This is not a referendum on the BC Liberals.

We have a way of expressing our opinion on who should be in government and what we think of political parties, they’re called elections. This is not an election, but a referendum. A referendum on an important policy. What I think about the policy will form the basis of my decision. As much as I might resent the BC Liberals, this is not the way to take it out on them. Remember when the BC Liberals sold the FastCats below market value, just to spite the BC NDP? Yes, I was outraged too at the petty “stick it in your face” politics, especially when the person burned is the public. Let’s not throw out a good policy because the people who brought it in our not likeable.

This is not a referendum on trust in governance.

The Government has passed regulations that will see the HST reduced to 10% in 2014.  Fight HST is arguing that you can’t trust the government on this promise. Let’s review the facts as I see them: first, it is the law of British Columbia that the tax will now be lowered. Second, it would be political suicide to go back on that promise in the future. I think of all the political promises made, these are pretty solid.

Some have also criticized the Government for the way this policy was introduced. There are concerns over this process, for sure, but this is  a poor way to express those frustrations. For the purposes of this referendum, it doesn’t matter how the policy was introduced. The point is that British Columbians now have a say on the policy’s continuation. Arguing that a policy should be scrapped not because of its merits, but because of its introduction is misdirected anger. Especially when we consider that…

This is a referendum on HST, forever.

If the HST is defeated, then it will be deemed politically hostile and will not come up again, in any form, for the foreseeable future.

This is not a referendum on  exemptions.

As UBC Economist Kevin Milligan pointed out to me on Twitter, the provincial government can change the exemptions under HST on its own accord (up to 5% of the value of all possible GST revenue in the province). It is unnecessary to scrap the HST because you want bikes/vitamins/whatever to be exempt under HST. The Government could simply change the HST structure. I would like to see some of the exemptions changed, for sure, but I’m not going to bulldoze the bridge because the colour scheme isn’t right. I’m going to campaign for a new colour scheme.

When I cast my ballot, it will be based on the merits of the HST as a policy measure, because that’s what the referendum is on.

What were you doing when you were 15? Think about that.

Omar Khadr was fifteen years old when he supposedly killed an american soldier. Where you were and what you are doing at age 15 has a lot more to do with how you are brought up and how you are socialized than your own actions or convictions. You are old enough to take some responsibility for you actions, but society also has some responsibility for getting you to where you were, whether good or bad.

In Canada, we insist on youth in the criminal justice system being treated differently than adults. This is why we have the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which protects them from their youth crimes coming back to haunt them. Until today, I really thought we took this for granted here. I thought we all knew that 15-year-olds are still children. But the lack of reaction to this decision says otherwise.

As Amnesty International has repeatedly said, there is “No Security Without Human Rights”. The rights of children are basic. We can’t pick and choose which basic human rights we do or don’t follow, and who they apply to.

The Obama administration promised to give fair trials to all those at Guantanamo, but this was not a fair trial. Apart from the fact that it wasn’t the least bit speedy, for it to be fair, they would have to consider that he was 15.

As Romeo Dallaire rightly pointed out last week, this is not just about Omar Khadr, it’s about child soldiers, or anyone involved in violence really, everywhere around the world. The U.S. has sent a message to them. The message is: we don’t care about your circumstances. Hit us and we’ll hit you back, harder.

We will never, ever end the cycle of violence until we learn that punishment doesn’t solve anything. This is the same reason that has led to the U.S. having the highest incarceration rates of any democracy, and yet still have an astronomical rate of violence. Punishment doesn’t work. Rehabilitation and examining the root causes of violence and poverty is the only thing that is going to end this conflict.

Omar Khadr was created by a violent world. It is the world’s responsibility to end the violence. We have to stop responding to violence with more violence.

It ended today with a bang. Bringing home groceries I spotted the cover of the Ottawa Sun, published by Quebecor Media Inc. There, superimposed on the Reuters image of migrants being guided off of the MV Sun Sea, were the words “BOGUS REFUGEES.”

The point of the Ottawa Sun was clear: these invaders are liars.

The “scoop” inside behind the claim was a secret document that QMI had “obtained” (I love that word) from Canada Border Services Agency. From what I can understand, public servants had counted the number of former refugees, now applying to sponsor another individual as an immigrant, who had returned to Sri Lanka after gaining refugee status in Canada.  It was a rough estimate based on 50 Sri Lankans, of whom 31 were refugees. Of those 31 refugees, 22 has subsequently returned to Sri Lanka.

From this, QMI stated that “over 70% of successful Tamil refugee claimants surveyed from returning to Sri Lanka for vacations, business or to sponsor family members.” This is a clearly misleading statement.

As CBSA notes in a response to an inquiry by Kady O’Malley of CBC, “this review was done based on statements applicants made during their immigration interview and not based on any formal entry control system, this information must be considered anecdotal in nature.” In other words, it wasn’t a survey, it wasn’t a proportion.

The anecdotal evidence is also short on information. Most notably, when the individuals concerned had made the trip back. Someone returning years later to bring over their family is a world apart from, as QMI implies, someone going back for a vacation a week after being admitted to Canada. It is no basis to call them all liars. A claim that, were it levelled against nearly any Canadian, would result in a libel suit.

The story had the aforementioned Ms. O’Malley frustrated. But earlier this week, I found myself on a rant of my own.

The Globe and Mail had published an op-ed by respected political scientist Tom Flanagan. Like him, or hate him: a big name. So I was very surprised when I read this:

We need some rational debate, maybe even a government task force, on the proper shape of the census in the electronic age. Statistics Canada still relies on 20th-century technology (mailed questionnaires) as well as 19th-century technology (interviewers at the door) to gather information. How about some 21st-century technology? If we can create an electronic voters list, can we not carry out at least part of the census electronically?

The thing is, they do. In 2006 Statistics Canada had Canadians respond to the Census via the Internet. I remember because I filled it out. (My step-sister didn’t want to want to answer the questions. She only participated because we noted the law said she had to. Oh, the irony.)

The Globe and Mail had been on my nerve all week as a matter of fact. While their editorials and columns steered clear of making such controversial claims as QMI, the main stories (example) found on A1 insisted on calling the migrants “illegal immigrants.”

I know, I know editors. The alliteration there is awesome. Really though, the fact is, that is really unclear right now. To state it like a fact, at the front of the article no less, is to bias the discussion. Worse, it is to be inaccurate.

This may be three cases, but the trend is clear: I don’t know what to believe.

But the media has consistently ignored the more important part of this story: There were ten thousand people marching in Toronto on June 26th. Why were they there? What did they stand for? What motivated them? I am very disappointed that the media has barely covered that at all. The violence and the issues with out-of-control police have changed the focus, but the media plays a pivotal role in allowing that to happen. Even rabble.ca has put the focus on illegal detentions and police brutality. Worthy issues, but certainly not the whole story.

I was in Toronto that weekend, and took part in two peaceful protests. The constantly repeated corporate media description of the protesters as “anarchists” who need to “get a job” is extremely one-sided and dehumanizing. I can tell you as a witness that the ten thousand protesters were there to represent many different causes and had many different reasons to be upset with the G8 and G20 leaders. We should be worried about our civil rights, but let’s not forget the reason we need those rights: we need to talk about these issues. We need to examine the questions the protesters are bringing up. If we aren’t prepared to talk about it, there’s no point in protecting those rights.

Rex described how the Bloc leader told Newfoundlanders that they, too, are a nation, and could therefore separate from Canada.

Rex then reminded his viewers that Newfoundland made a choice to join Canada, back in the 40s.

Then he went on a characteristic rant about how Mr Duceppe’s party “works inescapable injury to our federal system…almost necessarily impedes the formation of real national governments” He then talked about how “our federal Parliament has to ‘work around’ a concentrated grouping of dedicated separatists” and “we actively subsidize the weakening of our own federal system; we pay federal salaries and offer federal pensions to activist anti-federalists.”

This is an insult to every voter in Quebec.

Rex is saying that because the Bloc is a separatist party, they shouldn’t be paid to be in a federal parliament, that somehow the irony makes it wrong. But the Bloc members were elected by their constituents just like all the other MPs. Does Rex think that Quebec voters don’t deserve a say just like the rest of the country?

If you watch parliament closely, the fact is that the Bloc has not tried very hard the last few years to push the separatist agenda. When they vote on things in parliament, they rationalize their decisions based on what they believe is in the interests of Quebec. Is that not what a member of parliament is supposed to do — represent their constituents?

And even if the views they are representing are separatist ones, that doesn’t make them any less legitimate. This is a democracy, after all. There is room for disagreement, even on issues of such consequence. No, especially on issues of such consequence.

Just because Rex doesn’t agree with the Bloc’s views on what is best for the Quebecois, that doesn’t mean the Bloc MPs are not the legitimately elected representatives of their constituents as much as every other member of parliament.

It seems Rex might be fearful of separatism taking off in Newfoundland, his home province. If that is the case, he would be better off countering Gilles Duceppe’s arguments for separation.  That shouldn’t be too difficult for a man of his intellect.

But most importantly: if he likes the Canadian system so much,  he should also respect the legitimacy of the Bloc MPs who are voted in just like all the rest, and the right of Quebec voters to decide who represents them.

The two concepts are, by definition, linked.  Abortion and contraception exist because in order for mothers and families to be healthy, pregnancies have to be timed correctly. When done by a qualified doctor, abortions are safer for women than pregnancy.

Opposition Members of Parliament seem to have realized how contraception plays into this, but even though the opposition keeps standing up to ask the question, the connection between abortion availability and health seems to have been lost. The debate, rather than being about why abortions matter just as much as contraception, centers around the fact that the opposition wants to talk about the idea, and the government doesn’t. No one is going to be convinced, as long as we aren’t able to name the fact that talking about abortion is necessary.

Harper and his government keep saying that they “vowed” to not let the Liberals reopen the so-called abortion debate.  But by announcing a maternal health initiative, the government brought it up themselves.

There is no weight in a maternal health initiative that will not touch the idea of providing safe abortions. Period. Hillary Clinton realizes that. Without space for a discussion on abortion, it isn’t a real discussion.

If the Tories actually want to push for freedom and women’s rights abroad, as they seem to want to do in Afghanistan, we cannot simply ignore abortions altogether. By saying they want to talk about maternal health and “saving lives, and this is how we’re going to do it. period.” the government is not opening up a real discussion. They are defining “maternal health” the way they want to define it.

What constitutes women’s health in developing countries is to be defined by the women in question, not a male-dominated cabinet in a developed country.

Dear Women of Quebec,

This letter is to inform you that we have decided to rescue you. Congratulations!

Bill 94, recently introduced into the National Assembly will force you to show your face when accessing services. In other words, to take off your niqab. So yes, at this point, the 99% of you who don’t wear one can stop reading. But we’d like you to, so that we can feel justified in spending so much money on so few doing a small thing.

You didn’t know you need to be rescued? Well, that’s ok. Obviously, you do. We have consulted the top male, white experts we could find and all of them have concluded that they can’t understand why you would want to wear a niqab. Therefore, the only possible explanation is that you have been forced to wear it by your religion or someone else (we suspect your husband). And since wearing a niqab must clearly be horrible, and frankly kinda freaks us out, we feel it necessary to force you to take it off.

This is simply a loud proclamation of the gender equality of Quebec. Here, men decide on the legislation for women without consultation, since none is necessary — we’re all equal. Furthermore, we only interfere in private life when oppression is as clear as this.

This is also a statement on the secularism of Quebec.  The next step in spreading secularism? A repeal of Christian holidays. Maybe. Sorta. Naaaa, just kidding. Catholics after all are the majority.

And finally, this is about security. We just have to be sure of your identity! We must make sure your picture matches your ID. (Since official ID is infallible, never-mind this rise in identity theft.) And never mind the fact that in accessing most services you don’t ever usually have to show ID. We just need to see your face! We know some Muslim women have made it clear that you would be willing to show your faces to another women. But really, did anyone ask your opinion? Furthermore, that just sounds like so much work. So, thanks, but no thanks for the idea.

Of course, this isn’t a totalitarian government. We can only make decisions about our provincial jurisdiction. So, if you would like to wear your niqab at all times then that’s clearly fine too. We would just ask that you not access health services, schools, or other provincial services. So yes, niqab or stitches. Your choice!  Or, in the spirit of true equality of the sexes, you could send your husband to access services on your behalf and stay at home. (You know, the same one we think forced you to wear the niqab.) Maybe you could make him a sandwich as a thank-you? Wouldn’t that be nice!

Sincerely,

The majority, in a non-dominating kind of way

But would it be, if the minister wasn’t a woman?

I said yes, when I was first asked that question yesterday. But after the article in the globe, I’m not so sure.

Imagine it. John Baird or Tony Clement throws a temper tantrum at the charlottetown airport and calls P.E.I. a “hellhole”.  The press would immediately have a field day, of course. Then the minister apologizes, citing having had a difficult day, and…

Would we forgive him? Would the media forgive him?

Likely yes. What are the reasons for the outburst? With Guergis, it’s an example of her incompetency, along with the fact that the status of women in Canada has fallen off the radar screen of the Conservative government. If it had been, say, Peter MacKay, it would have been, well, the stress of planning his wedding and running a war at the same time. Everyone has bad days, right?

Maybe I’m wrong. We actually don’t have much to compare it with. The last time a minister was under this much pressure to resign was when many believed he was covering up the evidence of Canada’s alleged involvement in war crimes – arguably a much better reason for heads to roll than one angry outburst when one’s privacy is being violated by airport security.

Does it meet the standard?

Like I said before, whether competent or not, everyone has bad days. Given that Ms. Guergis has now apologized and returned to the stage, members of the opposition would do far better by forgiving the minister for being human and turning their attention to substantive issues, of which there are many. The Globe would be more responsible, too, to properly label an article whose content is only half about Ms. Guergis and the state of Harper’s cabinet, and half about Afghan detainees.

Unfortunately, this outpouring of anger is more demonstrative of the state of affairs for Canadians with disabilities than McKeever racing in the Olympics.

Canadians wanted him to race (and so did his corporate sponsors, as evidenced by the numerous ads highlighting his achievement) but they wanted to race for their own benefit, not for his. We wanted him to race so we could chalk one up to awesomeness, and American-style “anything is possible” opportunities.

But of course, this wouldn’t have been the case. The simple fact is that McKeever, this time, was slower. Had he been included, it wouldn’t represent achievement but a tokenistic, selfish, and patronising society. How do you think McKeever would have felt? It is unfortunate he didn’t race, but it would have been more unfortunate to put a man into a position where he is unapologeticly being used. Wouldn’t it be hard to face the teammate whose spot you took? The one with the better time, and the higher chances of a medal? And don’t be fooled: in a world filled with statisticians and analysts you would both now of the switch-up.

Does it meet the standard?

The reality is that this is what “owning the podium” is about. Performance-based, situation-blind, hard, cold calculations. And if winning is going to be the foundation of this “new found patriotism,” Canadians better get comfortable with not being the friendly athlete anymore.

It’s late, and  I don’t have time for many musings. So this is going to be quick, machine-gun style “analysis.” I hope that none of it’s too obvious.

• You have to hand it to them, the bit about changing the anthem was brilliant. The government has effectively, if only for the next few days, ensured that public discussion circles around this “sexy” topic because (a) everyone can talk about it because it’s common knowledge and beliefs, (b) after the Olympics, people feel obligated to have an opinion about such national institutions as anthems, flags, and athletes, and (c) it appeals to both Conservatives and Progressives. You’re changing something back to its progressive original form.
• By centering the discussion vis the above, and littering the speech with 6,000 words of small things, it becomes less obvious what’s not in the speech. For example, defence spending, real action on women’s issues, or foreign relations. Theses issues simply get bogged down in the “meeting legal obligations to change the Indian Act”s and the “installing new airport scanners”s of the speech. Foregone conclusions which seem more appropriate in a departmental news release than a speech to every major official from the Head of State. (Note, both of these issues are important. We just already knew that the government was going to do this. And they’re small changes to fix things, not large changes to direct things.)
• The Speech from the Throne’s traditional role is to outline the government’s legislative agenda. However, much of the points discussed today will never see the floor of the House of Commons in the form of a bill. They are simply regulatory, or mechanical maneuvers which will pass by in the Canada Gazette or new releases. Most of the references to specific bills are ones which the government will be reinstating after the Government killed them by Proroguing.
• And my final 1:50AM note: The GG still has awesome fashion sense. It must go with the position.

Does it meet the standard?

Simply, no. The government has failed to create any comprehensive real priorities, but simply a to-do list. I need a Throne Speech for the Throne Speech.