Due to the high volume of events here at The Blog Journalists this week, this Friday's edition will not be appearing. We will be back as usual next Monday.
Thank you!
December 12, 2008
December 10, 2008
(Bus) Safety
It is very possible that there is a person alive in Winnipeg today who would not be had Vince Weiguang Li been denied his knife of a Greyhound Bus in July of 2008. His horrible, tragic, unprovoked, and brutal murder of fellow passenger Tim McLean was not a rational act, and was a crime that likely would have been committed eventually anyways, and would not have been stopped by increased bus security.
And yet, an increase in security is exactly what Greyhound intends to do. Passengers in major terminals may now be swept by hand-held metal detectors, have their luggage checked, and may be required to store all luggage save for purses and wallets under the bus (CBC, 4 Dec 2008). Greyhound officials say that these measures are the result of a two-year safety study, and do not directly relate to any one incident. I am all for increased safety, but all that these measures lead to is an increase in security instead.
It is hard to argue that metal detectors and luggage searches that remove knives from buses will not lead to an increase in security. But at the expense of time, money, and personal freedom, these measures overpower the safety they look to ensure. Particularly concerning is the prospect of not being allowed carry-on luggage. I often travel with a newspaper, book, camera, snack, water, etc. and such a provision would make this impossible. The Greyhound is great because it is cheap and fast, and does not require reservations, however these security features put that in jeopardy, as wait times and costs would surely increase.
Knee-jerk reactions of increased surveillance and inspection are indicative of a time and place where a Prime Minister gets re-elected with a tough-on-crime agenda. We are constantly being warned about the threats to our safety, whether it's killers on the bus or terrorists sending signals across Swedish borders. Furthermore, the only way to stop these threats is increased surveillance and harsher penalties.
What these theories fail to address is the root of the problems, and instead they just exacerbate them by directing funding away from development and into punishment, and locking criminals up, together, for longer periods of time, with less effort directed towards rehabilitation. The justice system is supposed to serve three simultaneous purposes: punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Punishment is really simply a primal instinct for revenge, and does not serve a whole lot of purpose beyond satiating our desire to see this. I do not deny possessing these feelings myself, but in the grand scheme of justice and society, it serves the least purpose of all three. Deterrence commits the fallacy of assuming that all criminals are as rational as those making the laws. Vince Weiguang Li was clearly not deterred by any threat of capture. Most crimes have underlying factors (mental health issues; drug addiction; lack of social support) that cannot be fully understood by those on the outside to whom dislike for prison would be a rational deterrent. Perhaps the best example of harsher penalties not leading to a decrease in crime is the lack of correlation between the death penalty and a lower homicide rate.
That leaves rehabilitation, which can be tied together with prevention. Only by investing in discovering and addressing the root of the problem can crime ever really be effectively dealt with. This may seem like an obvious and vague conclusion, and not really offer any tangible direction on how to spend limited resources. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know that Greyhound drivers with metal detectors is not one of them. We are continuing to invest more and more in our infrastructure and our youth, and particularly with at-risk groups, and I believe this will ultimately prove to be the method that best quells the flow of crime.
RM
And yet, an increase in security is exactly what Greyhound intends to do. Passengers in major terminals may now be swept by hand-held metal detectors, have their luggage checked, and may be required to store all luggage save for purses and wallets under the bus (CBC, 4 Dec 2008). Greyhound officials say that these measures are the result of a two-year safety study, and do not directly relate to any one incident. I am all for increased safety, but all that these measures lead to is an increase in security instead.
It is hard to argue that metal detectors and luggage searches that remove knives from buses will not lead to an increase in security. But at the expense of time, money, and personal freedom, these measures overpower the safety they look to ensure. Particularly concerning is the prospect of not being allowed carry-on luggage. I often travel with a newspaper, book, camera, snack, water, etc. and such a provision would make this impossible. The Greyhound is great because it is cheap and fast, and does not require reservations, however these security features put that in jeopardy, as wait times and costs would surely increase.
Knee-jerk reactions of increased surveillance and inspection are indicative of a time and place where a Prime Minister gets re-elected with a tough-on-crime agenda. We are constantly being warned about the threats to our safety, whether it's killers on the bus or terrorists sending signals across Swedish borders. Furthermore, the only way to stop these threats is increased surveillance and harsher penalties.
What these theories fail to address is the root of the problems, and instead they just exacerbate them by directing funding away from development and into punishment, and locking criminals up, together, for longer periods of time, with less effort directed towards rehabilitation. The justice system is supposed to serve three simultaneous purposes: punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Punishment is really simply a primal instinct for revenge, and does not serve a whole lot of purpose beyond satiating our desire to see this. I do not deny possessing these feelings myself, but in the grand scheme of justice and society, it serves the least purpose of all three. Deterrence commits the fallacy of assuming that all criminals are as rational as those making the laws. Vince Weiguang Li was clearly not deterred by any threat of capture. Most crimes have underlying factors (mental health issues; drug addiction; lack of social support) that cannot be fully understood by those on the outside to whom dislike for prison would be a rational deterrent. Perhaps the best example of harsher penalties not leading to a decrease in crime is the lack of correlation between the death penalty and a lower homicide rate.
That leaves rehabilitation, which can be tied together with prevention. Only by investing in discovering and addressing the root of the problem can crime ever really be effectively dealt with. This may seem like an obvious and vague conclusion, and not really offer any tangible direction on how to spend limited resources. I don't pretend to have the answers, but I know that Greyhound drivers with metal detectors is not one of them. We are continuing to invest more and more in our infrastructure and our youth, and particularly with at-risk groups, and I believe this will ultimately prove to be the method that best quells the flow of crime.
RM
December 08, 2008
FRA-lagen: Sverige som övervakningssamhälle
Due to the fact I am writing a major test in Swedish next week and need practice writing for the essay section I am doing today's blog in Swedish along with an English translation which can be found directly below the Swedish version. As I am writing in a foreign language the content is simpler than a normal “Blog Journalist” blog and concerns an issue that is currently being discussed in Sweden, but one that has international consequences. I hope our English readers excuse these simplicities for this week and enjoy trying to understand the Swedish translation!
FRA-lagen
Sverige tycks som om det kommer att vara det strängaste landet i västvärlden när det gäller övervakning av elektronisk kommunikation. Den första januari 2009 en ny lag träder i kraft vilken har fått det informella namnet “FRA-lagen.”
FRA är en förkortning för försvarets radioanstalt, den myndigheten som kommer att hantera signalspaningen som legitimas av den nya lagen.
Lagen är mer en verksamhet som kommer att påverka flera lagar. FRA-lagen innebär att viss trädbunden kommunikation kan övervakas. Innan var det bara radiosignaler som kunde övervakas. Lagen kommer också att förändra sättet att personuppgifter behandlas.
Å andra sidan finns det stränga regler att FRA måsta följa för att använda signalspaning. Bland dessa regler är att FRA måste söka tillstånd för all signalspaning och de ska enbart få tillgång med dömstolens tillåtelse. Dessutom får de bara signalspana på trafik som passerar Sveriges gränser dvs. de får inte avlyssna når båda avsändaren och mottagaren finns i Sverige.
FRA-lagen är ett försök för att minska risken för utländskt hot och terrorism i Sverige. Lagen har mötts med mycket motstånd bland politiker samt vanliga svenskar för att lagen bryter mot deras personliga integriteten. Det finns många som är oroliga att denna lag bara är ett steg mot ett övervakningssamhälle inte olikt det som finns i George Orwells berömda roman 1984. Vissa kritiker kallar även lagen för “Lag 1984.”
Personligen har jag blandade känslor kring detta. Å ena sidan är det alltid bra att vara försiktig när det gäller terrorism särskilt i dagens läge. Å andra sidan är Sverige benägen att vara för försiktig. Klart att terrorism är en verklighet men varifrån kommer hoten just nu egentligen? Terroristattacker är väldigt ovanliga i Sverige och det verkar osannolikt att den trenden kommer att förändras.
Dessutom inskränkar FRA-lagen på den personligafriheten. Det är en mänsklig rättighet att tänka och säga vad man vill utan att ha någon som lyssnar på sig. Problemet är att den här lagen kommer förmodligen inte att användas på det sätt som ansågs och möjligheten för missbruk är stor. Sannolikheten att FRA kommer att hitta terrorister är låg och denna lag skulle kunna skapa en känsla av mistro och misstänksamhet i det svenska samhället. FRA-lagen skulle också kunna försämra förhållandet mellan Sverige och andra länder som inte håller av lagen och även väcka främlingsfientlighet för att lagen är baserad på misstro mot främlingar.
Avslutningsvis anser jag att FRA-lagen inte är lika farlig som många kritiker tycker men däremot är den tämligen onödvändig.
FRA-lagen
Sverige tycks som om det kommer att vara det strängaste landet i västvärlden när det gäller övervakning av elektronisk kommunikation. Den första januari 2009 en ny lag träder i kraft vilken har fått det informella namnet “FRA-lagen.”
FRA är en förkortning för försvarets radioanstalt, den myndigheten som kommer att hantera signalspaningen som legitimas av den nya lagen.
Lagen är mer en verksamhet som kommer att påverka flera lagar. FRA-lagen innebär att viss trädbunden kommunikation kan övervakas. Innan var det bara radiosignaler som kunde övervakas. Lagen kommer också att förändra sättet att personuppgifter behandlas.
Å andra sidan finns det stränga regler att FRA måsta följa för att använda signalspaning. Bland dessa regler är att FRA måste söka tillstånd för all signalspaning och de ska enbart få tillgång med dömstolens tillåtelse. Dessutom får de bara signalspana på trafik som passerar Sveriges gränser dvs. de får inte avlyssna når båda avsändaren och mottagaren finns i Sverige.
FRA-lagen är ett försök för att minska risken för utländskt hot och terrorism i Sverige. Lagen har mötts med mycket motstånd bland politiker samt vanliga svenskar för att lagen bryter mot deras personliga integriteten. Det finns många som är oroliga att denna lag bara är ett steg mot ett övervakningssamhälle inte olikt det som finns i George Orwells berömda roman 1984. Vissa kritiker kallar även lagen för “Lag 1984.”
Personligen har jag blandade känslor kring detta. Å ena sidan är det alltid bra att vara försiktig när det gäller terrorism särskilt i dagens läge. Å andra sidan är Sverige benägen att vara för försiktig. Klart att terrorism är en verklighet men varifrån kommer hoten just nu egentligen? Terroristattacker är väldigt ovanliga i Sverige och det verkar osannolikt att den trenden kommer att förändras.
Dessutom inskränkar FRA-lagen på den personligafriheten. Det är en mänsklig rättighet att tänka och säga vad man vill utan att ha någon som lyssnar på sig. Problemet är att den här lagen kommer förmodligen inte att användas på det sätt som ansågs och möjligheten för missbruk är stor. Sannolikheten att FRA kommer att hitta terrorister är låg och denna lag skulle kunna skapa en känsla av mistro och misstänksamhet i det svenska samhället. FRA-lagen skulle också kunna försämra förhållandet mellan Sverige och andra länder som inte håller av lagen och även väcka främlingsfientlighet för att lagen är baserad på misstro mot främlingar.
Avslutningsvis anser jag att FRA-lagen inte är lika farlig som många kritiker tycker men däremot är den tämligen onödvändig.
The FRA Law: Sweden as a Survellience Society
Sweden is likely to soon become the strictest country in Western society in terms of surveillance of electronic communication. On January 1st 2009 a new law will come into effect that has been given the informal name of “The FRA Law.”
FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.
The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.
On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.
Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”
Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.
Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.
Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.
FRA is an acronym for Försvarets Radioanstält, or in English the Defense Radio Institute, which is that authourity that will govern the use of signals intelligence that is legitimized by the new law.
The FRA Law is actually more of a movement that influences several different Swedish laws. It implies that wired communication can be surveyed whereas before only wireless communication could be surveyed. The law will also affect the way that personal information can be used.
On the other hand however the FRA Law has to follow several rules in order to gather and use signal intelligence. Among these are rules that require FRA to receive permission before they can gather information and a requirement that they will only use the information with direct consent from the Supreme Court. Furthermore signals intelligence will only be used on signals that cross Swedish borders. In other words they will not be allowed to gather information when both the sender and receiver are within Sweden.
Essentially the FRA Law is an attempt to reduce the threat of attacks from other countries as well as terrorism. The law has been strongly opposed by many politicians as well as ordinary citizens because of the way the law breaches their personal privacy. The are many that are worried that this law is a step towards a surveillance society not unlike the one in George Orwell’s famous novel “1984.” Some critics of the law have even dubbed it as “The 1984 Law.”
Personally I have mixed feelings about this. In one way it is always good to be careful with regards things like terrorism, especially in today’s world. In the same way Sweden is a country that has a tendency to be too careful. Of course terrorism is a reality, but where exactly is the threat coming from? Terrorist attacks are very rare in Sweden and it seems unlikely that this trend will change anytime soon.
Furthermore, the FRA Law infringes on personal privacy. It is a human right to think and say what one wants without having someone listening in. The problem is that this law is unlikely to be used in the way it was intended to and the potential for abuse is high. The likelihood that the FRA Law will uncover any terrorists is low this law could breed mistrust and suspicion within Swedish society. The FRA Law could also hurt the relationship between Sweden and other countries that aren’t fond of the law and could also awaken feelings of xenophobia because the law is essentially based on the mistrust of foreigners.
Ultimately I think this law is not as dangerous as it is made out to be but for the most part rather un-necessary.
December 05, 2008
Politics, Again...
I was hesitant to post again about the Canadian political 'crisis' after the two previous posts, but it's just been so dominant in the news and has been developing so rapidly. There have also been some people who have made me really mad. So, let's call it a Canadian Politics theme-week here with the Blog Journalists, and hope that with this prorogation we can get back to talking about other things next week.
On Monday I posted about the legitimacy of a Liberal-NDP coalition, and how that would represent democracy in action for Canadians. I attempted to give a fairly balanced look early in the whole process without masking that I am, in fact, a (small-L) liberal. After following this story for the past week, and listening to the response from people, I can't tell if those opposed are wilfully blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid. I understand supporting the Conservative Party (I mean, I understand that people do support the Conservative Party), and I then understand that in supporting this party you would like to see them to continue governing. That makes sense. What angers me, though, is some of the comments these people have posted (Ottawa Citizen, cbc.ca, etc). A number of people are sobbing that: the people elected Harper so we should give him a chance (umm, we did. He blew it.); nobody voted for a coalition so it's undemocratic (we voted for all the members of the coalition. It's how the Westminster System works); the coalition includes and is pandering to separatists (this is just untrue).
Harper and the Conservatives were not returned with a majority government, so they are not allowed to govern as if they had one. One might even question the democratic principles behind wilfully crippling your opponents' finances even if you had a majority. Theoretically all members of parliament should at least attempt to gain bipartisan support for motions in the interest of national unity. Harper didn't have a majority, and he didn't even try. I have actually heard the argument that he should get his chance to lead. Well he did, and he blew it spectacularly. Give someone else a turn who has the confidence of the house.
The argument has been made that people did not vote for the coalition; therefore it has no right to lead. I will grant the very valid point that people seemed to resoundingly reject Stéphane Dion, so perhaps a different leadership option would have been better, but that doesn't really change the fact that Dion won just as many ridings as Harper did. I will concede that this is somewhat of a hollow argument, and in reality people do vote with a party/leader in mind. However, there is nothing undemocratic about what the coalition has attempted. In Canada, people never really vote for the Prime Minister or even for the government. The Governor General invites the party to lead who they feel has the confidence of the house. If this is lost, the Governor General has every right to name another party/group if they feel they have a reasonable chance of maintaining that confidence. Some people would favour another election, which would only cost time and money, and it is unlikely it would return vastly different results from what we have now. There has even been the suggestion that the Liberals and NDP would agree to not run candidates against each other in certain ridings in an attempt to unite that divided vote and topple Conservative candidates. They would continue, however, to be two separate parties. A coalition would never amount to an amalgamation of parties, but rather an agreement by two groups to co-operate (isn't that what democracy should be all about?). Ideally every single issue ever would be decided by referenda, but this is not reasonable, so we elect officials to vote for us. Democracy.
The coalition has always been between the Liberals and the NDP. What this means is the two parties would together form a government and share the cabinet positions. However, they would still not have enough seats to form a majority government, so they require the support of the Bloc Québécois. They refuse to recognize Québec as a nation, so the Bloc refuses to join the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition, however, because they are ideologically similar on many issues (for a great look at this, read Will's post from Wednesday: Canadian Political History). I'm sure Harper would have no issue accepting their 'sovereigntist' support if they offered it. He has instead been intentionally misleading the public to believe the Bloc to be part of the coalition.
There have been allegations from Conservatives of the undemocratic actions of the opposition, when in fact the closest thing anyone has done to subvert Canadian democracy is Harper's prorogation of parliament to avoid a lost vote. Not to mention his spying on the NDP and intentionally misleading the people. They have even resorted to name-calling (separatists) and rousing nationalism (members of the House chanted Harper! Harper! before breaking into the national anthem). (I am not kidding.) The opposition parties have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done what they are supposed to do as opposition parties in a minority government. Some will argue that by raising the prospect of defeat and forcing Harper to back off they have done their job, and perhaps that's what we will see happen with the prorogation. This may even be in the best interest of the Liberal Party, as they have a lot on the line in this coalition, and no strong leader or funds to fight an election. Perhaps some months with Harper on his guard will allow the Liberals to rebuild and become stronger, sooner. For now, we'll have to wait and see.
RM
On Monday I posted about the legitimacy of a Liberal-NDP coalition, and how that would represent democracy in action for Canadians. I attempted to give a fairly balanced look early in the whole process without masking that I am, in fact, a (small-L) liberal. After following this story for the past week, and listening to the response from people, I can't tell if those opposed are wilfully blind, ignorant, or just plain stupid. I understand supporting the Conservative Party (I mean, I understand that people do support the Conservative Party), and I then understand that in supporting this party you would like to see them to continue governing. That makes sense. What angers me, though, is some of the comments these people have posted (Ottawa Citizen, cbc.ca, etc). A number of people are sobbing that: the people elected Harper so we should give him a chance (umm, we did. He blew it.); nobody voted for a coalition so it's undemocratic (we voted for all the members of the coalition. It's how the Westminster System works); the coalition includes and is pandering to separatists (this is just untrue).
Harper and the Conservatives were not returned with a majority government, so they are not allowed to govern as if they had one. One might even question the democratic principles behind wilfully crippling your opponents' finances even if you had a majority. Theoretically all members of parliament should at least attempt to gain bipartisan support for motions in the interest of national unity. Harper didn't have a majority, and he didn't even try. I have actually heard the argument that he should get his chance to lead. Well he did, and he blew it spectacularly. Give someone else a turn who has the confidence of the house.
The argument has been made that people did not vote for the coalition; therefore it has no right to lead. I will grant the very valid point that people seemed to resoundingly reject Stéphane Dion, so perhaps a different leadership option would have been better, but that doesn't really change the fact that Dion won just as many ridings as Harper did. I will concede that this is somewhat of a hollow argument, and in reality people do vote with a party/leader in mind. However, there is nothing undemocratic about what the coalition has attempted. In Canada, people never really vote for the Prime Minister or even for the government. The Governor General invites the party to lead who they feel has the confidence of the house. If this is lost, the Governor General has every right to name another party/group if they feel they have a reasonable chance of maintaining that confidence. Some people would favour another election, which would only cost time and money, and it is unlikely it would return vastly different results from what we have now. There has even been the suggestion that the Liberals and NDP would agree to not run candidates against each other in certain ridings in an attempt to unite that divided vote and topple Conservative candidates. They would continue, however, to be two separate parties. A coalition would never amount to an amalgamation of parties, but rather an agreement by two groups to co-operate (isn't that what democracy should be all about?). Ideally every single issue ever would be decided by referenda, but this is not reasonable, so we elect officials to vote for us. Democracy.
The coalition has always been between the Liberals and the NDP. What this means is the two parties would together form a government and share the cabinet positions. However, they would still not have enough seats to form a majority government, so they require the support of the Bloc Québécois. They refuse to recognize Québec as a nation, so the Bloc refuses to join the coalition. They agreed to support the coalition, however, because they are ideologically similar on many issues (for a great look at this, read Will's post from Wednesday: Canadian Political History). I'm sure Harper would have no issue accepting their 'sovereigntist' support if they offered it. He has instead been intentionally misleading the public to believe the Bloc to be part of the coalition.
There have been allegations from Conservatives of the undemocratic actions of the opposition, when in fact the closest thing anyone has done to subvert Canadian democracy is Harper's prorogation of parliament to avoid a lost vote. Not to mention his spying on the NDP and intentionally misleading the people. They have even resorted to name-calling (separatists) and rousing nationalism (members of the House chanted Harper! Harper! before breaking into the national anthem). (I am not kidding.) The opposition parties have done nothing wrong, and in fact have done what they are supposed to do as opposition parties in a minority government. Some will argue that by raising the prospect of defeat and forcing Harper to back off they have done their job, and perhaps that's what we will see happen with the prorogation. This may even be in the best interest of the Liberal Party, as they have a lot on the line in this coalition, and no strong leader or funds to fight an election. Perhaps some months with Harper on his guard will allow the Liberals to rebuild and become stronger, sooner. For now, we'll have to wait and see.
RM
December 03, 2008
Canadian Political History
Due to the unprecedented nature of the current political situation in Canada I have decided to turn my attention away from my usual international column to comment on Canadian politics. Seeing as I am currently in Sweden, I suppose this article could still be considered an international perspective.To quickly recap the current state of affairs, the three opposition parties (Liberals, New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois) have signed off on a agreement that, if passed by the Governor General (the Queen’s representative within Canada) next Monday, would see a coalition government taking over for the only seven week old Conservative government.
This move was sparked by a controversial economic proposal by Harper’s conservatives that according to the Toronto Star “contained little in the way of economic stimulus but proposed to take away the rights of federal workers to strike, clamp down on pay equity and, critically, eliminate public subsidies for political parties.”
Despite a last minute ad-blitz by the Conservative party to try and swing national opinion in their favour, it appears the best the Conservatives can hope for is for Governor General Michaëlle Jean to dissolve parliament and send Canadians back to polls instead of handing power over to the coalition. Jean has said she will not comment on the situation until she discusses things with the Prime Minister and that her door is open once she arrives back in Canada today from an abbreviated ambassadorial trip to Central Europe. Prime-Minister Harper will no doubt be waiting on her door-step asking if he can put a Conservative sign on her lawn.
What I would really like to focus on in this blog however is what became the most prevalent glob of muck in the mud-slinging affair that was the Canadian House of Commons yesterday; that being the suddenly essential Bloc Québécois.
The maybe soon-to-be former Prime Minister Harper and his possible back from the political dead successor Stéphane Dion went back in forth in the House yesterday with Harper accusing Dion of being in bed with the separatists and Dion defending himself saying that he has always believed in a united Canada.
The quote of the day was made however by the long time leader of the separatist Bloc Québécois party, Gilles Duceppe, when, referring to Harper’s past reliance on the Bloc to pass multiple budgets, he said “Let's say he had a lot less fear of the nasty separatists back then.”
One can see both sides of this situation and, in a way, both sides are right. Due to the relative number of seats the Bloc hold, the leader of any minority government has to rely on the Bloc for support in order to accomplish anything. In this sense Harper’s argument is moot because he is essentially saying that no matter what evil doings the ruling party is up to, it is worse to deal with the separatists. This is of course ridiculous, especially coming from a man who has also gone for a whirl with the Québec nationalists. At the same time, most Canadian’s would agree in maintaining a united Canada. The question is, at what point do you draw the line and say better the separatists than this guy?
Judging by the exceptional nature of the current economic situation and the partisan, hackneyed efforts of the Conservative government to address them, the coalition has performed the necessary duty of, regardless of the outcome of this situation, letting the Conservatives know they are not asleep.
I think it is also pertinent to note the irony of the Bloc Québécois in Canadian politics. If one did not know they were a separatist party it would be very easy to see them as the best suited party to lead the country. (Bare with me here…) They have the longest standing leader of any of the political parties in Gilles Duceppe, a man who is both charismatic and more bi-lingual than any of the other leaders. His party backed the Kyoto Accord, uncovered the Liberal sponsorship scandal and opposed the Iraq war. It seems the only reason Canadians have to dislike the Bloc is the fact that they don’t want to be part of Canada. I am not in any way a separatist, but with the way the previous Liberal government and the present Conservative government have staggered through their terms, I really wonder if you can blame Québec and the Bloc for thinking Québec might be better off alone.
On a final note, if one were to ignore everything else that has happened, Stephen Harper will show his true colours tonight when he most likely will tell the nation that the best solution is to go back to the polls in order to establish a Conservative majority. If Mr. Harper were truly concerned with the Canadian economy do you really think he would put another $30 million election on the top of his agenda? Mr. Harper, you’ve already had your chance.
Will Grassby
December 01, 2008
The System Works
The future of this 40th sitting of the Canadian Parliament is unfolding as we speak. The Conservatives unveiled a financial statement last week, believing the leaderless Liberals wouldn't have the gall to defeat it. (This belief was probably justified after the Liberals supported umpteen Conservative motions in the previous sitting, while they HAD a leader.) They were, however, mistaken, as the Liberals, New Democrats, and Bloc Québécois are so miffed they may vote to defeat the 40-day-old government and propose to Governor General Michaëlle Jean that they form a Liberal-NDP coalition supported by the Bloc. There are always many contentious points in any Conservative statement, but three in particular have raised the ire of the opposition: 1. The statement lacks significant economic stimulus; 2. They would eliminate the $1.95 tax-payer funded subsidy awarded to each party per vote received; 3. They would eliminate the right for federal civil servants to strike through 2011.
So taken-aback by the uproar, the Conservatives have scuttled backwards on the last two points, saying they would instead freeze the subsidy and campaign against it later, and would not disallow civil servants to strike. I suppose they still believe they have provided a significant stimulus... An incredulous John Baird even tried to defend the plan to scrap the subsidy by arguing that as the party that received the most votes, the Conservatives would stand to lose the most. While his math is bang-on, he has, of course, missed the point. While the Conservatives received about one-third of their funding from the subsidy, for the other parties it was a much higher percentage. The effect of losing it would cripple the treasury of smaller parites (Greens, etc.), as well as diminish the incentive to vote for a party you 'knew' wasn't going to win your riding.
But the damage may be too great for the Conservatives to undo. The Liberals and NDP have been meeting all weekend to hammer out details of their coalition proposition, not the least of which would be who would actually be the Prime Minister. If they defeat the government on a confidence vote, they would then need to convince Ms. Jean to allow them to try their hand at running the country. There is precedence for such a decision, dating back to the King-Byng affair of 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng invited Arthur Meighen and his Conservative Party to lead after Liberal Mackenzie King lost the confidence of the house, and Meighen did so gamely for almost three months, before the voters returned King for his second of three turns.
Critics and Conservatives will peg this option as undemocratic, but they would be wrong. Everyone currently sitting as an MP has been elected (remember? It was last month). Since everyone voted for the party they most wanted to win anyways, then this outcome would have had no bearing on their vote. What we would be seeing here is democracy actually working for the majority of Canadians. The reality of a divided left means that only 37.65% actually voted for Stephen Harper. (Since only 59% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, only 22% of Canadians actually voted for this guy.) It is fair to assume that the majority of the remaining 62% of the votes would have gone to the Liberals, NDP, or Greens before the Conservatives, so such a coalition would actually be representing the views of the majority. (I am sure there are some Liberal voters who would vote Conservative before ever voting for the pinkos, and some Québécers who would never vote for the Bloc.) The minority Conservatives, however, should not be allowed to run rampant their agenda through fearmongering of another election and the misguided belief in Liberal docility.
Most Canadians will agree that they do not want another election. Most Canadians will agree that they do not support Harper or his right-wing agenda. There is historical precedence and constitutional support for coalition governments. Therefore, it seems like a viable option, at least for a little while. Party politics, to a certain degree, is a bastardization of parliamentary government anyways, so parties being forced to work together may be a welcome respite. Many of the problems with minority governments will still exist, and the federal government would only survive with the support of a party whose main purpose is the destruction of that federal government, but such a coalition would still be a positive step for Canada and democracy. The NDP would be afforded 25% of the Cabinet positions, and the Bloc would not receive any, and the Prime Minister would still likely be a member of the Liberal Party. Stéphane Dion may be afforded his day in the sun after all (much to the chagrin of Edward Blake), or perhaps one of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Dominic LeBlanc would hastily be named. My choice may even be Jack Layton, as such a parliament would be destined to be short lived, he is a strong leader of his party, and he would be kept in check by the majority (of the minority) Liberals. Ignatieff seems the inevitable choice in a few years anyways, so why not give Jack a turn.
The outcome of all of this is yet to be seen (this blog will likely be out of date very quickly), but these rumblings represent a chance for democracy in action. The system, apparently, works.
RM
So taken-aback by the uproar, the Conservatives have scuttled backwards on the last two points, saying they would instead freeze the subsidy and campaign against it later, and would not disallow civil servants to strike. I suppose they still believe they have provided a significant stimulus... An incredulous John Baird even tried to defend the plan to scrap the subsidy by arguing that as the party that received the most votes, the Conservatives would stand to lose the most. While his math is bang-on, he has, of course, missed the point. While the Conservatives received about one-third of their funding from the subsidy, for the other parties it was a much higher percentage. The effect of losing it would cripple the treasury of smaller parites (Greens, etc.), as well as diminish the incentive to vote for a party you 'knew' wasn't going to win your riding.
But the damage may be too great for the Conservatives to undo. The Liberals and NDP have been meeting all weekend to hammer out details of their coalition proposition, not the least of which would be who would actually be the Prime Minister. If they defeat the government on a confidence vote, they would then need to convince Ms. Jean to allow them to try their hand at running the country. There is precedence for such a decision, dating back to the King-Byng affair of 1926 when Governor General Lord Byng invited Arthur Meighen and his Conservative Party to lead after Liberal Mackenzie King lost the confidence of the house, and Meighen did so gamely for almost three months, before the voters returned King for his second of three turns.
Critics and Conservatives will peg this option as undemocratic, but they would be wrong. Everyone currently sitting as an MP has been elected (remember? It was last month). Since everyone voted for the party they most wanted to win anyways, then this outcome would have had no bearing on their vote. What we would be seeing here is democracy actually working for the majority of Canadians. The reality of a divided left means that only 37.65% actually voted for Stephen Harper. (Since only 59% of eligible voters actually cast their ballots, only 22% of Canadians actually voted for this guy.) It is fair to assume that the majority of the remaining 62% of the votes would have gone to the Liberals, NDP, or Greens before the Conservatives, so such a coalition would actually be representing the views of the majority. (I am sure there are some Liberal voters who would vote Conservative before ever voting for the pinkos, and some Québécers who would never vote for the Bloc.) The minority Conservatives, however, should not be allowed to run rampant their agenda through fearmongering of another election and the misguided belief in Liberal docility.
Most Canadians will agree that they do not want another election. Most Canadians will agree that they do not support Harper or his right-wing agenda. There is historical precedence and constitutional support for coalition governments. Therefore, it seems like a viable option, at least for a little while. Party politics, to a certain degree, is a bastardization of parliamentary government anyways, so parties being forced to work together may be a welcome respite. Many of the problems with minority governments will still exist, and the federal government would only survive with the support of a party whose main purpose is the destruction of that federal government, but such a coalition would still be a positive step for Canada and democracy. The NDP would be afforded 25% of the Cabinet positions, and the Bloc would not receive any, and the Prime Minister would still likely be a member of the Liberal Party. Stéphane Dion may be afforded his day in the sun after all (much to the chagrin of Edward Blake), or perhaps one of Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Dominic LeBlanc would hastily be named. My choice may even be Jack Layton, as such a parliament would be destined to be short lived, he is a strong leader of his party, and he would be kept in check by the majority (of the minority) Liberals. Ignatieff seems the inevitable choice in a few years anyways, so why not give Jack a turn.
The outcome of all of this is yet to be seen (this blog will likely be out of date very quickly), but these rumblings represent a chance for democracy in action. The system, apparently, works.
RM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)