Pro Libertate Veritateque

Quick Notes on the Black Trial

2007-05-30T18:18:00.001-03:00

Well, law school is done, which means PLVQ can start (hopefully) posting with a degree of regularity once again.

I've been following with interest, in the little spare time I have, the trial of Lord Black in Chicago. While I don't have too much to add to the extensive and incisive ink-spilling over this trial, today, notably, the prosecution dropped a charge of money laundering against Black, on the eve of the close of its case.

While most (all?) of those executives who have been implicated in recent American financial scandals (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) have engaged in fraudulent activities - misstating profits, par example - there are little if any analogous allegations in the case against Black and his co-accused, and no evidence has been presented to date at the trial that places Black in the class of individuals like Bernie Ebbers.

After introducing an unimpressive array of witnesses - whose collective feet have been placed at the fire by Edward Greenspan, one of the most recognised and effective cross-examiners among the Canadian bar - one cannot help but wonder whether the prosecution (and the U.S. government) have gone one trial too far in their crusade to enforce certain standards of "corporate governance" within American corporations.

If Lord Black is ultimately exonerated, it hopefully will give the American government an opportunity to reflect upon whether it is really its role to "protect" shareholders from the day-to-day business transactions of executives, or whether its many intercessions have resulted in the destruction of value for shareholders (through the public fallout from investigations, prosecutions, and the like) rather than its protection - which such forays into courtrooms purport to advance.

A Rae of Liberal Lite

2006-04-21T13:23:00.000-03:00

Confirming what everyone already knew, the BobRae.ca placeholder portends an imminent announcement of the former Ontario Premier's intention to seek the Liberal leadership.

The Equivocation of Ignatieff

2006-03-31T12:00:00.000-04:00

It appears that Michael Ignatieff, the globetrotting ex-patriate and putative saviour of the Liberal Party of Greater Toronto, is set to launch his bid for the party leadership next week after his appearance yesterday at the University of Ottawa.

What I expected with Ignatieff's leadership bid was an elevation of political discourse within the Liberal Party, given his impressive CV and credentials. However, his support for the Iraq War, and his realist perspective on international relations, have put him at odds with the left of his party, which has been typified more for its anti-Americanism and opposition to Canadian military involvement in foreign theatres.

And how did Ignatieff manage the clash between Ivory Tower idealism and the proclivities of his base? Not by leading the party away of its past, but by capitulating to it.

In yesterday's speech, he waffled on his support for the Iraq War...

"In view of where Chrétien was in 2003, I think he did the right thing for Canada," Ignatieff told the Star in an interview.

He pointed out that he "wasn't in Mr. Chrétien's shoes" at the time and favoured the ouster by force of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, whom Ignatieff called "a Grade A, top-tier human rights monster."

But he tried to close the book on the issue by adding: "Going forward, I don't want to send Canadian troops into harm's way unless I'm pretty sure it's got Canadian public support. Period."

...and denigrated the country in which he lived for a half-decade, ostensibly to illustrate his 'Canadian' credentials:

"I respect American institutions but I don't want to live in a country where 40 million citizens don't have health care," he said to strong applause during a question-and-answer session with his audience. And he said he didn't like being part of an American society with capital punishment and where "a woman's right to choose is still a battleground" and same-sex marriage is not protected by law.

I appreciate the delicate balancing of interests required when aiming to lead the Grits, a party which occupies almost the whole of the political spectrum. But I can't help but think -- if Ignatieff's comments are any indication -- that the Liberal leadership race, instead of being a reinvigoration of a party which presently stands for nothing, has already decided what it wants to be in the future: more of the same.

Seal Hunt = WWII Gas Chambers = One Forgotten Celebrity Seeking Attention

2006-03-28T10:26:00.000-04:00

Joining the ever-growing chorus of washed-up rock stars protesting the North Atlantic seal hunt, 1980s rocker Morrissey (formerly of "The Smiths" fame) is boycotting Canada during his forthcoming tour. In an unnecessary affront to victims of the Nazi regime, he commented:

"The Canadian Prime Minister also states that the slaughter is necessary because it provides jobs for local communities, but this is an ignorant reason for allowing such barbaric and cruel slaughter of beings that are denied life simply because somebody somewhere might want to wear their skin. Construction of German gas chambers also provided work for someone - this is not a moral or sound reason for allowing suffering."

I suppose if all the Canadian seal hunt has to worry about are the diatribes of moral superiority emanating from former celebrities desperate for attention, then it will likely continue its viability as an industry.

Oh, and of course, Morrissey's new album is released today. Coincidence?

Liberals and Martin Rewrite History

2006-03-02T19:03:00.000-04:00

It appears as if even the Liberal Party is ignoring the forgettable, directionless nature of Paul Martin's tenure as Prime Minister. His new biography, appearing on the Grit website, includes two whole paragraphs devoted to his years in opposition and numerous references to his time as Finance Minister.

Oddly, the only reference to his prime ministership is the web address (http://liberal.ca/primeminister_e.aspx?id=22). More ink is spilled about his father's accomplishments as Minister of Everything than Mr. Martin's own time at the top.

----

Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada

Mr. Martin is the Member of Parliament for LaSalle-Émard in Montreal, Quebec. He was first elected federally in 1988. In 1990, he ran for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada and finished second at the leadership convention.

From 1991 to 1993, Mr. Martin was associate finance critic and critic for the environment for the Liberal opposition in the House of Commons. In 1993, he played a key role in developing the Liberal platform for the federal election and co-authored Creating Opportunity: The Liberal Plan for Canada, better known as the “Red Book.”

Liberals were returned to power in the 1993 vote and Mr. Martin was sworn in as Minister of Finance. He served in that role from November 1993 until June 2002.

In the months leading up to the November 2003 Liberal Leadership Convention, Mr. Martin garnered unprecedented support from Liberals right across the country.

During his time as finance minister, Canada recorded five consecutive budget surpluses, erased a $42 billion deficit, paid down more than $36 billion in debt, invested in health care and other key priorities and put in place the largest tax cuts in Canadian history.

As Canada’s finance minister, Mr. Martin was highly regarded on the world stage and represented Canada at a series of international summits. In September 1999, he was named inaugural chair of the G-20, an international group composed of G-7 nations and emerging market nations. He is respected internationally in part for his leadership in forging a new world financial order in which emerging economies would be prevented from plunging into ruinous financial crises.

He co-chaired, alongside former Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo, the United Nations Commission on the Private Sector and Development. The commission was struck to recommend ways to boost indigenous entrepreneurship in developing nations and then implement a number of related pilot projects.

Mr. Martin was born in Windsor, Ontario in 1938. He has a sister, Mary Anne. His father, a distinguished Parliamentarian, died in 1992. (His mother, Eleanor (“Nell”), died in 1993.)

The Honourable Paul Martin Sr. has been an enduring influence. He served almost a quarter century in Liberal cabinets under four different Prime Ministers: William Lyon Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent, Lester B. Pearson and Pierre Elliott Trudeau. He was an influential cabinet minister and is regarded as an architect of post-war social policy that is an enduring part of the Liberal legacy.

Mr. Martin studied philosophy and history at St. Michael’s College at the University of Toronto and is a graduate of the University of Toronto Law School. He was called to the bar in Ontario in 1966.

Before entering politics, he had a distinguished career in the private sector as a business executive at Power Corporation of Canada, in Montreal, and as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Steamship Lines. In addition, he has been active with a wide range of community and service organizations.

He married Sheila Ann Cowan in 1965. Their first son, Paul, was born in 1966. Their second son, Jamie was born three years later and their youngest son, David, was born in 1974.

Another Projection

2006-01-23T16:05:00.000-04:00

Just so PLVQ gets to hedge a bit, here are my projections:

CON: 134
LIB: 77
NDP: 35
BLOC: 61
INDP: 1

Tomorrow Night's Lotto 308 Numbers

2006-01-22T13:54:00.000-04:00

Cautiously optimistic (I have broken this down riding-by-riding but won't post them):

137 Conservative
75 Liberal
36 NDP
59 Bloc
1 Independent (Portneuf)

Political Post-Mortem on Both Pauls Martin

2006-01-22T13:41:00.000-04:00

Doug Fisher, Dean of the Ottawa Press Gallery, has a piece today depicting the fall of the present Prime Minister, arguing that it is merely a continuation of the failed leadership ambitions of his own father, Ministerial Everyman Paul Martin, Sr.

Fisher takes the words out of my mouth--I've been saying for years that Martin Jr.'s real reason for contesting the Liberal leadership twice was to achieve the prize that so eluded his father. Sadly for both, once Martin the Younger got there, he had no idea what to do with it.

Happy New Year...

2005-12-31T19:23:00.000-04:00

...may it bring a new government!

Tories' French Ads...

2005-12-15T10:49:00.000-04:00

...telling Quebecers that there isn't just a choice of either the Liberals or the Bloc, are fairly standard fare, until you get to the final frame, where the following text appears (and which the announcer simultaneously reads):

"Autorisé et payé avec de l'argent propre par l'agent officiel du Parti conservateur."

(Authorised and purchased with 'clean money' by the Conservatives' official agent)

Cute.

Bloque Quebecois

2005-12-11T12:58:00.000-04:00

...the site "Bloque Quebecois" is hilarious. It even revives the infamous Gilles Duceppe "cheesehead" photo from the 1997 election!

Bless those Quebec Liberals--as demotivated, hopeless, and sullen as the party apparatus might be, they still have a sense of humour. I suspect that with the level of creativity going into the site, one would have to have some connection to a half-decent marketing firm.

(HT: Cherniakblog)

The Irony of Anti-Globalisation

2005-12-11T12:14:00.000-04:00

The protest du jour emanates from Hong Kong, where 9,000 individuals have staged an anti-World Trade Organisation protest, in advance of a summit to be held there Tuesday.

While I appreciate that a summit's location has never deterred anti-globalisation activists from, um, heading across the globe to protest trade policies, there's something ironic about the latest venue. Hong Kong, an island outpost with no natural resources, became one of the most prosperous jursidictions on the planet *precisely because it has relied on trade (and liberal economic policies to boot)*.

Without the "global integration" and "trade" that these activists decry, Hong Kong would be a mere economic cub instead of an Asian tiger.

"We Must Ban Steak Knives"

2005-12-10T17:29:00.000-04:00

There are many reasons why the proposed Liberal ban on handguns is absurd, not the least of which is the fact that the only legal owners of handguns in this country are collectors and target-shooters, both of whom must comply with restrictive safety regulations (and whom are likely going to be exempted from the proposal anyways).

What is even more absurd, however, is the proposition that handguns should be banned because they might be stolen from legal handgun owners. Besides being a case of criminalising the victim for the robbery of the assailant, if this an issue, why stop at banning guns: there are plenty of other materials in the household which are dangerous and prone to theft during a break and enter.

See the revised version, below, of Toronto Mayor David Miller’s op-ed entitled We Must Ban Handguns, published today in the Post.

We must ban steak knives

David Miller, National Post
Published: Saturday, December 10, 2005

Steak knives have no place in the kitchens of Toronto or anywhere else in this country. This is a deeply held Canadian value and one that sets us apart from our neighbours to the south.

Over the past decade, citizens from across Canada have been calling for legislators to impose an outright ban on steak knives and I join them in lending my support to Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to choke off the supply of deadly, sharp steak knives that wreak so much havoc.

Toronto is a safe city and we will continue to invest in our communities and our youth to give them opportunities and hope for the future. But all governments must now work together to reclaim neighbourhoods afflicted by steak knife violence. No one can act alone.

In Toronto, statistics show that almost every kind of crime is down. Yet when it comes to steak knives and the murderous carnage they have visited upon the city this year, the numbers are up. As I've said before, steak knives turn punks into killers. And it is for this reason that we must focus our law enforcement efforts on the firearms that have brought so much fear and tragedy to so many neighbourhoods in Toronto and elsewhere.

Where do the steak knives come from? Toronto Police have told me there are two main sources. About one half come across the border from the United States, some legally and some not. Some have been purchased from infomercials on American late-night television and are shipped to Canada—I’m thinking here of the Ginsu World Class variety. Most of the others are stolen from steak knife owners—such as chefs and housewives—in and around the city. For example, two years ago in Toronto's Malvern community, there was a break and enter where 39 steak knives were stolen. Twelve of those steak knives were subsequently used in the commission of crimes. At least one of those crimes was a murder.

This has to stop. We must get at the supply of steak knives. And there are only two ways to do it.

First, we have to stop the steak knives coming in from the United States by tightening border security and making every effort to bring some common sense to steak knife control south of the border—this includes cross-border steak knife shipping precipitated by the proliferation of late night programming being beamed across the border, as well as the glorification of steak knives in American entertainment. Those shows on the Cooking Channel come to mind, the North American dubbed version of Iron Chef being the worst.

But secondly -- and just as crucial to this initiative -- we must wipe out the supply of steak knives right here in Canada. The situation is extremely serious and we must act now.

What about the rights of steak knife owners? Well, they can either use butter knives to cut their meats, or better yet, use spoons or forks. The rights of people to live in safety in our communities are paramount. Cooking with meats is a privilege and steak knife usage in the kitchen has become a very dangerous one.

But a ban on steak knives is only the first step. The judicial system must also take a harder stance.

If you're caught with a steak knife, the courts should treat it the same way they would if you used that steak knife to commit a crime. You don't get bail. You have your trial and, if you're convicted, you stay in jail. The way things are today, it's far too easy to be released from custody after you're arrested for possessing a steak knife. I think that's wrong. Steak knife possession is not being treated with the seriousness it deserves. As far as I'm concerned, sentences for having a steak knife should be on par with those handed down for using that weapon in the commission of a crime.

Complex problems require complex solutions. To work, increased enforcement -- like a ban on steak knives -- must be supported by investment in our young people and our vulnerable communities.

The time to act is now.

-----
We must ban handguns
David Miller, National Post
Published: Saturday, December 10, 2005

Guns have no place on the streets of Toronto or anywhere else in this country. This is a deeply held Canadian value and one that sets us apart from our neighbours to the south.

Over the past decade, citizens from across Canada have been calling for legislators to impose an outright ban on handguns and I join them in lending my support to Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise to choke off the supply of deadly firearms that wreak so much havoc.

[...]

In Toronto, statistics show that almost every kind of crime is down. Yet when it comes to guns and the murderous carnage they have visited upon the city this year, the numbers are up. As I've said before, guns turn punks into killers. And it is for this reason that we must focus our law enforcement efforts on the firearms that have brought so much fear and tragedy to so many neighbourhoods in Toronto and elsewhere.

Where do the guns come from? Toronto Police have told me there are two main sources. About one half come across the border from the United States. Most of the others are stolen from gun owners in and around the city. For example, two years ago in Toronto's Malvern community, there was a break and enter where 39 guns were stolen. Twelve of those guns were subsequently used in the commission of crimes. At least one of those crimes was a murder.

[..]

Complex problems require complex solutions. To work, increased enforcement -- like a ban on guns -- must be supported by investment in our young people and our vulnerable communities.

The time to act is now.

Week 1: Recap

2005-12-06T00:53:00.000-04:00

In what will likely prove to be a continuing feature of PLVQ, the following is a brief recap of the first week of ELECTION 2006:

* THE BEGINNING: The party leaders began the campaign period with speeches that reflected their different approaches and strategies: Martin threw mud, Harper looked forward and backward simultaneously without cracking his neck, and Layton ... well, who really cares about Layton?

* THE LEADERS: Stephen Harper made daily policy announcements that seemed mostly popular: a GST cut, mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking, guaranteed wait times for surgeries, and a "choice in child care" subsidy for parents. Martin did nothing of note. In a bizarre move, Layton announced that private clinics are a fundamental part of the healthcare system. Well said, Jack!

* THE POLLS: Daily tracking by SES puts the major parties at exactly the places they were on voting day of Election 2004: Libs 37, Cons 30, NDP 16. By all accounts, the Bloc is way ahead in Quebec (by 20 - 30 points). The Liberal lead varies by poll, with most showing the spread at between 4 and 7 points. BC looks like a three-way race and the extent of the Liberal lead in Ontario is contested - is it 5 points or 15?

* THE MEDIA: Heather MacIvor's nonsense, supra, notwithstanding, the media in this first week has given considerable favorable coverage to Harper and his policy announcements. Don't expect this to last. The new Tory TV ads are linked to below; they are strange.

* THE LOOK AHEAD: Will Harper have enough policies to continue this furious announcement-a-day pace? And are people even paying attention yet? Will this entire pre-Xmas period of the campaign be struck from the collective record by a vicious attack strategy a la 2004? Stay tuned to find out...

Tories' First Ads...

2005-12-04T10:39:00.000-04:00

...are here. They're fairly standard fare focusing on the key messages from the last week (crime, accountability, taxes).

Thoughts?

Finally, The Tories Endorse Charter-style Health Care

2005-12-02T16:38:00.000-04:00

Today was health care day for the Conservatives, as the party announced its plan for the reduction of wait times, promising a "wait-time guarantee", that would set maxiumum allowable wait times for necessary treatment. While this isn't notable--as all parties and most Canadian governments have acknowledged the importance of wait-time reduction--it is significant that Stephen Harper has mentioned that attacking lengthy wait lists is a requirement under the Charter of Rights:

This type of [wait-time] guarantee, Harper said, is "the only way that government can preserve the principles of the Canada Health Act and respect requirements of the Charter of Rights."

This should have been the party's message since the Supreme Court's landmark Chaoulli decision (on which this blog's contributors have commented ad nauseum), in which the Court ruled that Quebec's ban on private health insurance violated the Quebec Charter of Human Rights.

Arguing that excessive wait times (due in large part to government rationing) violate Charter rights allow the Tories to debunk the twin issues that have dogged them in previous campaigns--that they oppose bans on "private" health care (which the Court essentially ruled is unconstitutional), and that they are Charter-sceptics who "oppose judicial activism".

Looks like the Tories have awoken to the promise that defending the Charter in the context of health care has yielded--it forces the Liberals into a position where they must defend the status quo public monopoly (which through its regulatory instruments likely violate the Charter), while in so doing demonstrating that the Grits are not the defenders of the Charter that they have so successfully claimed to be.

Electoral Musings from a Washed-up Former PM (But not Joe Who!)

2005-12-02T13:39:00.000-04:00

...Talk about coming out of the woodwork! Former Prime Minister Kim Campbell emerged from anonymity yesterday to criticise the Tories, prognosticating that they won't win this election. Something about 'frightening' voters.

You know, I would be more concerned if this wasn't the pontification of a failed statesman--who was at the helm of the worst electoral implosion ever in a Western democracy, partly because she was too busy 'screwing around with her Russian boyfriend'.

More on MacIvor

2005-12-02T12:57:00.000-04:00

As ROC points out below, "legal" coverage of Stephen Harper's same-sex marriage comments was grossly inaccurate, due in no small part to the commentary of one political science professor. What follows is a letter of complaint that I sent to CP - no response yet, but I will keep the blog updated as necessary.

-------------------------------------

Dear Editors:

I am writing to express my concern and disappointment over today's story by Sue Bailey regarding Stephen Harper and same-sex marriage. This was one of the first stories of the election, and I am afraid it does not bode well for fair, accountable, objective reporting.

The relevant portion is the following:

But most legal experts agree that a raft of court judgments and a reference opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada give the Conservatives little room to move.

Heather MacIvor, a political scientist at University of Windsor, Ont., recently published the book Canadian Politics and Government in the Charter Era.

She leads a seminar class on the Supreme Court opinion and says the high court was clear that marriage, under the Constitution, now includes gay couples.

"You can't use the notwithstanding clause to override the division of powers in the 1867 Constitution."

The court also stressed "that same-sex marriage is not opposed to the values and principles of the Charter - it flows from them," MacIvor said.

"This is the law of the land and we cannot go back on it.

"I don't know if it's just that (Harper) doesn't have anybody in his entourage . . . who is capable of explaining this to him, or if it's just that he's ignoring all of these facts.

First off, Prof. MacIvor is a political scientist, not a legal scholar. She does not teach law or at a law school. [She also does not have a law degree - Yaq.] Second, it isn't clear from where the judgment of "most legal experts" is being drawn. I hope not from a single political science professor.

More importantly, the "legal" opinion as articulated in this report is entirely wrong and misleading. The Supreme Court reference asked whether same-sex marriage would be constitutionally permissible. Of course it would be. Nobody ever suggested otherwise - least of all Stephen Harper. The reference also asked whether the definition of marriage falls within federal jurisdiction under the division of powers -- which it does. Again, Stephen Harper certainly never expressed otherwise; on the contrary, he has argued that Parliament should pass a law defining marriage.

So Prof. MacIvor is wrong on both counts: The Court was absolutely NOT clear in saying that marriage constitutionally includes gay marriage. At the time, the highlight of that opinion was reported as its lack of clarity -- lack of opinion, entirely -- on that question. The Court decidedly left the question to Parliament.

And further, the fact that the division of powers cannot be overridden by S. 33 is a complete non sequitor. A federal marriage law excluding gays would never be challenged on the basis of division of powers -- it would be challenged on the basis of S. 15 equality rights, which certainly can be overridden by S. 33. But since the Supreme Court never even hinted that such a law would be unconstitutional, even that much is not legally necessary for Harper.

As for Harper's entourage, it includes Profs. Ian Brodie, Tom Flanagan, and Ted Morton, who hold at least as much authority on this question as MacIvor - all being professors of political science who comment on legal matters.

I am reluctant to blame the CP reporter for these errors since they originated from an "expert" who was interviewed as part of a broader article. But I would hope that in future, reporters take the time to speak to legal scholars about legal questions, and political science professors about questions of political science. This would help to preclude the publication of inaccurate and misleading "legal facts" in CP stories.

Thank you,

Yaq
Harvard Law School

Same-Sex Obfuscation

2005-11-30T12:59:00.000-04:00

It seems that University of Windsor Political Scientist Heather McIvor, reportedly an expert on the constitution and the Charter because she once led a seminar on the topic, was all over the media yesterday, attacking the Tories on same-sex marriage with her crass obfuscation of the meaning of the country's constitution.

Commenting about the SSM debate, she noted that "You can't use the notwithstanding clause to override the division of powers in the 1867 Constitution,".

No one is suggesting that the notwithstanding clause be used to override the federal power to define marriage--it would be used to make legislation (validly enacted by a federal government) immune to a Charter challenge. Furthermore, as scholars like Prof. McIvor should be aware, it is unconstitutional (and impossible) for one section of the constitution to override another.

The next time the news media wants some commentary on the legality of parties' policy proposals, perhaps they should speak to some high school civics students, many of whom probably have a better understanding of the Charter and the constitution's division of powers.

Putting SSM To Bed

2005-11-30T12:49:00.000-04:00

Some might have mixed emotions about Tory Leader Stephen Harper's revival of the same-sex marriage issue just hours into Day I of the campaign. Admittedly, I was sceptical at first--especially as he brought the issue up at his behest--but it had the effect of:

a) Keeping the Liberals off-message. The Grits released their campaign ads Tuesday touting Canada's supposed economic strength, but this was page 8 fodder compared to the coverage of Harper's marriage commments.

b) Putting the "hidden agenda" accusations to bed. Whether one agrees with his view on the issue or not, at least Harper finally disclosed something that has been missing from the Tories' discussion of gay marriage since it first became an issue--that if same-sex marriage were repealed, presently constituted marriages would be protected. Not answering this question in the past provided, perhaps quite rightly, fuel for the "hidden agenda" fire.

Now let's move on to some real issues...

Supreme Court Issue

2005-11-20T16:06:00.000-04:00

The Harvard Law Review has published its hot-off-the-press November Supreme Court issue online.

I suggest that readers take a look if they have any interest in legal affairs. The annual Supreme Court issue features a Foreword reflecting on the past year of Supreme Court jurisprudence (this year, authored by well-known and controversial Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner), a faculty case comment on one recent Supreme Court case (this year, there are three faculty comments discussing the use of foreign law precedent in constitutional cases), and short student-written comments on the most important 25 cases from last Term.

There are also some statistics on the Supreme Court's October 2004 Term output.

If you wish to peruse, I recommend taking a look at the Posner Foreword, which is entertaining and controversial. Prof. Ernie Young's comment critiques the use of foreign law by the Supreme Court and is also worth reading.

On Lord Black

2005-11-20T15:40:00.000-04:00

The recent indictments against Lord Black of Crossharbour have sparked extensive media coverage, though mostly in Canada and Britain. There has been little to no coverage in the American media.

My difficulty reading the press reports has been the near-impossibility of figuring out exactly what Lord Black has allegedly done wrong. We read of of "diverting money" or "breaching duty" or "stealing from shareholders" but there is rarely any explication of exactly what is meant by these charges. They seem to be regurgitations of what the team of federal prosecutors said in its press conference and releases. Of course, anyone who has studied corporate law knows that you can call just about anything a "breach of duty" or "stealing from shareholders" -- just because it can be characterized as such doesn't mean it actually constitutes a breach or a theft.

From reading the mainstream media accounts, you'd think the guy was secretly taking millions of dollars out of the Hollinger cash registers after everyone else had left for the day. The reality is dramatically different -- the accusations actually center around payments made to Black and some of his deputies by purchasers of Hollinger newspapers in exchange for agreements that Black et al. would not compete with the papers after the sale. Non-competes are fairly standard is certain industries, especially where the top executives would have built a considerable base of knowledge about the industry and the market; Black certainly seems to meet that criterion.

So what's the big deal? I suppose the question is what the board of directors had to do with those transactions -- did they approve? were they indifferent? were they not told? Since the transactions were self-dealing in a sense (i.e. Black would have had an incentive to negotiate for higher payments to himself and thus lower payments to Hollinger) the independent directors should have approved them first. But if they did, it seems to me that the suit should be brought, if at all, against the directors for breaching their duty of care. And such a suit would certainly fail given the way that right has been interpreted in Delaware courts over the past years (see, e.g., the recent Disney case).

My point is two-fold. First, the media should be doing a better job of explaining what these charges really are about, what Black allegedly did, and what the projected result of litigation will be. If necessary, get some people with legal background to cover the story. Second, Black should not be counted out just yet -- this case is far from open-and-shut.

P.S. One exception to the generally incompetent media coverage was Terrence Corcoran in the National Post, whose column I found helpful to understanding the case and issues. I recommend it to readers.

P.P.S. Yes, this means that I hope to resume fairly periodic blogging!

Gomery Fallout: On Canadians Not Giving a Shit

2005-11-01T23:50:00.000-04:00

As the cynical may have expected, Canadians might not have an appetite for an election.

One man, appearing in a NatPost story on the fallout of the Gomery Report, was quoted:

"I don't think anything that would destabilize the government will be good for the public at large right now, especially (since) Martin's exonerated," said Andrew Himel.

The Post's preface to that quote: In downtown Toronto, one man said an election would be bad for the country.

Why do we even bother with elections then?

Gomery Fallout: WAKE UP PEOPLE! THE GOVERNMENT CAN FALL AND THE ELECTION DOESN'T NEED TO BE DURING DECEMBER

2005-11-01T14:21:00.000-04:00

ALW links to a Reuters story indicating that Stephen Harper wants the government to fall but "doesn't like the idea of a December election"; the story further states that "[t]he first chance opposition parties have to bring down Prime Minister Paul Martin is on November 14, and if they succeed, there would be a vote at the end of December".

This canard is getting old, though I appreciate that it gives all four parties an excuse *not* to topple the government this autumn (perhaps they are all concerned about the recent volatility of the opinion polls).

There is no requirement that an election *must* be held within 36 days after the writ is dropped. This is only the *minimum* duration of an election campaign. The Canada Elections Act reads:

CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION

Writs of Election

General election -- proclamation

57. (1) The Governor in Council shall issue a proclamation in order for a general election to be held.

By-election -- order

(1.1) The Governor in Council shall make an order in order for a by-election to be held.

Contents

(1.2) The proclamation or order shall

(a) direct the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district to which the proclamation or order applies;

(b) fix the date of issue of the writ; and

(c) fix the date for voting at the election, which date must be at least 36 days after the issue of the writ.

Please, please tell me that someone in Ottawa actually realises this, and that the "December election" aversion is simply a consequence of how tepid all of the parties are of going to the polls sooner rather than later. There is no way, I suspect, that the a) if the Governor-General orders the issuance of the writ (in the instance that the Government falls on a non-confidence motion) that she would allow the election to take place at the end of December or b) that Cabinet (Governor-in-Council), if so permitted, would actually hold the election during the Christmas break, if only because *they* would fear engendering the ire of the electorate.

Joe Clark's government fell in December. We've had winter campaigns before. This is no reason to halt the removal of the government and governing party responsible for the worst political scandal in Canadian history.

It's dishonest for both the Opposition and the Government to delay what should be an inevitable vote of non-confidence premised on this artificial notion that "we simply cannot have an election in December" or that there is even a requirement that a November non-confidence motion would result in an December election.

Quake Aid

2005-10-10T14:00:00.000-03:00

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?)

2005-10-07T16:35:00.000-03:00

...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 (!?!)

2005-10-05T00:37:00.000-03:00

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”.

Yet Another Supreme Court Tobacco Ruling...

2005-09-29T16:08:00.000-03:00

...is forthcoming at 4:00pm EDT this afternoon, in a challenge to British Columbia legislation granting the government the authority to sue tobacco companies for the recovery of the costs of tobacco-related heath costs the government incurred.

Certainly a seminal decision, though a fairer solution (instead of the legislation as constituted) might be to recover costs from tobacco-consuming individuals who actually incur health care costs.

Alas, at least the BC government understands rule number one of litigation: sue he who has the biggest pockets (and if the common law might not let you, just pass some legislation saying you can!)

Nova Scotia Politics Heats Up...

2005-09-29T16:03:00.000-03:00

...with the retirement announcement of Premier John Hamm. Speculation is that no fewer than eight candidates are interested in running--the first leadership race for the NS PC Party in ten years.

Constitutional Law 101: A Lesson for Layton

2005-09-22T12:02:00.000-03:00

NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday announced that his party intends to introduce legislation this fall to ban private healthcare, in the wake of the Supreme Court of Canada's finding in June that Quebec's prohibition on private health insurance violated that province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Despite posessing a Ph.D. in Political Science, Dr. Layton appears to need a constitutional law primer: that a) health care falls within provincial constitutional jurisdiction and b) his proposal would require the use of the notwithstanding clause if the Quebec decision is applied in other provinces.

Lost in a sea of his own demagoguery, Jack would be wise to take his proposal back to the drawing board.

We're Back...

2005-09-20T10:52:00.000-03:00

...and posting will begin again!

Back Soon!

2005-09-06T14:45:00.000-03:00

PLVQ will be back at the end of this week, as our (no doubt massive) readership waits with bated breath...

Oh, to be on Hiatus

2005-08-15T10:52:00.000-03:00

Well, it's about that time of year where thoughts turn away from the summer and towards another year in our educational lives. As such, PLVQ will be on hiatus until September, returning with a mini-relaunch around Labour Day, after the three of us return to Boston, Halifax, and Calgary respectively.

Enjoy the rest of your summer!

Coming Full Circle: Supreme Court Gives Royal Assent to Same-Sex Marriage Legislation

2005-07-20T19:33:00.000-03:00

The debate over the passage of same-sex marriage legislation came to a fitting end today, when Mr. Justice Morris Fish of the Supreme Court of Canada gave Royal Assent to Bill C-38.

While a Justice of the Supreme Court can, and does, give Royal Assent to legislation in the absence of the Governor-General (who is presently ill), it's intriguing how this debate has come full circle: it was provincial Courts of Appeal that really started the debate over changing the traditional definition of marriage; now the country's highest court has signed this essentially judicially-prompted bill into law.

Turn off the Subsidy Faucet, Premier (Or "On Taking a Page out of 1970s Airline Policy")

2005-07-19T11:49:00.000-03:00

The paucity of blogging did not abate, as I indicated it would below (a fortnight ago). So it seems fitting that what riles me out of my slumber are reports of the public spat between PEI Premier Pat Binns and Air Canada. [Domina and ALW will remember my January 2003 tirade aimed at a New Democrat in a Toronto hotel suite because of said NDPer's ridiculous assertion that individuals living in remote communities have a "right" to efficient and convenient airline service]

Long story short: PEI earlier this summer decided to provide $500,000 in pork to WestJet to begin flying a direct route from Toronto to Charlottetown for the duration of the summer, without extending the same subsidy package to Air Canada, which flies to the island year-round. So Air Canada began threatening to remove its year-round service, arguing that the increased competition in the summer would prevent it from using its summer service to subsidise the diminished demand it has for the route in the winter.

The Premier's audacity extends further: he actually has the gall to accuse Air Canada "of mistreating his province by using small planes that cramp the style of tourists..." With talk like that, you'd think he was Mayor of an underserviced city of 2,000,000 people, rather than Premier of a tiny, rural, remote island of 130,000.

Binns' brilliant economic intervention in what is already an overregulated industry has actually *reduced* the very service he wanted to see increased, which was the ostensible purpose of the subsidy. Can one even begin to rationalise the PEI government's policy (nor his salt-in-the-eyes remarks aimed at Air Canada) on either an intellectual or economic basis?

Hypocrisy Anyone?

2005-07-04T22:07:00.000-03:00

Well, hopefully the paucity of blogging witnessed last week will abate now that Domina and I have returned from British Columbia. Bellator, however, continues his hiatus as he begins the second leg of his vacation by driving down America's Blue Coast (named for the political orientation, not the colour of the Pacific).

In the news, Quebec is seeking a "stay" of the Supreme Court's ruling in Chaoulli, which as most readers are aware, held that the prohibition on private health insurance in Quebec violated that province's Charter of Human Rights and was thus of no force or effect.

According to the CBC,

Quebec said in a brief presented to the top court on Monday that the delay is needed to ensure stability in the supply and organization of health services in the province.

Never mind that permitting persons to purchase private insurance would likely increase the supply of health services available for the public's consumption. Quebec's request is rich, coming from the very province that, more than any other in Canada, has allowed private clinics to flourish alongside those supported by taxpayers.

It's hard to interpret this exercise as anything more than an attempt to score political points for an unpopular government. We can take solace, however, that the court normally grants suspensive declarations (stays) of constitutional violations at the time of its judgment, and not retroactively.

The argument for the declaration would be much more compelling if the ruling was applicable in every province. Strategically, then, the Court might want to give legislatures an opportunity to ensure the constitutionality of their health systems without the chaos that an immediate declaration of these systems' invalidity might cause.

This isn't the case, however, and in the three weeks since the ruling's release, Quebec still appears not to have descended into anarchy, and its much-vaunted "social fabric" still remains intact. Instead of grasping at the now-damaged mythology of Canada's public health care system, provincial governments would be wise to spend their energy reforming their systems by allowing patient choice and greater private sector involvment instead of defiantly and pathetically trying to perpetuate an anachronism.

Aux Armes (or Vancouver)

2005-06-30T15:21:00.000-03:00

Well, yours truly and Domina are heading to the left coast this weekend for some revelry on this Canada Day weekend.

When I return, I may post about this week's marriage legislation. If I'm not entirely sick of the issue.

United Again, for Steak

2005-06-27T00:13:00.000-03:00

All three bloggers of PLVQ are united once again for a brief time in Calgary, AB.

Afer enjoying a wholesome steak dinner, we thought we should all post together.

We don't have much to say except to invite you all to Alberta - the beef here is second to none!

Call the Spade a Spade: The Grits Invoked Closure on the Budget Debate

2005-06-24T12:41:00.000-03:00

Well the media is all over the Opposition Tories this morning for getting "bushwhacked" and "outmanoeuvered" by the conniving forces of the Grits, Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP, who all voted to end debate on the 1970's-style NDP Budget late last evening. The budget subsequently passed with little fanfare.

I find it ironic that Paul Martin came to power promising to eliminate the "democratic deficit", one of the symptoms of which was the frequent invocation of closure to end debates in the House before they had run their course--a tactic elevated to an art by PM emeritus Jean Chretien.

Whether last evening's machinations were procedurally different than "closure" or not, the outcome was the same. No debate, no amendments, just a vote.

If it smells like closure, looks like closure, and stifles dialogue like closure, then, dammit, it's closure.

It's unfortunate that Canada's complacent media won't call the spade appropriately.

THIS JUST IN: Paul Martin Acknowledges His "Devout" Catholicism

2005-06-24T01:38:00.000-03:00

While taking nothing away from the blistering and articulate indictment of the Prime Minister delivered by my colleague Domina below, I'll nevertheless point out that the article also reports that Martin told CKNW Radio in Vancouver Monday that he is "actually a very strong Roman Catholic".

Where is the Globe and Mail's hysterics? If men of religion are not fit to be Tory candidates in marginal Tory ridings, then certainly the land's highest office cannot be occupied by a Prime Minister who is "devout(ly)" Christian.

But alas, this is Canada. Only Tory Christians are extremists wishing to impose their "hidden" socially conservative agenda on an unsuspecting Canadian populace, as the Globe and Mail so frequently embellishes. However, Rev. Bill Blaikie of the NDP and Liberal Prime Minister The Devout One can practice and preach their religiosity with impunity, and without comparable accusations launched at their motivations for political involvement.

I can't even begin to understand the logic here.

On Berries and Bureaucracy

2005-06-23T11:50:00.000-03:00

This lovely story illustrates the contortious logic that plagues decision-making within local governments--those venerable practitioners of amateur-hour democracy.

To summarise, berry farmers on Vancouver Island often face labour shortages during their crops' harvest period. When one farmer was unable to depend on his traditional sources of labour for the harvest, he decided to hire street kids from Victoria, whom he acknowledges do an excellent job.

The problem with keeping the street kids on as labourers is that they need to catch a rather early bus in order to get to the berry patch at an appropriate time. The farmer's solution--provide temporary living quarters at the farm in order to avoid the lost productivity of the kids' long commute.

Normally, the story would end there. But, as with most jurisdictions, our farmer had to present his case to a municipal Council in order to get approval to construct these living quarters. One would think that the Council would want to eliminate any procedural hurdle in order that a) the farm maintains its economic viability by having a timely harvest, b) to give otherwise unemployed street inhabitants both a place to stay and an honest day's work and c) take a social problem (homelessness) for which the municipality is largely responsible off of their hands.

A win-win situation for the city, you might state. Instead, here's what happened at the meeting at which this issue was considered:

"It isn't the first time Oldfield and the municipality have been around the block, and sure enough, Monday's encounter was fractious. Councillors liked the idea of helping street kids but some were concerned about the permanence of the structures."

And, to top off the non-solution:

"In the end, the application was forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission, with council scheduling a special meeting for next Monday to deal with the possibility of interim approval."

Instead of resolving the issue to the benefit of all involved, Council got entangled in the bureaucratic mess it set for itself, instead of doing the right thing: getting out the way by letting a landowner maintain the productivity of his land while simultaneously alleviating a significant social problem. Does anyone else see the problem with this picture?

More On Chaoulli

2005-06-10T02:34:00.000-03:00

My colleague Patronus does a wonderful job of analyzing the Chaoulli decision handed down today by the Supreme Court of Canada. His insights into what the decision means for the future of both constitutional jurisprudence and health care in this country should be read carefully.

Before adding some of my own thoughts, I want to summarize the basic legal issues so that non-lawyers/law students can make sense of them as well. Patronus tends to write to an audience with extensive background knowledge, and the post below is no exception. I've just read through the few hundred paragraphs of the decision and will do my best to lay it out as coherently and simply as possible.

The Statute: Quebec, like six other provinces in Canada, prohibits private health insurance. This means that while the province (in accordance with the federal Canada Health Act) provides insurance for most basic health services (the Ontario equivalent is OHIP), Quebeckers are prohibited from buying private health insurance for those same services. This means that private medical care plays only a limited role - as a subcontractor for the government, or if the citizen is able to pay out of pocket for the services, without insurance.

The Problem: Problem is, most people cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket for expensive medical procedures. They need insurance. Furthermore, public health insurance means working within the public system, which is notorious for its long waiting lists. This means Quebeckers are stuck - they cannot buy private insurance, and if they rely solely on public insurance, they may die or suffer in pain for months or years waiting for an operation.

The Charters: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights to "life, liberty, and security of the person," except if they are overriden by "principles of fundamental justice" or limited as a "reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. Thus, no statute may violate these rights unless one of those exceptions applies.

The Quebec Charter is similar but does not include identical exceptions. In a sense, it is slightly broader than the federal Charter.

The Courts are tasked with deciding when a statute passed by the provincial legislature (here the National Assembly of Quebec) or the federal Parliament has violated the Charter. If it has, the law is struck down as unconstitutional.

The Court's Decision: Four justices (out of a panel of seven) decided that the Quebec Charter was violated by the ban on private health insurance. Deschamps J. wrote the main opinion, which essentially found that the ban infringes on the guaranteed right to "life" and is not saved by any exception for fundamental justice because it is not designed to minimally impair that right to the extent possible consistent with the legitimate state objective of maintaining the public system.

In other words, the state can try to strengthen the public system of health care, but it must choose its methods so as to limit the infringements of individual rights as much as possible. By evaluating comparable public systems in other provinces and countries, the Court decided that the ban on private insurance was not designed to minimally impair Charter rights. (In contrast, it did meet the lower "rational connection" test - Deschamps J. recognized a rational connection between private insurance and maintaining the integrity of the public system.) Sweden, for example, featured prominently, as it maintains a universal public system like Canada without banning private insurance.

Deschamps J. considered the law under the Quebec Charter first because it is broader than the federal Charter; thus, if the law would have passed muster under the QC Charter, no further inquiry would have been needed. Likewise, since she found that the law failed under the QC Charter, it was not necessary to consider whether it would also fail under the federal Charter. (Courts have an aversion to deciding more than required in the particular case.)

The First Plurality: Three other justices: McLachlin CJ, Major J., and Bastarache J., joined with Deschamps J. but also wanted to go further.

These three also evaluated the law under the federal Charter and found that it failed that as well. Since they aren't a majority, their opinion is not the law and is non-binding, but is still instructive. They followed much of the same line as the main opinion, including looking to foreign countries and pointing out that the existence of private insurance cannot hurt the public system. These three failed the law under even the more lenient "rational connection" test, arguing that Quebec did not prove any rational connection between banning private insurance and strengthening the public system. The justices called the ban "arbitrary". That is a strong word.

If these three had won over a fourth justice, the impact of this decision would be more far-reaching. Since the federal Charter applies to all of Canada, the decision would have rendered similar laws in other provinces dead in the water. Instead, the application of this precedent to other provincial laws remains to be seen - as Patronus points out, the addition of Charron and Abella JJ. to the Court since Chaoulli was heard will impact future cases that build on it.

The Dissent: Three other justices: Binnie, Fish, and Lebel JJ., dissent from the judgment and argue that the law is fine under both Charters. This, by the way, is more along the lines of the lower court decisions in this case. The lower courts found that any violation of the right to life (if it can even be applied in this context) is justified by principles of fundamental justice, etc.

The dissenters argue that the public system is designed to promote equity and solidarity in that those who can pay for private insurance should not be allowed to get faster treatment ahead of others who cannot. Thus, the ban on private insurance is a rational way to strengthen those values and that goal. As for "minimal impairment" as discussed above, the dissenters acknowledge that this is a sensitive political issue that has been considered by the Quebec legislature and should be given deference.

Why the Dissent is Wrong: First, they focus too much on whether private insurance would help the problems with medicare, rather than on whether the banning thereof is justifiable. It is the government that must justify its intrusions into constitutional rights; the citizen need not prove that exercising his right would solve everyone's problems.

Second, the dissent also criticizes the majority opinion for setting a constitutional standard that is not manageable, because deciding that waiting times are unreasonable makes the Court an arbiter of medical facts and figures. But this misunderstands the reasoning of the Court - the justices did not hold that the state must provide reasonable service, or any health service at all, but rather that the state cannot create a monopoly on health care that infringes individual rights to life and security of the person by virtue of the long waiting lines. The Court simply decided from the evidence that the current system does so.

What the Court Did Not Say: The Court's decision was actually quite limited. The Court did not hold, for example, that provinces may not prevent doctors from selling their services privately. So theoretically, Quebec can just pass a law banning doctors from operating private services that are offered publicly. This law would be vulnerable on similar grounds as that in Chaoulli, but the province could reasonably argue that allowing doctors to opt-out of the public system and offer private care would hurt the public system by drawing doctors out. This would be more plausible than the analogous argument in this case, which concerned the provision of private insurance, given that currently doctors are allowed to sell services privately in Quebec...so why would private insurance make much difference?

The Court's reasoning is also limited. There is nothing about freedom of contract, for example. This case is just about life and security of the person rights, so it cannot be applied to, say, the public monopoly on postal delivery.

The Court also did not say, thank God, that the government is obligated to provide health services to anyone, for any reason, within any time frame. This decision is about negative rights - the state may not ban private insurance contracts that protect individuals' health - not positive rights like a "right" to prompt medical attention.

The Media's Take: I presume that the aspect of the case that the media will focus on (since it's the simplest and can be used to criticize conservatives) is the judicial-legislative relationship. In other words, should the Court have butted in?

Recall that when same-sex marriage was being litigated, conservatives argued that Parliament should decide the issue, not the Courts.

The problem is that the above argument is slightly imprecise. The real argument is that the traditional definition of marriage is not unconstitutional because it doesn't violate individual rights. It's a definition, and applies to everyone equally. When the state chooses not to recognize unions between same-sex partners, that is a social policy judgment and is not discriminatory. The Courts should not step in and force a social decision of that nature on the nation.

Here, we are talking about an explicit constitutional right to life, and a state restriction thereupon (as distinct from a state's failure to offer positive recognition in the form of a marriage license). In this type of situation, it is precisely the role of the Court to determine whether the infringement of the right (the state's imposition of penalties on those who choose to enter into life-saving private contractual arrangements) is justifiable under the tests in the jurisprudence (considering the state's objective, its connection to the restriction, and the degree to which the right is violated).

One could arguably compare this care more easily to judicial review of a law banning sodomy - that's a government restriction on the individual's right to liberty that is not justified by the above tests. Such a statute, of course, was recently struck down in the US in Lawrence v. Texas.

So while the media may try to criticize conservatives for 'hypocrisy' on this issue, we should stand our ground as defenders of true individual constitutional rights without giving up our arguments for parliamentary supremacy on issues of social policy that do not implicate fundamental rights and liberties of that nature (such as the "right" to have the state grant approval to one's union with a same-sex partner).

Chaoulli: The Supreme Court Case of the Decade

2005-06-09T17:17:00.000-03:00

Well, there you have it. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that state prohibitions on private health care insurance are unconstitutional.

Some thoughts:

1. This affects every province’s health care system. While the decision is only applicable in Quebec, other provinces will have to follow suit in terms of a) increasing access to medicare by substantially eliminating waiting lists or b) simply removing prohibitions on private insurance. Any province that fails to undertake meaningful reform will likely be subject to a comparable Charter challenge.

2. The Court has decided to take a more intrusive, supervisory role in the administration of social programmes. If the comments of the Chief Justice and Justice Major with respect to the provision of public health care of a “reasonable standard within a reasonable time” are transposed into other circumstances, a viable argument could be made to expand state administration of social programmes where there is no clear alternative private option for their delivery. This should be cause for concern, especially considering recent decisions of the Court (Gosselin, Auton) which have been largely deferential to the choices made by parliamentarians in the provision of social programmes.

3. Don’t think that this decision won’t get overturned. With new Justices Abella and Charron having historically taken a more collectivist approach to constitutional adjudication, if a similar case wound its way through the courts it's conceivable that the minority in Chaoulli could become a majority decision, as neither of these two participated in the present case. With Justice Major departing the Court soon (he voted with the majority), this throws the future of comparable jurisprudence into doubt.

4. The Court continues to be strategic and political in its adjudication of sensitive political issues. That the author of the majority decision (Justice Deschamps) did not address the issue of the Charter of Rights violation illustrates one of two things: a) that Justices from Quebec are reluctant to use the Charter to strike down Quebec legislation and b) that its very likely this is how the rest of the majority swung Deschamps’ vote. That the other Quebec judges were extremely sympathetic to the prohibition on private insurance *because that’s what the Quebec National Assembly decided was best to ensure the viability of the public system* substantiates the view that this decision was as much about federalism politics as it was about health care. All the more ironic is that Deschamps *acknowledged* that the same tests to determine the constitutionality of the legislation apply under both the Quebec and Canadian Charters, but for some reason decided completely neglect any decision based on the latter, which would have made the decision binding across Canada.

Like many opponents of statist health care, I screamed with glee this morning when I read the headlines. But the decision is a sad indictment of our country’s legislators. Instead of trying to convince the public that having a mixed public-private health care system would address many of health care’s problems, politicians took the easy route and shoveled money into a black hole, while countless have died or been permanently incapacitated waiting for health care that will never come. The Court's intervention is thus a stinging rebuke of the state of Canadian politics.

Chaoulli: The Supreme Court Case of the Year

2005-06-09T00:00:00.000-03:00

Thursday morning, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its ruling in Chaoulli v. Quebec, in which the constitutionality of various provisions within Quebec medicare legislation--prohibiting the provision and purchase of private health care--was challenged. The claimants argue that the impugned legislation compromises the Charter of Rights guarantees to life, liberty, and security of the person insofar as the legislation creates a system plagued by waiting lists for important medical procedures.

While the two lower courts hearing the case upheld the legislation’s constitutionality and dismissed the challenge, the outcome at the High Court is far from clear. That the Court has taken so long to decide this case (it was heard one year ago) suggests that it is wrestling with internal divisions, while probably also recognizing the massive ramifications resulting from its judgment, no matter which way it rules.

I intended to offer a full analysis of the case as well as potential outcomes, but navigating once again through the "life, liberty, and security" jurisprudence has reinforced my view that the decision cannot be predicted. Sometimes the Court argues that s. 7 rights only relate to "legal rights" (ie. generally infringed during the criminal law process), while other cases take a different view. Some cases use "context factors" to determine whether the violation of life, liberty, and/or security is "in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice"; the central context factor being the balancing of collective and individual interests. And so on...

I've endeavoured nonetheless to outline a few of the possible decisions that the Court may make tomorrow:

1. Status Quo, no deviation from the Quebec Court of Appeal decision.
2. Status Quo, and a recognition of a positive-state obligation to provide health care.
3. Allowing the Appeal but affirming the constitutionality of the public monopoly on health care, by using the remedial "reading in" or "reading down" power.
4. Allowing the Appeal and ruling that medicare legislation is unconstitutional using the remedial "strike-down" power.

About the only predictable thing, ultimately, is the unpredictability of the decision. For fun, I predict a tight 4-3 decision, with Chief Justice McLachlin and Justices Binnie and Major voting together, and Justices Bastarche, Lebel, and Deschamps forming the other faction. I have no idea how Justice Fish will vote nor with whom he'll vote.

ALSO: For some background, check out Jaworskiblog's special Chaoulli site, which is promising frequent updates over the coming days.

On Morons Part II

2005-06-07T01:49:00.000-03:00

Pat O'Brien, MP, wants to stop gay marriage.

He really, really, really wants to stop gay marriage. He thinks it's awful. Horrible. The worst thing ever.

In fact, he'd do anything to stop it. ANYTHING. He would even quit his own party and sit as an Independent - essentially throw his political career in the garbage - for the sake of this high principle.

In fact, he did!

Today.

Please note: less than two weeks ago when there was opportunity to bring down the government and kill the entire gay marriage bill, and one vote would have done all of that, Mr. O'Brien chose to vote with the Liberal government.

What a freaking moron.

On Gilles

2005-06-06T23:49:00.000-03:00

I like Gilles Duceppe.

He is a strong, passionate leader, he has a great sense of humor, he performs extremely well in the House, and he cares about his issues.

I think he should run for the PQ Leadership and take out Jean Charest in 2007. If that means an independent Quebec by 2010...well, with all the political craziness of this summer thus far, it's due to happen sooner or later.

Besides, it might help things on the federal scene. Nothing like a shakeup to make the Bloc's disappearance plausible again.

On Stupidity

2005-06-06T23:43:00.000-03:00

The Justice Department should have more important things to deal with than medical marijuana. Who really cares? Regardless, the Supreme Court should have struck down the law and allowed the states to legalize possession of marijuana if they want to. Everyone knows there is no interstate commerce going on there.

But honestly, there are serious terrorists out there plotting, and the government is worrying about a few pot growers in California.

Get a life.

On Grewal

2005-06-06T23:29:00.000-03:00

Grewal is a complete moron. I don't know what it is about British Columbia, but it seems to be very good at breeding politicians with abnormal anxiety problems and other mental disorders. Maybe it's the chemicals in all that coastal salmon. I really don't know.

But the whole story makes no sense. We have courier service in this country - what possible motive could this guy have for harassing other passengers to carry a package to Ottawa for him? And after being instructed not to by the guards?

The taping incident reflected poorly enough on his judgment, not to mention some of the other aspects of his past dredged up by eager reporters... yes, I'm referring to Gurmant GrewAL (Gore) single-handedly bringing the telephone to Liberia. Weird. Totally weird.

Getting a Grip on S. 810

2005-06-06T12:26:00.000-03:00

For some reason, Bellator accuses me of being "soft on crime" despite my calls for tougher sentencing (ie. real life imprisonment) for criminals of the ilk of Karla Homolka.

Central to his argument defending section 810 is that it enshrines part of "the state's most sacrosanct duty of protecting its citizens from harm".

The problem here is that the restrictions meted out to Holmolka hardly effect the end of protecting the public. Requiring her to report to police before she travels? Showing up at a police station once a week for 30 seconds to say hi? No consumption of already illegal drugs? These restrictions don't prevent recidivism, especially given that for 6.99 days of the week Homolka is not supervised by the justice system. While one might argue that the measures which she must obey *don't go far enough*, the fact that the measures statutorily expire after 12 months is proof that 810 does nothing for its purported goals. The criminality of supposedly dangerous offenders doesn't expire after a one-year warranty.

In fact, the *only* way to achieve these goals is a full term of imprisonment, and perhaps greater statutory restrictions of plea bargaining of the nature we saw in this case. While some want to spill ink and waste time defending a Criminal Code provision which at best doesn't even effect the salutary ends promoted by its defenders, my preference is to to advocate real measures to protect the public rather than commenting on the Code's pretty window dressing.

Real reform of Canada's justice system cannot occur in the face of such acquiescence to status quo half-measures just because it's better than nothing.

Patronus: Soft on Crime

2005-06-05T03:50:00.000-03:00

While I can sympathize with Patronus' reservations at the restriction of post-release liberties in the general sense, I think it behooves us all to take a brief vacation from the clouds and spend a few moments in the real world.

In the real world, there are real criminals. And real victims. And lots and lots of potential future victims.

We can debate where the line should be drawn, but I think any rational person would agree that it lies far beyond Ms. Homolka.

It's great to suggest that she should have been given a longer sentence orginally - but she wasn't, because of something called a plea bargain that for better or worse plays a fairly pivotal role in our justice system.

The Section of the Code to which Patronus refers below plays an even more central role, keeping in mind the state's most sacrosanct duty of protecting its citizens from harm.

Let's keep it, and let's use it.

On Karla Homolka, the Criminal Code, and the Restriction of Liberty

2005-06-03T17:39:00.000-03:00

With the Quebec Superior Court ruling that the she does pose a risk of re-offending, it appears that, after all, Karla Homolka will have restrictions placed upon her once she completes her penitentiary sentence for rape and murder this summer.

The restrictions, authorised by s. 810 of the Criminal Code, provide for, among other things, a requirement to notify police of her travel arrangements, a prohibition on coming into contact with teenagers and individuals with a criminal record, and a ban on taking employment where certain medications and drugs are dispensed.

Though I've never really considered post-sentencing restrictions before, I have serious reservations about sanctioning them. Restricting one's liberty after the completion of one's sentence repudiates central tenets of the rule of law and fundamental justice, such as having prior, clear knowledge of the punishment for an offence, and that the punishment not be vague, overbroad, or indeterminable.

One might respond that offenders frequently have restrictions placed on their movements and whom they may contact. However, often this is effected while an offender is on probation or on parole, id est as part of the sentence originally meted out upon conviction.

Given that Canadian courts often throw out convictions or acquit individuals for *minor* violations of their liberty interests (cf. R. v. Mann--accused acquitted of trafficking pot on appeal, as a protective pat-down search undertaken by an officer was not 'minimally intrusive', but otherwise constitutional), it's amazing how the same state can duplicitously support such onerous conditions *for someone has fully completed a sentence*. This smacks more of satiating a bloodthirsty public rather than the advancement of justice.

S. 810 of the Code permits the state to restrict one's liberty just prior to having completed one's debt to society, when there are reasonable grounds "to fear that the [offender] will commit a serious personal injury offence". Since this can be determined partly based on her criminal past, the question here is not whether Holmolka should or shouldn't have restrictions placed upon her liberty, but whether she should have her liberty at all. My preference would be to see s. 810 fall into disuse for violent offenders like Homolka, whose crimes justify a permanent restriction on their liberty--through *sentencing* them to a lifetime of imprisonment, instead deciding *after the fact* that twelve months of state-imposed lifestyle conditions are necessary for the public's protection.

Double Blog Jeopardy

2005-06-03T13:08:00.000-03:00

I seem to have been tagged twice. Once in the collective by ALW, as noted below, and once by another conservative blogger who used my real name and thus will not be linked.

This raises interesting existential questions. Can one be tagged twice? Is this like double jeopardy? Must my answers remain the same? Do I now need to tag ten individuals? Are there any rules at all to cover this scenario? And if there aren't, can we make them up? Does the absence of rules mean that, in fact, there are no rules? Or does it just mean that they are there, somewhere, waiting to be discovered and codified?

At any rate, since colleague Patronis has developed a new way of approaching this game (PLVQ: always the centre of canadian conservative blog innovation), I will play along. Post your responses in the Comments section down below.

Blogging the Chain Letter

2005-06-03T02:40:00.000-03:00

After having viewed this on Daifallah(blog) not six hours ago, the chain letter gets circulated to us. While we at PLVQ are not proponents of schemes pyramidal, we will nonetheless comply with the request of ALW, who forwarded said letter to this blog.

But we shall do something different: our loyal readership can GUESS the responses to the following questions, for each of Domina, Bellator, and Patronus, and post them in the comments section. Any near-accurate responses may be redeemed for either beer or beef should individuals wish to come to Alberta this summer to visit Domina and Patronus.

The questions:

Number of Books That You Own:

Last Book Bought:

Last Book I Read:

Five Books that mean a lot to me:

Answers to be posted soon!

On the EU Constitution

2005-06-02T21:49:00.000-03:00

Now that the Dutch, following the lead of the French, have resoundingly rejected the adoption of the proposed EU Constitution, it's back to square one for the Brussels bureaucrats and Europe-wide political elites who have spent their lives and much of their political capital pursuing the cause of European integration.

This is a good sign, as the constitution took some of the worst provisions regarding "rights" from effectively non-binding international law and attempted to enshrine them into the law of Europe. But the text of the constitution goes further, elevating some positive rights to entitlements. Some highlights:

...The Union recognises and respects the entitlement to social security benefits and social services providing protection in cases such as maternity, illness, industrial accidents, dependency or old age, and in the case of loss of employment, in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law and national laws and practices.

...In order to combat social exclusion and poverty, the Union recognises and respects the right to social and housing assistance so as to ensure a decent existence for all those who lack sufficient resources.

...Everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and the right to benefit from medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices. A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.

While these are all grand ideals, the constitutionalisation of universal entitlements does nothing to direct state assistance to those who require it most (i.e. not the rich). At the same time, the attenuation of every conceivable social programme to a "right" only denigrates the very concept of rights for which much ink and blood has been spilled over the course of European history.

The drafters need to go back to the drawing board on this one, folks.

Damned Templates

2005-06-02T09:36:00.000-03:00

...It seems that some versions of Internet Explorer are messing around with display of our beloved site's content. I'll endeavour to fix this tonight.

On Being Right. Again. And Again. And Again.

2005-05-25T23:26:00.000-03:00

**Underwood and Overwhelmed**

What can I tell you?

We're just that good.

Labradorians...

2005-05-25T02:35:00.000-03:00

...elected another Liberal MP.

When I was young, my dad used to tell me Newfie jokes.

They say there is some truth behind every joke.

Indeed.

Overhauling the Judical Selection Process: Lessons not to Learn from the Filibuster Fiasco

2005-05-25T02:16:00.000-03:00

**Attribution disclosure: the title for this post comes courtesy of Patronus.**

With news that a bipartisan group of senators has reached an agreement as to use of the filibuster to prevent "extreme" judicial nominees from reaching the Senate floor, we are left to consider how well the American system is working, and the lessons that we as Canadians should draw from their experience.

Democracy is a strange thing. Should 41 Senators be able to disrupt the will of the majority? I personally don't believe that there is a clear answer either way. Yes, in a democracy we govern by majority rule -- but there are certainly exceptions to that. In fact, the very notion of a judicial system that reviews democratically-passed legislation for constitutionality is antithetical to majoritarianism.

One's views on this filibuster question are indicative and reflective of a much more fundamental perspective on democracy, governance, and the nature of the state.

But the most important lesson for Canadians is that, in the end, the American system worked. Whatever your views of democracy, it certainly prevailed in this fight. That's because the system has checks and balances. The President nominates judges, a committee reviews them, the Senate votes to confirm, and so on.

This is in sharp contrast to the Canadian system, where the most dramatic development to the judicial selection process has been the recent introduction of an entirely pointless Q&A session with the Justice Minister - AFTER the judges have already been selected. That, of course, is pure showmanship, and is entirely void of any democratic value.

With recent revelations that judicial appointments were essentially being bought and sold - bought by Liberal party hacks and sold by the party's fundraising mafiosi - we need to be realistic about how our system is not working, and look south of the border for inspiration.

Critics of greater input into the selection of SCC judges often point to the Americans as a reason for the perpetuation of the status quo. Not unlike their invocation of the American health care bogeyman, these self-appointed elites have it wrong, yet again.

In the modern regulatory state, judges have more control over our lives than legislators do. We need to get serious about how they are appointed, and not let doomsayers shut down public debate on the issue.

Idolatrous Update

2005-05-25T02:12:00.000-03:00

Tonight was the last round of American Idol, Season IV.

Because I have returned to Canada and cannot vote from abroad, I requested that colleagues of mine in the United States cast votes on my behalf.

I hope that all of you have heeded my endorsement and phoned in your Carrie support (even though that black dress she wore tonight was not particularly attractive).

PLVQ is pleased to announce our prediction that Carrie will, indeed, claim the coveted crown in tomorrow night's results show.

As prelude, we would like readers' thoughts on whether Bo Bice more closely resembles (a) a trucker, or (b) a garbageman. Please post comments in the 'comments' section of the site.

More Election Gag Laws Upheld

2005-05-24T00:55:00.000-03:00

This hasn't received much coverage (probably on account of last week's shenanigans in Parliament).

On Friday, the BC Court of Appeal released a judgment upholding a publication ban in the Canada Elections Act which prohibits individuals from publishing election results from the Eastern Canada before the polls close in the West, ruling that:

"...When the deleterious effect of a short moratorium on the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is balanced against the salutary effects of preserving an information balance among voters across the country and promoting the perception of electoral fairness, it appears to me that the salutary effects have more weight..."

Ironically, the State believes that an elector's informed voting decision is one where his access to information is restricted, rather than facilitated.

Bloc-Harper.com...

2005-05-20T17:52:00.000-03:00

...The product of legitimate grassroots grievance or of a has-been, discredited ex-Conservative cabinet minister?

If you guessed option (B), you are correct.

Bloc-Harper.com, a site decrying that the Bloc Quebecois and the Conservatives happen to be the only two parties in parliament willing to stand against the government's corruption (ostensibly because this means 'getting into bed with separatists') was brought to our attention today.

The site expresses abhorrence at Liberal corruption:

"True, the Liberal government disgraced itself, not only by allowing an unprecedented level of corruption, but - equally seriously - by giving Québec separatists the greatest gift they could receive: the perception that federalists will use illegal and underhanded tactics to influence Québecers.

...but prefers this criminal regime to the Opposition:

"But as Canadians turn away from the Liberals, there is an equally grave threat to the future of our country: Stephen Harper and his radical view of Canadian federalism.

Navigating through the incoherent ranting on the site, one might find a salient criticism of the *optics* of the Bloc-Tory alliance. But check out the source of the site (via Scotia):

bloc-harper.com Detailed Domain Data:

Register Your Domain Name at RegisterSite.com Today!

The Royal Commonwealth Society of Toronto Foundation
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA

Domain name: BLOC-HARPER.COM

Administrative Contact:
Stevens, Sinclair smstevens@epla.net
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA
+1.9058531973 Fax: +1.9058535145

Technical Contact:
Stevens, Sinclair smstevens@epla.net
730 Davis Drive, 2nd Floor
Newmarket, ON L3Y 2R4
CA
+1.9058531973 Fax: +1.9058535145

Sinclair Stevens! The same ex-cabinet minister who was fired from the Mulroney cabinet over conflict-of-interest allegations, which in turn helped create the perception that corruption was endemic in the Mulroney administration. The same Sinc Stevens who sued Peter MacKay after the merger of the federal Tories and the Canadian Alliance in 2003.

Couldn't Harper opponents find a more credible individual to promote this initiative instead of someone whose last twenty years have been spent fighting corruption allegations and launching petty, vindictive lawsuits against political leaders?

On Morons

2005-05-18T16:44:00.000-03:00

This is beyond belief. From today's paper:

Conservative riding association executive Don Constable said he'll stand by Stronach.

"As a person, I have to support her," said Constable, who has known Stronach and organized charities with her for 20 years. "I'd imagine she'd do the same for me."

Um. Hello? She'd do the same for you? Are you nuts? Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds in the context of what just happened?

Sure, she's willing to dump her boyfriend on live television, abadon the party for whose leadership she ran, dump the principles she's claimed to have espoused her entire life, openly contradict things she said just last week in Parliament, stun, shock, and betray all of her supporters...

But you - she'd do anything for you, Don.

So Sad

2005-05-18T16:39:00.000-03:00

I just wanted to say that apparently Peter MacKay had only a few hours of advance notice before yesterday's betrayal of epic proportions.

So I retract my call for his demotion. The man has been through enough. Realizing that you've been used and abused like that is enough punishment.

On Bribery

2005-05-17T12:40:00.000-03:00

First they bought Quebec.

Then they bought the NDP.

Now they're buying cabinet ministers.

Despicable, Despicable, Despicable

2005-05-17T12:08:00.000-03:00

So all of our wondering about Cadman and Kilgour's precious independent votes has proven a waste of time.

Why?

Because the millionaire heiress who fancies herself a politician has decided she'd rather be a Liberal cabinet minister. That's right, the Newmarket MP who could barely win her own nomination while running for the party leadership and who made a complete fool of herself in the reality TV special "So You Want to Be Conservative Leader?" has now decided that she really doesn't.

I'd like to first point out that NONE of the PLVQ bloggers voted for Belinda as either our first OR second choice in last year's leadership race. We're not so easily fooled by color, glamor, and money. Unfortunately, many of our colleagues were. Let this be a lesson to all of you.

Second, I want to know when loverboy MacKay knew about this, what he did about it, and who he told. I for one would like to see him demoted. Sex is sex but this is politics.

And lastly, the silver lining. Many of us have been afraid of the day that Stephen Harper steps down as Leader, dreading that inevitable press conference where Belinda gives out multicolored martinis and announces her intention to succeed him. Well, now that day will never come.

The Moron from Magna will never lead our party. Praise the Lord for that, at least.

Stronach Crosses Floor: Can't MacKay Control His Girlfriend?

2005-05-17T12:07:00.000-03:00

In one of the most classless parliamentary displays in years--designed of course to inflict maximum damage on the Official Opposition--Newmarket-Aurora MP Belinda Stronach has crossed the floor to join the Liberal Party as Human Resources Minister.

This begs the question, one I asked in the context of Scott Brison crossing after the merger of the two conservative parties: why couldn't you wait mere months to become a Tory cabinet minister, leaving your leadership ambitions and integrity intact?

This shameless display also changes the dynamics for Thursday's budget (the umpteenth non-confidence vote in a week): the Liberals now require the votes of only two independent MPs and the Speaker of the House, while the Opposition must have the votes of two independents to win the vote and force and election.

MORE LATER

PLVQ Endorses Liberals*

2005-05-16T23:47:00.000-03:00

For their economic stewardship.

For their tax cuts.

For their integrity in government.

For their elimination of the deficit.

For forcing their radical opposition to move to the centre in order to stave off electoral oblivion.

For all these reasons, PLVQ has decided to endorse the Liberals in the forthcoming election*.

*The Gordon Campbell-led BC LIBERALS, that is, at tomorrow's ballot box.

The party's agenda to rehabilitate the economic health of that province during their four-year mandate--despite opposition from the usual suspects like university-based socialists and union leaders--through tax and spending cuts, deficit-slashing, and reduction in the size of government, is an agenda that would have made Mike Harris proud.

While they have backtracked or stalled greater competition for state-dominated monopolies such as BC Liquor, disavowed privatisation entirely in the case of state-run auto insurer ICBC, and implemented a populist democratic reform process that could have a deleterious effect on constituent representation and BC's Westminister democracy, these blemishes can be overlooked (especially given the only other competititive party is the NDP).

Over the next four years, the Liberals should refrain from succumbing to Ralph Klein syndrome--that horrible malady where a government loses all fiscal discipline when its province's books return to order. Gordon Campbell should continue with tax cuts and other measures to ensure that BC remains competitive while permanently reducing the size of government.

Whether this happens or not, the fact that the *BC NDP* have discovered the merits of fiscal prudence is enough to illustrate the positive impact that the Liberal government has had on the politics and economy of British Columbia since 2001.

Predicting Our Toughest Foreign Election Yet

2005-05-16T22:47:00.000-03:00

Well, it's not that foreign.

But it gets more voters to the telephone polls (no pun intended) than any other. Forget who is going to be the next Leader of the Free World; forget the supreme religious leader of one billion Catholics; forget the indefeasible dictators of the powder-keg Mideast -

WHO WILL BE THE NEXT AMERICAN IDOL?

I don't think we need predict until we determine who the two finalists are this coming Wednesday. But I don't think it would be imprudent for PLVQ to come out straight away and announce our unqualified support for the newest All-American popstar - the talented and immensely beautiful Oklahoma native, Carrie Underwood.

Readers: do not miss this opportunity to annoint the next musical sensation. Exercise your democratic rights tomorrow evening and be sure to vote for Carrie.

Stephen Harper, Ramping up the Rhetoric

2005-05-16T02:36:00.000-03:00

The Gazette, reporting on Harper's remarks at a candidate training session this past weekend:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper warned anglophones that they would wreck the country if they remained loyal to the federal Liberals.

Oh, the state of political discourse in this country.

On Unrest in Uzbekistan: Islamist Dissidents or Seekers of Liberty?

2005-05-15T17:43:00.000-03:00

It seems that the sweep of generally peaceful revolutions occurring in former Soviet republics won't be soon replicated in repressive Uzbekistan--a U.S. anti-terror ally--with reports that government troops have killed and wounded scores of (some say mainly unarmed) demonstrators. This is the republic ruled by iron-fisted former communist Islam Karimov, whose attempts to stifle opposition include intolerance of freedom of religion and expression and torture techniques like genital mutilation and the boiling of suspects.

The unrest started late last week, when demonstrators freed jailed small businessmen accused of supporting a banned Islamic religious sect. While imprisoning individuals as account of their religious affiliation is reprehensible inter se, it is unclear that these individuals were involved in any activity requiring sanction. According to one of the jailed individuals, Abduvosid Egomov, their issue has not been the creation of a theocracy by violence but the advancement of liberty:

“We are not going to overthrow the government. We demand economic freedom,” Mr. Egomov told AP. “If the army is going to storm, if they're going to shoot, we are ready to die instead of living as we are living now. The Uzbek people have been reduced to living like dirt.”

While the demonstrators can't entirely claim a moral high-ground (some were lobbing molotov cocktails during the course of their weekend's festivities) the growing exodus of individuals to recently liberated Kyrgyzstan--normally a practice forbidden by authorities--may be a testament to the sincerity of this movement and the underlying thirst for liberty fomenting among regular Uzbeks.

One unfortunate aspect of the war on terror--the goals of which remain both laudable and necessary--is America's calculative realpolitik which foregoes significant criticism of the illiberal elements of supportive regimes, giving a freer hand to dictators like Karimov who wish to extend and perpetuate their own power. It also allows these dictators to use the straw-man of "Islamic extremism" to excuse the arbitary detention and repression of those who made the unfortunate decision to advocate greater liberty while simultaneously adhering to the teaching of some ancient named Mohammed.

Illegitimate Government in Canada: Day II

2005-05-11T23:04:00.000-03:00

Here's a great post about last evening's non-non-confidence debacle, in the context of Canadian Parliamentary tradition, courtesy of Prof. Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser University (via Farquhar).

This gem justifying the illegitimate government's antics comes from shameless Liberal youth hack and spinmeister Jason Cherniak, whose site is better known as a digest of recycled Martinite speaking notes than a source of objectively insightful commentary. Some highlights (in italics):

"It was not technically a vote of non-confidence and the government has a right to ignore it, but they shouldn't because, clearly, the House wants an election."

No, Jason, what the motion clearly indicated was that the majority of the members of the House demanded the resignation of the government, which was both the express and implied intent of yesterday's motion.

The original confidence motion was scheduled for May 18 and if the Tories were playing fair they would not have tried to hold a vote while Cadman was unable to attend due to CHEMOTHERAPY! Talk about disgusting political tricks.

Since when does the Prime Minister get to decide when the House can express its confidence or lack thereof in the government? When Mike Pearson lost a supply vote on account of absent members in the late 1960s, he immediately called for and won a confidence motion. Why won't the Prime Minister commit to calling one given last night's expression of parliamentary intent?

...At this point in time, Martin's government has not lost one important legislative vote. Not one!

Yeah, but what important piece of legislation has been passed since the paralysis of parliament? Further, it's irrelevant that, oh, months ago the Liberals had the confidence of the House (ie. through the passing of the Speech from the Throne). Confidence motions arise because Parliament no longer has confidence in the government--they don't arise merely as an expression of what was always the case.

...The question is not whether the House wants an election - the question is whether the PM is able to get a legislative agenda through the House.

Then why has the government been FILIBUSTERING its own budget? They had the ability to ram the budget through the House right after the Grit-NDP New Deal but decided not to. Perhaps this is because they can't guarantee that they can pass the budget, or, more appropriately, don't have the confidence of the House?

...The goal of government is to improve the lives of Canadians. The government has a duty to get through as much positive legislation as possible. There is still the marijuana and equal marriage legislation, for example. Both of those would pass if introduced tomorrow. Does the government not have a duty to try to get those bills passed before an election happens?

Using that logic, any government in the same situation as the present one can simply point to the order paper and say--"Hey, Parliament! You can't lose faith or confidence in us! We have important work to do!" That same flippant attitude is prevalent in such bastions of democracy as Zimbabwe ("Opposition! You can't win this election! We still haven't completed our land reform/theft programme!") or Iran ("we simply cannot have these reform-minded candidates running for Parliament--they'll prevent us from implementing our theocratic agenda!")

Until Harper can prove that governing is impossible for the government, he has no real case to claim that there is no confidence.

Better put, maybe it's time for the Prime Minister to regenerate the gonads he used to possess in the mid-1990s and call a motion of confidence if he really believes in the importance of his agenda and wants to see it fulfilled.

Martin apologists like the PMO and Cherniak may want to ignore 150 years of parliamentary convention and sacrifice it on the altar of desperate political expedience. But the lame attempt at spinning away a clear expression of the Commons' lack of confidence in the administration has the effect of discrediting the present government far more than the sum of all of the corruption allegations bleeding from the witness stand in Judge Gomery's courtroom.

While I'm not particularly saddened at that, this discrediting of the Martin government has come at the expense of destroying what little faith Canadians have in their political institutions, and has resulted in the death of responsible government. That, friends, is what is truly lamentable about this debacle. Perhaps that, and the spectacle of Paul Martin Sr. rolling over in his grave.

Behold the Farce

2005-05-11T09:51:00.000-03:00

What a joke.

Sad that it has come to this, yes. The Parliament of Canada is coming more and more to resemble the chaos of some third-rate student union.

"Procedural" wrangling that makes a mockery of our traditions.

Threats of walkouts from our only chamber of representative government.

A government that has exposed its true contempt for its citizenry and an implicit ascription of utter ignorance thereto.

Worse, that the ascription is probably unassailable.

The Republic of Bananada, indeed.

Teaching the Government a Lesson about Parliamentary Democracy

2005-05-11T00:32:00.000-03:00

Yesterday, Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe indicated that, in the event that the Liberals were to ignore an affirmative non-confidence vote--as they did this evening--it "would be the duty of the Governor-General to call Paul Martin and to tell him a few things about democracy."

While I'm distressed that the Governor-General hasn't interceded and unilaterally dissolved Parliament (an action more democratic than the perpetuation of the present farce of a government governing-without-the-House's-confidence- because-the-House's-confidence-doesn't-matter), perhaps the words of one of Mr. Martin's predecessors could deliver the consitutional and parliamentary education that the present Prime Minister is so sorely lacking:

"...He wants to know by what right this Government is in office. By the sane right that every government is in office in Canada to-day or has ever been in office in this country -- by the right of the confidence of a majority of the Parliament elected by a majority of the people...

...The fact is both the spirit and the letter of the constitution of this country may be defined thus: The term is five years; the usual practice is four years; the Government is entitled to hold office during that term, provided it maintains the confidence of the representatives of the people as reflected in the parliament elected...

...Consequently, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that under the circumstances that obtain now; under the conditions of public policy and the discussion of public principle that to-day obtain by reason of the statements and speeches of public men, the clear duty of this Government, for the present at all events, is to carry on and to carry out its policy so long as a majority of the members of this House repose confidence in the Administration...

-- The Right Honourable Prime Minister Arthur Meighen, Speech to the House of Commons, 15 February 1921, in response to a proposed confidence motion by Opposition Leader W.L. Mackenzie King

Affirmative Action in Iraq

2005-05-08T21:10:00.000-03:00

If you've been following the post-election politicking in Iraq, you will know that the remaining open cabinet positions have just been filled, with careful attention paid to ensuring that all the various ethnic sub-groups in Iraq are represented at the cabinet table. So now all the seats are taken.

Mostly.

The position of human rights minister is still empty. Ironic? You don't know the half of it. The following is from CNN.com coverage of the most recent round of cabinet appointments:

Hashem al-Shibli, a Sunni Muslim who was tapped to be the minister of human rights, refused the post, saying he did not believe Cabinet positions should be allocated based on ethnic or religious affiliation.

He sounds like the perfect candidate to me!

British Election Results

2005-05-05T22:51:00.000-03:00

PLVQ didn't endorse anyone in the UK elections this year.

All of the candidates and parties are horrible. At least the pathological liar who won sent troops to Iraq. That's about the only positive thing I can say about any of them.

Sorry to Sam

2005-05-05T22:31:00.000-03:00

This is an apology to my law school classmate Sam, who has been dutifully checking this blog as part of his regular rotation. I'm sorry for not posting more often. Patronus and Domina have moved to Calgary and don't have as easy access to the internet anymore, so I am left to pick up the slack.

I will try to do better.

On Thursday, remember the plight of the world's most oppressed...

2005-04-28T00:22:00.000-03:00

...it's the second annual North Korea Freedom Day.

On the Liberal-NDP New Deal

2005-04-27T22:43:00.000-03:00

I will reserve my disdain for the Martin-Layton New Deal, as much of my sentiments have already been articulated elsewhere.

However, I will say that Layton likely comes out of this debacle the big winner. While his party has a massive credibility gap to overcome (remember the televised remarks last week when he argued that the Grits' conduct in the sponsorship scandal may have been "criminal"?), he has established his merry band of socialists as a parliamentary force despite not holding the balance of power and despite claiming policy victories that won't even be implemented because of the impending failure of this budget.

Now the NDP, withering in the winds of parliamentary obscurity a mere fortnight ago, stands to gain a number of seats from the Liberals as they've become players when they had no right to be.

And Martin? He should thank Jean Chretien for the ban on corporate donations to political parties, because public subsidies are the only way to fund a party that, with its New Deal, has declared war on the same Bay St. that once revered the Prime Minister as the Golden Boy of Canadian politics.

Martin Crisis Speech Fallout: An International Perspective

2005-04-22T02:27:00.000-03:00

Most loyal PLVQ readers will have likely reviewed Canadian punditry on the Prime Minister's desperation tactic of addressing the nation on the Sponsorship Scandal this evening.

For a treat, then, PLVQ provides some of the more poignant (and disturbing) headlines and news stories about tonight's speech from the international media.

These are just lovely:

ABC: CANADIAN LEADER APOLOGIZES FOR CORRUPTION
Canadian Leader Apologizes for Corruption Scandal in Speech Aimed at Rescuing Government

Prime Minister Paul Martin apologized to the nation Thursday night for a corruption scandal that has shaken his Liberal Party.

Scotsman: PM APOLOGISES FOR CORRUPTION SCANDAL

Embattled Canadian prime minister Paul Martin made a rare, nationally televised address early today to apologise for a corruption scandal within his Liberal Party, calling it an “unjustifiable mess”.

Reuters: CANADA'S PM PROMISES EARLY ELECTION OVER SCANDAL

Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, grappling with the Liberal government's worst crisis in a decade, promised on Thursday to call an election early next year once a probe into a cash-for-favor scandal is over.

Gagliano Points Fingers

2005-04-20T13:19:00.000-03:00

If I were Bill O'Reilly, this would be my "Ridiculous Item of the Day".

Many people explain the Yiddish term "chutzpah" with the story of the child who kills his parents and then asks for leniency because of his orphaned status. (This is Prof. Alan Dershowitz's example in his aptly named book, Chutzpah.)

Former Public Works Minister Alfonso Gagliano, now seen as one of the masterminds of the kickback scheme that saw millions of taxpayer dollars funneled into Liberal Party campaign war chests through shady characters hiding in the shadows of Italian restaurants in Quebec, has come out strongly in criticism of Prime Minister Paul Martin.

His complaint? That Quebec will secede as a result of ill-will from the scandal, and Martin is responsible because he is the one who called the inquiry into the scandal.

Now, look, we at PLVQ are no fans of Mr. Martin (a.k.a. the Ditherer), a man we find unprincipled and whom we suspect had knowledge if not involvement in the scandal, but to criticize him for calling the inquiry is truly, truly unbelievable. UNBELIEVABLE.

It's another great example of Liberal chutzpah.

Conservatives Maintain Grip on Papacy

2005-04-20T13:01:00.000-03:00

As predicted by PLVQ, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger has been elected Pope. This is yet another accurately forecast foreign election for our political prognosticators.

We are pleased with the result, noting that the newly-named Benedict XVI took a hard line against John Kerry's Catholic wishy-washiness during the last election.

Of course, it doesn't seem like Benedict will be the one to revive Catholic religious spirit in Europe, but Europe is probably a lost cause anyway, and as we conservatives know, it's quality not quantity that counts. (Except in anything partisan, in which case quantity is sort of key.)

First Day Over: No Pope

2005-04-18T15:06:00.000-03:00

Or as Fox News put it:

-NO DECISION-

I feel like I'm right back on November 2nd, waiting for CNN to call Ohio.

On Conclave

2005-04-18T14:53:00.001-03:00

The papal conclave has begun. This has got to be one of the most fascinating political events that takes place. It combines some of the best and most interesting elements of the various electoral systems - no fixed election dates, super-majority requirement, multiple rounds, and sequestration.

PLVQ will be tracking and monitoring the conclave.

We note that one of our favorites, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn of Vienna, has fallen into line behind the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, aka the Panzerkardinal. Our speculation is that Schoenborn, at 60, is too young to be considered by a Church looking for a transitional figure, and is therefore wise to win some friends by throwing his support behind the frontrunner, who is 77. This might set the Austrian Cardinal up for election next time (whenever that may be).

PLVQ is supportive of Ratzinger, who is a strong conservative leader. But this support is not exclusive - there are various strong candidates. We oppose, though, the many Cardinals hailing from South and Latin America who swing far to the left on issues like foreign affairs and poverty. These are the so-called "liberation theology" Catholics, and our view is that this would provide more support to global lefties than they deserve.

More to come as events warrant.

Where Does the Spin Stop?

2005-04-10T03:38:00.000-03:00

Bill O'Reilly calls his television show a "no-spin zone" but that doesn't really count because O'Reilly isn't a politician. Media spin is one thing, but political spin quite another. And I believe it is out of control.

I cannot fathom how we have reached the point where in the midst of the most shocking revelations of corruption ever to hit Canada (the only close second, the so-called "Pacific" scandal involving John A. MacDonald, happened soon after the country's founding), Liberal politicians are still spinning away, pretending nothing happened and everything is under control.

It makes me want to vomit. At least one, single Liberal MP understands that.

And so David Kilgour might become a Conservative again. Or just retire. That would make one fewer honest, sincere MP's in Parliament.

I know it's hard to admit that something went very, very wrong. Paul Martin tried doing so last year but soon changed his strategy to a Chretienesque denial and ignorance routine. And ya, it worked for Chretien. He was able to steal hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars with that song and dance. But a little bit of honesty and integrity would go a long way toward rehabilitating the damaged and deficient democracy that is the Dominion.

CTV: "Brault said there was $1 million in kickbacks to the Liberal Party of Canada."

2005-04-07T15:31:00.000-03:00

Wow.

GOMERY LIFTS PUBLICATION BAN: "It is in the public interest that this evidence with few exceptions be made available to the public..."

2005-04-07T15:12:00.000-03:00

From the Globe:

Mr. Justice John Gomery has partially removed a ban on the volatile testimony from ad executive Jean Brault at the sponsorship inquiry.

However, the judge overseeing the sponsorship probe ruled Thursday that certain aspects of testimony provided by ad executive Jean Brault to the sponsorship inquiry can not be reported by the media.

"It is in the public interest that this evidence with few exceptions be made available to the public remembering that publication bans are a violation of constitutional rights and are to be imposed rarely, particularly in the context of a public inquiry," Judge Gomery said.

Both the Liberals and the opposition parties have been waiting in tense anticipation for the judge's decision.

The opposition believes that some information contained in Mr. Brault's testimony could be extremely harmful to the Liberals if it is made public.

It could also prompt them to call for a vote of non-confidence in the government and bring it down, triggering an election.

Mr. Brault is the former owner of Groupaction. Groupaction is one of the advertising firms at the heart of the sponsorship probe. The Gomery probe is looking into how $100-million of the Liberal government's $250-million sponsorship program went to Liberal-friendly agencies that did little or no work for the money.

Union Steps Closer to Collectivising Sask. Wal-Mart?

2005-04-07T15:03:00.000-03:00

The latest on attempts to unionise Canadian Wal-Marts, from the Globe and Mail.

I haven't read the judgement of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal in this case, nor am I familiar with the provisions of the relevant labour legislation in that province, but opening up access to internal company documents for the inspection of a union *which doesn't even yet represent any employees at that store* seems slightly disturbing.

On Deletion

2005-04-05T15:14:00.000-03:00

Faithful readers may have noticed that PLVQ has deleted all links to the exposed testimony from the Gomery inquiry. The blogosphere has been full of rumors that the Feds are planning to prosecute Canadian bloggers who link to that exposed info, which was put online in violation of a publication ban.

Let's be clear. PLVQ is angered by these threats, and if Patronus and I were already lawyers this would not go unchallenged. But we happen to be in a vulnerable position, since law schools don't look kindly upon convictions of their students. So we are very reluctantly responding to the threats.

Although the reasons for the publication ban make some sense (the witnesses are also facing criminal charges and keeping the jury in the dark until the trial is important to maintain objectivity), the state of the world is such that these bans just DO NOT WORK. It took only a few days for the leaked testimony to hit the blogs. Canadian law cannot reach American blogs or bloggers, and of course any Canadian can simply go online and read the reports for himself.

What is achieved by prosecuting Canadians who simply provide links to American blogs that are legally posting information? What if we want to link to something ELSE on Captain'sQuarters blog? What if we hide the link, e.g. www dot pro dash libertate dot blogspot dot com? When does this become so difficult to enforce that it no longer makes any sense?

I would suggest it already has.

Once again, let's get a grip, people.

Gomery to Lift Publication Ban by Wednesday?

2005-04-04T22:36:00.000-03:00

...the CBC thinks so.

I Remember Said Crazy Individual

2005-04-04T20:35:00.000-03:00

Oh yes, the pro-Holocaust Native leader. How could we forget?

But I agree with Brother Patronus. What is a hate crime, really? I'm not sure it's anything more than a thought crime. Of course you need to say something...but how long will that barrier to prosecution remain?

Ultimately we need to take a close look at which is more important: free speech or some minority's right to not be offended by the stupidity of others. I think we can all agree that there isn't any serious risk that a loon like Ahenakew is going to suddenly succeed at inciting thousands of Canadians to engage in pogrom-type behavior.

Let's get a grip, people.

Remember Crazy David Ahenakew?

2005-04-04T12:48:00.000-03:00

...well, his criminal trial for "promoting hatred against an identifiable group" begins today.

This is the man notable for his comments two years ago praising Hitler while raising the old canard that "the Jews" were preparing to "take over Europe".

Despite this man's despicable views, his thoughts and views should not be criminalised. The shame that he brought upon himself, and the loss of stature in his community, is far more punitive than the impersonal state sanction he would receive if found guilty.

So, the debate of the month: Should provisions exist in the Criminal Code which prohibit the promotion of "hate"?

Opposition sweeps majority in free and fair Zimbabwe election*

2005-04-02T01:46:00.000-04:00

(*a cruel April Fool's joke)

As PLVQ so deftly predicted, the ruling ZANU-PF, led by Zimbabwe's illegitimate President Robert Mugabe, swept yesterday's parliamentary elections (despite our endorsement of the Movement for Democratic Change).

I will refrain from engaging in a bitter, vitriolic rant about these results (note that Mugabe's nephew won his seat when 10,000 voters *magically* appeared), but will bitterly and vitriolically condemn Canada for barely whimpering about the disgrace that this election was.

While I appreciate that Canada has zero stature in the international community, it still does not give our Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister the liberty to stand silent on the economic and political repression of so many. Paul Martin and Pierre Pettigrew should once again be ashamed of themselves.

Pontifex in Extremis

2005-04-01T11:32:00.000-04:00

It appears that one of the most enduring papacies in the two-millennium history of the Roman Catholic Church may soon draw to a close, with reports of the Pope's constantly deteriorating health and his receipt of last rites.

Papal succession upon John Paul II's death will mark a turning point for the church: will his successor continue with the socially conservative moral perspective predominating church teachings over the last quarter-century, or will the new Pope liberalise and reform the church? The latter may increase its stature among Westerners moving away from the church, but could potentially alienate persons in Africa, Latin America, and Asia, where Catholicism continues to expand.

Intriguing questions for arguably the world's most powerful and influential institution.

Live Election Results from Zimbabwe

2005-03-31T15:38:00.000-04:00

From the Movement for Democratic Change website.

Note the optimism with which the MDC approaches this poll:

"Click here for all the voting incidents, drama, violence, fraud, cheating, SADC violations, intimidation and updates throughout Zimbabwe."

Vote MDC in Today's Zimbabwe Election!

2005-03-31T15:08:00.000-04:00

In case there are Zimbabwean nationals who actually peruse this site, it's an appropriate time to announce, as PLVQ does with most foreign elections, our endorsement in that country's parliamentary elections.

As many of you who know me personally are aware, I have a soft spot for the oft-forgotten plight of the Zimbabwean people, since their tyrannical, illegitimate "President" Robert Mugabe began confiscating and redistributing fertile land some five years ago. What resulted was the gradual destruction of an economy which once earned the moniker of Africa's Breadbasket, and an accompanying indifference from the international community.

If Mugabe's comments this week are any indication, the his iron-fisted control of Parliament will remain:

"...Mugabe branded opposition supporters “traitors” and warned on Tuesday that an election victory by the top rival party would not be tolerated..."

So much for free and fair elections.

PLVQ has an undefeated record of predicting the victors of foreign elections (remember Howard, Bush, Yushchenko, SBY, et al?). However, we will proudly break this streak today, endorse the Movement for Democratic Change (which will still be in opposition tomorrow), and hope that Zimbabweans will have the courage to march in the streets peacefully to build the international pressure that helped topple illiberal regimes in Georgia and Ukraine over the past year.

On Nice Surprises

2005-03-30T23:16:00.000-04:00

I paid a visit back to my old haunting ground of York University yesterday, as I am back in Toronto for spring break. I happened across an old political foe, one wheelchair-bound Ahmed (not Yassin), who was recently elected to an executive spot on the York Federation of Students, which has slipped back into enemy hands since I graduated.

Being the always-civil individual that I am, I engaged him in a polite debate about the current state of Iraq. Bear in mind that this individual was by far the most rabid and hateful of the Arab-Leftist activists I battled at York. He would openly express support for the terrorist group Hezbollah and was a fierce and bitter opponent of everything Israeli or American.

But I noted a subtle change in old Ahmed (who is of Iraqi background). When we discussed Iraq, he lamented the "porous borders" that allowed "foreigners" into the country to engage in "senseless acts of terrorism" against Iraqis.

Separation fence, anyone?

This was the first time I ever heard him use the word "terrorism" and not be intending it to refer to something American or Israeli. What's next? Using the word "free" to describe Western liberal democracy?

PLVQ Denounces Bigot Liberal MP Mark Holland

2005-03-28T20:28:00.000-04:00

This despicable release was recently sent out by rookie Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland, a (proud, seemingly) member of the Liberal Party of Canada (via Blogging Tories):

'Show your faces,' MP Holland tells bigot group

An anonymous group circulating flyers across Canada attacking MPs who support same-sex marriage should come out of hiding and show their faces, Ajax-Pickering MP Mark Holland demands.

The group, Concerned Canadian Parents, operates from a post office box in a 7-Eleven store on Weston Road in Toronto, and provides no information about who is behind its expensive campaign.

[...]

"I call upon the media, who have been accepting their advertising dollars, to tell Canadians who is behind Concerned Canadian Parents," said Holland.

[...]

"I strongly disagree with this group’s message of intolerance, but I respect their right to free speech," Holland says. "What I object to is that a cowardly, anonymous group can launch an expensive campaign to attack Parliamentarians without showing their faces."

[...]

While I can't begin to fathom why a Member of Parliament would draw attention to a campaign which exudes a negative view of the policy he supports, it nonetheless typifies the uncivil way in which many Liberals have approached the debate over gay marriage--that opponents of the legislation are nothing more than ignorant "bigots".

This deplorable attitude towards the legitimate moral and religious perspective of individuals only emboldens many irreligious persons like myself, who fear that Holland's attitude reflects a growing disdain for religious liberty among the chattering classes.

Holland's Liberal Youth Wing likes to say "It's the Charter, Stupid!". But a much more accurate slogan for this party would be "It's the Charter, Stupid, Except Section 2".

On Left Coast Party Websites

2005-03-25T23:37:00.000-04:00

Tonight, I wanted to briefly peruse the BC Liberal website, to get the latest information on that province's forthcoming election campaign.

In a humourous turn, Googling "BC Liberal" yields the following statement below their link:

"Elected to government in 2001 under Gordon Campbell. Not affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada."

Amen!

Also: If today's press release on the BC New Democrats' website is any indication, the Liberals should win in a cakewalk. It reads:

Kwan Slams Hagen for Dismissiong Call to Restore Children's Commissioner
NDP MLA says Children's Commissioner was no Paper-Pusher

Vancouver - NDP MLA Jenny Kwan today slammed Children and Family Development Minister Stan Hagen for saying that restoring an independent Children's Commissioner is a "bureaucrat's" response to child welfare.

She said that Hagen's remarks show that the Minister is not up to his job and that he shouldn't be responsible for children at risk.

Not only is the messaging really poor, but if the party lets such egregious spelling mistakes get onto their live website (in large font bold letters to boot), I can only imagine the non-attention to detail with which they would govern.

Another Reason to Abolish the Upper House...

2005-03-25T02:19:00.000-04:00

...emanates from Thursday's Prime Ministerial Senate appointments. Irrespective of whether such eminent Canadians such as Retired General Romeo Dallaire are capable and qualified, it is simply incredulous that Canada still maintains such an undemocratic process for the selection of 25% of its Parliament.

Even worse is that, despite being removed from Cabinet in 2002 for a serious ethics violation (giving an untendered Defence Ministry contract to his girlfriend), Art Eggleton was rewarded with an appointment.

Oh, and those Senators-designate selected to represent Alberta--they didn't even run in the province's recent Senate elections.

Didn't Paul Martin's platform for the Liberal leadership advocate the elimination the democratic deficit?

Socialists Decrying Diversity at University

2005-03-15T12:47:00.000-04:00

This piece of journalistic tripe was brought to my attention on a listserv yesterday: some self-proclaimed "student activist" has penned an article for the New Socialist decrying the proliferation of conservatives contesting (and winning) student government elections in Ontario over the last five years.

The story is rich with contradictions: the author abhors conservative coalition-building on campuses in order to win elections, but then calls "for activists and progressives to bring these [student] unions back to their roots in integrated, progressive activism..."

He is aghast at the "resources devoted specifically to providing finances and political consultation to conservative candidates running in elections on a number of key university campuses..., despite ignoring that the uber-socialist Canadian Federation of Students has actively allowed its massive organisational and financial infrastructure to fund the campaigns of student government candidates sympathetic to its calls for free tuition, student protests, and opposition to the "neo-conservative" agenda for years.

It's often that student socialists lecture the university community on the lack of diversity on university campuses. However, when diverse, non-traditional voices want to challenge the student union status quo, the left defenestrates its rhetoric of diversity, choosing instead to support the uniformity of perspective it haughtily decries everywhere else but in its own backyard.

Richly ironic, but so typical.