The next 7 days could perhaps turn out to be one of the more exciting weeks in Canadian politics in some time. Or it could turn out to be a total bust. Either way, I won't be here to comment on it - I'm off for a well-deserved rest south of the border.
Before I go though, a couple of thoughts:
- Convential wisdom says that Stephen Harper wants an election immediately after the budget. Unconventional wisdom says that he doesn't. My guess is that Stevie will be happy to have or not have an election as long as whatever happens happens to be in his party's interest. Harper's funny like that.
-Jean Charest won't win the Quebec election.
That's all I've got folks. See you when the dust settles.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Shell game?
You know, there's an awful lot of support from some right-wing pundits for a merger of the Canadian political left - note who's in support out of this group.
(In passing, it's a remarkably cool idea that Maclean's has come up with - getting public luminaries to comment on stories. Whether it's actually a good idea is something I need to think about a little more).
Now why would the right be so gung-ho about merging the left? Maybe because it would allow the political dialogue in Canada to be pushed even farther to the right than it already is? Or because it would silence any discussion about proportional representation at the national level? Or because it would, psychologically, give the Conservative Party a hypothetical 50% of the national pie, which is 15% more than they have in reality?
Pat Martin's actual comments were in fact fairly forthright, honest and unrehearsed, which is of course they're being called a gaffe and why he's getting into trouble.
(In passing, it's a remarkably cool idea that Maclean's has come up with - getting public luminaries to comment on stories. Whether it's actually a good idea is something I need to think about a little more).
Now why would the right be so gung-ho about merging the left? Maybe because it would allow the political dialogue in Canada to be pushed even farther to the right than it already is? Or because it would silence any discussion about proportional representation at the national level? Or because it would, psychologically, give the Conservative Party a hypothetical 50% of the national pie, which is 15% more than they have in reality?
Pat Martin's actual comments were in fact fairly forthright, honest and unrehearsed, which is of course they're being called a gaffe and why he's getting into trouble.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
And speaking of autonomists...
I've just realised that most of my readership may in fact not be familiar with the links between the Harper Conservatives and Quebec's ADQ as I mentioned in my previous post. On doing a little digging, I discovered that my source for this information, a Canadian Press article written by one Alex Panetta, was only published in one Ontario paper, the Owen Sound Sun-Times (and if you don't know why I regularly read the Owen Sound Sun-Times, don't bother asking). Anyhoo, barring a searchable archive feature on the Sun-Times website, I will brave a CP cease-and-decist copywright injunction and post the article below in full:
Tory, ADQ ties run deep; Conservatives chock full of former Action democratique operatives (The Owen Sound Sun Times, March 6, 2007)
Copywright: The Canadian Press - Alexander Panetta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensive ties between the Harper government and Quebec's third-largest political party belie the popular wisdom that the federal powers that be are pulling in unison for a Liberal re-election in the province.
From the lowest echelons of the federal government all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office, political operatives who worked for and in some cases helped build the Action democratique du Quebec are sprinkled throughout the Harper Conservatives. "I'd even say a majority of the Conservatives' francophone personnel are Adequistes," one federal government official said Monday.
The close bond with the small-c conservative ADQ explains why the federal Tories are claiming partial neutrality in the Quebec campaign. Ministerial staff have the green light to criticize the sovereigntist Parti Quebecois but are forbidden from endorsing either of the two other parties. The ban on open campaigning does not extend to Conservative MPs, one of whom - Jacques Gourde - stumped for an ADQ candidate in a Quebec suburb last week.
The common bond between the Tories and Mario Dumont's party extends far beyond personnel.
Dumont was approached informally several times before the 2006 election about running for the federal party - and he insisted every time he has no intention of ever making the move to Ottawa.
Instead, he appears to have brought a piece of Tory Ottawa to provincial politics. With his party closing in on its two bigger rivals in the polls, Dumont has adopted a nearly identical campaign strategy to the one Harper used in 2006. He espouses similar ideas on child care, fiscal policy and law and order.
Those platform planks are being driven home in a daily announcement around 9 a.m. where Dumont sets the tone for the day's news coverage the same way Harper did in the 2006 election.
"It seems to be working fairly well for Mario," said Philippe Gervais, who has been a senior campaign official for the federal Tories and both the provincial Liberals and ADQ. That announcement-a-morning strategy - lifted from the playbook of Australian Prime Minister John Howard - was imported into Canadian politics by Harper after his disastrous final days of the 2004 federal campaign.
Dumont suffered a similar fate in the last provincial election. His support tanked in 2003 as he chose to comment on topics seemingly hand-picked by his opponents.
In Harper's case, he grew visibly frustrated amid daily grillings over same-sex marriage and on the Liberal charge he would suspend women's abortion rights.
For Dumont, the daily torment sprang from that most pervasive and perennial question in Quebec politics: Are you a sovereigntist or a federalist? Eager to draw support from both sides of the nationalist divide, Dumont has steadfastly avoided describing himself as either. But Dumont - who began his political life as a federalist provincial Liberal, then campaigned for the sovereigntists in the 1995 referendum - has consistently said it's time for Quebec to move beyond the national debate.
Federal Tories admit some consternation about Dumont's checkered constitutional past but they believe he's come full circle to his federalist roots.
If the Harper government has any questions about the party, it doesn't need to look very far for answers. Dumont's tour guide from the 2003 provincial election - Jean-Maurice Duplessis - is now the tour manager in Harper's office.
International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who was once a provincial Liberal staffer, made the switch to the ADQ and was a Quebec City regional organizer for the party in 2003. MP Stephen Blaney ran for the party in 1998 and fellow MP Jacques Gourde was an organizer in the last provincial campaign.
At least three spokespeople for Tory ministers - Jean-Luc Benoit, Isabelle Bouchard and Isabelle Fontaine - worked for the ADQ, as did Michele Lalonde, the chief of staff to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn.
Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign. He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties. "I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont," he said.
"Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ."
Tory, ADQ ties run deep; Conservatives chock full of former Action democratique operatives (The Owen Sound Sun Times, March 6, 2007)
Copywright: The Canadian Press - Alexander Panetta
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extensive ties between the Harper government and Quebec's third-largest political party belie the popular wisdom that the federal powers that be are pulling in unison for a Liberal re-election in the province.
From the lowest echelons of the federal government all the way up to the Prime Minister's Office, political operatives who worked for and in some cases helped build the Action democratique du Quebec are sprinkled throughout the Harper Conservatives. "I'd even say a majority of the Conservatives' francophone personnel are Adequistes," one federal government official said Monday.
The close bond with the small-c conservative ADQ explains why the federal Tories are claiming partial neutrality in the Quebec campaign. Ministerial staff have the green light to criticize the sovereigntist Parti Quebecois but are forbidden from endorsing either of the two other parties. The ban on open campaigning does not extend to Conservative MPs, one of whom - Jacques Gourde - stumped for an ADQ candidate in a Quebec suburb last week.
The common bond between the Tories and Mario Dumont's party extends far beyond personnel.
Dumont was approached informally several times before the 2006 election about running for the federal party - and he insisted every time he has no intention of ever making the move to Ottawa.
Instead, he appears to have brought a piece of Tory Ottawa to provincial politics. With his party closing in on its two bigger rivals in the polls, Dumont has adopted a nearly identical campaign strategy to the one Harper used in 2006. He espouses similar ideas on child care, fiscal policy and law and order.
Those platform planks are being driven home in a daily announcement around 9 a.m. where Dumont sets the tone for the day's news coverage the same way Harper did in the 2006 election.
"It seems to be working fairly well for Mario," said Philippe Gervais, who has been a senior campaign official for the federal Tories and both the provincial Liberals and ADQ. That announcement-a-morning strategy - lifted from the playbook of Australian Prime Minister John Howard - was imported into Canadian politics by Harper after his disastrous final days of the 2004 federal campaign.
Dumont suffered a similar fate in the last provincial election. His support tanked in 2003 as he chose to comment on topics seemingly hand-picked by his opponents.
In Harper's case, he grew visibly frustrated amid daily grillings over same-sex marriage and on the Liberal charge he would suspend women's abortion rights.
For Dumont, the daily torment sprang from that most pervasive and perennial question in Quebec politics: Are you a sovereigntist or a federalist? Eager to draw support from both sides of the nationalist divide, Dumont has steadfastly avoided describing himself as either. But Dumont - who began his political life as a federalist provincial Liberal, then campaigned for the sovereigntists in the 1995 referendum - has consistently said it's time for Quebec to move beyond the national debate.
Federal Tories admit some consternation about Dumont's checkered constitutional past but they believe he's come full circle to his federalist roots.
If the Harper government has any questions about the party, it doesn't need to look very far for answers. Dumont's tour guide from the 2003 provincial election - Jean-Maurice Duplessis - is now the tour manager in Harper's office.
International Co-operation Minister Josee Verner, who was once a provincial Liberal staffer, made the switch to the ADQ and was a Quebec City regional organizer for the party in 2003. MP Stephen Blaney ran for the party in 1998 and fellow MP Jacques Gourde was an organizer in the last provincial campaign.
At least three spokespeople for Tory ministers - Jean-Luc Benoit, Isabelle Bouchard and Isabelle Fontaine - worked for the ADQ, as did Michele Lalonde, the chief of staff to Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn.
Gervais was the Tories' deputy campaign manager in 2006, helped run Dumont's tour in 2003 and served a similar function with Charest in the 1998 provincial campaign. He says the federal Tories harbour no bias for either of the non-separatist parties. "I think Mr. Harper has had a very good relationship with the Liberal government and also has a good one with Mr. Dumont," he said.
"Is there a preference there? I don't think so. It's more of a hands-off approach and let Quebecers decide what they want to do. I guess the only one they don't want is the PQ."
Quebec City Nights
Had a good time last evening thanks to the wonders of l'Internet, watching the Quebec Leader's Debate on Radio-Canada's website. A few thoughts:
- I really liked the colour of Andre Boisclair's suit (and tie! - was the green for the environment, or to celebrate Quebec's Irish heritage? I suspect the former). If he somehow manages to pull out an electoral win, Boisclair will leapfrog over Nova Scotia's Rodney MacDonald to become, in my books anyway, Canada's most attractive Premier by far.
- Jean Charest's hair: better than it was circa 1995, but still terrible, terrible.
- Why aren't federal leadership debates held in some classy room on Parliament Hill, instead of on some god-awful set in a Nepean soundstage? The National Assembly seems like a cool building, and indirectly managed to help all three leaders appear slightly more like statesmen, and less like sleazeballs.
- In terms of the actual debate:
-I was quite impressed with Boisclair (I admit that I'm predisposed to like him, despite his status as a flaming separatist). He came off well - quite measured (he actually became more so as the debate wore on), animated and convicing in debate, especially with Dumont. He wasn't perfect - he sometimes interrupted Charest too often - but very good.
-Charest was also good, but seemed weary - "defensive" is the word columnists are using. When Dumont challenged him on his accomplishments on behalf of Quebec at the federal level, Charest rhymed off several quite reasonable examples (the Council of the Federation, more money, etc). Dumont pressed more and more aggressively, clearly trying to bait Charest to anger. I expected Charest to turn the tables on Dumont by taking a tack similar to that of Boisclair earlier in the evening - when he repeatedly asked of Dumont, I think to Dumon's detriment, what new powers the ADQ's ludicrous "autonomy" position would actually seek of the federal government - but Charest simply repeated his answer over and over resignedly. He looked like a Premier, but not a very dynamic one.
-As for Mario Dumont, I admit that I'm inclined to dislike his party and his policies, for a number of reasons. I had no reason to feel otherwise after last night. Dumont played to the bleachers all evening - he was sharp and a little wild in his attacks, and played to his rural nationalist base in a way that struck me as more than a little xenophobic.
What's remarkable, for an anglo, is just how anti-Canadian all three leaders, not just Boisclair, seemed to be. Charest and Dumont have similar views of Quebec's place in Canada (more money, more autonomy) whereas Boisclair would settle for the latter outside of Confederation even if it meant passing on the former.
The fourth person present at the debate, though not of course in person, was Stephen Harper. His shadow (and fingerprints) are all over this election, and many are touting Monday's federal budget as one of the campaign's defining moments. I'm not sure how it's going to go down, and I am starting to have a sneaking suspicion that the budget will not be as overtly good for Quebec as many are predicting it will be. I've mentioned before the ties between the ADQ and the federal Conservatives, particularly in the area of operatives on the ground. I wonder if perhaps our Stephen will find some way to reinforce the ADQ's message, and thus its electoral fortunes, if he feels as if Jean Charest is a bit of a canard. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who suggested building a firewall around Alberta - if that's not autonomy, I don't know what is.
- I really liked the colour of Andre Boisclair's suit (and tie! - was the green for the environment, or to celebrate Quebec's Irish heritage? I suspect the former). If he somehow manages to pull out an electoral win, Boisclair will leapfrog over Nova Scotia's Rodney MacDonald to become, in my books anyway, Canada's most attractive Premier by far.
- Jean Charest's hair: better than it was circa 1995, but still terrible, terrible.
- Why aren't federal leadership debates held in some classy room on Parliament Hill, instead of on some god-awful set in a Nepean soundstage? The National Assembly seems like a cool building, and indirectly managed to help all three leaders appear slightly more like statesmen, and less like sleazeballs.
- In terms of the actual debate:
-I was quite impressed with Boisclair (I admit that I'm predisposed to like him, despite his status as a flaming separatist). He came off well - quite measured (he actually became more so as the debate wore on), animated and convicing in debate, especially with Dumont. He wasn't perfect - he sometimes interrupted Charest too often - but very good.
-Charest was also good, but seemed weary - "defensive" is the word columnists are using. When Dumont challenged him on his accomplishments on behalf of Quebec at the federal level, Charest rhymed off several quite reasonable examples (the Council of the Federation, more money, etc). Dumont pressed more and more aggressively, clearly trying to bait Charest to anger. I expected Charest to turn the tables on Dumont by taking a tack similar to that of Boisclair earlier in the evening - when he repeatedly asked of Dumont, I think to Dumon's detriment, what new powers the ADQ's ludicrous "autonomy" position would actually seek of the federal government - but Charest simply repeated his answer over and over resignedly. He looked like a Premier, but not a very dynamic one.
-As for Mario Dumont, I admit that I'm inclined to dislike his party and his policies, for a number of reasons. I had no reason to feel otherwise after last night. Dumont played to the bleachers all evening - he was sharp and a little wild in his attacks, and played to his rural nationalist base in a way that struck me as more than a little xenophobic.
What's remarkable, for an anglo, is just how anti-Canadian all three leaders, not just Boisclair, seemed to be. Charest and Dumont have similar views of Quebec's place in Canada (more money, more autonomy) whereas Boisclair would settle for the latter outside of Confederation even if it meant passing on the former.
The fourth person present at the debate, though not of course in person, was Stephen Harper. His shadow (and fingerprints) are all over this election, and many are touting Monday's federal budget as one of the campaign's defining moments. I'm not sure how it's going to go down, and I am starting to have a sneaking suspicion that the budget will not be as overtly good for Quebec as many are predicting it will be. I've mentioned before the ties between the ADQ and the federal Conservatives, particularly in the area of operatives on the ground. I wonder if perhaps our Stephen will find some way to reinforce the ADQ's message, and thus its electoral fortunes, if he feels as if Jean Charest is a bit of a canard. Remember, this is the Prime Minister who suggested building a firewall around Alberta - if that's not autonomy, I don't know what is.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Kill all the lawyers?
An article from the Washington Post sheds yet more light on what looks to be an increasingly ugly, damaging and wide-ranging scandal involving the White House, the Department of Justice, and a purge of US Attorneys not considered loyal enough to the Republican cause by Karl Rove and Harriet Meyers. (In doing so, the Post also shows just how badly the wheels have come off the Bush administration) . And they wanted to put this woman on the Supreme Court?
Thursday, March 08, 2007
"Vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle"
Stephane Dion gets flack, flack, and more flack in todays' national papers. I'm sorry, but this is getting a little ridiculous.
The current political clime reminds me particularly of that famous line from W.B. Yeats' "The Second Coming," about the best lacking all conviction, and the worst being full of passionate intensity.
Every day, vitriol pours down on Dion from all sides. Of course the Liberal leader is not a saint, and is still finding his rhythm (and under some of the most stressful political conditions possible). Of course he's made gaffes.
But in the 24-hour news cycle echo chamber, what's really remarkable, more so than getting a story reported, is getting a story reported again and again, and again. And it's that last fact that is helping the Reformed-Name Party to win hands down.
Does any Canadian really believe that there are no debates or discussions around policy or strategy inside "Canada's New Government" (or as I've taken to calling it, Canada's Ewww Government)? No factions? No competing interests? No changes in position? No disagreements around the Cabinet table? Chalk it up to the Prime Minister's legendary anal-retentiveness that very little of that ever comes up in the press. But when Harper changes a position (on the environment, on Quebec, on Iraq) it's "statesmanlike." Columnists are already calling Dion "Flipper."
Jason Cherniak suggests that the Liberals need to grin and bear things for the moment. I agree. But the Liberals also have to start operating like an Opposition party. Stephen Harper does - his entire strategy has been to pretend to be in oppositon even while in government. And the Liberals also have to find a way to get the press, sympathetically conservative as they are, to be, if not on-side, then at least not offside. 'Cause at the moment there aren't too many people crying foul.
The current political clime reminds me particularly of that famous line from W.B. Yeats' "The Second Coming," about the best lacking all conviction, and the worst being full of passionate intensity.
Every day, vitriol pours down on Dion from all sides. Of course the Liberal leader is not a saint, and is still finding his rhythm (and under some of the most stressful political conditions possible). Of course he's made gaffes.
But in the 24-hour news cycle echo chamber, what's really remarkable, more so than getting a story reported, is getting a story reported again and again, and again. And it's that last fact that is helping the Reformed-Name Party to win hands down.
Does any Canadian really believe that there are no debates or discussions around policy or strategy inside "Canada's New Government" (or as I've taken to calling it, Canada's Ewww Government)? No factions? No competing interests? No changes in position? No disagreements around the Cabinet table? Chalk it up to the Prime Minister's legendary anal-retentiveness that very little of that ever comes up in the press. But when Harper changes a position (on the environment, on Quebec, on Iraq) it's "statesmanlike." Columnists are already calling Dion "Flipper."
Jason Cherniak suggests that the Liberals need to grin and bear things for the moment. I agree. But the Liberals also have to start operating like an Opposition party. Stephen Harper does - his entire strategy has been to pretend to be in oppositon even while in government. And the Liberals also have to find a way to get the press, sympathetically conservative as they are, to be, if not on-side, then at least not offside. 'Cause at the moment there aren't too many people crying foul.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Paul Wells asks...
"Stéphane Dion and André Boisclair both in trouble. What's it all mean?"
One is tempted to say "nothing," but that's not really allowed.
One is tempted to say that the Canadian anglophone media establishment really dislikes left-wing Quebeckers, but that's not a particularly satisfying answer.
One is tempted to say that Canadians are often complacent about their progressivism, and allow a minority of conservative voices in business and the punditry to dictate the tone and pace of national debate to the detriment of the aforementioned leaders, but that's essentially the same response as answer number two.
One is tempted to say that Canadians now yearn for an unheralded era of freedom, capitalism and neoconservative opportunity, along with strong right-wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies and neo-fascist family-values policies - but that's possibly sensationalist, and possibly also wrong.
One is tempted to say (and many have said it) that Stephen Harper is one of the most strategically focused, and unscrupulously opportunistic, Prime Ministers that this country has ever seen, and that Jean Charest never met a strategic, unscrupulous opportunist he didn't recognize from the bathroom mirror.
One is tempted to say, metaphorically, that we as Canadians are a bit at sea at the moment - gasping and sputtering for air while simultaneously pushing people off the boat, letting the boiler run out of control, drilling holes in the hull, and throwing tomatoes at the people trying to hand out the life-jackets.
One is tempted to say that it's all about a little bit of all of the above. One might even be half-right.
One is tempted to say "nothing," but that's not really allowed.
One is tempted to say that the Canadian anglophone media establishment really dislikes left-wing Quebeckers, but that's not a particularly satisfying answer.
One is tempted to say that Canadians are often complacent about their progressivism, and allow a minority of conservative voices in business and the punditry to dictate the tone and pace of national debate to the detriment of the aforementioned leaders, but that's essentially the same response as answer number two.
One is tempted to say that Canadians now yearn for an unheralded era of freedom, capitalism and neoconservative opportunity, along with strong right-wing leaders with authoritarian tendencies and neo-fascist family-values policies - but that's possibly sensationalist, and possibly also wrong.
One is tempted to say (and many have said it) that Stephen Harper is one of the most strategically focused, and unscrupulously opportunistic, Prime Ministers that this country has ever seen, and that Jean Charest never met a strategic, unscrupulous opportunist he didn't recognize from the bathroom mirror.
One is tempted to say, metaphorically, that we as Canadians are a bit at sea at the moment - gasping and sputtering for air while simultaneously pushing people off the boat, letting the boiler run out of control, drilling holes in the hull, and throwing tomatoes at the people trying to hand out the life-jackets.
One is tempted to say that it's all about a little bit of all of the above. One might even be half-right.
Monday, March 05, 2007
"Everybody loves the sound of a train in the distance"...
The country's mayors prepare to do polite but pitched battle with the federal government on transit funding.
I love and am committed to public transit, but manufacturing subway cars and building buses is a pretty industrially intensive proposition. Whereas if we all walked a little more, or cycled, it would not only cut down on our car AND subway use, but would also benefit our bottom lines (and waist lines) in the long-term.
Which goes to show how, in the modern world, even the causes of progress are sometimes double-edged.
Just sayin'. Miller and Co., knock 'em dead.
I love and am committed to public transit, but manufacturing subway cars and building buses is a pretty industrially intensive proposition. Whereas if we all walked a little more, or cycled, it would not only cut down on our car AND subway use, but would also benefit our bottom lines (and waist lines) in the long-term.
Which goes to show how, in the modern world, even the causes of progress are sometimes double-edged.
Just sayin'. Miller and Co., knock 'em dead.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Truth Comes Out
"Earlier this week, Louis Champagne, host of the top-rated morning show in the Saguenay area, taunted a local PQ candidate who is gay.
In an interview, he asked Sylvain Gaudreault, the candidate in Jonquière, whether it was harder to sell a leader with a different sexual orientation, especially to the local factory workers. 'When you show up with another homosexual, aren't you going to be asked the question, 'Listen, the PQ, isn't that a club of fags?'"....
A clip television stations replayed throughout the day yesterday showed Mr. Boisclair looking uneasy and speechless for several seconds when asked about the radio interview."
-from today's Globe and Mail
Frankly, I think I'd be a little uneasy too.
I'd always wondered why there wasn't more attention paid to the fact that Andre Boisclair could potentially become the first openly gay premier in Canadian history, and now I know why.
When you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in downtown Toronto, it's easy not just to feel secure about your own life as a gay man, but also to feel secure about the place of queers in Canada's collective life.
But there are sometimes news items - like the negative comments from at least one prominent TV pundit when Ontario's Health Minister announced he was marrying his partner, or this business about Boisclair - that makes me wonder if the anxiety my father expressed to me when I came out (that it would be hard to get a job because I was gay) didn't have a very small wrinkle of truth to it. We can have gay MPs, or even gay ministers, sure - but when the shit really hits the political fan, I wonder if old-fashioned bigotry doesn't rear its ugly head, sometimes, after all.
Sometimes gay men are criticized purportedly not because they're gay, but because they act "irresponsibly" - but irresponsibility can be aggravated, in the eyes of some, by the mere fact of sexual orientation. I don't think Boisclair, with his years of Montreal club-going, saw the danger - if he had, he probably wouldn't have been caught in that Brokeback Mountain farrago.
Hang in there, Andre: you may be an ex-coke addict and a separatist, but at least you've only ever abandoned a drug addiction, not a political party.
UPDATE: The Globe's Konrad Yakabuski goes into the gory details ($) - Andre can call me anytime!
In an interview, he asked Sylvain Gaudreault, the candidate in Jonquière, whether it was harder to sell a leader with a different sexual orientation, especially to the local factory workers. 'When you show up with another homosexual, aren't you going to be asked the question, 'Listen, the PQ, isn't that a club of fags?'"....
A clip television stations replayed throughout the day yesterday showed Mr. Boisclair looking uneasy and speechless for several seconds when asked about the radio interview."
-from today's Globe and Mail
Frankly, I think I'd be a little uneasy too.
I'd always wondered why there wasn't more attention paid to the fact that Andre Boisclair could potentially become the first openly gay premier in Canadian history, and now I know why.
When you're lucky enough, as I am, to live in downtown Toronto, it's easy not just to feel secure about your own life as a gay man, but also to feel secure about the place of queers in Canada's collective life.
But there are sometimes news items - like the negative comments from at least one prominent TV pundit when Ontario's Health Minister announced he was marrying his partner, or this business about Boisclair - that makes me wonder if the anxiety my father expressed to me when I came out (that it would be hard to get a job because I was gay) didn't have a very small wrinkle of truth to it. We can have gay MPs, or even gay ministers, sure - but when the shit really hits the political fan, I wonder if old-fashioned bigotry doesn't rear its ugly head, sometimes, after all.
Sometimes gay men are criticized purportedly not because they're gay, but because they act "irresponsibly" - but irresponsibility can be aggravated, in the eyes of some, by the mere fact of sexual orientation. I don't think Boisclair, with his years of Montreal club-going, saw the danger - if he had, he probably wouldn't have been caught in that Brokeback Mountain farrago.
Hang in there, Andre: you may be an ex-coke addict and a separatist, but at least you've only ever abandoned a drug addiction, not a political party.
UPDATE: The Globe's Konrad Yakabuski goes into the gory details ($) - Andre can call me anytime!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
As You Leek It
Today is St. David's Day. St. David is the patron saint of Wales - and if anyone is planning on moving to that lovely land and is looking for an agricultural position, they might want to take a gander at this.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
The Age of Terror
This week's heated debate on the Terrorism Act reminded me of a pertinent, if affected, post on the subject of terrorism from nine months or so ago, and especially the fine article by Slate's William Saletan that it links to.
Saletan's point (and mine) is this: that it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack, just as it is impossible to stop every child being hit by a car, or every married man looking at another man. The likelyhood of each can be lessened (in the case of terrorism, hopefully to a very low threshold; in the case of the other man, realistically to a slightly higher one ), but eventually the law of diminishing returns makes further expense of blood and treasure (on the man or the mission) useless, at best.
Given this reality - that after a certain point more and more resources must be consumed, and more and more liberties curtailed, to chase a "safety" that is impossible - our society has to consider not only how to absorb, deter or neutralise evil, but how to foster good, in our own and in our culture's communal lives. Bolstering society's positives will in fact advance the former.
"In a liquid world," Saletan writes, "you can't seal off evil." And it's not a bad Lenten thought to remember that there's a little evil incorporated into all of us. The point of every enduring system of human belief, is to overcome that evil not by ignoring it, dwelling on it or violently suppresing it. The point of overcoming evil is to accept its existence, be aware of its effects, and work tireless to shun it, marginalize it, diminish it, and deal with it without fanfare if it grows too prominent.
We will never be rid of evil, in the body personal or the body politic. But we'll never be bereft of good either, and that's what we have to nurture, support, encourage, celebrate and exhalt.
I believe, and always have, that our criminal justice system and its thousand years of juridical evolution has determined quite a fine balance between our liberties as people and the duties of our state. Measures such as "preventative" arrests, the holding of people indefinitely without trial, or the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus don't just upset that balance - they deny its relevance and even its existence. They threaten to undermine our entire civil process because they hamstring one of our most successful, and flexible tools of the greater good - a rule of law that has at is centre two vital tenets, the presumption of legal innocence, and an individual's trial and examination by a body of their peers.
Saletan ends his article with a quote from Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Everyone knows there's truth in this. But we as a species are unique for one reason only: we have some small ability to respond to change with new changes of our own, to create change proactively. This means we, as people and as a people, must become better at bending, not breaking; and turning and turning, until we come round right.
Saletan's point (and mine) is this: that it is impossible to stop every terrorist attack, just as it is impossible to stop every child being hit by a car, or every married man looking at another man. The likelyhood of each can be lessened (in the case of terrorism, hopefully to a very low threshold; in the case of the other man, realistically to a slightly higher one ), but eventually the law of diminishing returns makes further expense of blood and treasure (on the man or the mission) useless, at best.
Given this reality - that after a certain point more and more resources must be consumed, and more and more liberties curtailed, to chase a "safety" that is impossible - our society has to consider not only how to absorb, deter or neutralise evil, but how to foster good, in our own and in our culture's communal lives. Bolstering society's positives will in fact advance the former.
"In a liquid world," Saletan writes, "you can't seal off evil." And it's not a bad Lenten thought to remember that there's a little evil incorporated into all of us. The point of every enduring system of human belief, is to overcome that evil not by ignoring it, dwelling on it or violently suppresing it. The point of overcoming evil is to accept its existence, be aware of its effects, and work tireless to shun it, marginalize it, diminish it, and deal with it without fanfare if it grows too prominent.
We will never be rid of evil, in the body personal or the body politic. But we'll never be bereft of good either, and that's what we have to nurture, support, encourage, celebrate and exhalt.
I believe, and always have, that our criminal justice system and its thousand years of juridical evolution has determined quite a fine balance between our liberties as people and the duties of our state. Measures such as "preventative" arrests, the holding of people indefinitely without trial, or the suspension of the writ of habeus corpus don't just upset that balance - they deny its relevance and even its existence. They threaten to undermine our entire civil process because they hamstring one of our most successful, and flexible tools of the greater good - a rule of law that has at is centre two vital tenets, the presumption of legal innocence, and an individual's trial and examination by a body of their peers.
Saletan ends his article with a quote from Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change." Everyone knows there's truth in this. But we as a species are unique for one reason only: we have some small ability to respond to change with new changes of our own, to create change proactively. This means we, as people and as a people, must become better at bending, not breaking; and turning and turning, until we come round right.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Harry Potter and the Role in the Hay
It's nice (very nice) to see Daniel Radcliffe playing against type.
Monday, February 26, 2007
She ain't the queen of denial...
If it quacks like a duck
Another tedious canard of the current Canadian political clime: the notion that the Liberal party (or any party, for that matter) deserves to be out of power simply because they've governed for a long time, and that the Conservative pary (or any party, for that matter) should continue in office because they've only been in power a short time and deserve further opportunity to show what they can do. By this logic, the New Democratic Party is the most deserving of forming the next government, and one should only oppose a government's policies after they've become so entrenched as to be unrepealable.
Come off it, people. Vote against a government because you don't like their policies, and say so. If you feel the need to disguise your true motivation with an anodyne excuse downplaying the seriousness of your decision, you might perhaps want to examine just why you're so uncomfortable speaking your true mind, and just what you feel so guilty about.
Come off it, people. Vote against a government because you don't like their policies, and say so. If you feel the need to disguise your true motivation with an anodyne excuse downplaying the seriousness of your decision, you might perhaps want to examine just why you're so uncomfortable speaking your true mind, and just what you feel so guilty about.
Hold the Steamed Grits
Super-bored this morning at the Palais de Bureaucracie, so you're getting a lot of my political musings.
A blog well worth reading is Cherniak on Politics, written by former Trinitron and budding political maestro Jason Cherniak. Jason is well-connected within the Canadian political blogosphere (by some accounts, he helped create the Canadian political blogosphere) so his posts tend to generate quite a bit of (sometimes remarkably vitriolic) debate and discussion from various points on the political spectrum.
I intensely dislike the kind of personal baiting that some of Jason's more conservative readers seem to feel is appropriate to deploy when debating public policy (though I suppose they have only their fearless leader as a role model), and it's to Jason's credit that he is invariably polite, if impassioned, in his responses. And it's not like I've never descended to name-calling either.
A blog well worth reading is Cherniak on Politics, written by former Trinitron and budding political maestro Jason Cherniak. Jason is well-connected within the Canadian political blogosphere (by some accounts, he helped create the Canadian political blogosphere) so his posts tend to generate quite a bit of (sometimes remarkably vitriolic) debate and discussion from various points on the political spectrum.
I intensely dislike the kind of personal baiting that some of Jason's more conservative readers seem to feel is appropriate to deploy when debating public policy (though I suppose they have only their fearless leader as a role model), and it's to Jason's credit that he is invariably polite, if impassioned, in his responses. And it's not like I've never descended to name-calling either.
Scream of Wheat
I wonder if the fracas over the Canadian Wheat Board might swing away a little Conservative support in the West? Just askin....
You call this progress?
Chantal Hebert obliquely suggests uniting the Canadian left into some weird, ungainly, many-headed behemoth (can you really see John McKay and Libby Davies chumming it up in caucus meetings?)
The suggestion is a bit of a walk-0ff in Hebert's column, but it's a canard that does get occasional press from some quarters, which is too bad: it would be quite challenging, and unpleasant, to merge two quite different parties (the centrish Liberals and the leftish NDP), to say nothing of throwing the Greens into the mix; and I'll reiterare my usual gripe that under some sort of proportional electoral system all this would be a moot point.
But apart from these qualms, Hebert's exempla need to be tackled in a little bit of detail. Hebert identifies two apparent problems for the left - progressive New Democrats and Liberals battling each other in urban ridings, and progressive Liberals and BQists battling each other in Quebec ridings.
The latter problem, of course, isn't really much of one, inasmuch as it's really part of the larger problem that is the BQ, a question (along with the murky world of Quebec politics) that I feel underqualified to comment on extensively. Let's just say that if it were in Quebec's interest to massively cut taxes and ban gay marriage, the BQ would likely support such things - that is to say, the fact that the BQ is a socially progressive party is thanks to the fact that Quebec is a socially progressive province but that it is Quebec, and not social progress, that comes first. As such, the BQ is a wild card, and I have no problem with Liberals taking out BQ candidates - I've often said that if Quebec ever achieves indepedence I'll be the first one to move there, but until that day comes I'm as staunch a federalist as they come.
The former problem, while more vexing, is not always a "problem" per say either. While I would prefer to see the maximum possible number of New Democratic MPs elected, for the purposes of the next election what I really want is the maximum possible number of Conservative MPs defeated. My first concern isn't therefore over ridings like Trinity-Spadina or Toronto-Centre - I'm more worried by places like BC's Fleetwood - Port Kells, where the combined NDP-Liberal vote outpolled the Conservative vote by almost 20%.
Of course, as I've already noted, the NDP and Liberals are different parties, with different principles, thus, my hatred of strategic voting - it's a particularly unfair game to force the electorate to play (die, FPTP!) That said, allliances between the NDP and Liberals have been one of the more common features of Canadian electoral politics.
Y'all want my advice? Libs and NDPers, sit down and figure out who got more votes in some key ridings last election (think BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southern Ontario) - then concentrate your respective resources in the places you came closest to beating the Conservatives. If you're really committed to a progressive Canada, you know there's one goal that's more important that gaining partisan advantage: stopping Stephen Harper.
The suggestion is a bit of a walk-0ff in Hebert's column, but it's a canard that does get occasional press from some quarters, which is too bad: it would be quite challenging, and unpleasant, to merge two quite different parties (the centrish Liberals and the leftish NDP), to say nothing of throwing the Greens into the mix; and I'll reiterare my usual gripe that under some sort of proportional electoral system all this would be a moot point.
But apart from these qualms, Hebert's exempla need to be tackled in a little bit of detail. Hebert identifies two apparent problems for the left - progressive New Democrats and Liberals battling each other in urban ridings, and progressive Liberals and BQists battling each other in Quebec ridings.
The latter problem, of course, isn't really much of one, inasmuch as it's really part of the larger problem that is the BQ, a question (along with the murky world of Quebec politics) that I feel underqualified to comment on extensively. Let's just say that if it were in Quebec's interest to massively cut taxes and ban gay marriage, the BQ would likely support such things - that is to say, the fact that the BQ is a socially progressive party is thanks to the fact that Quebec is a socially progressive province but that it is Quebec, and not social progress, that comes first. As such, the BQ is a wild card, and I have no problem with Liberals taking out BQ candidates - I've often said that if Quebec ever achieves indepedence I'll be the first one to move there, but until that day comes I'm as staunch a federalist as they come.
The former problem, while more vexing, is not always a "problem" per say either. While I would prefer to see the maximum possible number of New Democratic MPs elected, for the purposes of the next election what I really want is the maximum possible number of Conservative MPs defeated. My first concern isn't therefore over ridings like Trinity-Spadina or Toronto-Centre - I'm more worried by places like BC's Fleetwood - Port Kells, where the combined NDP-Liberal vote outpolled the Conservative vote by almost 20%.
Of course, as I've already noted, the NDP and Liberals are different parties, with different principles, thus, my hatred of strategic voting - it's a particularly unfair game to force the electorate to play (die, FPTP!) That said, allliances between the NDP and Liberals have been one of the more common features of Canadian electoral politics.
Y'all want my advice? Libs and NDPers, sit down and figure out who got more votes in some key ridings last election (think BC, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and southern Ontario) - then concentrate your respective resources in the places you came closest to beating the Conservatives. If you're really committed to a progressive Canada, you know there's one goal that's more important that gaining partisan advantage: stopping Stephen Harper.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
It ain't easy being Green?
Lawrence Martin remains one of the few Canadian national current affairs columnists keeping a cool head while others all around are losing theirs, and I say this not just because he agrees ($) with everything I wrote on Tuesday.
On the Green Party: whether it can succesfully maintain its high level of public support through an election campaign and into seats is an open question.
-Points in favour: a) Elizabeth May is a credible and apparently likeable type who made quite a splash in her London by-election try, and b) both andecdotal and polling evidence suggests a large segment of the Canadian population (my mother included) are taking to a sort of hands-on, lifestyle-oriented environmental custodianship in their daily lives, and would like governments to follow suit.
-Points against: a) as Martin notes, the Green Party's support is distributed in a way meaning our decrepit FPTP electoral system will ensure votes aren't necessarily translated into seats, and b) without increased media exposure (read: the frikkin' televised leaders' debates) many Canadians won't be inclined to get knowledgeable and comfortable with the Green platform and will revert to their previous party of choice in the polling booth.
It's interesting to note that according to even the Strategic Council the Liberals have lost the least support to the Greens relative to their numbers from the last election - 1% or so, compared to 2% from the Conservatives and 3% from the NDP. All these numbers are admittedly rounded and imprecise. But even if the mainstream parties gain back 4% of the Green vote, the Greens would still poll at 8%, and have oodles of federal money to play with for the subsequent (it's not going to end, folks) national vote.
Moreover, 66% of Canadians would vote for a party that supports the Kyoto Protocol and all that it represents.
All this being said, the Libs still need win over around half a million folks who voted Conservative last election. It's gonna take some English lessons for Stephan, and a coherent, authentic policy platform supported by what I think should be a very positive (and as a bonus, funny) ad campaign. Get on it, people!
Meanwhile, our "decisive," "visionary" Prime Minister is using shock-and-awe tactics to smear backbench Liberal MPPs on the floor of the House. No wonder Jack Layton scores higher on charisma...
On the Green Party: whether it can succesfully maintain its high level of public support through an election campaign and into seats is an open question.
-Points in favour: a) Elizabeth May is a credible and apparently likeable type who made quite a splash in her London by-election try, and b) both andecdotal and polling evidence suggests a large segment of the Canadian population (my mother included) are taking to a sort of hands-on, lifestyle-oriented environmental custodianship in their daily lives, and would like governments to follow suit.
-Points against: a) as Martin notes, the Green Party's support is distributed in a way meaning our decrepit FPTP electoral system will ensure votes aren't necessarily translated into seats, and b) without increased media exposure (read: the frikkin' televised leaders' debates) many Canadians won't be inclined to get knowledgeable and comfortable with the Green platform and will revert to their previous party of choice in the polling booth.
It's interesting to note that according to even the Strategic Council the Liberals have lost the least support to the Greens relative to their numbers from the last election - 1% or so, compared to 2% from the Conservatives and 3% from the NDP. All these numbers are admittedly rounded and imprecise. But even if the mainstream parties gain back 4% of the Green vote, the Greens would still poll at 8%, and have oodles of federal money to play with for the subsequent (it's not going to end, folks) national vote.
Moreover, 66% of Canadians would vote for a party that supports the Kyoto Protocol and all that it represents.
All this being said, the Libs still need win over around half a million folks who voted Conservative last election. It's gonna take some English lessons for Stephan, and a coherent, authentic policy platform supported by what I think should be a very positive (and as a bonus, funny) ad campaign. Get on it, people!
Meanwhile, our "decisive," "visionary" Prime Minister is using shock-and-awe tactics to smear backbench Liberal MPPs on the floor of the House. No wonder Jack Layton scores higher on charisma...
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Putsch comes to shove?
The Globe and Mail editorial board decides to give a shove ($) to the anti-Dion bandwagon, damning with faint praise as only the G&M can....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
