Quake Aid

This weekend's earthquake in Asia seems to be provoking a similar private donor response that followed last Christmas' Indian Ocean tsunamis.

The Canadian government, meanwhile, immediately announced a contribution of $300,000, though Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew admits that this contribution will increase, arguing that, using the Globe's paraphrase, "[i]t was important to assess the disaster first."

He continued:

"I think it is important we're accountable to Canadians. I think they want to know exactly what we will be doing, so when we announce our contribution, we will also express what it will be doing, but you can count on the government of Canada to react generously and as I say, in the course of the day, we will announce a further contribution."

I appreciate Ottawa's sentiments in desiring to assist the affected countries, but are there any criteria by which contributions of this nature are even assessed? It's interesting that the Minister's pre-determination is that Canada's present contribution will increase, even while acknowledging the need for an assessment of what amount is required.

It's comments like this that can lead one to conclude, cynically, that the disaster assistance Ottawa provides is tied to the attention the disaster receives and domestic political pressure (the Globe notes that the $300K "caused an angry reaction from some people in Montreal's South Asian community") rather than any objective measurement of what the situation actually requires.

How Kids Should Stop Sexually Exploiting Adults (or, Did You Wonder What Happened to Team Grewal?)

...I did the other night, and thought I'd update myself on the activities of the honourable member for Fleetwood-Port Kells, the more silent and less controversial of the two parliamentary Grewals, Nina.

On the front page of her site, she touts her work in attempting to have the age of sexual consent in the Criminal Code raised through a defeated motion (I suspect this is unrelated to the recently defeated private-member's bill presented by Tory backbencher Rick Casson which attempted to raise the age of consent to 16). I also suspect that this was from the last parliamentary session.

The page reads:

Nina's motion to raise the age of consent failed to be approved by the House of Commons because of the combined votes of Liberal, BQ, and NDP members. The vote was 100 in favour and 169 against.

Ms. Grewal later questioned the Justice Minister on the government’s failure to protect children: “Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members opposite chose to reject my motion to raise the age of consent, choosing instead to protect adults who prey on young teens. Parents and families need laws that protect children, not predators. And now, predators are coming to Canada from around the world to take advantage of our weak Liberal laws. Police and family groups across Canada support this change. Can the Minister of Justice explain why he is giving a pass to sexual predators instead of protecting young Canadians?”

She then adds some comments about her future efforts to pursue this issue, stating:

"Nina will continue to fight to raise the age of consent, protecting children from sexually exploiting adults. [emphasis mine]

Let this be a lesson to all public figures: never ever let your grammar degenerate into such ambiguity.

From the War on Terror to... the War on Bird Flu (!?!)

I appreciate that not every accomplishment/policy/musing of the present President of the United States has been in conformity with the principles of smaller government and individual liberty that are (or should be) the bedrock of the conservative political philosophy supposedly undergirding the Republican Party.

But this? Declaring war on the virus causing Avian Flu and using the military to enforce quarantines where outbreaks are extant?

As one Columbia University professor reacted: “The translation of this is martial law in the United States”.