a loaded curriculum vitae, and qualifications to match: educated at Oxford and Cambridge, professor at the London School of Economics, Chief Economist and Vice President of the World Bank, and now an advisor to the British government on climate change and development. Not one, you would think, who would be a fly-off-the handle wacko enviromentalist. Yet I will guarantee you that by this time next week he will be thus labelled by certain sections of right wing opinion.

From the Independent yesterday:

Global warming could cost the world's economies up to 20 per cent of their gross domestic product (GDP) if urgent action is not taken to stop floods, storms and natural catastrophes.

That stark warning was given to Tony Blair and his cabinet yesterday by Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Bank economist, and is said to have left cabinet ministers chastened by the magnitude of the threat posed by climate change.

In a preview of a report he is to deliver next Monday, Sir Nicholas told the Cabinet the world would have to pay 1 per cent of its annual GDP to avert catastrophe. But doing nothing could cost 5 to 20 times that amount. He told them: "Business- as-usual will derail growth."

The massive 700-page report - commissioned by the Chancellor, Gordon Brown - was described as "hard-headed" and "frighteningly convincing". It focused on the economic peril now confronting the world, unless action was taken to combat harmful CO2 emissions that contribute to global warming.

"He left no one in any doubt that doing nothing is not an option," said one Whitehall source. "And he stressed that the need for action was urgent."

His review could be a watershed in overcoming scepticism about the existence of global warming. "It was hard-headed," said another source. "It didn't deal in sandals and brown rice. It stuck to the economics."

Mr Brown believes it could force the oil-dominated White House of George Bush to concede the importance of action to curb climate change. One minister who was present said it destroyed the US government's well known argument that cutting carbon emissions was bad for business.

His report, covering the period up to 2100, warns that climate change could cause the biggest recession since the Wall Street Crash and the Great Depression. A downturn of that magnitude would have "catastrophic consequences" around the globe, with the poorest countries hit first and hardest, Sir Nicholas told the Cabinet. Insurance analysts, who submitted their evidence for his report, said they feared insurance claims could exceed the world's GDP.

But, there is some good news, according to the Guardian:

Sir Nicholas will argue that tackling the problem may not prove as economically painful as some experts predict. Investment in low-carbon technologies could stimulate the global economy. Sir David [King, the British government's Chief Scientific Advisor] said: "[Stern's] analysis, I think, will also surprise many people in terms of the relatively small cost of action . . . The massive investment programme that's ahead of us is an opportunity for us to move towards a zero carbon energy system. The investment process is going to act quite possibly in the opposite direction to an economic downturn."

In speaking of the forthcoming report, David King added the following:

"In my view this is the biggest challenge our global political system has ever been faced with. We've never been faced with a decision where collective decision making is required by all major countries . . . Actions being asked of the political system today are only going to play through into mid-century and beyond. So for the first time we are asking a global political system to make decisions around risks to their populations that are well outside the time period of any election process."

Which brings us to the much ballyhooed "balance" of the federal government's new Clean Air Act, the Act which promises to address the challenges and opportunities of global climate change by freeing us all of mold and mildew around the home. A reality check, perhaps?

Given the huge scope of what's required, nationally and globally, do you think the government could have given us --- well, more? More vision, more leadership, more responsibility, a chance to establish Canada in the front rank of nations dealing with climate change and in developing green technologies? Or even seizing opportunities to increase our prosperity?

In fact, isn't this just the "change of attitude" on Canada'a place in the world that Canada's New Government was hoping to generate?

Apparently not. Reality and Conservative Party rhetoric are two different animals, matter and anti-matter, occupying space in parallel universes.

So instead we have half-hearted half-measures --- "real and measurable targets" --- by a government that believes that climate change issue is a matter for PR flummery: mandatory greenhouse gas reductions in 44 years, mysterious "intensity targets" that will actually increase the amount of CO2 emissions, controls on ATVs and appliances, weak auto exhaust standards, and an "historical" three part consultation process with industry, evidently designed to consume a forest the size of Prince Edward Island in paper --- all of which amounts to a mash note to business. The fact that industry --- especially oil producers --- are applauding these measures is telling in itself.

Or maybe the government believes that in the grand scheme of the universe, our greenhouse gas emissions amount to a big bucket of nothing. So we might as well, goes the argument, whoop it up while we can. As Red Tory points out today, "Our collective insignificance is highly interesting."

And that's where the government would have you believe we belong.

Where Do I Sign Up?

2006-10-27T04:37:00.000-04:00

Out of the tangled and complicated coverage of CIA rendition flights in Europe comes this extraordinary tidbit:

CIA pilots, sometimes using false identities and whose planes regularly passed through Britain, ran up huge bills in luxury hotels after flying terrorist suspects to secret locations where they were tortured. But they revealed their whereabouts and identities by indiscreet use of mobile phones and allowed outsiders to track their aircraft's flights.

On one occasion, CIA pilots and crew lived it up in Majorca after rendering Benyam Mohammed, an Ethiopian brought up in Notting Hill, west London, to Afghanistan where he was tortured. Benyam was detained in Pakistan early in 2002, and then flown to Morocco, where he says he suffered appalling torture. He is being held at Guantánamo Bay.

I'm sure I don't have to draw a road map between Corruption and its capital city, Torture, but still I wonder if I'm in the right business. A little extraordinary rendition, a little slap-dash waterboarding, then rest and relaxation on the Med, all expenses paid . . . and all for God and Country.

A tough life, that.

Reason No. 2349 to Vote the Beggars Out

2006-10-26T16:28:00.000-04:00

Right-wing Christian groups met Tuesday in Ottawa, tested the political winds with their collective fingers and decided having a Parliamentary vote to reopen the same-sex marriage debate maybe wasn't such a good idea after all. According to the Globe and Mail:

Instead, they arrived at the House of Commons yesterday to say they would be happy if politicians would merely study the impact that expanding the institution to gay and lesbian couples has had on Canadian society -- a move they hope will keep the debate in the public domain.

"We wish that they would study it, we wish that they would have proper hearings," Dr. Charles McVety, a senior director of Defend Marriage Canada, said at a news conference.

The act that introduced same-sex marriage "went through without the proper studies and it's impacting our lives. It's impacting people."

Uhuh. For "merely study the impact" read "we're waiting for a Conservative majority government so we can have another kick at the can". You'll get something more closely approximating the truth.

They've realized, evidently, that strategically it makes no sense to remind Canadian voters where the Conservative party base truly lies. The narrow-minded and bitter speechifying that will surely accompany the marriage debate in the Commons will not help Conservative chances in any upcoming election, and will only serve to confirm the impression --- rightly or wrongly --- that the party is populated by bigots. Better to keep the marriage issue under wraps for the time being, and hope for a better outcome in the projected election next spring or summer.

Besides, what a better way to mobilize the base to vote Conservative than on a campaign to rescue "traditional marriage"?

As for "impacting our lives", how so, exactly? Is there a flood of male evangelicals running off to marry the guy of their dreams? And vice versa? Are fundamentalist marriages that flimsy that they can't stand the competition?

Maybe there should be a parliamentary inquiry on the deleterious effects of pointless and inflammatory rhetoric on the body politic, with Charles McVety as the lead witness. It would certainly be more useful.

That Darn Sovereignty Issue

2006-10-26T09:57:00.000-04:00

Yesterday's story "U.S. rules limit hiring at Montreal firm" dual citizens barred from certain positions at aerospace services provider CAE Inc." by Daniel LeBlanc of the Globe and Mail certainly had that familiar ring of extra-territoriality imposed through the U.S. Helms-Burton Act.

It's a devil's problem. First, Canadians who hold a second passport from countries considered dangerous by the US cannot be considered for Canadian based positions in sensitive areas according to the US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).

As the Globe mentions,

The Canadian government is refusing to impose ITAR on its own employees, saying the restrictions violate the Charter of Rights and cannot be enforced in Canada.
Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is prohibited to discriminate against Canadian citizens, irrespective of where they were born or whether they retain citizenship in other countries," said Elizabeth Hodges, a spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Upper Canadian reminds its readers, is not only applicable to the Federal Government. It is the law of the land, applied equally and evenly to all citizens. So why isn't the federal government out protecting the rights of Canadians? Thinking badly, one might come to the conclusion that this might even be a provoked fire: Look! Those darn immigrants with their double nationality hurting Canadian industry! Another reason to make them be real Canadians!

In whatever case, as the Globe failed to point out, there are issues beyond whether or not the Charter is being adhered to (or not) or whether we are witness to a make-believe crisis to strip Canadians of a second citizenship. In a grim multi-billion dollar industry, ITAR is the bane to all wanting and willing to purchase US military material, both outside and inside the USA. Issues of technology transfers are rife, as are the American right to boycott the resale of lesser technologies to third countries perceived as a threat to the national interest and state sovereignty. Others, such as Derek Burney for ambassador the the United States, complain of US protectionism.

Australia, for example, recently chose EADS helicopters over an American equivalent because of ITAR restrictions in computer source codes. Countries are also looking at ways to avoid ITAR altogether. Some Europeans companies, as Defense Weekly pointed out, "already advertise that some of their wares are “ITAR-free” — that is, they are not subjected to the U.S. International Traffic in Arms Regulations, a situation that is likely to increase after the US block of C-295 aircraft sales by Spain to Venezuela. Companies proclaiming "ITAR free" are EADS, Alcatel Space (France), Morotta (UK) and Surrey Satellite Technology (UK).

At the state level, France foresaw the sovereignty issue and adopted a policy of industrial autonomy so as to avoid Washington's tutorship in its military endeavors. This type of response, as Defense Weekly suggested, keeps American arms peddlers up at night since "...the best way to become ITAR-free is to stop buying American-made parts." Even multinationals find the ITAR regulations cumbersome, as Boeing found out when it tried to declare its 787 plane as "ITAR free" since some carbon fibre components are similar to those found in the B-2 stealth bomber. (Think of that the next time you're in one!)

So where does Canada stand? According to Peter McKay, now settling back into the frat house after a trying trip to the outer rim of the galaxy, ITAR requirements are causing snags in Canadian military procurement. Contrary to popular belief, the country is an important importer of military wares. So why isn't our government --- you know, the one seeking for Canada a new distinctive role in foreign affairs --- creating a policy to buy ITAR free planes, helicopters and other toys of destruction to avoid the extraterritoriality of ITAR? Or better, why isn't it suggesting a consortium of trustworthy ITAR free countries and regions? Making strong industrial policy has never been one of the Canadian government's strengths. But perhaps it is high time to end issues of extraterritoriality and restricted technological transfers by promoting "ITAR free" in Canada's military and defence industries.

In a Narcotic Haze

2006-10-26T09:40:00.000-04:00

For those of you wondering, the dearth of posts in the last couple of days has been the result of some major excavations and rootings: I had some wisdom teeth out, and am accordingly living in a Percocet-and-Gravol-induced wonderland. Unlike Coleridge, I haven't been moved to any great effusions of poetry from my opioid use. No Xanadu for this boy. Just a lot of mindless staring at the television, sucking in Dr Phil and Oprah like a parched sponge.

However, it turns out that narcotic euphoria is good for other mindless tasks, like writing HTML code, which general bores me more than even reality television. I've made some significant changes to the format of the Upper Canadian, and would be glad for comments and suggestions on usability. I like the result, but then, I'm walking in a poppy field at the moment.

Short Takes on the Religious Right

2006-10-22T16:26:00.000-04:00

While writing a future post on Margaret Somerville and her views on same sex marriage, I had the pleasure over the last couple of days of trolling through some of the darker recesses of the right-wing fundamentalist reality. Here's a few of the golden nuggets dredged up.

He Who Lives By the Sword

James Dobson, the so-called pope of the Religious Right and founder of Focus on the Family (and its Canadian branch plant) isn't feeling the love lately. “I have never seen such hatred in my life. I am being bludgeoned,” he said recently in response to being called the "worst man in America." In the same interview he accused gays and lesbians of "targeting children".

Well, James, I am one person who doesn't hate you. I might think you a blithering idiot for not seeing the connection between your vile rhetoric and a heated response, but I don't hate you.

Demonization

You know how the religious right whinges on and on about being "demonized"? Our rights are being supressed, they moan, we're being demonized by the left and the mainstream media, and so on, ad nauseam? Here's a case of the supporters of same sex marriage being demonized, literally.

The context is a rewrite by Jon Dykstra of The Screwtape Letters; the topic, how the devil is working to end traditional marriage. (Screwtape is C.S. Lewis's imaginary demon who corresponds with an underling about the snares and devices of Hell.) Screwtape says: "That is what this [legalization of same sex marriage] is ultimately about—yet another skirmish in our ongoing war with the Enemy."

The Enemy, of course, is all good fundamentalist Christians who oppose same sex marriage; supporters are minions of Satan.

I guess I should be buying a turkey baster, because man, I'm gonna be roasting.

Who Me, Partisan?

Christianity.ca, the media mouthpiece of the Evangelical Christian Fellowship, recently published a report card on Stephen Harper's performance. Do I need to tell you Canada's New Goverment got an A- overall? Some of the praises sung:

"generally competent, focused, and well-disciplined"

"amazingly well skilful and effective"

"deserve high marks"

"marked success"

"done very well"

"much more impressive as prime minister than he was as opposition leader"

"decisive and focused"

"a strong, articulate, energetic, bold, disciplined and visionary leader"

With a miracle or two and maybe some stigmata, Harper will be elevated to sainthood before the end of the parliamentary term. Even criticism discovered in the article is couched in terms like "the attempt was commendable." In short, not a stinging rebuke is to be found.

Curious such obviously partisan puffery is to be found on a website owned by a registered charity, which by definition is supposed to be nonpartisan. Even curiouser, that the author complements the government for its integrity, while the website's owners are effectively subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer.

If Ignatieff were an American living in Canada, dreaming of being president, guess what he'd be doing right now?

2006-10-22T14:33:00.000-04:00

Among the many doubts of Michael Ignatieff's bid to become the next Liberal leader, perhaps the most noticeable objection is that he has not physically been in Canada since the late 1970s. Most have taken this aspect fairly lightheartedly; one of my favourite quips on Ignatieff's opportunism comes from Paul Knowles at the New Hamburg Independent:

The fact that the leader in the race to be Liberal leader is Michael Ignatieff, the guy who came back to Canada - after living most of his adult life in the United States and England - purely in order to run for the job of Prime Minister. Most people come to this country because they want a fresh start, or they want to escape tyranny or persecution. They come willing to take whatever job is available, to build a life in Canada. To start from scratch in a country that offers more opportunity than the one they are in. Ignatieff is not an immigrant, of course. He is a bona fide Canadians - even if in his writings he has referred to himself, pronounally speaking, as an American.
But imagine the conversation around Ignatieff's breakfast table, a year or so ago. "Dear, I am thinking of moving back to Canada." "But you have a great job here in the U.S." "Yes, but I think my opportunities will be better in Canada. I do remember the country, somewhat, and I want to be a prime minister or president of something. I can't do that here in the States, because we have a silly rule about being born here. I can't do it in England, because Tony Blair's successor is already standing with his briefcase at the door of 10 Downing. So it's either Canada or Italy, and I know slightly less about Italy."

Funny stuff, indeed. But should we consider that something more serious is at hand? To name our southern neighbour which has considered this possibility, Article II of the US constitution states:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

In my reading of this clause, a candidate needs to have been resident in the US for fourteen years prior to seeking office. Thus, in the hypothetical situation that an expatriate American decided to return home to seek the presidency--a situation that I cannot recall having occurred-- he would automatically be disqualified.

How long has Ignatieff been in Canada? Ten months and counting? How long will he stay if he doesn't win?

Folla't a la dreta

2006-10-19T16:56:00.000-04:00

Aiming at the heart and souls of Catalan youth, Joves d'Esquerra Verda [Green-Left Youth] of Iniciativa per Catalunya Verds [Catalan Green Initiative] recently distributed election campaign material which consisted of condoms and the slogan 'Folla't a la dreta' or 'Fuck the right.' The Catalan Greens have since withdrawn the material and have apologized to those whom may have been offended.

Iniciativa retira su campaña 'Fóllate a la derecha' y pide disculpas
Joan Saura - ICV-EUiA

Moral Clarity

2006-10-19T09:51:00.000-04:00

On the heels of George W. Bush signing into law the Military Commissions Act, the BBC released this morning a survey of 27, 000 people in 25 countries which asked if any degree of torture was acceptable in the fight against terror in order to save innocent lives.

Canada ranked third (74%) in those polled who thought torture was unacceptable in any circumstance, behind Italy (81%) and France/Australia (tied at 75%). In the United States a bare majority of 58% thought torture was wrong against 36% who believed "some degree" of torture was permissible. Contrast this against those places with more dubious human rights records, such as Turkey (62%/24%) and Egypt (75%/25%).

Even after the Abu Ghraib scandal, it's still a bit astonishing to think that in the beacon of the free world, 42% of the population either supports torture or is indifferent to its use. Interesting too, that that 58/42 split nearly mirrors, perhaps not coincidentally, the polarized nature of American politics at the moment.

Moral clarity is a phrase championed by conservatives in the United States and elsewhere that embodies a whole series of values idealizing the actions of the Bush Admininstration as inherently ethical and good as opposed to the "moral confusion' of the administration's opponents and critics. Swing a cat at any conservative blog and you're likely to shake loose this hackneyed slogan. Invading Iraq to foster democracy in the Middle East has moral clarity as it promotes freedom; opposition to the war promotes terrorism, and is the result of an incoherent set of moral values.

I rather suspect the 36% of Americans (and the 22% of Canadians) who approve of torture like the phrase moral clarity. It perfectly describes a proscriptive temperment, a self-perception of clear ethical vision. The question which needs to be posed to supporters of torture is how, exactly, does torture in any embody moral clarity or a strong sense of moral values? How is effacing the inherent dignity and worth of a human being an ethical act? Or is the phrase "moral clarity" just a cover for the immoral use of naked power?

Darth Bush Claims Space for Freedom

2006-10-19T07:21:00.000-04:00

We should all give a sigh of relief that the adversaries of freedom will be dissuaded from using space in the future, the BBC reports. While the United States seeks freedom for all in the celestial sphere, the National Space Policy states in no uncertain terms American galactic preminence:

The United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity. Consistent with this principle, “peaceful purposes” allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit ofnational interests . . .

In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power. In order to increase knowledge, discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the national security, the United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities . . .

The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests. . ..

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests . . .

How bad can this be? On the surface, all this looks like the United States is seeking the free use of space for all (commercial, for example, is cited in the document no less that 29 times) as well as looking for its demilitarization. Yet, the National Space Policy's underlying essence stresses the need to maintain, if not increase, American defences beyond the stratosphere. One then has to wonder how this statement is being taken in Moscow, Brussels and Beijing. Is this the sign of future arms races in space? Is it then time for an international summit of space use?

BBC NEWS Americas US adopts tough new space policy

Other blogs posting on this subject:

No BMD, eh?

Daily Revolution

Standing on Guard for Thee

2006-10-18T11:23:00.000-04:00

Appearing in yesterday's Gazette (via CanWest News Service) was this headline: Hastily trained Afghan teens to stand guard for Canadians, by Renata D'Alieso.

According to D'Alieso, as a result of six recent deaths, NATO has decided that it is better to use local teenagers to police and defend a particularly dangerous stretch of road in Kandahar being rebuilt by the Canadian battle group. Arming these youths with Kalashnikovs and training them for 9 to 10 days will apparently help lessen the insecurity in the region. As NATO's regional police adviser, Canadian Forces Colonel Gary Stafford explained, "The Afghan government requested that we expedite and get [Afghan] individuals into high-risk areas."

Technically this is an auxiliary police force under the command of the regular Afgani police. Still, the links with the Canadian Forces are clear. As D'Alieson reported, NATO (read: Canada) complied with the Afghan government's request to train, arm and supervise this new police force. Moreover, supporting law-enforcement appears to be in line with Ottawa's general strategy of pacifying the region. Gordon O'Conner, the Minister of National Defences thinks policing is the key for success in the region. Speaking last September, O'Conner theorized that the secret in defeating the Taliban "insurgency" is "about developing effective Afghan national police forces and an Afghan national army" to establish order.

Yet, training a professional army and police force is a far cry from giving AK-47s to kids after a ten day training session. The end result is that NATO/Canadian Forces in Afghanistan are enlisting under-aged, ill-trained teen-aged boys destined to be cannon fodder. And the proof is in the pudding: "Most, if not all, were asleep at their posts when Canadian soldiers recently dropped by to inspect. When they were awake, some had errantly fired their rifles in the direction of the Canadians", reported the Gazette.

Does the Government think the use of sticky-palmed teenagers in a war zone is appropriate policy? Here's a clue: "Police salaries are low, about $80 a month, far less than the wages foreign organizations pay skilled local workers. The job is also risky, particularly in southern Afghanistan." So risky, in fact, that near-children are being recruited into doing a job adults won't do. Is the state of affairs in Kandahar so desperate?

From this particular pedestal, one sincerely hopes that the Government is adhering to the spirit, if not the letter of the Geneva Conventions:

The Parties to the conflict shall take all feasible measures in order that children who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities and, in particular, they shall refrain from recruiting them into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years the Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest." (Protocol I, Art. 77, Sec.2.)

One can also hope that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Peter McKay (apparently still on special assignment in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri) can clarify if the Canadian government has violated the terms of Article 77. Meanwhile, Members of Parliament should consider the morality of sending boy-soldiers into harm's way.

The Potluck Solution

2006-10-17T11:57:00.000-04:00

So what is it with white middle-aged males protesting the trivial? Guilt? Impotence? Decline of reality television as a viable form of cultural expression? Realization that after half a lifetime they've made absolutely no mark in the world?

I wondered about this mystery this past weekend, after Gary McHale's "March for Peace" in Caledonia last weekend, which was clearly intended to be a rumble with the Six Nations protesters occupying the Douglas Creek lands. Fortunately McHale's Army --- the thousands of counter-protesters he predicted would take up arms against "government duplicity" --- didn't show, leaving him and his merry band of supporters facing off against a potluck dinner organized by the Haudenosaunee protestors.

Only in Canada would a volatile situation with a potential for violence and bloodshed be diffused by tuna casserole and nanaimo bars. Makes you proud, eh?

Here at The Upper Canadian we put on our fancy thinkin' chapeaux and came up with this idea. Since the Foreign Minister, Peter McKay, is on secret assignment in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri by orders of the PMO, maybe Stephen Harper can start a bold new direction in Canadian foreign policy: call it the Potluck Dinner Initiative. Imagine the fun and hi-jinks! George brings the (halal) ribs and Osama brings the tabouli. A massive sit-down along the Demilitarized Zone. Sweet-and-sour meatballs for all! Ditto for Darfur and Somalia and Iraq: Nine Layer Dip works wonders to heal animosities. If it works for the United Church, where the potlucks have resolved many a bitter and vicious theological dispute, surely it will contain larger conflicts on the world stage. The indigestion alone will incapacitate nearly everyone.

Besides it would be truly amazing to have finally a real made-in-Canada foreign policy, reflecting true Canadian values and culture. The Prime Minister could definitively answer his critics who say his foreign policy is a Washington franchise. For what could be more Canadian than eating tortiere and potato salad off a paper plate with people you don't really like?

Rona Ambrose: Super Brain or Mere Prop?

2006-10-16T11:15:00.000-04:00

According to a Hill Times article this morning, Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, has not been briefed on the science of global climate change.

Steven Guilbeault, [states the article] a climate change campaigner for Greenpeace Canada, said normally one of the first things a new Environment minister would do is receive a number of briefings. "Once they've been appointed they would have briefings on various portfolios or various files within their portfolios, you know, clean air, toxics, nature, climate change. This is an absolute minimum," he said, adding that he suspects that the minister has chosennot to be briefed by her Department's scientists.

The Upper Canadian's astonishment that the central issue of this minister's portfolio, the issue driving Canada's New Improved Government's enviromental policy, has somehow escaped the Minister's attention, leads us to formulate several theories to account for this apparent lapse:

A) Rona Ambrose has a computer-like superhuman brain, assimilating facts and theories at will, thus eliminating the redundant prattling of scientists whose intelligence pales before Her Mighty Cerebrum. (This is the meme Conservative party apologists are promulgating, along with Stephen Harper: Party Animal and All Around Fun Guy)

B) She doesn't care. (Climate change is boring and I'll be dead anyway.)

C) She thinks winter getaways on Great Slave Lake are a good idea. (I have 50 acres of waterfront 80 kilometers east of Yellowknife.)

D) She's been too busy, what with the the new environmental policy, and Clean Air Act and . . .

Oh right. Doesn't global warming have something to do with that? The Prime Minister appears to think so:

"[The Clean Air Act] will set in motion Canada's first comprehensive and integrated approach to tackle air pollution and greenhouse gases and in doing so deliver better air quality and address climate change . . . Canada's Clean Air Act wasn't developed on the fly at a press conference. It wasn't written at an international meeting held in an exotic location. And we're certainly not going to hire a comedian to promote it."

Actually, what you do is hire a telegenic minister to act as a prop to your policy announcements which were apparently formulated on a serviette in the Chateau Laurier coffeeshop, and you need something, anything to feed the media hounds nipping at your heels. Because the science of global climate change is the artifice of the devil, destroying capitalism as we know it, and depressing the Calgary real estate market besides.

Which leads us to the theory that the Upper Canadian favours: Rona Ambrose is actually a cleverly constructed cardboard cutout, programmed to suitably appear over Stephen Harper's right shoulder as needed and controlled by a secret electronic device located somewhere in the PMO. This accounts for the briefings, or lack of them. Cardboard cutouts don't need briefings. They don't need to speak at all.

Mr Ignatieff whistles for wind

2006-10-12T19:59:00.000-04:00

In the days of schooners and rigging and foremasts, sailors held close numerous superstitions. Don't have priests or women on board. Don't kill albatrosses. And especially, don't raise the wind by whistling. Michael Ignatieff has whistled, and conjured a hurricane. In doing so, he may well have scuttled his leadership ambitions when, on Radio-Canada's Tout le monde en parle, he suggested that the 30 July Israeli bombing of Qana was a "war crime."

Qana, for those who don't remember, is a small town in southern Lebanon which was targeted for attack on 30 July, leaving 28 women and children dead during Israel's ill-advised Lebanese summer adventure. It is also generally accepted that something terrible had happened there. Jan Egeland, the UN's emergency relief co-ordinator called the attack "indiscriminate and excessive" despite Hezbollah's morally questionable use of the civilian areas for refuge. Kenneth Roth, of Human Rights Watch put it in even clearer terms by saying that "such consistent failure [by Israel] to distinguish combatants and civilians is a war crime".

Such is also the opinion of honorary Upper Canadians such as Tariq Ali, Noam Chomsky, Eduardo Galeano, Howard Zinn, Ken Loach, John Berger and Arundhati Roy who recently declared in the Guardian that Israel's actions in Lebanon were indeed criminal:

The US-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon has left the country numb, smouldering
and angry. The massacre in Qana and the loss of life is not simply "disproportionate". It is, according to existing international laws, a war crime. (The full statement can be found here.)

Despite the validation that something calamitous had indeed happened, justifications of Israel's actions in Qana have emerged, mostly in the US media like the Wall St. Journal. The crux of their argument is that Israel, acting on a a tit-for-tat manner, is less to blame than Hezbollah for starting the whole mess. What these finger wagging arguments also do (perhaps inadvertently) is lower the State of Israel down to Hezbollah's level; indeed with a bit of sobriety a good case could be made that one group of armed thugs attacked another group of armed thugs which, in turn, responded with even bigger bombs and guns, killing innocents along the way. Even using that optic, both groups are equally to blame.

Whatever the case, the attacks on Ignatieff have already begun. Susan Kadis, Ignatieff's Toronto campaign co-chair and MP from Thornhill resigned over the affair suggesting that Ignatieff doesn't understand Middle East affairs and argued that the attacks were just. As the Toronto Star reported, Kadis "found Ignatieff’s 'unprovoked comments very troubling,' given that Israel’s attack on Qana was a response to the 'brazen kidnapping' of Israeli soldiers and missile attacks by Lebanese-based Hezbollah guerrillas."

Equally important, Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee also seems to think that Ignatieff is being unreasonable for suggesting that killing civilians isn't kosher and chastised Ignatieff for even thinking out loud that last summer's Israeli adventure was a mistaken and blood wrought:

For somebody as well-informed and experienced as Mr. Ignatieff, he should know that is not a reasonable charge to level against Israel...What he ought to be preoccupied withis the kind of intolerance that gave rise to the conflict to begin with and the extent to which there are efforts to have it leach into Canadian society. (Quoted in the National Post.)

And Mr. Ignatieff only spoke of Qana. He did not speak of the Lebanese deaths during the war. Nor of the Canadian or UN casualties. He did not speak of the systematic destruction of infrastructure built up since the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon. And he did not speak of more than 350,000 cluster bombs dropped on southern Lebanon after Resolution 1701 was passed. (These charming devices turn into active land mines which, as the Times reports, continue to maim the innocent.) Moreover, he did not suggest that most of the civilized world (and all of the barbarians, evidently) thinks that Israel crossed the line.

All said, while I dearly hope that Ms. Kandis is not speaking for the Liberal party, let alone the people of Canada, she does have a right to have a perspective, however naive. The opinion of Mr. Fogel's organization, however, smacks of censure from an international lobby group, using the anti-Semitic card to trump criticism. In the Canada- Israel Committee's ideal world, we should all shut up, because we just don't understand. Because of the risk of being, in Mr Fogel's words, intolerant. But Mr. Fogel misplaces the origins of intolerance; he should understand that patience runs thin with war and blood, no matter the creed.

So Mr. Ignatieff is at a crossroads. He can either stand alongside his beliefs and intellectual counterparts or buckling under to the pressure from a questionable lobby. For the Upper Canadian the choice is clear: kill an albatross or two, let a woman onboard and weather the inevitable typhoon.

The Reign of Cynicism

2006-10-11T12:07:00.000-04:00

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times have this staggering story on Iraqi civilian deaths:

A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred.

The estimate, produced by interviewing residents during a random sampling of households throughout the country, is far higher than ones produced by other groups, including Iraq's government

It is more than 20 times the estimate of 30,000 civilian deaths that President Bush gave in a speech in December. It is more than 10 times the estimate of roughly 50,000 civilian deaths made by the British-based Iraq Body Count research group.

The surveyors said they found a steady increase in mortality since the invasion, with a steeper rise in the last year that appears to reflect a worsening of violence as reported by the U.S. military, the news media and civilian groups. In the year ending in June, the team calculated Iraq's mortality rate to be roughly four times what it was the year before the war.

Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country. (Washington Post)

The figures, of course, are being challenged (here, for example, and here), viewed through the lens of ideology. A small tempest is in the making. What strikes me as surreal about this particular dust-up is whether you're talking about 50 000 or 655 000 casualties, the figure is still monstrous and appalling. Remember we're talking about human beings here, innocent or hard core jihadis, mothers, fathers, brothers sisters, aunt, uncles, grandparents, all of whom were loved and treasured.

I'm not being mawkish. I merely point out two things: first, these dead were as fully human as your own children, and second, having your mother numbered among the dead by insurgents, or as "collateral damage" by U.S. forces, or simply as the victim of petty crime because the chaos is uncontrollable will generate anger and hatred.

Is it any wonder the United States is facing a full-blown insurgency?

Stalin once proposed that one death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic. Strange and ironic some in the West adopt a similarly callous and cynical attitude towards the Iraqi dead. I guess Arabs don't count in the scheme of things. Or don't fit into the "culture of life" so valued by conservatives. Or something.

How many civilian casualties is acceptable? Is it worth 50 000 or 655 000 lives to bring democracy to the Middle East? Are 500 deaths a day a reasonable price for Iraqis to expiate the sin of 9/11? Or to fulfil the hubris of the Bush Administration?

Making Kim Pay

2006-10-11T10:08:00.000-04:00

I will tell you exactly what will happen to North Korea in consequence of exploding an atomic bomb:

Goose egg. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Zippo. Absolutely sweet dick-all.

"And this could have been stopped, if the West had had the courage to stand up to both North Korea and China. It did not. And Seoul, or Tokyo, or even Los Angeles, will pay the price one day," moans one blogger, meaning to give a damning indictment of the West's moral and political failures, but unintentionally pointing the finger at the real source of decay.

Ever since claiming the moral leadership of the free world and naming North Korea as one of the most evilest nations in the Axis of Evil, George W. has essentially sat on his hands on the nuke issue. It dropped on his to-do list --- the evil apparently having lessened with time --- to somewhere between water appropriations in North Dakota and global warming. At the same time it appears about 97.3% of his attention has been drawn to the ~~sectarian strife~~ ~~terrorism~~ ~~civil war~~ disaster in Iraq and related sideshows in the war on terror. Remember Bush cutting the legs from under John Kerry two years ago for Kerry's sucky position on North Korean nukes? He had a plan, right? He was going knock Chinese and Korean heads together to fix this thing, the so-called six party talks. In retrospect, the sucky position would probably have been better than this triumph of American diplomacy.

Bottom line: short of outright miltary intervention --- any volunteers for that particular bucket of slop? --- nothing will be done. The Chinese will bluster --- Beijing as a target is a lot closer to Pyongyang than Washington --- and the Americans will wave their hands and the Europeans will make pooh-poohing noises, while Stephen Harper offers sanctions --- against a country with which Canada has no foreign trade, and whose development aid from Ottawa would scarcely carpet Kim's vacation house in broadloom. Denunciations and sanctions against the most isolated country on the planet are laughable and amount to a sorry mass bum-covering exercise on the part of world leaders. They really don't have anything else to offer. In the event, a sanctioned North Korea with nuclear weapons is probably better than the blood-and-gore alternative.

So get used to North Korea having the bomb. But don't worry: building a delivery system for such weapons is at least two or three years off ---- plenty of time for George to fix it.

Hysteria's Peace

2006-10-10T10:44:00.000-04:00

While lying in bed this morning, half-awake and somewhat feverish, an unusual and disquieting peace came over me. While Sunday morning does brings a predictable calm with less traffic, the ability to actually hear birds and the choice to forgo rushing about (at least until later), there was something else, something more wearisome was in the air. Decidedly absent was the paradoxical security blanket of anxiousness, that deep rooted feeling that the world was going to hell in a handbasket and the corresponding relief that there is nothing to do about it anyway.

"avian flu" terrorism invasion "global warming"

Statistically, I may not be alone. As you can see in the above chart, search queries on Google the avian flu virus has remarkably dropped off the from the high last year when we were all going to cough and snivel our way to oblivion. Terrorism and global warming get a less than energetic shake of the head and the odd "tsk tsk." This fall's prime candidate, a (rumoured) beating war drum for an invasion of Iran, is perhaps driving more fear into people than the other choices. Even this should be put into perspective of more immediate concerns like Paris Hilton's social agenda:

"paris hilton" iran invasion "global warming"

Where are this season's jitters? Has the Mark Foley scandal tripped up the system in Washington? The Washington Post seems to think that Cheney, at least, is up to old tricks, which is kind of scary in its own right, except for sensation that we've heard it all before, as even Bill Clinton pointed out a few weeks ago. Is it that people have simply becoming immune to scare tactics?

Needless to say, the lack of fear induced tension is kind of worrying, if not stress inducing. First, there is less and less to make sharp coffee house remarks like "did you duct tape your window frames yet for the gas attack?" Worse still is the creeping paranoia that, just maybe, something big in the works. Are UFOs going to invade? Is the Earth going to be sucked into a black hole? Or is it just that North Korea simply going to nuke us to kingdom come? Whatever the outcome, please Mssrs. Spin Doctors give me something to worry about.

Overshoot Day, or How to Ruin Thanksgiving

2006-10-09T17:04:00.000-04:00

Recovering from the Thanksgiving bloat? Feeling a little drowsy, perhaps, from all that turkey? Somewhat ironically, as we Canadians gorge ourselves today on pumpkin pie, stuffing, squash and the inevitably dessicated bird, 9/10/06 also marks World Overshoot Day. Today is the day when the human population of the Earth has used up all the biological capacity that can be produced in one year, and begins to to run an "ecological deficit". It's like having income from a trust account, using up the interest before the end of the year, and having to dip into your capital to support yourself. Inevitably you go bankrupt. To put it another way, humanity consumes the biological capacity of 1.3 Earths every year.

Cheerful thought. Even more cheerful is the fact that Overshoot Day creeps up a few more days in the calendar every year. Only nineteen years ago, Overshoot Day was 19/12/87.

It's really about the arrival of Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, flying on wings of global warming, resource scarcity, environmental degradation and habitat loss, all nicely calculated and documented. And sunny optimism and personal empowerment tapes ain't going to save you.

I suppose --- I know --- there will be those shilling for various corporate and government interests who will deny all of this as environmentalist propaganda. They will propose that denuding the planet is actually good for us, and back it up by fakery and pseudoscience, or else point to the God of Technology as our saviour.

They will, sadly, be believed by a population in the First World all to ready to defend its impossibly high standard of living, and to salve its conscience by tossing cardboard into the recycling bin. Political will is needed urgently to address this and all environmental issues --- but none is to be found, having rolled off the table and into a pit of greed and deceit, covered by a smokescreen of more pressing matters, like the unending war on terror.

Cynical? Pessimistic? I wonder. But I have a question, one that keeps me up at night and fuels my nightmares: Do we as a species have the knowledge or wisdom to look beyond narrow and selfish short-term interest for the long-term good of all of us?

Thus far the answer is not reassuring.

Apocalypse Fashion

2006-10-06T12:52:00.000-04:00

It is awfully good to know that, when in time of need --- like a desert oil war or, say, an outright fin du monde situation of biblical proportions --- French clothing hawker Marithé + François Girbáud will be there to see that you are stylishly and comfortably dressed. For the uncertain autumn/winter 2006-2007 season, new winter apocalypse colours are available: Dubai black, Wadi al Batin brown and Tigris red. Clothing is resistant to random hoodlum attacks and becomes more authentic, wearable and even waterproof with oil fallout stains. With these innovations, one can hardly wait for what the spring/summer 2007 collection will bring us!

Seen in Le Monde, 6 October 2006 (paper edition).

The Norwood Fair, and Some Pointless Local History

2006-10-06T08:12:00.000-04:00

As I write, a parliament of about 300 Canada geese has settled on the farm pond, and having resolved the same sex marriage issue some time ago, are vigorously debating the best route to Boca. The turkeys are popping Xanax and talking confusedly about "breaking out". Suddenly it's fall, Thanksgiving is upon us, and the yes, the famous Norwood Fair is gearing up this weekend to awe the amateur and professional fairgoer alike.

I've often thought one of the great pleasures of living in Canada are country fairs, and the Norwood Fair is one of the best of them. A fair of this splendour and beauty is hardly to be found elsewhere in Peterborough County, let alone the province. But I warn you: wandering through the giant pumpkins, the preserves and pickles, and the prize pigs is exhausting and not for the faint-hearted; so exhausting in fact, Norwood village pretty well closes up for eleven months afterwards, just to gather up strength for the next time.

For those of you not in the in-crowd, Norwood is a tiny village about 25 km east of Peterborough; for me it's the village, as in, "I'm going to the village for milk/driver's licence/chicken food/to get the dead donkey removed.*" So I confess a little bias. But come on out anyway. Just go east on Highway 7 towards Ottawa, and you'll run right into it. You'll probably see me there Sunday, likely muttering at the sheep.

I also need to mention, in all humility, that there's a link between the the fabulous Norwood Fair and your humble Upper Canadian. I've discovered one of the founders of the fair in 1868 was one Frank Birdsall, whose family owned about 25 acres of the property I now occupy. Now this is a fact, I admit, that isn't likely to draw a gasp of admiration from anyone but me and the blue-rinse gang over at the Asphodel and Norwood Historical Society. But think about it:

Frank Birdsall, Norwood Fair Founder -------->

The Upper Canadian -------->

? Unknown Greatness

On such paths are the roads to glory trod.

*Actual conversation

Defence of Bigots Act

2006-10-04T12:35:00.000-04:00

Back in the day, say before the last federal election, the Conservative Party swore up and down there was no secret agenda to impose right-wing fundamentalist values on an open, tolerant society. Now we see this article in the Globe this morning:

The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives.

Maybe there was a secret agenda? Maybe we were lied to? I'm shocked, to be sure.

That this scheme has been commented on extensively here, and here, and here and here and here, and here, and here (among others) shows is indication of the importance of this issue: it's a slippery slope, indeed, to abrogate the inherent rights of one class of citizens for the sake of political expediency. Enough has been said already without me adding a long exposition on the inherent silliness and danger of such a measure.

A key point, however, bears reiteration:

Gay and lesbians are citizens and are entitled to equality under the law according to the Charter of Rights. Period. Allowing civil servants to refuse service to taxpaying citizens on the basis of "conscience" is tantamount to creating two classes of citizenship. And allowing business owners --- which includes everyone from the guy who runs the corner store to a holding company owning thousands of rental properties to Walmart --- to refuse to serve or uphold the law for gay and lesbian customers is enshrining discrimination.

Substitute "black" or "Tamil" or "common-law heterosexual couples" for gay and lesbian and the point becomes plain.

Adding a superfluous bill to protect freedom of speech --- however bigoted --- is one thing. Protecting bigots from the law of the land is another.

UPDATE: The so-called Defence of Religion, it turns out, is dead after all, strangled at birth, apparently by central Canadian Tory MPs nauseated by the pasting the Government was receiving on the issue. Or so says the Minister of Justice Toews: any talk of the bill is now mere "speculation" --- it's all a left-wing, secularist plot. Like Darwin. And global warming. But remember --- repeat after me --- there is no secret agenda.

The Canadian Cynic has a profoundly funny post on this subject here.

It was pointed out to me today that not all evangelicals --- perhaps a large percentage --- are not hate-filled, torture-approving, or war-mongering. Distinctions have to be made. Some evangelicals are actually living their faith have a progressive social agenda and doing some radical things Jesus might actually approve of, like promoting peace and helping the poor. Fair enough, and perhaps the topic of another post.

Focusing on Focus on the Family

2006-10-03T23:54:00.000-04:00

The news that a former flunky from the American-import Focus on the Family Canada has materialized as the new Chief of Staff for Rona Ambrose, Environment Minister, shouldn't surprise anyone. Really. I mean, we have a fundamentalist Prime Minister who calls himself an evangelical and a caucus who believes gay men are going straight to Satan's barbeque, and we should be shocked and appalled one of Christ's Army has been recruited into service of Canada's New and Improved ---now with Extra Godliness! --- Government ^TM?

A couple of observations: one has to wonder what input Darryl Reid, the erstwhile subject of this latest bullfruit explosion, has to offer Environment Canada? A fundamentalist Christian perspective on saving the planet? Remember, this is a Department which (supposedly) inherently works using science --- real science, with lab tubes, methodology and peer-reviewed journals and the rest, as opposed to the public relations "think-pieces" flogged by oil companies and right-wing institutes.

If you believe that the Universe was created 6000 years ago and Fred Flintstone really did play with the dinosaurs, I submit you have an issue with real science. And if you believe that Jesus is coming shortly with a bloody sword to slay the wicked and carry all the good Baptists and Pentacostals to their Heavenly Reward (but probably not the Catholics or Presbyterians, much less the honest members of the United Church, or God forbid, the Unitarians) you probably don't have much use for any long-term planning to deal with global warming. What's the point? Jesus will fix it, after he deals with those doubly naughty unbelievers at the Metropolitan Community Church and Osama Bin Laden.

A slight credibility gap, I think.

Second observation: One has to wonder about the connections between the Conservative Party organization and special interest groups like Focus on the Family Canada, if employees are flitting around like Bible quotes from a preacher's mouth. Darryl Reid has been no slouch in the regard, holding positions in Focus on the Family, as Preston Manning's Chief of Staff, and as federal Conservative candidate.

The problem being is according to its webpage, Focus on the Family Canada is a "charitable organization, built on Christian principles, which supports, encourages and strengthens Canadian families through education and resources." Very lovery and innocuous, but last time I looked the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency doesn't take kindly to charitable organizations fooling around with partisan politics. It's stealing from taxpayers (in the form of charitable receipts) to finance, in an underhanded way, a political programme. You can, however, advocate all you want, but it's a fine line between advocacy and acting as the Conservative Party's voter outreach program. (I was thinking of a less politic analogy --- like poodle --- but I'm not sure who's poodling who.) Especially when Focus on the Family Canada clearly advocates policies congruent with Conservative Party policies, and leaves the voter with the impression that it's Stephen Harper or Canada as the Devil's amusement park.

Anyone wanting to take odds the CCRA will conduct an investigation?

Return to Main Page

It's official, I'm a fuddy-duddy

2006-10-01T05:10:00.000-04:00

Dear Bam Magera

I used to think I was a pretty hip guy. You know, I kept abreast (I know, someone who uses the word abreast, isn't, a priori, hip. Or a priori, in italics) of pop culture, knew who was doing who, knew what bands were hot (even if I didn't listen to them). I sort of paid attention to Rock Star: Supernovabut not really. Then I came across your television show, Viva la Bam. I was up late one night in August. I couldn't sleep. It was hot and sticky, I smelled bad and the cats were bugging me. You know what I mean? Anyway, I don't watch a lot of television as rule because I only get four channels here out in the country, so I was flicking between CBC, CTV and Global (TVO was off the air) and there was your show. I watched it for 20 minutes.

And thought: "What the hell is this crap?"

The premise seemed to be that you were doing "cool things" just for the hell of it. This seemed to be involve riding around on ATVs, gratuitous destruction of property, environmental havoc, mocking the uncool as fat and worthless, drinking, making your friends/groupies/hangers-on/homies doing things apparently dangerous to their health and building a casino in a tree. (Why this was necessary when there are perfectly good casinos near where you live, I don't know.)

At first I thought, well, maybe there is some wicked social commentary going on, so I was prepared to give it some time. Then I thought, maybe it was loaded with obscure cultural references which you were attempting to reconcile with your personal world view. I was about to give up, but then after watching 17 commercials in a row, I got it. You're marketing a brand called Bam Margera. And making lots of money doing it. So obvious, because the content is absolute shit.

I'm actually disappointed. This I'm too-cool-for-words-I-do-what-I-want thing is just a revenue-driven persona. And a pretty obnoxious one at that. You're really no different than anybody else shilling for product.

I know you have been voted "Favorite athlete turned TV Star" in a 2005 Teen People Poll, which puts me at risk of being pummelled to death by a gaggle of teenage girls. (I also know this because of your logo --- a "heartagram"* --- a pentagram reworked into a heart shape: so dangerous, yet so reassuring to the set just graduated from My Little Pony.) I know you have so much money from Jackass and Jackass II it makes my pitiable assets look like the penny jar of a part-time Wal-Mart associate.

But dude, I have to tell you this. Your demographic --- those gooey eyed teenaged girls and also alienated white males aged 18-29 --- is getting older by the second. They're all going to marry each other and soon your audience is going to start breeding like so many rabbits. They won't have time for you. In a couple of years your schtick is going to look as dated as Frankie and Annette. In 20 years you entire oeuvre is going to be on the dollar table of a charity bazaar. In a hundred some dorky doctoral student is going to write a thesis about you, and compare you to people who think dwarf-tossing is a worthwhile pastime.

You got talent, bud. Why not do something different? Like something worthwhile and intelligent?

By the way, you should really get your Wikipedia article rewritten by someone who isn't your PR hack. It's, like, really obvious, man.

Also, the "la" in Viva la Bam, sort of implies you're a girl. Kind of funny, when you think of it.

Obviously no longer hip,

Michael
The Upper Canadian

P.S. I enclose my Hipster Membership card

*What the hell does this mean anyway? I worship Satan, but I'm capable of love too? Please.

Creeping Normalcy

2006-09-29T11:40:00.000-04:00

Having observed the depredations of the American Right these past twenty-five years --- since R. Reagan's inauguration, really --- forgive me for being skeptical and cynical about the uproar concerning the Military Commissions Act. Watching the outrage --- this New York Times editorial is a good example --- over the U.S. Congress passing its torture bill is merely confirming my suspicions about the gullibility of human nature. At the end of the day, it's the same-old, same-old: the American Right does something outrageous, and the American Left bemoans the consequences. Nothing ever changes.

Fact is, we've been watching the American republic slowly dissolve itself for years, its moral compass and credibility vanish like so much hot gas, its vaunted Bill of Rights as good as toilet paper. Maybe we're all becoming inured to it. There's a phrase for this: "creeping normalcy". Creeping normalcy is when torture as official policy was anathema five years ago, but is seen now a reasonable extension of state policy. Creeping normalcy is abolishing the writ of habeas corpus --- a legal procedure which has served as well though war, flood and famine since the promulgation of the Magna Charta --- on the basis of national security. Creeping normalcy is is looking at the CNN home page (Headline as I write this: "Police: School Shooter Asked for Girls by Name.") and seeing nothing of this bill passing through Congress.

Robert over at My Blagh has it exactly right:

If Americans don't open up a can of whoopass on their government over this then they deserve exactly what they're getting. If a million Americans don't get themselves a brick and hurl it through the window of a government building in the next day or two in order to send a message that they're mad as hell and won't take it anymore, then they deserve exactly what they're getting. If tens of millions of Americans don't bring the nation to a standstill sometime in the next week to signal that they will not go quietly into the night, then they deserve exactly what they are getting.

The trouble is that millions of Americans won't take to the streets. There will be a bit of a ruffle for the next news cycle or two, and that will be about it. Till the next time. Meanwhile the Great Republic has taken another step on the merry road to fascism --- but don't you worry about it: the Christmas shopping season is just around the corner, you know.

The lack of any real response from the American people, apart from handwringing, is in truth the most disturbing aspect of this. One could draw several conclusions from this: a) they don't care, b) they don't know, c) they approve.

How reassuring for the rest of the world. How good to know too, that the most pro-American government we've had in years is taking notes from George Bush's playbook.

Return to Main Page

Transnational Upper Canada

2006-09-27T12:19:00.000-04:00

Generally, I try to be patient and understanding when the academic crowd attempts to broaden their horizons in search of new venues for research. Yet there was something that irked me when I saw this announcement on Boderlands that appeared in my inbox the other day from the Michigan Historical Review:

As a prefix, trans often raises interest, if not eyebrows. Transgentic, transcultural, transexual, even trans fat (!)... It is a sexy prefix.

Transnational Upper Canada does have a rather nice ring to it. Images of Indians trading from the Thousand Islands to the Western tip of Lake Superior, voyageurs guiding their canoes through placid waters, and joyful Canadians and Americans happily traversing our shared border danced momentarily through my head.

But, ahem, have things really been like this? Having grown up literally on the shores of Lake Huron, the land tht lay beyond the great blue horizon was largely a unknown to me. I knew it was there but, if anything, the other side could have been Japan or Australia. Indeed, the lake invoked a similar sensation as when I now peer northward out into the Atlantic from my home in the Canaries: a great emptiness extending for thousands of miles. Now, looking at Lake Huron with Google Maps, it now seems like a large moat filled with ice half the year. Myth-torically, a case could be made that the Great Lakes served as a natural defense during the War of 1812. More recently, despite NAFTA and the surge in cross border trade, real transnationalism seems illusory. Impediments such as increased border controls (including hour long waits to cross the border) soon to be imposed passport requirements and new electronic sensors to catch illegal migrants can hardly promote the notion of a Great Lakes Region.

Transnationalism seems, from here at least, like a sad euphamism. Might Transnationalism's failure might be a better title for this particular call for papers?

For those interested in submitting an article, the website is http://clarke.cmich.edu/michhistoricalreview/index.htm. For everyone else wanting to share a few words on this subject, the Upper Canadian is all ears.

Return to Main Page

Too Clever by Half

2006-09-27T08:00:00.000-04:00

It isn't very often that a government gets to throw a sop to its hardcore supporters while blowing raspberries at it opponents. Cutting the Court Challenges Program as part of its broader economizing scheme, Canada's New Improved Government has done exactly that. The government is blowing hugs and kisses to the usual suspects --- REAL Women of Canada, the Christian Right, the Fraser Institute --- while poking its finger in the eyes of the whinging rabble, excuse me, minority groups and civil rights advocates.

Score one for the government? Maybe.

The government correctly strategized that the Left and the press would whip itself into a froth over the cuts to this particular program --- which is has, of course --- essentially depriving oxygen to discussion of the other announced cuts. It's lovely, classic example of political sleight of hand --- Machiavellian, to be exact --- to distract the citizenry with an inflammatory, divisive policy, while implementing more draconian policies. By the time discussion of the controversial policy is fizzled out, the draconian is a fait accompli.

Except the proposed cuts elsewhere aren't exactly earth-shattering. Confederation will still stand, and yes the sun will rise tomorrow. As Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star correctly points out, the cuts are "an exercise in alleged fiscal restraint that, on the face of it at least, is much less than it seems." In fact the government has given us not so much a coherent plan for fiscal restraint, than a laundry list of cuts made to specific departments. Looking at the list, one gets the impression deputy ministers were instructed to sacrifice one or two programs for the political agenda of the new lords of the manor. And some of these "cuts" aren't in fact funding reductions at all, but "streamlining" and taking back unused funding --- the real sleight of hand.

If cutting the Court Challenges Program was intended to be diversionary, it's a large hammer to crack so worthless a nut.

The Left can take heart, though. The government seems to have made a strategic error. In the normal course of events discussion and memory of this controversy would fade as the media and punditry focussed their attention on other more substantive aspects of the government's fiscal policy. In this case, there doesn't seem to be any. Who cares if the government saved $5 million on "Consolidating Retail Debt Program Administration"? Nickel and dime stuff, especially on budget surplus of a gazillion dollars, approximately. Instead, we'll all remember these cuts as the attack on minority groups --- those gays and lesbians and aboriginals --- so loathed by the Tory party base.

For a government facing an election, and ongoing suspicion about its social conservative agenda, cutting the Court Challenges Program is a curious choice to make.

Return to Main Page

Faux Canadians

2006-09-25T14:04:00.000-04:00

It is somewhat startling to see the Canadian government --- the Conservative government, if I may correct myself --- grumble about having to evacuate 8,000 Canadian citizens from Beruit at a cost of $85 million. (If you happen to be wondering, that works out to almost $11,000 per refugee. Didn't they consult with Ryanair? Perhaps they could have bought a cruise liner?)

Now instead of our good government patting itself on the back on a job well done for having taken innocent Canadians out of harm's way (or, perhaps more pointedly, sending the bill directly to Jerusalem for having forced that particularly useless war) it is now wringing its hands about how the majority of the 8,000 rescued "Canadian citizens" holding two passports have since returned to Lebanon.

Not missing a beat, the Canadian press has spiked newspapers with tear jerking (or chest thumping) phrases like "citizens of convienience," "divided loyalties," and "accidental citizens." Word has it that there are nearly four million of these semi-Canadians in the wild, not counting those Canadian-born fence sitters who have applied for a second (or more) passport abroad, who are using and abusing Canada and its good will.

From one angle, it seems like a rational reaction by cost conscious citizens spotting fiscal waste. People were abusing the government purse overseas and, ergo, the best answer is to redefine what it means to be Canadian. To be a bearer of that skinny blue passport, one has to pay the price, beyond the exorbitant $87 fee: real Canadians, the argument goes, live in the Great White North, have wet dreams about the Queen, and, above all, contribute to the system through taxes. From another angle, all this reeks of repackaged xenophobia. Could the clichés and stereotypes supposedly buried a generation ago be re-emerging? Does "Canadian passport holders abroad" really mean "new Canadians" (and not retirees in Orlando)? Are "immigrants with passports," really a different shade of Canadian as one's sister-in-law who has Irish grandparents and a EU passport? Worse still, are "second generation immigrants" really different from their neighbours whose parents came from Holland in the sixties?

The drivel on restricting the rights of Canadians living abroad comes (one might hazard to assume) from small time, greasy followers of Stockwell Day who you wanted to bitch slap in Poli Sci 101 (clones of this type can be found here, here, and here). It is enough to make one think that Canada is beginning to act more like the conservative reincarnates of Switzerland or Austria than, well, like Canada.

What's worse, for those of us more internationally minded, all of this seems to have been rehearsed somewhere before. Globalization, the breakdown of borders and frontiers, and multiple identities were repeated so often during the flighty '90s that even I considered speaking up against it (out of boredom, I admit, but alas, my nemisis, Naomi Klein, beat me to it). While globalization does seems so 1990s, fear and terror are the call words of a brave new decade. To its credit, Canada was still the same country on September 12th, 2001 and endured nothing less than four years of holding Homeland Security hyperbole at bay. But it is not difficult to imagine in the current political clime how issues of "security" will be tacked onto the evacuation of 8,000 refugees from Lebanon and more reason to take a sledgehammer to the foundations of Canadian citizenship law.

So as a true believer of (most) things liberal and, therefore, an adherent to the idea that borders and finite nationalities are a dumb idea, blindly following the sheep on the idea of "Canadian or nothin"' seems like a particularily bad idea. But just what does citizenship mean? Part of it is about a kindred feeling for the place where you are from, kind of like a marriage certificate from the patria. But another part of it is about acknowledging a truth that people are raised in one part of the world, work in another and, perhaps, if they are lucky, retire in southern lattitudes. Assuming that the 50,000 Canadian living in Lebanon were, indeed, Lebanese-Canadians holding both passports, these people aquired the right to be Canadian legitimately through jus sanguinis (through a parent), jus soli (being born on Canadian soil) or through naturalization. In other words, all of these Canadians gained their citizenship through long-honoured traditions and customs.

Falling back on the common creed of the '90s, where multiculturalism was a badge of honour summing up what Canada was about, there is indeed much is to made for the case that more can be gained from mixed loyalties than single loyalties. A few months ago, on a plane from Milan to Toronto, I found myself cramped into the cheapseats of an Alitalia Airbus that had connected with a flight from Tehran. Not unlike travelling in European train compartments, it was inevitable that some sort of conversation would arise. Beside me was an academic, teaching biology in Ontario, in front of me was a contractor who lived in Toronto and worked in Iran. I was frankly amazed at the cross section of of Canadians on that plane and their ties with a country half a world away. Diaspora thus takes on a whole new meaning of those that come to Canada and those that leave as hybrid, hyphenated Canadians.

On a practical level, is the government naive enough to believe that if it forced people to choose one passport over another it would resolve its invented problem? For many countries, like Lebanon, emigrants and returnees are a lifeblood, economically and demographically. In other words, they will do everything in their power to facilitate their that citizens can have two nationalities. More importantly, if people are forced to choose, they would choose to be Canadian and still live abroad, asking for the goodwill of the Canadian government when need be. What the Ministry of Foreign Affairs likely knows (but is afraid to say) is that the same situation that arose in Lebanon would have existed, with dual citizenship or without.

All of this leads me to believe that something else is amok. Perhaps, after settling into their new digs in Ottawa, the Conservatives, to paraphrase Cindy Lauper, are letting their true colours shine on through. Perhaps to the enlightened Members of Parliament from beyond the Ontario-Manitoba frontier, the concept of humanitarian relief strikes a hollow chord. Or was it that the refugees did not look Canadian enough? Did some look too Arab for some Conservative members' tastes?

Return to Main Page

Take Back the Night

2006-09-22T16:19:00.000-04:00

A few years ago, during the electricity crisis that plagued California, the city of Los Angeles was plunged into darkness. Soon afterwards emergency services and the power companies began to receive telephone calls from anxious citizens, reporting strange lights in the sky and a mysterious luminous band which stretched from horizon to horizon. What was it? Was this causing the power outage? Or something even more sinister, like (wait for it) an alien invasion?

The mysterious lights were stars, of course, and that band of light was the Milky Way, the delineation of our own galaxy. This story may or may not be apocryphal, but the point remains: for the first time in human history, large numbers of people --- possibly the majority in the First World --- have not seen the night sky in all its glory and wonder. Instead, we have light pollution, from millions of lamp standards, all shining up, obscuring all but the brightest stars and planets.

I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer. Even in my splendid isolation in rural Peterborough County, the light pollution from Peterborough city, 25 kilometers away, is significant and obvious: the western horizon is pretty much obscured. And driving home from work from suburban Toronto there is actually a point along the 115 where its possible to see the light domes from both Toronto and Peterborough.

The graphic above represents the light pollution in south-central Ontario as seen from space. The cross marks Peterborough, the colours represent the quality of the night sky from totally dark (black) to obscured (white). In almost all of the City of Toronto, the sky is so obscured that only the brightest planets (i.e. Jupiter and Venus) and stars will shine; there is no hope for most of the rest of the GTA to see the Milky Way.

There are, of course, obvious economic and cultural impacts to this light pollution. Something in the order of 40% of light from lamp standards, buildings, security lighting, billboards and the like is directed upwards into space, wasting energy, disorienting wildlife, interfering with circadian cycles and human health, rendering scientific research futile, and depriving the humanity of its natural heritage of the night sky. If there was ever a noxious consequence of our industrial civilization, light pollution would go to the top of the list, along with global warming and reality television.

Of course, public consciousness equates bright, visible lighting to safety, lower crime rates and security in general. The more the better, in fact, which accounts for light pollution being off the radar for most politicians. Who wants to be accused of wanting more crime?* Yet in fact, several studies have shown that installing energy-and-sky friendly lighting has no adverse effect on crime and security in general; poorly designed lighting seen all too frequently in cities actually decreases visibility from the glare it creates --- think of the glare created by the headlights of an oncoming car.

I sometimes think all this lighting has some broader cultural impacts. Since widespread lighting has become common --- in the 1930s, the Milky Way was visible in downtown Toronto --- there have been more UFO sightings, more claims of alien abduction, more belief in the physical reality of angels, in short, more belief in supernatural nonsense from the heavens, and a concurrent decline in public interest in pure science. It's as if the sky, in all its unadorned glory, has become a thing to be feared as unfamiliar and dangerous, rather than a source of wonder, curiosity and awe. Maybe we prefer to be cocooned in the illusionary safety of high-wattage light. More's the shame.

*Several years ago, Trent University faced pressure from some groups to improve safety, especially in the area of lighting. The university resisted for a time, stating its environmentally-friendly and architecturally sensitive lighting was adequate for the purposes of safety and security; the cry was (inevitably) raised the university was anti-woman, the university caved, and Trent is now a model of sodium-vapour lighting in that exact shade of urban alienation and in the worst possible way. I would be curious if the number of attacks since this lighting was installed has actually declined.

The Wheels on the Bus Go Round and Round

2006-09-13T23:19:00.000-04:00

I'm returning to this blog after some months. Actually, a lot of months. It's a bit like taking a car out of storage. You kick the tires, and check the oil and battery, and poke at the engine, and pray to Jesus/Allah/Buddha the damn thing starts. I've cleaned out some of the old stuff. I have no idea if any of the links work. I see my comments have been spammed to death. Such is the price of negligence.

One new thing: I will be joined occasionally by my friend Agaete --- my man in Havana, er Canary Islands --- who will provide a Europeanish perspective.

Looking back over my old posts, I was struck considerably by how little has changed in eighteen months. We're still talking about the war on terror, same sex marriage, health care reform. Et cetera.

But we have Stephen Harper now.* Almost makes you yearn for the good ole days under Paul Martin, doesn't it?

*I note that I was wrong about Harper self-destructing over the same sex marriage issue. So far. I think he must be praying hard ("Please God, don't make me invoke the notwithstanding clause . . . those nasty Ontario and Quebec voters will whack me with a stick!") that the resolution on reopening the debate (or whatever parliamentary contortion he's planning) is defeated. Or the government falls. Or the earth falls into the sun. Any choice will do, really.

Candlemas

2005-02-03T10:25:00.000-05:00

Rejoice! Yesterday was Groundhog Day, and whatever the prognostications of various rodents (Shubenacadie Sam saw his shadow; Wiarton Willie and Balzac Billie didn't), winter is half over.

Some notes on Groundhog Day:

The tradition of groundhogs forecasting weather arose out of several northern European customs of divining weather from animal behaviour around the time of Candlemas; Candlemas itself is alternately the Feast of the Purification of the Virgin or the Feast of the Presentation of Christ in the Temple or both, depending on the church; the name "Candlemas" derives from the tradition of blessing candles during this feast.

Perhaps coincidentally (or not, if you take a Jungian view of things) the pagan celebration of Imbolc, which commemorates the return of light prior to spring, was held on the same day. Modern pagans tend to hold that Candlemas is a conflation of the earlier festival though evidence of this, in fact, is scant. Lupercalia, the Roman festival of Faunus, the god of fertility and forests, was held on 15 February, which coincidentally or not, is the alternate date for the above-mentioned Christian festivals. Lupercalia featured the sacrifice of a dog and two goats. Small whips --- the februa --- were fashioned from the goathide. Naked youths running through the streets used these whips to lash young women as an act of purificaton and to ensure fertility for the coming year. Interestingly, the Latin verb "to purify" --- februare --- has the same root as the word for "fever", febris (cf. the English "febrile").

And finally, and again coincidentally, or not, sightings of groundhogs at this time of year have less to do with weather forecasting than --- what else? --- sex: it's mating season.

The United Church and Same Sex Marriage

2005-01-28T09:36:00.000-05:00

Somewhere in the furore over Bishop Henry and Cardinal Ambrozic's interventions in the same sex marriage debate, this letter from the Moderator of the United Church of Canada to federal parliamentarians got lost. This is unfortunate, because it serves as a timely and politic reminder to both sides of the issue that not all Christians are against same sex marriage, and that the Catholic hierarchy and Janet Epp Buckingman do not speak for all believers. I quote the letter in full:

January 17, 2005

Please accept greetings from The United Church of Canada, and our gratitude for your service to Canada through the work of Parliament. I am writing to you because of the recently delivered Supreme Court opinion on marriage legislation, and the prospect of an early introduction of such legislation in the House. We wish you well and pray for you as you prepare for the coming session.

I want to contribute a perspective from the United Church to your deliberations. Whether or not you agree with what I am setting before you, I think you should be equipped with the knowledge that the General Council of Canada's largest Protestant denomination welcomes equal marriage. I believe that this decision has been reached not by abandoning Christian faith, tradition, and values, but by implementing them. I write to you in the hope that you will resist the assumption that anyone who speaks from Christian faith, tradition, and values must be against equal marriage. Some are, some aren't. This is true within the United Church, just as it is true within Canadian society as a whole.

The United Church has been deeply engaged with questions of same-sex relationships for 20 years. In August 2003, its highest court asked the Government of Canada to include same-sex marriage in marriage legislation. I am attaching a copy of the letter to the Prime Minister outlining the United Church's resolution.

In some ways, The United Church of Canada is tracking a common path with the courts and the federal government. While our General Council indicated its welcome of equal marriage, our polity upholds the freedom of each of our congregations to follow its conscience. In the year and a half since the Council's decision, many of our 3,000 congregations have been engaged in the same discussion that is about to take place in the House: whether or not to proceed with equal marriage. We know this conversation is difficult for many of our congregations, just as it has been difficult in the public sphere. In our own house we experience all the elements of this issue that are familiar in Canadian society: a clear opinion from the highest court; varied beliefs and expectations on the part of participants; freedom of religion; discussion preceding emerging policy; and the price to be paid for it.

I want to put before you now a Christian perspective on faith, tradition, and values. I write of these precious things because I believe they ought to be considered in making public decisions. I am aware of your responsibilities toward a multicultural and multi-faith society, and so what follows is not intended to be normative for all. It is specifically and unapologetically of the Christian tradition, a tradition that runs deeply in Canadian life and history.

I understand faith to be a way of living. To have faith is to implement a vision in one's daily life; in this sense, all live by some faith or other. Faith is not simply about the received doctrines. Doctrine is essential to religious life but it is not the final arbiter, neither of our decisions nor of our hope. After all, doctrines have been used to support slavery, apartheid, and the exclusion of women.

Some will protest that we must have faith in the Bible, and that the Bible takes an unfavourable view of intimate same-sex relationship. But I would answer that Christian faith is not an uncritical repetition of a received text. It is a mindful commitment to the power of love, to which the text seeks to give witness. Every generation of the Christian faith must decide how they will honour that demand of love in the living of their days. Changing circumstances and changing ideas are not the enemy of faith.

In fact, change is the only medium in which faithfulness can truly become faithfulness. Uncritical repetition is more like being on autopilot.

Similarly, I understand tradition to be a living treasure. Tradition is not to be confused with habit, custom, or convention. These are simply vessels that seek to hold the living tradition of God's presence in the world. Habit, custom, and convention are not themselves the light; they come to bear witness to the light. John's gospel says that the Word of God became flesh in Jesus Christ. The Word became a living being, John writes, not words. The Supreme Court follows this traditional wisdom when it declares metaphorically that the constitution is a living tree. In Christian tradition the measure by which we choose a course of action is the measure of the love of Christ, a measure that judges even scripture. It is never legitimate to use the words of scripture to promote a loveless agenda.

Further, I understand value to be created by God, not by ancient custom nor by current fashion nor by general approval. God does not love because human creatures have value. Rather, it is in loving human creatures that God gives them value. Value is a gift -- not a rule, not a partisan lever, and certainly not a weapon. It is wrong to invoke the love of God in order that one person's "values" might diminish another's value. Those who claim that homosexual people threaten to dismantle the value of heterosexual marriage would do well to remember that if anyone destroys marriage, it is married people, not gays and lesbians.

In the end, faith, tradition, and values do not decide for us. They equip us to take up the responsible and difficult task of deciding for ourselves. This deciding is itself an act of faith. So we pray for one another, we struggle to live in the love of Christ, and we take our step in humble trust that the next generation will deal generously with us, knowing we did our best with the vision of love God gave us for our day.

For me, Christian faith, tradition, and values contribute to our hope for that day when earth once more is fair and all her children one, including gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people -- all her children. The General Council of The United Church of Canada believes that equal marriage is a step on the path to justice, peace, and the common good. If prayer is a part of your life, please pray that we may tread lightly, wisely, lovingly, bravely, and faithfully.

Thank you for your consideration of these thoughts, which are offered in a spirit of commitment to the good of Canada. Please consider attending a breakfast [for Members of Parliament that] I will be hosting on marriage on Thursday, February 24, on Parliament Hill. In the meantime, I am attaching an essay on marriage I wrote for The Globe and Mail, in the hope that you may find it useful. Again, let me extend to you my prayers and the prayers of the church, as you pursue the difficult path of putting into legislation the best hopes of Canadians. May God bless you in your efforts and may your efforts be a blessing.

Sincerely,

The Right Reverend Dr. Peter Short
Moderator
The United Church of Canada

Standing up for Polygamy

2005-01-28T06:48:00.000-05:00

Amidst the gales of hot air and bloviation over the same sex marriage debate is notion that allowing gays and lesbians to marry will inevitably lead to polygamy as surely as shoo-fly pie leads to the consumption thereof. The Liberal plot to foist polygamy on the otherwise monogamous has been fuelled in part by reports that the federal government is studying the matter. (The reasoning of extrapolating a call for papers for what amounts to a sociological study on polygamous practice from a relatively insignificant government agency to Offical Government Policy boggles: it reminds me of the professor who lept from peak to intellectual peak, leaving his students to labour up the logically contorted slopes.)

But nevermind all that. I'm here to tell you that polygamy already exists in Canada in Bountiful, British Columbia, where an obscure and fanatical Mormon sect practices the Matrimony That Dares Not Speak Its Name. All sorts of nasty things go on in Bountiful in connection with polygamy, all well-documented: child abuse, trafficking in young women as "breeding stock", domestic violence.

Here's the rub: attempts to prosecute these polygamists have been squelched in the past because of fears of violating Charter rights, particularly their right of freedom of religion. RCMP investigations, however, are ongoing.

Clearly, if you are at all concerned about religious freedom ---we've all heard enough about it in the past few weeks in the context of the same sex marriage debate --- you need to fight to defend the rights of the polygamists against untoward statist interference.

In fact, I'm thinking of starting a Society for the Protection of Polygamists Everywhere. How about it, Bishop Henry? A buck to defend religious freedom? Maybe I can even get the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada to make it a special project for Easter.

Because once you start attacking the religious rights of polygamist Mormons, only God knows where it will stop.

"Not Incidental, Episodic, or a Violation of the Rules"

2005-01-26T07:11:00.000-05:00

From Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust.

Suffering and torture in the German camp world was, therefore, not incidental, episodic, or a violation of the rules, but central, ceaaseless and normative. Gazing upon a suffering or recently slaughtered Jew or, for that matter, a suffering Russian or Pole, did not elicit and, according to the moral life of the camp, should not have elicited sympathy, but was indeed greeted . . . by German hardness and satisfaction. . .

The idea guiding the German's treatment of the most hated of the camp's prisoners, the Jews, was that it ought to be a world of unremitting suffering which would end in their deaths. A Jew's life ought to be a worldly hell, always in torment, always in physical pain, with no comfort available. . .

Let the Games Begin

2005-01-25T20:55:00.000-05:00

New game for leftie bloggers: watching right wing bloggers foam at the mouth over this story.

Scoring:

1 point for identifying a right wing blog writing about it.

5 points if the blogger uses the phrase "attack on religion" (or similiar) in the post.

10 points if the blogger uses the phrase "slippery slope" (or similiar).

25 points if the blogger uses the word "ploy".

50 points if the blogger uses the word "polygamy".

100 points if the blogger uses all of the above, plus mentions Paul Martin.

Using multiple blogs allowed. No links, cross-posting or quotations of other postings allowed in scoring. No fabulous prizes, but The Upper Canadian will stand the winner a drink or two if s/he is in reasonable driving distance of Peterborough.

The Choices of Mr Harper

2005-01-21T22:26:00.000-05:00

"I'd rather be right than be President." --- Henry Clay, 1839

And so it goes for Stephen Harper, who would rather be right --- at least in terms of his principles --- than be Prime Minister. (Only the churlish claim he'll never be either.) I'm going to make a prediction: same sex marriage will be the wheel upon which Mr Harper will finally be broken. He's a goner. Either his own party will unsheath the knife, or the Liberals are going to work him over first before feeding him to the party faithful. My money is on the Liberals right now. Either way, the gilt buffet table at 24 Sussex is just about out of reach; no more dreams of Tory patronage or dismantling the Beast, id est, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. or reforming health care or devolving even more power to the provinces. All gone, as fleeting as a Northern summer.

Signs of the decline: Mr Harper imagining a Liberal plot, a slippery slope, to invest the nation with polygamy, eerily reminiscent of similiar statements during the election: "I don't believe there's any support in the country for the recognition of polygamy in law", he said. A small dust up between Mr Harper and the Prime Minister followed this obvious, if enigmatic statement. The Prime Minister threatened to go to the people:

Ce n'est pas mon intention de déclencher une élection. On est là pour gouverner et on veut continuer de gouverner. Mais si la question que vous me posez est: "Est-ce que je suis prêt à déclencher une élection pour appuyer la Charte des droits contre ceux qui veulent l'attaquer ?". La réponse est absolument oui [It's not my intention to call an election. We are here to govern and we want to continue governing. But if the question you put to me is, "Am I ready to call an election to support the Charter of Rights against those who would attack it?" My reply is yes, absolutely. (My translation.)]

and Mr Harper replied, "Bring it on":

I believe that we're on the right side of public opinion. If he has no legislative agenda he wants to pursue and wants to have an election, so be it.

Really? Mr Martin, whose political instincts are surprisingly poor for such an experienced politician, surely has an exceedingly good grasp on the fact Canadians are attached to the Charter of Rights like no other document. Mr Harper, whose political instincts are, if anything, worse, has consistently underestimated that same attachment. The contrast is all difference in the world.

The Liberals are correct in that the logic of Conservative Party's stated position on same sex marriage leads inevitably to one conclusion: invocation of the notwithstanding clause, Mr Harper's denials to the contrary. As I have noted here before, his proposal to enact "similiar-but-different" civil union status for gays and lesbians is an idea two or three years behind the times: that train has long left the station, and in any case would not probably be constitutionally sustainable. It's an all or nothing game now. Similiarly, constitutional difficulties await an up-and-down traditional definition. The only way for Mr Harper to square the box is to use the notwithstanding clause.

And it's here that Mr Martin has him. All the Prime Minister needs to do in any putative election campaign is to mouth the word "Charter" and make the link to the notwithstanding clause. Unfortunately for Mr Harper, it's not a difficult picture to draw, given the Charter being the ultimate third rail of Canadian politics. Add into the mix the indebtedness of the Conservative Party, its veneer of unity and the inevitable bigot explosion that always seems to afflict the party during election campaigns --- suggestions from Tory backbenchers that blacks and homosexuals should be kept in the back room or some like comment. A nasty combination: it would be game up for Mr Harper.

Still Stephen Harper keeps up a kind of doomed bravado. Perhaps his advisors are labouring under the delusion that Liberal division over same sex marriage means a fractured party, where in fact it's a bit of indigestable gristle for a ravening wolf. Wild eyed claims about polygamy and the tone of the new advertising campaign suggest he's conceded the battle to move the party to the centre to the social conservative wing. A dangerous, indeed futile, tactic, if he hopes to pick up centrist voters in central Canada: it confirms the worst stereotypes about the Conservative Party as the party of backwoods yahoos.

At this point, for numerous reasons constitutional and political, same sex marriage is a freight train. Politicians need either to climb on board or else get run over. What choices does Stephen Harper have? It is interesting to muse "what-if": what if Mr Harper faced down the social conservatives and swallowed whatever personal (and political) reservations he has on the issue and forced a three-line whip in favour of the bill? Could it be that we would see the birth of a modern Conservative Party, once and for all rid of the chains and claims of backwardness and bigotry, a responsible opposition and a viable and electable government in waiting? True, I almost certainly overestimate the power Mr Harper holds on the party, or the ability of the Conservative Party to visualize grand strategy in terms of tactical steps, or even its ability to clamp down on its own bullfruit supporters. Speculation is always fascinating, but in this case Mr Harper would rather be right. Too bad for him the Liberals hold no such scruples.

Baby It's Cold Outside

2005-01-21T22:07:00.000-05:00

Spent the afternoon in Toronto, which even Torontonians will admit, is a damnably ugly city, and on a foul winter's day reveals its cold bleak heart by blowing a skingy wind off the lake that cuts to the very soul. But Toronto has its moments: today was bitterly cold, record-breaking cold (almost) yet the sky was the colour of sapphires, and even dingy old Yonge Street danced and sparkled in the winter sunlight. For a moment, winter became a pleasure; the crowds downtown, bundled in scarves and hats, were cheerful, as if to say, yes we are Canadian, and we are coping.

Bad Cop, Good Cop

2005-01-20T01:57:00.000-05:00

From the Cathedral Church of St Mary, Calgary, to St Michael's, Toronto: first Bishop Henry's pastoral letter, now Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic open letter to the Prime Minister published in the Globe and Mail. Bad cop, good cop. The phone lines between Calgary and Toronto must have been humming as the two prelates plotted their script: Bishop Henry as the junior "heavy", the Logan to Cardinal Ambrozic's Briscoe. Maybe they hired a media consultant.

Indeed, the Cardinal is all sweet reason and light. He publically worries about the effect same-sex marriage will have on Canadian society. (When you see a public figure publically worrying, you know it's time to get out the shovels.) He suggests that "unaccountable courts" are forcing the issue down the throats of Canadians. He presses the Prime Minister to invoke the notwithstanding clause --- effectively ending debate on the topic for five years --- and enact a traditional definition of marriage. This will give

this national discussion sufficient time to occur and to ripen into a sober and careful decision. It will give time for Canada to observe the social experiments now under way in Belgium and the Netherlands, and in other places where legislation implementing same-sex marriage might occur.

Leaving aside the handwringing and the debate on the proper place of the courts, the notion of invoking the notwithstanding clause is problematic, and I suspect the Cardinal is being disingenuous in making the argument. Cardinal Ambrozic does not address, of course, the small, practical problem of the thousands of gay and lesbian couples who have already married in good faith in jurisdictions permitting it. If the cardinal went out the back door of his Cathedral in Toronto and looked up Church Street, he'd probable see plenty of examples just a few blocks north. Do you suddenly and arbitrarily dissolve their marriages? Marriage is not just a religious sacrament; it has social, economic and legal implications as well. Cancelling thousands of marriages would be a lawyer's nightmare. Think of trying to sort out common property issues alone.

Then we go to the comical. The Cardinal writes:

The notwithstanding clause was inserted into the Charter to recognize parliamentary supremacy and the need for democratic oversight for courts. . . Fundamental social change should only occur with the consent of the people through their democratic institutions. This understanding of the role of Parliament led to the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Its use in the context of same-sex marriage would be most appropriate.

For years, all we have heard from opponents of same sex marriage is that the matter must be decided by Parliament; Parliament should be the supreme arbitor of such momentous issues; and that the governing party was hiding under the skirts of the Supreme Court. Now that the Supreme Court has finally and decidedly tossed the ball back to Parliament, we should --- defer the issue for another five years, prevent Parliament from voting on the issue, to allow for a more perfect ripening of the issue? It's rather a puzzle to argue for parliamentary supremacy in one breath, then argue Parliament should evade its responsibility --- again --- in the next.

Cardinal Ambrozic hopes a period of "ripening" of public opinion will mean that public opinion will mobilize against gay marriage. Maybe he's hoping that in five years there will be a groundswell for a constitutional amendment such as the one proposed in the United States, though it's hard to see exactly how, since it would require unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces. Or maybe he hopes Parliament will invoke the notwithstanding clause forever. He does know though, that five years in politics approximately equals eternity.

A Very Small Thought

2005-01-20T01:29:00.000-05:00

Funny how when the Roman Catholic Church denounces poverty and social injustice it is immediately castigated by the right as interfering in politics and society and told to shut up, but when it denounces same sex marriage, it is welcomed as being a representative voice. Call it free speech of convenience.

As for me, I actually believe in free speech whatever the circumstances. Even --- especially --- when I disagree with my opponent.

The Language of Love

2005-01-18T09:11:00.000-05:00

When does opposition to same sex marriage descend into hate speech? And why do religious organizations get a free pass to spew whatever nonsense they like under the cover of having "deeply-held beliefs"? I was considering these questions for a new post when Bishop Henry of Calgary issued a pastoral letter to be read by parish churches during weekly Sunday Mass. In part he said:

Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the State must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good.

It is sometimes argued that what we do in the privacy of our home is nobody’ s business. While the privacy of the home is undoubtedly sacred, it is not absolute. Furthermore, an evil act remains an evil act whether it is performed in public or in private.

Now it appears (and I use the verb advisedly) the Bishop of Calgary is backtracking, a little, on the extreme nature of his remarks. According to the Globe this morning, he's expressed regret about using the phrase "coercive power". "In an interview late yesterday afternoon [writes Michael Valpy of the Globe] he said if he was rewriting the letter, he would not talk about unleashing the 'coercive power' of the state." The good Bishop should be thankful that lies of commission are venal sins. As a (poor) retraction, it stretches credulity. You would have to believe that every word of this pastoral was not careful considered. Given the Bishop of Calgary's liking of the public spotlight, he must have known every sentence in the pastoral letter would be parsed by the media. He chose "coercive power" and words like "evil" precisely for the effect. He chose to be inflammatory.

Indeed, it shouldn't go unnoticed that that the Bishop is unrepentant of linking of homosexuality and "evil". And again, why can faith-based groups use all sorts of violent and bigoted language? I am not, I should point out, denying their absolute right to free speech. It merely strikes me as curious that discourse on the issue of same-sex marriage gives licence for the use of vile and defamatory language against our gay and lesbian citizens (for we are talking about people here, not an abstraction) in a way that goes virtually unchallenged by the mainstream media, and even by defenders of same- sex marriage. Can you imagine such language being used against, say, someone of a different religious denomination or ethnicity or race?

I was brought to mind of the point this morning, considering the religious history of Peterborough County. The county used to be covered with the meeting halls of the Loyal Orange Lodge, where Orangemen would fulmigate against their (literal) Catholic neighbours and French Canadians in general with language that shocks even today. And it is within my memory hearing the Catholic church described with a moral certainty by some not-so-extreme Protestant sects as the Whore of Babylon and corrupter of the world. At some point, Canadians decided that intemperate language was unjust and counter-productive to a civil society, and public utterances have ceased. For which we all should be grateful.

"But this issue is different," you say. Different is what way? In that gays and lesbians are less human? Are less deserving of fundamental respect? Certainly most churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, hold the position of "love the sinner but hate the sin", but in reality, this statement is long on feel-good rhetoric and short on substance. (Indeed, the pastoral letter quoted dispenses with even this customary nod to church teaching, except for a vague call for the church to act with "charity" --- which could mean anything, or nothing at all.) "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is merely code. It is insincere at best; at worst, it's a cover for bigotry and intolerence. It means, in truth, "I am about to say some really nasty things about gays and lesbians." It's like saying you love your mother, than proceeding to call her an awful, lazy whore. Sorry, it doesn't wash.

And where does it stop? There are fringe denominations in this country which have a frankly racist theology. Are their pronouncements above criticism because they have "deeply-held religious beliefs"? In the end analysis, what's the real difference between these and Bishop Henry? That he clothes viciousness in the language of love?

Bishop Henry is trying to pre-emptively shut down debate on whether his remarks are bigoted or not: He said to the Globe:

There aren't many people who stand up and say, "I'm tired of political correctness." And because I'm tired of it, don't try to silence me every time I open my mouth by telling me I'm a hatemonger. Because I'm not. I'm just trying to speak the truth as I see it, and I should be accorded the freedom to express my opinions and try to influence people to see things as I see them.

(I note, as an aside, that widespread coverage on the national media, not to mention on the Internet, hardly constitutes silencing. Though claiming to be a victim of oppression in the full glare of the media is a pretty neat trick, admittedly.) Bishop Henry notwithstanding, it is time to declare attacks on gays and lesbians beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse. It needs to be put on that huge pile of Bad Ideas, like religious intolerance and racism, and forgotten about. The point, Bishop Henry, is not whether you have the freedom to express whatever opinion you have on same-sex marriage. You do, and I would be the first to defend your right to say it. Whether you have the right to defame unchallenged fellow citizens is another question altogether.

Update: Both Timmy at Voice in the Wilderness and Treehugger at The Heart of the Matter have written excellent posts on this topic well worth the time reading.

Something Wicked This Way Comes

2005-01-16T01:39:00.000-05:00

Your humble ob't servant has been stricken by some sort of bug that causes him to alternately sleep the sleep of the dead or else puke: hence the lack of posting. Believe me, what I have, it ain't pretty. Death would be a significant improvement. Regularly scheduled blogging --- have articles on hate speech and Garcia Lorca in the works, among others --- will return soon. I hope.

Meanwhile, a milestone of sorts: The Upper Canadian passed 1000 unique visits today, just a little more than a month after first starting this blog. Frankly I'm amazed, pleased and flattered. There many people I would like to thank for giving me a lot of encouragement and advice. But the queasies are coming on again, so I will have to defer it till another day.

Some Turns of Phrase We Could Do Without

2005-01-14T13:59:00.000-05:00

Rereading George Orwell's great essay "Politics and the English Language" is like being doused with cold water: it reminds your of your own sloppiness, and makes you keen against the tired, hackneyed language of others. I've provided three examples of what Orwell meant, all coming into prominence during times of war, though in the case of one, the Second World War, and all of which have slipped into common usage. It is noteable that Orwell was writing in times of great strife, both political, diplomatic and military; in our time, similiar tension results in similiar tendency towards vagueness and obfuscation; where a "coalition of the willing" means two powers doing 95 per cent of the work, where "regime change" hides 100 000 civilian deaths and "national security" is shorthand for loss of freedom and constitutional rights. The examples I have chosen -- there are dozens ---maybe hundreds of others ---- illustrate something else about the reality of present political discourse. They all play a part of the continuing reconstruction of America's post-war history, which glorifies war and redeems acts of naked power as the defence of liberty. They impose a sort of moral clarity on issues fraught with ambivilence: hence their appeal. But they contain a lie at heart. Writers using them ought to be flogged with the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, or some volume of equal heft.

"Blood and Treasure"

Originally surfaced, in my memory, in the couple of years after the terrorist attacks in a patriotic context of American "blood and treasure used to defend liberty around the world." Some representative examples:

Moreover, the Constitution as written and ratified and amended serves only the People of these United States. It is a covenant for that purpose. The blood and treasure of our people are invested in the Nation and respective States, that is to say, in ourselves. (Source)

The costs are becoming clearer by the day in Afghanistan and Iraq where, having toppled the Taliban and the Ba'athists, Americans are spending more blood and treasure in pursuit of an ever-elusive democratic peace. (Source)

The United States is no longer the predictable enforcer of the status quo ("just export oil and drive out communists"). Rather, we are pledging blood and treasure for popular reform in a death struggle with Islamic fascism to offer a humane alternative to corrupt sheiks, generals and kings. (Source)

"Blood and treasure" obfuscates that actual soldiers are dying and immense deficits are being piled up by rephrasing the reality into exalted language. Says Orwell: "[W]riting that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour". The earliest reference I could find is in a poem of Shelley's, "The Mask of Irony" (1819):

Thou art Peace - never by thee
Would blood and treasure wasted be
As tyrants wasted them, when all
Leagued to quench thy flame in Gaul

Mask of irony indeed: Shelly was writing of the events of the Peterloo massacre.

"In Harm's Way"

Another catchphrase that gained widespread currency after 11 September. Probably entered popular conciousness with --- wait for it --- the title of a John Wayne flick about Pearl Harbor, which in turn drew from a letter from U.S. naval hero John Paul Jones:

"I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast; for I intend to go in harm's way."

Some examples:

Soldiers headed for Iraq are still buying their own body armor — and in many cases, their families are buying it for them — despite assurances from the military that the gear will be in hand before they're in harm's way. (Source)

Of all the gifts you could give a US Soldier, Sailor, Airman, Marine & others deployed in harm's way, prayer is the very best one. Remember your family members or friends who are serving our country. (Source)

"I know Secretary Rumsfeld's heart," Mr. Bush told reporters in a year-end news conference. "I know how much he cares for the troops. I have heard the anguish in his voice, and seen his eyes when we talk about the danger in Iraq and the fact that youngsters are over there in harm's way. He's a good, decent man. He's a caring fellow." (Source)

Again the slightly archaic language -- the use of the descriptive genitive --- coupled with a reference to a hero of the American War of Independence to camoflage the reality.

"Stand Shoulder to Shoulder"

Another chestnut. Even Orwell made fun of it, though it was unfortunately revived by Tony Blair: "We, therefore, here in Britain stand shoulder to shoulder with our American friends in this hour of tragedy, and we, like them, will not rest until this evil is driven from our world." The phrase conjures up images of soldiers in serried ranks, solidarity and going over the top together into No Man's Land. Conservatives in this country have gotten some mileage out of it, because of Canada's persistant lack of shoulderliness in whole-heartedly supporting America's imperial adventures. Some examples:

The Conservative Party. . .will stand shoulder to shoulder with the US when we can so that we can sit eyeball to eyeball when we must. (Source)

I am here to assure you that Canada is committed to stand shoulder to shoulder with Haiti. (Source)

"This loss is shared by our entire task force. Our hearts ache with yours as we continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism," said Col. Frank Wiercinski, a U.S. Army spokesman in Afghanistan. "The cost of this fight has been great, but our commitment remains greater." (Source)

The appalling truth is these may never go away, though we heartily pray they do. They are far too easy for journalists and writers to use, and for some, not really objectionable at all.

The Upper Canadian Redecorated

2005-01-13T17:32:00.000-05:00

Now that I have guests, I decided to do a little redecorating: hang some curtains, paint the walls, and do a general cleaning. I hope regular visitors will find the result clearer and more readable; I've also decided to include (almost against my better judgement and in direct violation of Rule #4) in the left column posts of note from my colleagues: too many interesting thoughts out there. These will be updated as the spirit moves me. Hope you like it, and of course, your comments would be appreciated.

Marriage in Upper Canada

2005-01-13T10:15:00.000-05:00

A little on the history of marriage in early Canada:

"Despite Simcoe's continuing opposition, the second session [of the first Parliament of Upper Canada, 1794] carried through a bill on the marriage question , which the Lieutenant-Governor reluctantly approved. . . it provided for the future that justices of the peace might solemnize marriage, according to the form of the Church of England, when the parties lived more than eighteen miles from an Anglican clergyman in a District containing fewer than five such clergymen. . . So limited a measure, passed only because Simcoe would have vetoed a more liberal one, inevitably excited much objection in a province with a non-Anglican majority. Petitions were received from both Presbyterians and Baptists, asking for their clergy the right to perform marriages, but Simcoe denounced these as disloyal and wicked." (From Gerald M. Craig, Upper Canada: The Formative Years 1784-1841, pp. 30-31)

The right to solemnize marriages was not granted to all denominations until 1831.

All Fall Down and Worship . . . Mark Steyn?

2005-01-07T09:15:00.000-05:00

Mark Steyn's return from from the Planet Hiatus has been duly noted, nay, celebrated by my friends on the right as a combination of Christmas and that coronation scene in the Return of the King. The right-wing blogosphere has been particularly breathless, practically falling over each other to link up to his latest ramblings.

So what is it with Mark Steyn, anyway? Granted he's a gifted writer who can turn a phrase. He is sometimes funny. He can outrage, as in this bit of gratuitous nastiness written soon after 11 September 2001:

The post-Cold War interlude is over, an era of follies – OJ, Monica – and fatuities, a few of which Tuesday’s horror stories cruelly underlined: employees in wheelchairs, whom Bob Dole’s Americans with Disabilities Act and the various lobby groups insist can do anything able-bodied people can, found themselves trapped on the 80th floor, unable to get downstairs, unable even to do as others did and hurl themselves from the windows rather than be burned alive. (Source)

Reading that in the National Post in the weeks after the terrorist attacks was like being felt up at fancy dinner party: you were almost as embarrassed for the miscreant as you were for yourself. But despite all of Mr Steyn's qualities, when you read him, you have the sensation of facts being elided, of straw men being presented for the sole purpose of ridicule, of illusion and smoke and mirrors.

Take for example one of Mr Steyn's latest offerings, entitled "Save the whales? What about the Japanese?" in which the humble pundit offers up his views on global warming, evolution, and the pending western demographic implosion. First para:

Professor Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey is worried about -- stop me if you've heard this one before -- global warming. For this year's Christmas lecture at the Royal Institution in London, he'll be warning that the merest smidgenette of an increase in temperature in the south polar seabed will lead to the loss of a zillion species.

Note the use of "Professor", not Doctor, as in fact Lloyd Peck is: Mr Steyn repeatedly uses this title, common enough in British and Canadian usage, to conjure up for his American readers images of the dotty British scientist talking though his hat, a la Monty Python. More on this presently. As for the "smidgenette" of warming, Mr Steyn implies that a) the warming hasn't happened, and b) in any case it's trivial. There is, to be sure, controversy over the rate of warning. It is worthwhile to note that some places in Antarctica the average temperature has already gone up as much as 3 degrees Celcius, a difference that would give Toronto a climate like that of, say, New York City. We'll excuse the "zillion species" bit as mere hypebole in the cause of humour.

Para Two:

And all this will happen if the temperature goes up two degrees, from butt-numbingly freezing to marginally less butt-numbingly freezing. "It is going to be really unpleasant," Professor Peck tells Britain's Guardian newspaper, globally warming to his theme. "We are going to lose things -- we just don't know how much."

As noted, temperatures are going up. More to the point, the clever phrase "butt-numbingly freezing to marginally less butt-numbingly freezing" obscures the fact some significant changes to Antarctica's ecosystem have occured because of this warming: grasses, for example, have become established on the continent in significant numbers for the first time in ten thousand years. As well, let's go back to the original Guardian article that Mr Steyn seems to use as a source. What Dr Peck said in entirety was thus:

Antarctic animals - in the sea especially - are very sensitive to climate change and they are the early warning system for the loss of species on the planet. We should be watching for those because climate change is probably going to get rid of them before it gets rid of other species.

We know things are changing; it is going to be really unpleasant; we are going to lose things - we just don't know how much.

Quoting the last paragraph alone makes Dr Peck look like a loon; add the context of the preceding paragraph, the picture is somewhat different.

Para Three:

. . . But what I find curious about this sort of thing is that Professor Peck is supposed to be a scientist and the newspaper reporting his views is famously rational.

That "Professor" thing again. Dr Peck is, in fact, a scientist. Works for the British Antarctic Survey. Doctorate from Cambridge University and all that. Nothing supposed about him at all. And he actually has the kind of rags-to-renown story so beloved of the right, and one would think, Mr Steyn. No matter. He is --- and others of his ilk --- just a doofus professor.

Para Four:

Evolution posits that species will come and go: Some die out, some survive and evolve. . . Maybe if the Antarctic food chain is incapable of evolving to cope with a two-degree increase in temperature across many decades it isn't meant to survive.

Here Mr Steyn shifts gears and starts talking about evolution. Eh, what? Evolution? Oh I see: Mr Steyn conceeds the point that maybe global warming is happening, but for the penguins and the krill, that's life. In the great Darwinian casino, you lose. Except that we're causing the extinction, and evolution posits change over hundreds and thousands of years, not decades.

Para Seven (I know I'm skipping, but I'm trying to keep this post within reason):

. . . But, on the other hand, somebody (most likely an American) might have invented a thing the size of the Palm Pilot you staple to the seabed that automatically lowers the temperature by two degrees and we'll have wall-to-wall algae. Who can say?

Given the American administration's current state of global warming denial, I'd say that's about as likely as George Bush endorsing gay marriage. Mr Steyn seems to be suggesting that with all the variables postulated in the science of global warming, who knows the outcome. This argument is like quibbling about the precise moment to apply the brakes when the bus is going over the cliff. Whether we feel the full effects of global warming in two decades or a two hundred years is almost besides the point: the end result ain't gonna be pretty.

Paras Eight, Nine and Ten: Here Mr Steyn jumps again and manages to conflate concerns about global warming to the supposed lack of interest in the demographic catastrophe affecting Western Europe and Japan:

Given the choice between the krill's hypothetically impending extinction and their own impending extinction already under way, Europeans would apparently rather fret about the denizens of the deep.

Ahem. The sleight of hand, the old bait and switch element in this line of reasoning is so obvious it doesn't bear analysis. But to correct Mr Steyn, declining and aging populations is actually the subject of a long-running, fretful debate in Western Europe and elsewhere. The real question is whether that debate is truly important if Trafalgar Square becomes a tidal pool or rowing down the Champs d'Elysées becomes the new fad du jour.

You have to wonder why Mr Steyn held in such awe. For all of the flash, the cleverness, the rhetorical swags --- well, his style does beguile. But personally, I remain unimpressed by the substitution of fact and reason with rhetorical flummery. So last year, so Ann Coulterish. And at the end of it, that's what we're talking about: style, and a lamentable lack of actual argument, well-reasoned and considered.

Breaking the rules

2005-01-06T14:48:00.000-05:00

When I started this blog I had a set of rules in mind. These rules, as composed by the small rodent running around in my brain, went as follows:

Avoid commenting on other bloggers.
Avoid commenting on American affairs, except as they tangentially affected Canada. (All right, big exception.)
Focus on Canadian affairs.
Avoid the "blogger round-up" formula, if only because others can do it much more effectively.

Number 1 went out the window almost immediately. Too much foolishness out there. The rest I've been pretty good about, and even breaches of #1 have been the exception rather than the rule. All of which is a preface to telling you I'm going to violate multiple rules today.

Breaking rule #2: Tucker Carlson, whose combination of bombast and smarminess made him one of the grotesques of the American Right was canned by CNN yesterday. Somewhat tempering my glee is the rumour he'll soon be seen on MSNBC. The punditry are of the opinion that the tone and content of American political discourse will be elevated with his departure and the imminent cancellation of the CNN show Crossfire.

Hah.

Breaking rules #1 & #4: Let it Bleed has summed up nicely the continuing flame war at The Shotgun. To paraphrase My Blahg, I know you all want to run over there for purposes of mockery, but that would just be wrong.

With Paul Celluci now departing Ottawa (we'll miss you, ya big lug), that's enough schadenfreude for one day. More substantially:

Breaking rule #1: Corey Wall has posted on his blog (and cross-posted to the Blogs Canada E-Group) an article concerning the use of Marian Boyd's on the use of Shari'a law in Ontario. He writes:

There is no need for the state to sanction a separate civil law for the people of any faith. If the actions that are to be carried out under these laws are truly done without any coercion then they would not need the added sanction of the state (as things are done now, a regular judge signs off on any decision made by a religious authority). Some respect for people of faith, so strong that the settlements must be sanctioned by the state. This is simply the state getting involved in internal faith politics where it has no place.

In theory, if I were Candide and living in the best of all possible worlds, I would agree that the state has no business meddling in religious disputes. The problem, of course, is that horse is long out of the barn (and probably headed for warmer climes). Both Christians and Jews have been using the Arbitration Act (which is what we're talking about at any rate, not state-sanctioned religious courts nor parallel religious law) for decades. The state can't deny Muslims use of the same law on the presupposition that Muslims will abuse the process: this comes dangerously close to supposing that Muslims can't be trusted to uphold the law. The issue of coercion is a red herring, a little rhetorical fillip. Judicial oversight is necessary precisely to prevent coercion, and it applies to all arbitration proceedings, religious or otherwise.

Marian Boyd's report recommends strengthening both the accountability of the process as well as judicial oversight to address issues of coercion. To abolish use of the Arbitration Act by religious groups would essentially place all faith-based arbitrations back into the private sphere, where there would be no accountability and no oversight. Better to have them operating inside the law than outside.

Corey Wall is right about one thing: Boyd's report has as much chance of being implemented as the NHL strike being settled.

The Turkish Connection

2005-01-06T14:37:00.000-05:00

The Upper Canadian has gone world-wide. Or at least to Turkey. Seems this page has been linked to Hakan Uygun Yazıyor, out of Istanbul. Since I can barely speak English, let alone Turkish, with its exotic dipthongs and umlauts, I have no idea why.

Random Notes on Living in the United States

2005-01-04T08:55:00.000-05:00

I lived and worked in the U.S. for a year, and a year ago this week I returned to Canada for good. It was an amazing experience. For me, stereotypes were shattered, and coincidentally, I learnt much about my own country. Some observations on living in the United States, purely subjective and anecdotal, and in no particular order:

Americans believe they make a good cup of coffee. They don't.
Greasy spoon breakfasts, on the other hand, are far superior to the Canadian variety.
Brown toast is wholewheat toast. As a waitress explained to me: "Honey, all toast is brown."
I met several, well-educated people who managed to complete four years of high school and four years of university without ever reading Shakespeare. This was by no means an infrequent occurance. Reciting bits of The Merchant of Venice ("The quality of mercy is not strained. . . ") or Macbeth (Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow. . .) always caused amusement.
Americans are incredibly generous. People I hardly knew gave me Christmas presents.
I lived in a suburb, X. Everybody drove everywhere. The streets were utterly empty of human activity. Walking itself was a suspicious activity, making you liable for police questioning, because only the poorest of the poor walked anywhere.
Relatedly, public transit was virtually non-existant. Only the poor used public transit and only of necessity. We made a sport of spotting buses, so rare were they.
Race (and racism) is the great unspoken social divide, the two solitudes of American culture. Still.
Being Canadian, and cheap, I asked where the local Wal-mart/K-mart was. ( I needed household goods.) I was told it was better to shop at J.C. Penney because only "blacks and immigrants shop at K-Mart."
More to the same. Every year, the suburb in which I lived had a "Keep X Clean Day", where the citizens would participate in cleaning up the municipality. But "Keep X Clean Day" had its origins from a notoriously segregationalist mayor who sought to keep blacks out of the suburb.
More to the same. This same mayor has a street named after him.
More to the same. Nobody objects to #9 or #10. It's "old" history.
Americans despise their health care system, yet believe it is the best of all possible worlds.
The American health care system is incredibly bureaucratized, over-regulated and inefficient in ways that would make a Canadian's head spin. (Note to those who would impose an American-style system in Canada on the grounds of cost-effectivess: you guys are blowing smoke out your posterior orifices. You have no idea what you're talking about.)
The local print media was, in a word, pathetic. Two newspapers, owned by the same company, in a city approximately the same size as Toronto, filled mostly with wire stories.
American working-class bars are homey, cheerful and a lot of fun. And you can drink the beer for hours. There is, unfortunately, no exact equivalent in Canada.
Freeways. Loved American highways. I could drive the equivalent of Morningside and 401 to Yonge and King (Toronto readers will understand the significance of this) in 15 minutes or less. During rush hour.
On the other hand, every drive downtown became an object lesson on the destructive impact of freeways on urban development, as I sped by derelict neighbourhoods and abandoned houses that, in the equivalent location in Toronto, would fetch prices in the multiples of 100K.
Americans are far more deferential to authority than Canadians are. This surprised the hell out of me. Respect for the President, even from self-described liberals, was nearly universal.
Possibly relatedly, everybody had some connection to the armed forces, either by personal service or by knowing someone who was serving. At least a third of my work colleagues had served in some branch of the armed forces.
The cost of living was far higher than I expected, and much more so than in Canada.
My local supermarket, twenty lanes of merchandising hell under fluorescent lights, had fewer --- and hideously more expensive --- brands of olive oil than my grocer in Norwood, Ontario (pop. 1100).
"What's a blue box?"
X had several large shiny new buildings --- a public auditorium, for example --- donated to the municipality by the large multinational headquartered there. If Canadian corporations would be so geneorous! The public library, on the other hand, had chunks of missing masonry from its facade.
After dealing with the American federal bureaucracy, I could understand why Americans despise government. I began to despise bureaucrats too, after awhile.
The flag truly is a fetish. Memories of driving down neat suburban streets, with each tidy house bearing a flag. Without exception.
Getting a bank card was like applying for a mortgage.
The razors were never sharp enough. I was forced to import these from Canada.
My accent identified me instantly as Canadian.
Americans are not so ignorant of the rest of the world (including Canada) as incurious. Since they live in the greatest, strongest nation, they don't see the need to be otherwise.
Americans truly believe they live in the best country in the world, the final destination of all aspiration. They could not understand why I wanted to return to Canada.

On the Same Page

2005-01-02T11:13:00.000-05:00

So what are Conservative MPs saying about same sex marriage? If you're looking at their webpages, it turns out that they're saying very little. In fact, 34 Conservative MPs of 99 have no webpages at all; one (Bradley Trost MP, Saskatoon-Humboldt ), curiously has his accessible only by password. Of the rest, only 19 have made statements, usually in the form of press releases. A few examples:

Rona Ambrose MP (Edmonton-Spruce Grove)
Press Release: "'I am encouraged that we will finally have this debate in Parliament,' said Ambrose. 'The Supreme Court decision reinforces the fact that Parliament has the responsibility to deal with important social policy issues on behalf of Canadians.'"

Gary Breikreuz MP (Yorkton-Melville)
Press Release: "'If the Liberal government does bring forth legislation to change the definition of marriage, the Conservative Party will, as usual, have a free vote, and I will certainly be voting against any change to the definition of marriage,' stressed Benoit."

Rick Casson MP (Lethbridge)
Press Release: "'I was clear during the past campaign that I support the traditional definition of marriage and I will maintain that position during any debate and vote that comes up in the House of Commons on this issue,' Casson concluded."

Diane Finley MP (Haldimand-Norfolk)
Text on Website: "I will protect and uphold the traditional definition of marriage."

Ed Komarnicki MP (Souris-Moose Mountain)
Text on Website: "It’s time to preserve and defend the traditional definition of marriage and maintain traditional values that make this country great."

Inky Mark MP (Dauphin-Swan River-Marquette)
Press Release: "'I will continue to support the majority of my constituents and vote to preserve the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman,' Mark concluded."

Chuck Strahl MP (Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon)
Press Release: “'During the upcoming public debate on this issue, I will argue for the traditional definition of marriage,' Strahl said."

Maurice Vellacott MP (Saskatoon-Wanuskewin)
Riding newsletter: "Traditional marriage, between one man and one woman, provides a safe environment for human procreativity, and is the safest context for the nurture of children."

The opinions expressed, in fact, were pretty well consistent. Traditional marriage. Parliamentary supremacy. Free Vote. Three messages and not a lot of evidence for deep thinking on the Tory benches: Conservative MPs, it seems, have been content to mouth the party line. Makes you think the Conservative Party's much-hyped boast of allowing a free vote among their members is somewhat hollow.

There are exceptions, of course. James Moore MP (Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam) has publically declared he will vote in favour of same-sex marriage and he clearly has given much consideration to the topic. He writes on his webpage:

In short, I believe in equality under the law for all Canadians for civil marriages, which in a perfect world would be termed civil unions. And I also believe strongly in the separation of church and state in order to protect the rights of religious institutions and people of faith from having to embrace or perform same-sex marriages if they choose not to. As a result, I plan to vote in favour of equal access to civil marriage for all Canadians, while at the same time focussing my efforts on protecting the religious freedoms of all Canadians.

Carol Skelton MP (Saskatoon-Rosewater-Biggar) while not giving away on how she plans to vote, stated in a press release

“If Canadians are being discriminated against for their sexual orientation, we, as elected officials, need to step forward and help put a stop to it. Even within this debate about the definition of marriage, I will not accept or defend any statements that are hateful or discriminatory,” affirmed Skelton.

Interestingly, Ms Skelton is the only Conservative MP to attempt to pre-emptively shut down any hate speech that is sure to come out of the upcoming Parliamentary debate. Also interesting is that an online poll on her website --- for what it's worth --- shows a small majority in favour of the government's proposed legislation.

And lastly, there's my favourite Tory MP and putative Foreign Minister, Stockwell Day. His pronunciamentos on the subject have left your humble ob't servant more than baffled. Or maybe he's a little too deep for me. Of course, Mr Day is against same-sex marriage. But then he attempts an unfortunate fruit analogy and things go downhill from there:

An apple is an apple. You cannot call it an orange. You have every right to enjoy an orange, but you cannot call it an apple. Nor should you be able to enact a law that forces everyone to change the definition of an apple, just because you prefer oranges.

Got that? My mother used to say that if you need to say something bad about somebody, you have to say two nice things about them first. Okay: Stockwell Day has nice teeth. And. . . damn it, just can't do it.

In Memoriam Susan Sontag

2005-01-01T14:18:00.000-05:00

That Susan Sontag is dead will cause, no doubt, a certain amount of satisfaction on the right, for she was their bete-noir, the living symbol of everything wrong with the American intelligensia. But what did they expect? She was a polemicist, after all, a provacateur. She wrote in the New Yorker just after the 11 September terrorist attacks:

The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a "cowardly" attack on "civilization" or "liberty" or "humanity" or "the free world" but an attack on the world's self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word "cowardly" is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday's slaughter, they were not cowards. [The entire short essay is here.]

Needless to say, these comments along with a few others describing President Bush as "robotic" and lamenting the lack of informed political discourse concerning the attacks caused an uproar. "Let's by all means grieve together, " she wrote.

But let's not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen.

Sense and sensibility itself, but in the heated, unthinking days after the terrorist attacks, she was excoriated. Andrew Sullivan, for example, called her "insane", and that was about the kindest. In any objective analysis, though, it's hard to see the controversy. You might quibble, I suppose, over whether courage is "morally neutral", but as an antidote for post-terrorist attack rhetoric, it was right on target. Ms Sontag's problem was she fell into that great gap of the fallacy of the excluded middle; the temper of the times is either you're for us or against us; any discussion of meaning or root causes is, for the time being, off the table. The irony is that for those who saw and continue to see the attacks as an attack on "Western values" --- whatever they are --- surely vigourous debate and free speech are part of those values. Manichaean reasoning is the argument of tyrants: Ms Sontag's dissidence, distasteful and "treasonous" as it was to some, was and is the very essence of freedom. A greater irony, indeed, is that facing the vitriol of an incensed punditry, she apologized, Galileo-like.

We can take solace that Susan Sontag did provide a means to mock the gales of rubbishy rhetoric in her essay work "Notes on 'Camp'". To wit:

In naïve, or pure, Camp, the essential element is seriousness, a seriousness that fails. Of course, not all seriousness that fails can be redeemed as Camp. Only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naïve.

A lovely and fitting legacy for Ms Sontag would be to develop an aesthetic for all triumphalist rhetoric in terms of Camp. To describe it as Camp, indeed, has a delicious subversiveness all it own.

Happy New Year

2005-01-01T14:00:00.000-05:00

"Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." (Matthew 6:34)

This pretty well sums up my feelings for the wretched year just passed; I, for one, am grateful 2004 has finally entered the rolls of History.

Let us hope (and pray, if you have a mind to it) 2005 exceeds all our expectations for good, for justice, and for peace.

Beavertails and Prairie Oysters for December 2004

2004-12-31T15:54:00.000-05:00

The Upper Canadian is pleased to present for your perusal the first edition of Beavertails and Prairie Oysters, where your humble and ob't servant either presents a Beavertail to the deserving and worthy or a Prairie Oyster to the venal and stupid. For a number of reasons I won't bother to rehearse, the list of recipients is shorter than I expect it will be in the future. Please feel free to add your own in the Comments below.

First, His Imperial Majesty's, um, excuse me, President George Bush's visit to Ottawa. First, buckets of Prairie Oysters to all the conservative pundits who fell down to worship the guy's footfalls as he trod on Canadian soil. More Prairie Oysters to the man himself. First, for ducking a speech to Parliament on the grounds he might be heckled. George, I have to tell you, in a democracy, Parliament and free speech are two sides of the same coin. And besides, Svend Robinson is nowhere to be found. Then there was the sheer cheek of Mr Bush quoting Prime Minister Mackenzie King on Canada's overseas responsibilities. This would be Mackenzie King speaking during the Second World War, the war which Canada, Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth faced alone the mightiest military colossus the world had ever seen, the war the U.S. sat out for the first two years because it was politically inexpedient. The Upper Canadian suggests respectfully Canadians don't need lectures on that count.

The sideshow to the American president's visit was, of course, the circus that calls itself the American media. A steaming plateful of Beavertails each to Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson for proving once again the right-wing U.S. media can't open its mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge. Witness Ms Coulter's insights on U.S. Canada relations:

I suppose it's always, I might add, the worst Americans who end up going there. The Tories [Loyalists --- ed.] after the Revolutionary War, the Vietnam draft dodgers after Vietnam. And now after this election, you have the blue-state people moving up there.

[. . .]

They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them. They are lucky we allow them to exist on the same continent.

Mr Carlson was as equally profound:

Doesn't that tell you something about the sort of limpid, flaccid nature of Canadian society, that people with ambition come here? What does that tell you about Canada?

Mr Carlson obviously was wearing his testosterone patch that day. But note that limpid means "clear" or "transparent" or "calm", and flaccid is a revealing choice of words for a man who wears a bow tie.

Leaving quickly any thoughts of Tucker Carlson's penis, The Upper Canadian hands out a Beavertail to each of the nine Supreme Court Justices for their admirable decision on same-sex marriage. And yes, reluctant a Beavertail to Prime Minister Paul Martin for announcing the government --- for once --- will act decisively in bringing the appropriate legislation before Parliament. There is the inevitable Prairie Oyster for Stephen Harper, not for his opposition to same sex marriage, but for inconsistency. As Glen Murray pointed out in The Globe and Mail on the 28th, Harper approves of the Supreme Court when it strikes down laws he doesn't like --- in this case, parts of the new campaign finance law. So much for parliamentary supremacy.

A big whopping Beavertail for Premier Danny Wiiliams for attempting an amazing feat of prestidigitation --- trying to make Newfoundland and Labrador both a have and a have-not province at the same time. If he succeeds, it will be the most fabulous piece of political bravado since Macdonald's Double Shuffle in 1858. Sadly, though, his Beavertail will have to be topped with a juicy Prairie Oyster for the offence of using the flag for political shenanigans. How do we know it's shenanigans? Because the good Premier has already claimed their is a vast conspiracy out to embarrass Newfoundlanders and Labradorians over the incident. Hey, we didn't lower the flag. . .

Lastly, The Upper Canadian has Beavertails for the bloggers over at the Western Standard, whose flame war --- "full of sound and fury/Signifying nothing" --- provided much entertaining reading during that blah period around the Winter Solstice. Thanks, guys.

The Tsunami

2004-12-29T09:08:00.000-05:00

The horrendous calamity in southern Asia defies any description and renders meaningless any eulogy or consolation. You know what you need to do.

Canadian Red Cross 1-800-418-1111 (or donate through your local Red Cross office)

UNICEF Canada 1-800-567-4483
UNICEF Canada
2200 Yonge St., Suite 1100
Toronto, Ontario
M4S 2C6

Oxfam Canada 1-800-466-9326
Asian Earthquake/Floods Relief,
Oxfam Canada 200-215 Spadina Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario
M5T 2C7

World Vision Canada 1-800-268-5528

CARE Canada 1-800-267-5232

Mennonite Central Committee 1-888-622-6337

Canadian Tamil Congress 416-751-8777

Canadian Relief Organization for Peace in Sri Lanka 416-429-2822

David McAnthony Gibson Foundation (Global Medic)
15 Honeysuckle Crescent,
Ancaster, ON
L9K 1A9

Conservative Party Topography

2004-12-27T23:11:00.000-05:00

Has anyone noticed the big "C" in the Conservative Party logo is essentially a Moebius loop? You'd have to connect the ends of the "C" together to get the loop, but that characteristic Moebius "twist" --- the delight of topographers and physicists everywhere --- is definitely present. A Moebius loop has several odd properties worth noting:

it has only one edge
it has only one side
left and right are meaningless when describing its properties
it is a two-dimensional object existing in three dimensions
if you travel along it you reverse your orientation when you arrive at the place you started
if you stitch two of them together edge to edge, you end up with a Klein bottle. Interestingly, you cannot unite two Mobius strips into a Klein bottle properly in three dimensions.
Furthermore, a Klein bottle paradoxically has no volume, and neither has it any boundaries, nor any inside or outside. In three dimensions, it has a hole, but in the fourth, the hole vanishes.
Klein bottles (and Moebius loops) are also beloved of topographically-minded knitters. I have no idea why. Google "Moebius strips knitting" and you'll see what I mean.

And who says graphic designers don't have a sense of humour?

Our New Prima Donna

2004-12-26T10:12:00.000-05:00

One would have thought one political prima donna per country would be sufficient for a country like Canada. We already have Ralph Klein, for example, who has been entertaining us with such divina behaviour for years by visiting homeless shelters and attacking the disabled. Now comes Danny Williams ordering the national flag down from provincial buildings in Newfoundland and Labrador. What theatre! What drama! (I wonder, inter alia, if Ralph has a mentorship programme in bad-boy behaviour). Albeit the premier may be a touch bewildered about the purposes of the national flag, i.e. confused about the difference between los federales and the country as a whole. No matter: it's the symbolism that counts.

While great muckpiles of hyperbole are flung between St John's and Ottawa, I suspect our newest diva is keeping a close eye on the poll numbers. An Angus Reid poll released on 15 December showed Mr Williams's Conservatives gaining 18 points from the previous poll in May, increasing his lead from a statistical dead heat to a whopping 31 per cent. It's probably a curious coincidence that the dispute between Newfoundland and the federal government came to a full boil at the same time: only the most hardened cynic would suggest any connection between Premier Williams's rhetorical and symbolic cannonballs and his soaring poll numbers.

Perhaps the analogy to prima donnas isn't so accurate after all. What we have here is another Phineas T. Barnum, shilling for the rubes. All Premier Williams needs is a bearded lady and a two-headed calf to make his road-show complete.

Merry Christmas

2004-12-23T09:22:00.000-05:00

It's Christmas, and it's always amusing watching the perennial emanations pour forth from the right over political correctness.

The format goes like this. Opening statement: "Christmas has been hijacked by political correctness," followed by many, many paragraphs of blather and hysteria about how people like me are trying to steal Christmas from them by preventing the use of the greeting "Merry Christmas", among other things.

Actually, it's not so much amusing as tiresome and old.

Bottom line: nobody cares. Really. Use Merry Christmas. Call your holiday pageants Christmas pageants and and put up a Christmas tree. As a member of the world-wide politically correct conspiracy I promise you this: the wave of left-wing indignation will never appear. All of us politically-correct types are too busy getting drunk on rum-and-eggnog to bother. Or worried about real issues, like poverty, injustice, war and human rights.

Just follow my example.

Merry Christmas!

See? No hordes of politically correct censors are breathing down my neck. Now if a card-carrying left-winger like myself can do it, so can you.

I'm even going to be more incorrect and actually quote from the Bible, just to prove we haven't banned it. And, get this, I'm using the King James version! And nobody's going to complain about my cultural/gender insensitivity either:

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Luke 2:1-12)

Have a very Merry Christmas.

Kisses and a Slap with a Trout

2004-12-23T08:04:00.000-05:00

In my ongoing search for links to add to my sidebar right, I was very pleasantly surprised by a couple of things. First, I was amazed how many people from both sides of the political fence have added a link to this small corner of the Internet to their own web pages and by the kind and encouraging comments contained therein. Thank you. Since I'm essentially a black hole for positive feedback, your support is indeed gratifying. I have tried, incidentally, to reciprocate links where I have found them; if I have missed anyone, please drop me a line.

Your humble and ob't servant was also very pleased and excited to see The Upper Canadian receiving a nomination for Best New Blog in the 2004 Canadian Blog Awards competition being hosted at My Blahg. I'm bearing it all with my usual Peterborough County reserve, but truly I'm tickled pink. Many thanks to my anonymous nominator.

Now, lest you think all of this is going to my head, that I'm a self-important schmuck with no sense of proportion or propriety
this is the conversation I had with my Significant Other yesterday driving along Highway 7 into Peterborough:

Me: My blog got nominated for an award.

SO: What's a blog?

Me: [long, incomprehensible explanation]

SO: Oh. [pause] You mean it's like Harry Potter trading cards for adults.

Shari'a Hysteria

2004-12-21T01:02:00.000-05:00

I've spent some time, weenie that I am, looking over Marion Boyd's report to the Ontario Attorney General called Dispute Resolution in Family Law: Protecting Choice, Promoting Inclusion. The purpose of the report was to address the use of Islamic jurisprudence in the arbitrations process. It's already causing some controversy, and even Aljazeera has picked it up.

On the general excellent principle that people can do whatever the hell they want, within the law, I liked the report. I also liked it on the grounds it is a well-considered piece of research on an exceedingly complex subject. If you enjoy this sort of thing, and want to become a weenie yourself, I suggest you read it. Unfortunately this one's going to get bogged down in the soft slush of hysteria and misinformation. Willful misunderstanding, as usual, is the order of the day.

I have to be honest here. Any talk of bringing shari'a law to Canada makes me uncomfortable. Very, very uncomfortable. I dislike any system that makes an a priori claim to infallibility, as shari'a does. I find distasteful shari'a effectively subjugates women, then justifies it as God's law. And on general principles the further the state stays from religion, the better.

But let's be clear about a couple of things. First, shari'a courts are not coming to Ontario. The report makes very plain that what's being reviewed is the alternate dispute resolution process, i.e. arbitrations. Setting up a parallel religious court system for Muslims is not being proposed, slippery slope arguments notwithstanding, if in fact it were possible to do so. There is, to be sure, no consensus in the Muslim community about what shari'a actually means, and not all Muslims follow shari'a in any case; indeed in Western, nominally Christian countries, it is impossible to follow all aspects of shari'a, as shari'a implies not only Islamic jurisprudence but a whole set of regulation affecting personal behaviour.

Marion Boyd's report merely recommends that Muslims be able to avail themselves of the Arbitration Act, 1991, not the implementation of shari'a law. She writes:

[U]nder the current legal structure, establishing a separate legal regime for Muslims in Ontario is not possible. Creating a separate legal stream for Muslims would require change to our justice system on a level not easily contemplated from a practical, social, legal or political point of view. In addition, it must be clearly understood that arbitration is not a parallel system, but a method of alternative dispute resolution that is subject to judicial oversight, and is thus subordinate to the court system. Assertions that arbitration actually provides a system of justice running alongside the traditional court system are misleading and unfounded. Nor would it be at all advisable to encourage the creation of such a system.
Ontarians do not subscribe to the notion of "separate but equal" when it comes to the laws that apply to us. . . Equality before and under the law, and the existence of a single legal regime available to all Ontarians are the cornerstones of our liberal democratic society.

Ms. Boyd proposes

to allow Muslims formally to arbitrate certain matters in family and inheritance law;
that the provincial government regulate the certification and appointment of arbitrators;
that judicial review and government oversight be ongoing;
and that the provincial legislature enact changes to the Arbitration Act and the Family Law Act to provide increased safeguards for all faith-based arbitration.

Further, all arbitrations must fall within the norms of Ontario law and the Charter of Rights. That's all, and no more than other religious groups have been doing using the Arbitration Act. Her Majesty's mighty ship Justice will sail onwards untrammelled. A snowy Saudi Arabia is not coming to a suburb near you, and all stonings will remain figurative and reserved exclusively for politicians.

But (and this is where the rubber hits the slush) there are some troubling aspects to all of this. One needs to be dealt with right away. There will those on the left (and the right) who will argue that the arbitration process will inadequately protect and even be coercive to women whose knowledge of English and Canadian legal process is limited. The sentiment behind this argument is Canadian Muslims can't be trusted to respect the law. As such, the argument is pernicious and racist.

Moreover, at least two Muslim groups have been operating faith-based arbitration systems from both the Sunni and Shia traditions. Ms Boyd found no "evidence to suggest that women are being systematically discriminated against as a result of arbitration of family law issues."

Unfortunately for the provincial Liberals, Ms Boyd's report makes them face a bit of a conundrum. Since other religious groups --- Jewish and Christian ---- have used faith-based arbitration for decades, it can't very well be denied to Muslims. On the other hand, public suspicion and misunderstanding --- gauging the reaction already--- of all things Islamic make intelligent debate of this issue problematic. The Liberals need to screw up their courage --- something, to be fair, they haven't been lacking --- and implement the report anyway. I fear, though, that the slush is already obscuring its real importance.

Seeing Red Again and Again

2004-12-20T16:03:00.000-05:00

This will absolutely be my last post on the Red Ensign bloggers. Okay, probably: the potential for silliness on this topic is boundless, and I'm still considering whether an annotation of the Red Ensign Brigade's "manifesto" is worth the effort.

On 16 December I noted that someone in the blogging universe had the fanciful notion that the Liberals had somehow imposed their party colours on the Maple Leaf flag. I apologize. I misremembered and only got part of it right. The actual quote from Jaeger of Trudeaupia reads: "In a move more reminiscent of a banana republic than a respectable democracy, [the Liberals] used their parliamentary majority to impose partisan colours and logos onto a national flag."

Now it is not often one sees not one but four inaccuracies in one short sentence.

1. The flag colours are derived from the Royal Proclamation of 1921, as already noted.

2. The maple leaf has been the symbol of Canada since at least 1830s, if not before. (It might be of some interest that the first time the maple leaf appeared on an official flag was for the Royal Canadian Regiment's colours in 1859.)

3. At no time did Pearson have a majority government. (I suspect the NDP supported the flag bill, and I would be curious if any Tories did, but I haven't been able to determine how the parliamentary vote fell. Yet.)

4. The Liberals did not impose the flag by ramming the bill through Parliament. The flag debate lasted six weeks, and at the end of it, some Tories were begging the Liberals to invoke closure in embarrassment.

(For more details, see the excellent history of Canadian flags and symbols at Alistair Fraser's Flags of Canada site.)

What to make of this history rewrite? To call it revisionist would be charitable, but false. Perhaps the kindest thing one can say is that standards are slipping on the rightward side of things, or perhaps they are victims of the educational system about which they so assiduously complain.

A Blip in the Moral Fibre

2004-12-20T13:48:00.000-05:00

The Koebel brothers have been sentenced for their role in the Walkerton water disaster: Stan Koebel will be watching the plumbing at a provincial jail for a year; his brother Stan received 9 months of house arrest. Stan Koebel's lawyer Bill Trudel said after sentencing that the criminal aspects of Mr Koebel's behaviour were definitely overplayed in the media: "This is a man of moral fibre, and during that period of time there was a blip in it, but I don't think anyone would doubt that he's ethical." (Source: Globe and Mail)

I suppose some would argue the same apologia could be made for the last provincial goverment, whose ideological blinders and thirst for tax cuts at the cost of public safety directly led to seven deaths and thousands getting sick. But was it a blip in the moral fibre, or something more congenital? Lest we forget who the real culprits at Walkerton were, or the spirit of the Harris's Common Sense Revolution, here are some extracts of Mr Justice O'Connor's report on the Walkerton tragedy:

I am satisfied that the regulatory culture created by the government through the Red Tape Commission review process discouraged any proposals to make the notification protocol for adverse drinking water results legally binding on the operators of municipal water systems and private laboratories. . . The evidence showed that the concept of a notification regulation would likely have been "a non-starter," given the government’s focus on minimizing regulation.

[. . .]

Before the decision was made to significantly reduce the MOE’s budget in 1996, senior government officials, ministers, and the Cabinet received numerous warnings that the impacts could result in increased risks to the environment and human health. These risks included those resulting from reducing the number of proactive inspections – risks that turned out to be relevant to the events in Walkerton. The decision to proceed with the budget reductions was taken without either an assessment of the risks or the preparation of a risk management plan. There is evidence that those at the most senior levels of government who were responsible for the decision considered the risks to be manageable. But there is no evidence that the specific risks, including the risks arising from the fact that the notification protocol was a guideline rather than a regulation, were properly assessed or addressed.

In February 1996, the Cabinet approved the budget reductions in the face of the warnings of increased risk to the environment and human health.

The phrase that should hit you over the head is that the Tory government "considered the risks to be manageable." For the Tories, of course, the equation was simple. Regulation = evil. Stifles private initiative and all that. Managing risk, that is, doing risk assessment of government policies might lead to --- more government regulation. Bad. The Tories, it seems, were more committed to whatever ideological folie du jour than to the common sense proposition that safe drinking water requires close government supervision. It's regrettable, in this case, that the only price the Tories paid for imposing reckless policy was political.

It's also unfortunate there is little evidence the Tories, or anyone on the right for that matter, has learnt anything at all from Walkerton. Regulation is still decried as the besetting sin of government. Every ideological nostrum is swallowed like a drunk taking his first swig of the day. Even for the most recalcitrant student, the lesson is easy:

Regulation isn't all bad.

Playing ideological games can kill.

It's that simple.

Rally for Discrimination

2004-12-18T02:29:00.001-05:00

Captain Flynn has his own take on Ralph Klein's tour here. I give even odds as to whether Ralph actually goes.

Stephen Harper's Problem

2004-12-18T01:23:00.000-05:00

You have to pity Stephen Harper, sort of. The leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has a tough job. He's desperate to bring the bullfruit elements of the old Reform Party into the 21st century. He needs to position the party in a firm centre-right position for the next election, and he has to convince the rest of us that a federal Conservative government won't look like a Canadian version of the great State of Mississippi.

With the same sex marriage issue now before Parliament, Mr Harper has a problem. And it isn't Ralph Klein, though his threatened perambulations are merely adding fuel to the fire. ("I wouldn't go now because it's too close to the holidays," Mr Klein was quick to amend after announcing his Magical Mystery Tour. After the holidays? "I'll see what the mood is." Weather forecast for the new year: bilious.)(Source: CTV News)

Even the flogging he's getting from the Liberals over pussy-footing around using the notwithstanding clause is nothing. After all, this is a guy who bore the daily contempt of Jean Chretien.

When Mr Harper after some days of foot shuffling and closed door meetings finally brought out his amendments to the same sex legislation, he was actually attempting a moderate compromise, a rear-guard action against what he must know to be an inevitability. Consider his proposals:

1. Recognize the traditional definition of marriage

2. Protect the rights of non-traditional unions so that they are afforded the same benefits as married couples

3. Provide substantive protection for religious institutions to be free from performing gay marriages

If the Conservatives had brought this proposal, this compromise to the table two years ago, it would have been justifiably seen as an exercise in prudence and moderation. But times move on. The problem for Mr Harper is that the same sex marriage debate has suddenly become a zero-sum, all-or-nothing game. Compromise at this point is not possible. And the rub is that the core of Mr Harper's supporters want nothing. They want the notwithstanding clause invoked. Even the language of "protecting the rights of non-traditional couples" is suspect. At heart, they want none of that either. Hence Mr Klein's querulousness, his ramblings on establishing a "registry" and holding a national referendum and the rest of it.

So Mr Harper is caught between two grindstones. His supporters and Ralph Klein don't think he's keeping to the true faith; the rest of country watches as his programme of moving the Conservative Party to the centre leaks like an old tramp steamer. Whether he can manage both competing interests at the same time remains to be seen.

That Other Red Ensign

2004-12-17T11:38:00.000-05:00

And speaking of flags, there's that other Red Ensign, the flag of Ontario. (And no, I haven't forgotten Manitoba, either). When looking through the history of Canadian flags, I was struck by the old Royal Union Flag, which is your Union Jack without the the red diagonal cross of St Patrick, added after the Act of Union in 1801. You can still see it flying at such places as Old Fort York in Toronto. The old Royal Union, of course, is also a symbol of the United Empire Loyalists, who fled to Ontario in 1784, thus forever depriving the Yankees of their best talent.

My thought is to replace the Union Jack in Ontario's ensign with the old Royal Union, thus providing a nod to the Loyalists, while keeping intact the intention of having the Union Jack in the canton.

Though, God help me, aggravating the Irish is the last thing I want to do.

More Seeing Red

2004-12-17T10:53:00.000-05:00

A commenter (or perhaps I should say the commenter) to my last post suggested I should look at this page as a manifesto for the Red Ensign Bloggers. I did, and post the relevant parts here for your perusal. Please note I have resisted the extremely strong temptation to annotate.

We had an aircraft carrier. Imagine that. Now we have metric and the CBC. It was a bad trade. I am proud to say this is one of a handful of countries in the whole world where you can arrive, work hard and send your kids to school in the hope of a better life. No matter your accent or appearance you will be Canadian. Try moving to France and see if you could do the same. It is true that Canada used to be a profoundly nativist country with some repellent ideas about race. It is also true the history of this country might be told as one of conquest and exploitation. Also, we had no cable television. We were far from perfect. Nobody sensible wants anything like that again.

But Canada has also been about exploration and entrepreneurialism and optimism. Half this country is made up of Hudson's Bay territory itself granted in a charter to the oldest corporation in the world. It was trade that drove the voyageurs to find the next river or the next lake. It was trade that inspired the search for the elusive northwest passage (soon to be a reality if global warming finally pays off).

This country has also been a force for liberty. The third largest navy in the world fed Britain through the dark days of the Blitz and Hitler's north Atlantic wolf packs. This is the country that took Vimy Ridge and that stormed Juno Beach. Let's bring back that Canada.

Update: December 4, 2004

I intended this post to be a kind of meeting place for people who hoped for Canada to remember its duty to democracy at home and around the world. Many people shared that vision and linked to this post. A community sprang up from those links - one I never intended but one I was pleased to see take shape. My place in that conversation has now ended but I wish many of those people luck and continue to link to them through my personal blogroll on the main page of this weblog.

Unfortunately, many who wish to continue Canada's racist policy of isolationism and disregard for the rights of people still living under dictatorships and theocracies around the world found it threatening for some bloggers to remember our responsibilities as Canadians. They chose to smeer me and my friends with racism by linking to this post despite our opposition to racism, the fact many of us belong to religious or ethnic minorities ourselves and that this post explicitly rejects racism. It has come to my attention that bigoted morons are linking to this piece as part of a crusade to link the Red Ensign to a racist agenda. I am a child of immigrants and I am Canadian and I will not have it. Nobody can take that history away from me. I am therefore providing the following readers guide to this post.

When I say I oppose racialist ideas in Canadian history it means I am opposed to racism. That is as true for contemporary racism as it is for its manifestations in history. When I say I support the memory of the men who fought and died to defeat the Nazis at Juno Beach it means I am opposed to contemporary Nazis spouting the same race-hatred by whatever name. Anyone using the Red Ensign as a mark of a racist agenda shows they have no idea what that symbol meant or continues to mean to Canada's veterans. But then, if they had any knowledge of history or compassion for humanity they would not be racists in the first place.

And I do not think much of attention seeking useful idiots who accept the racists have a claim to the Red Ensign either. While I share their opposition to racism and bogus "heritage" groups they should be careful lest they unwittingly do the racists' work for them. My advice to the well-meaning useful idiots: Don't wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig enjoys it (and all links to the fool in question have now been removed... let there be no traffic oxygen for people who link to racist websites).

Seeing Red (Ensign)

2004-12-16T10:05:00.001-05:00

Still looking over blogs. One that did catch my eye was the collection of bloggers who write under the name of Red Ensign Brigade, who presumably see in our late and somewhat unlamented unofficially official flag as symbol of everything that used to be fair and bright in our great land. To quote the blogger at Ravishing Light again:

Above all, it's a flag I could stand behind and be proud of. The Canada of the Red Ensign hadn't yet withdrawn from the great traditions and achievements of western civilization to wallow in whiny and toothless self-righteousness. Canada before Mike Pearson was a place I think I could have been content with.

Fair enough. If using an 18th century British merchant navy device gets your mojo up, fine, though some might question Canada's halcyon nature prior to 1965: nostalgia, as someone far more clever than me once remarked, is longing for a past that never existed. But I think some of these bloggers forget, if even they were alive, that the Red Ensign was used as a rallying point in the late Sixties and early Seventies against everything from the supposed French plot to take over the country by making Corn Flakes boxes bilingual to changes in the immigration policy and against Trudeau himself. And as much as the flag debate was divisive, it's pretty well forgotten how divisive the use Red Ensign itself was at the time.

As well, Captain Flynn at Against All Flags, notes the use of the Ensign by various crackpots such as Ernst Zundel et al.

One final note: someone (I forget where, but I will post when I find the page again) stated that they supported the use of the Red Ensign because red and white Maple Leaf flag was designed to correspond to Liberal Party colours. Uh, no. The colour scheme was chosen to reflect Canada's national colours, as defined by The Royal Proclamation of George V, 21 November 1921, at the behest of Conservative Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden and under the watch of Conservative Prime Minister Arthur Meighan.

Blogging Hell

2004-12-15T22:37:00.000-05:00

So I'm looking at bloggers today to which might be appropriate to put on the right sidebar, in other words looking for clever and maybe funny, from any part of the political spectrum (it's the exchange of ideas that counts) and also maybe a little original.

Needless to say, I'm not encouraged. Yet. So far I've looked at the ones from the right, all of which (thus far) boil down to the United States is heaven and George Bush is God-in-cowboy-boots and Canada, while not being the precise opposite, is a sort of pallid, soft and culturally inept fraud. Which brings me to one of my quibbles with my friends on the right: who among them actually speaks for Canada? One would think, if their comments were considered in isolation, that Canada was such insipid frozen hell that anyone with any sense would pack up their Pathfinder and flee to Phoenix, posthaste. Are any of them actually proud of their country? One example: the blogger at Ravishing Light writes: "I'm a university student living within spitting distance of Parliament Hill, with a profound sense of shame and embarassment for most things Canadian." No doubt he'll be found, come the next federal election, working for his local Tory candidate.

Their solution is simple: Canada needs to become more like the U.S. economically, culturally, politically. I might be from Peterborough County, but it escapes me, exactly, how becoming more American will make me more Canadian.

Meanwhile, the search goes on. . .

Minister Cotler Thinks Aloud

2004-12-14T18:40:00.000-05:00

Meanwhile, back on Parliament Hill, Irwin Cotler, the Minister of Justice consults with his muse. We have lovely legislation, he thinks. Gays and lesbians can marry. Religious liberty is protected. The Supreme Court is going to love this. Everyone is happy. Then his muse drives him over a cliff. Marriage commissioners, says Minister Cotler, will not be compelled to perform marriages against their conscience. (Source: CBC News)

Now before you get your knickers in a knot and tell me that even marriage commissioners have religious rights, I will say that I agree with you completely. But the marriage licence office in Lower Nockleby, New Brunswick is not a church, and all civil servants, marriage commissioners included, are obliged to treat all Canadians equally, regardless of personal belief. Who knows what mischief would ensue if state employees, citing the marriage commissioners as precedent, started refusing service to the public on the basis of personal conviction.

I'll add another notion to the Minister's ruminations: yet another Supreme Court suit over same sex marriage.

Some of his Best Friends are Gay Too

2004-12-14T18:17:00.000-05:00

Ralph Klein saunters up to the mike today with two messages, one for the rest of Canada outside of Alberta's blessed realm, and one for his rural constituents. Message #1: I am not a yahoo. Oh, I have nothing against gays and lesbians, says the Alberta Premier. "I have friends who are gays and friends who are lesbians, and they are wonderful people." (Source: CBC Calgary ) Message #2: I am a yahoo. "I do feel that gays and lesbians ought not to be discriminated against in any other form other than marriage, because I think that marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman." Thanks for clearing that up, Ralph.

The Unanswered Fourth Question

2004-12-13T13:14:00.000-05:00

The full text of the 9 December 2004 Supreme Court reference is now online. The most controversial aspect of the Court's decision may well turn out to be the fourth question, which the court declined to answer. The fourth question, of course, was the one added by the Martin government as kind of ministerial escape hatch just prior to the federal election. It read

4. Is the opposite-sex requirement for marriage for civil purposes, as established by the common law and set out for Quebec in section 5 of the Federal Law-Civil Law Harmonization Act, No. 1, consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not,in what particular or particulars and to what extent?

The Court gave three reasons for not answering this question. The learned Justices said:

In sum, a unique combination of factors is at play in Question 4. The government has stated its intention to address the issue of same-sex marriage by introducing legislation regardless of our opinion on this question. The parties to previous litigation have relied upon the finality of their judgments and have acquired rights which in our view are entitled to protection.Finally, an answer to Question 4 would not only fail to ensure uniformity of the law, but might undermine it. These circumstances, weighed against the hypothetical benefit Parliament might derive from an answer, convince the Court
that it should exercise its discretion not to answer Question 4. (Emphasis added.)

When all is said and done, it may well be the second reason that might cause the most problems for supporters of the legislation. The argument is essentially that the petitioners in the provincial court rulings have already gained rights the Court thought it inadvisable to remove:

The second consideration is that the parties to previous litigation have now relied upon the finality of the judgments they obtained through the court process. In the circumstances, their vested rights outweigh any benefit accruing from an answer to Question 4 . . . There is no compelling basis for jeopardizing acquired rights, which would be a potential outcome of answering
Question 4.

The implication of this is a bit startling. One reading of this might suggest that if the Court had ruled on Question 4, it would have ruled in the affirmative, that is, that the traditional definition of marriage was valid under the Charter. It dodged the bullet by affirming that rights already acquired are ultimately more important. But in a field where every word is parsed for meaning, the modifer "potential" will be pondered. Was there some impetus from within the Court to rule in the affirmative?

Klein Emerges for a Pronouncement

2004-12-11T01:29:00.000-05:00

Ralph Klein, God love him, has just aired his views on the Supreme Court decision. He wants a referendum.

Fine, I say. So long as we can have a simultaneous vote on whether to allow Mr Klein near a microphone for remainder of his legislative term.

Sounds fair to me.

Supreme Court Rules, Democracy Wins

2004-12-10T21:13:00.000-05:00

The papers were predictably full of the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage ruling today. (I started to nod off even as I wrote that sentence.) The Nat Post wore a funereal air, as if a dowager aunt had passed on, the Globe was the usual grey voice of reason, and the Toronto Star was frankly jubilant. The headlines should have read "God's Wrath Postponed, Religious Right Disappointed", for indeed, the skies did not open and the futures market in brimstone was sharply down on the news of God's apparent indifference.

I think Jeffrey Simpson had it exactly right when he said in today's Globe that unless parliamentarians start muttering the dreaded words "notwithstanding clause", go back to sleep.

The ruling, in fact, was a masterpiece in that old Canadian virtue, compromise. Nobody completely happy, but everyone who came to the table got something. The churches were promised they wouldn't have to book George and Daniel for May 28th if they didn't want to (though nobody except for the bullfruit division of the far right really thought that anyway); gays and lesbians got equality; parliamentary surpremacy nuts were heartened by the court's refusal to legislate; and the Government got the excuse to introduce the legislation it wanted to all along. Everybody wins!

More curious to my mind were the various right-wing "pro-family" groups (as if the right holds the copyright on family values) that showed up for the ensuing media circus. For as we all know, gay marriage means the "traditional family" is going to a barbeque at Lucifer's summer cottage on Rousseau. Their various media geeks bent the ear of any reporter who would listen to express their shocked-and-appalledness. "The meaning of family has lost its integrity," they wailed. "What about the children?" (O dear Lord, people. Get a grip.)

To listen to such groups such as Focus on the Family Canada (the Canadian branch office of the American far-right group) and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (the umbrella group for fundementalist churches) --- two of the organizations quoted by CBC Radio One --- you would think gay marriage, along with abortion on demand and stem cell research pose the greatest threat to families since the arrival of rock-and-roll.

Well, dear Reader, I will tell you the greatest threat to Canadian families. It is not gay marriage. It is not stem cell research or abortion or rock-and-roll or even space aliens kidnapping farmers from the back concessions of Wellington County.

It's poverty.

You remember poverty, don't you? Single mothers trying to decide whether paying the hydro bill or the rent is more important. Children living on an endless diet of Kraft dinner and pasty white bread, then going to school hungry. You know all of that and the dreary statistics as well.

Now when was the last time you heard either the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada or Focus on the Family create a media furore, hold a news conference, testify before a Royal Commission or even have a prayer vigil against poverty?

Right, you haven't.

I looked today at the website of the EFC and yes, they have a five para bit on poverty copied from their statement of principles, plus a more substantial document published in 1999 called (facietiously, I think) "Good News for the Poor", which is long on biblical exigesis and short on action. That's it. Compare this offering to the miles of press releases and commentary regarding the minutiae of the same-sex marriage issue and you'll see my point. Imagine a tenth of the energy spent on this issue spent on the issue of poverty!

On the other great enemy of families, on a world scale, war, the EFC offers nada. Instead it worries itself sick about George and Daniel, op. cit.

I won't bore you with long disclaimers and testimonials about all the fine evangelicals I know. It's all true. They are fine Christians, better than I could ever hope to be. But all I hear from their leadership is cant and pandering and complacency in the name of the suffering Christ.

In my mind, groups like the EFC and Focus on the Family have absolutely no credibility to hector all Canadians on the issue of "family values". They want "dialogue" on the issue of same-sex marriage, "time for reflection", they say. Fine. Feed the poor. Comfort the sick and visit prisoners. Take the beam out of your eye.

Then come back and talk.