Un article assez stupéfiant dans Le Monde qui raconte l'apparition en Irak d'un programme permettant de capter les images numériques transmises par les drones de l'armée américaine à leur poste de commande.
Le coût du programme: 26$!
Friday, December 18, 2009
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Le sénat sert bien à quelque chose
J'ai toujours défendu l'importance du sénat; cet article montre bien pourquoi.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-senate-alters-key-tory-crime-bill/article1395268/
On sait depuis longtemps que les peines d'emprisonnement minimales ne réduisent pas le taux de criminalité. Elles ont plutôt l'effet de surcharger le système carcéral. Or jamais un politicien élu n'aurait osé modifier un projet de loi anti-drogue pour en enlever les peines d'emprisonnement minimales. Seul nos sénateurs, n'ont pas les mêmes contraintes politiques, peuvent prendre ces décisions qui servent le mieux l'intérêt national.
Les Sénateurs n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, et c'est bien leur utilité. Ils n'auront jamais un poids politique équivalent à celui de leurs collègues députés, mais s'ils empêchent des projets de lois périlleux de voir le jour, ils auront rempli leur fonction.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-senate-alters-key-tory-crime-bill/article1395268/
On sait depuis longtemps que les peines d'emprisonnement minimales ne réduisent pas le taux de criminalité. Elles ont plutôt l'effet de surcharger le système carcéral. Or jamais un politicien élu n'aurait osé modifier un projet de loi anti-drogue pour en enlever les peines d'emprisonnement minimales. Seul nos sénateurs, n'ont pas les mêmes contraintes politiques, peuvent prendre ces décisions qui servent le mieux l'intérêt national.
Les Sénateurs n'ont de comptes à rendre à personne, et c'est bien leur utilité. Ils n'auront jamais un poids politique équivalent à celui de leurs collègues députés, mais s'ils empêchent des projets de lois périlleux de voir le jour, ils auront rempli leur fonction.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
The Globe
The Globe and Mail, Canada's self-styled newspaper of record, has just published an editorial calling for 'a new national project: to make Canada a clean-energy superpower.'
So the Globe believes we should become a Green super power. Good idea, but how? Well, while there are many steps to reducing carbon emissions, everyone agrees on the necessity of attaching a price to carbon. A carbon tax, in other words.
That's what Stéphane Dion wanted. That's what Stephen Harper campaigned against. But who did our newspaper of record endorse in last year's election campaign? Steven Harper.
So the Globe believes we should become a Green super power. Good idea, but how? Well, while there are many steps to reducing carbon emissions, everyone agrees on the necessity of attaching a price to carbon. A carbon tax, in other words.
That's what Stéphane Dion wanted. That's what Stephen Harper campaigned against. But who did our newspaper of record endorse in last year's election campaign? Steven Harper.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Échec au Président
Hier matin, Barack Obama a annoncé l'envoi de 30 000 troupes américaines supplémentaires en Afghanistan qui s'ajouteront aux 70 000 déjà présentes. Il y aura ainsi plus de soldats américains en Afghanistan qu'il y en avait de russes dans les années 1980s.
C'est sans compter la mince affaire de l'Iraq, où 130 000 soldats américains sont stationnés. En tout, environ 230 000 soldats américains, soit le sixième des effectifs de l'armée, sont engagés en situation de guerre en Iraq ou en Afghanistan.
Plus tôt cette semaine, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a révélé son intention de construire dix nouvelles centrales nucléaires en Iran. Historiquement, la planète pouvait compter sur les États-Unis pour surveiller les régimes totalitaires agressifs de ce type. Cela risque de ne plus être vrai.
La capacité d'action (de réaction, plutôt) de l'armée américaine souffre de son embourbement en Iraq en en Afghanistan. Si jamais l'Iran tentait de mettre en place un programme nucléaire, l'armée américaine serait incapable de l'en empêcher, pour des simples raisons d'effectifs et d'argent. Tout ça, Ahmadinejad le sait très bien. En s'obstinant à saigner ses troupes en Afghanistan en les mettant à la poursuite de fantômes, Obama donne carte blanche à un tyran fou à la tête d'un pays de 70 millions d'habitants.
C'est sans compter la mince affaire de l'Iraq, où 130 000 soldats américains sont stationnés. En tout, environ 230 000 soldats américains, soit le sixième des effectifs de l'armée, sont engagés en situation de guerre en Iraq ou en Afghanistan.
Plus tôt cette semaine, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a révélé son intention de construire dix nouvelles centrales nucléaires en Iran. Historiquement, la planète pouvait compter sur les États-Unis pour surveiller les régimes totalitaires agressifs de ce type. Cela risque de ne plus être vrai.
La capacité d'action (de réaction, plutôt) de l'armée américaine souffre de son embourbement en Iraq en en Afghanistan. Si jamais l'Iran tentait de mettre en place un programme nucléaire, l'armée américaine serait incapable de l'en empêcher, pour des simples raisons d'effectifs et d'argent. Tout ça, Ahmadinejad le sait très bien. En s'obstinant à saigner ses troupes en Afghanistan en les mettant à la poursuite de fantômes, Obama donne carte blanche à un tyran fou à la tête d'un pays de 70 millions d'habitants.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Consumers Should Pay?
Ahead of next month's climate change summit in Copenhagen, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has been lobbying for what he calls 'realistic' targets. Stelmach means, of course, non existant targets, but he can't be blamed: if Canada were ever to make a serious push to reduce carbon emissions, the oil sands industry would be the first to suffer.
Steven Harper seems to agree with his fellow Albertan. He is standing his ground and refusing to commit to more than 'modest' emissions cuts. He is also doing his best to lower expectations for the Copenhagen Summit, suggesting that Canada's current plan to reduce emssions is not open to renegotiation. Stephen Harper, in other words, has made it clear that Canada will not be a player in Copenhagen.
This is all very unfortunate, because there may acutally be a lot at stake for Canada, especially for Alberta.
Under the current system, carbon emissions are calculated to represent the exact amount of carbon released by each individual country. Canada releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere to extract oil, even though most of this oil is consummed abroad, in the US and in Asia. In other words, Canada is blamed for extracting oil that its neighbours consume, and Canada is expected to make its oil more expensive to reflect the environmental cost of extracting it.
What's wrong with that picture? Well, simply that there is very little incentive for countries that use oil to overcome their dependency when they are not themselve bearing the environmental cost.
Say for example, that country A harbours a carbon intensive economy that imports most of its oil from its neighbour, country B. Country B, under the current formula, is classified as an environmental villain that is expected to make its oil expensive to import so that country A will reduce its consumption. Clearly, this is not fair. Why should country B be responsible for encouraging country A to change its practices?
Canada is country B. Many European countries, including Germany, which imports huge quantities of Russian oil, ressemble country A.
A good way to get around that problem would be to include the environmental cost of extracting oil as part of the carbon footprint of the countries that consume it. Thus, United States would be blamed for consuming dirty oil from the Tar Sands, rather than Albertans being blamed for refusing to damage their own industry to reduce american consumption.
In the end, it doesn't matter who pays because the price of dirty oil goes up and consumption logically goes down. But perceptions matter. Alberta shouldn't be blamed for selling its oil at market price, Americans should be blamed for consuming it. If we want to encourage consumers and industries to chance their ways, the burden should lie with them.
Rather than trying to avoid the Copenhagen summit, this is what Harper should be pushing for.
Steven Harper seems to agree with his fellow Albertan. He is standing his ground and refusing to commit to more than 'modest' emissions cuts. He is also doing his best to lower expectations for the Copenhagen Summit, suggesting that Canada's current plan to reduce emssions is not open to renegotiation. Stephen Harper, in other words, has made it clear that Canada will not be a player in Copenhagen.
This is all very unfortunate, because there may acutally be a lot at stake for Canada, especially for Alberta.
Under the current system, carbon emissions are calculated to represent the exact amount of carbon released by each individual country. Canada releases large quantities of carbon into the atmosphere to extract oil, even though most of this oil is consummed abroad, in the US and in Asia. In other words, Canada is blamed for extracting oil that its neighbours consume, and Canada is expected to make its oil more expensive to reflect the environmental cost of extracting it.
What's wrong with that picture? Well, simply that there is very little incentive for countries that use oil to overcome their dependency when they are not themselve bearing the environmental cost.
Say for example, that country A harbours a carbon intensive economy that imports most of its oil from its neighbour, country B. Country B, under the current formula, is classified as an environmental villain that is expected to make its oil expensive to import so that country A will reduce its consumption. Clearly, this is not fair. Why should country B be responsible for encouraging country A to change its practices?
Canada is country B. Many European countries, including Germany, which imports huge quantities of Russian oil, ressemble country A.
A good way to get around that problem would be to include the environmental cost of extracting oil as part of the carbon footprint of the countries that consume it. Thus, United States would be blamed for consuming dirty oil from the Tar Sands, rather than Albertans being blamed for refusing to damage their own industry to reduce american consumption.
In the end, it doesn't matter who pays because the price of dirty oil goes up and consumption logically goes down. But perceptions matter. Alberta shouldn't be blamed for selling its oil at market price, Americans should be blamed for consuming it. If we want to encourage consumers and industries to chance their ways, the burden should lie with them.
Rather than trying to avoid the Copenhagen summit, this is what Harper should be pushing for.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Montly Cartoon
My eyes are closing as I write this post, so I will do what I usually do in these situations and post the CARTOON OF THE MONTH!
Here is is, drawn by Gable, in Wednesday's Globe and Mail.
Here is is, drawn by Gable, in Wednesday's Globe and Mail.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Harpocrisy At Work
Stephen Harper gave a speech in Markham during which he talked at length about the importance of press freedom.
“Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees,” Harper explained.
Funny enough, Harper refused to take questions from journalists after the speech.
Oh... and he still hasn't commented on the Afghan detainee allegations. There's no chance of asking him next week in Parliament though, because questions addressed to the Prime Minister need to be submitted in advance to the PMO. Press freedom, in other words.
“Our government does not tell journalists what to say, or attempt to intimidate those with whom it disagrees,” Harper explained.
Funny enough, Harper refused to take questions from journalists after the speech.
Oh... and he still hasn't commented on the Afghan detainee allegations. There's no chance of asking him next week in Parliament though, because questions addressed to the Prime Minister need to be submitted in advance to the PMO. Press freedom, in other words.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Encore et toujours hypocrites
Lorsque la CIA ou l'armée américaine est accusée de crimes de guerres, toute la planète, le Canada y compris, s'insurge contre les États-Unis. Mais lorsqu'un diplomate canadien déclare que notre armée transférait des détenus afghans aux autorités locales en sachant qu'ils seraient torturés, l'affaire est facilement oubliée.
La question des 'détenus afghans' a fait irruption en 2006 lorsque des enquêtes réalisées par l'ONU et le Globe and Mail ont identifié des cas où des prisonniers Afghans livrés aux autorités locales par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Le gouvernement Harper a vite étouffé l'affaire. Ni les médias, ni les électeurs crédules ne lui en ont tenu rigueur.
L'affaire fait un bref retour dans l'actualité aujourd'hui après le témoignage terrifiant de Richard Colvin, un diplomate qui a passé 17 mois en Afghanistan. Cet article de Cyberpresse résume bien la gravité des accusations de Colvin. Il prétend notamment avoir envoyé 20 rapports aux hauts dirigeants de l'armée où il indiquait que des détenus transférés par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Comme réponse, on lui a demandé de privilégier le téléphone plutôt que l'écrit lorsqu'il était question de ce sujet délicat...
Sans vouloir faire de faux parallèles, ça rappelle quand même l'histoire d'un certain Roméo Dallaire, qui envoyait un flux continu de rapports à ses supérieurs aux Nations unies les suppliant d'envoyer des renforts pour qu'il puisse freiner la folie génocidaire au Rwanda. En vain, comme nous le savons tous trop bien.
Il semblerait que le Canada, loin d'être cet ilot de paix et de modération, ait beaucoup de choses à se reprocher. À suivre, malheureusement.
La question des 'détenus afghans' a fait irruption en 2006 lorsque des enquêtes réalisées par l'ONU et le Globe and Mail ont identifié des cas où des prisonniers Afghans livrés aux autorités locales par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Le gouvernement Harper a vite étouffé l'affaire. Ni les médias, ni les électeurs crédules ne lui en ont tenu rigueur.
L'affaire fait un bref retour dans l'actualité aujourd'hui après le témoignage terrifiant de Richard Colvin, un diplomate qui a passé 17 mois en Afghanistan. Cet article de Cyberpresse résume bien la gravité des accusations de Colvin. Il prétend notamment avoir envoyé 20 rapports aux hauts dirigeants de l'armée où il indiquait que des détenus transférés par l'armée canadienne avaient été torturés. Comme réponse, on lui a demandé de privilégier le téléphone plutôt que l'écrit lorsqu'il était question de ce sujet délicat...
Sans vouloir faire de faux parallèles, ça rappelle quand même l'histoire d'un certain Roméo Dallaire, qui envoyait un flux continu de rapports à ses supérieurs aux Nations unies les suppliant d'envoyer des renforts pour qu'il puisse freiner la folie génocidaire au Rwanda. En vain, comme nous le savons tous trop bien.
Il semblerait que le Canada, loin d'être cet ilot de paix et de modération, ait beaucoup de choses à se reprocher. À suivre, malheureusement.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Omar Khadr
It was decided this week that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks, would be tried in a New York civil court. Eric Holder, the current Attorney General, will seek the death penalty.
Eric Holder, despite his promise to work for Muhammed's execution, has actually done him a kind of favour. He could have had Mohammed tried in a military court, where proceedings would have been shrouded in secrecy. Instead, he has made him the centre of attention in a case that is sure to turn into a media circus. Khalid Mohammed has even expressed his wish to die as a 'martyr', so the death penalty might end up turning more muslims -and indeed non muslims- against the United States.
As the decision about Khalid Mohammed was made public, another decision mattered even more to Canadians. Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen who was captured in Afghanistan aged 16 and spent the last 7 years of his life at Guantanamo bay, will be tried in military court.
US military courts, by the way, are awful beasts. They accept certain kinds of 'coercive evidence' and have unique proceedures that lack the transparency of civil courts.
So here's the situation. The mastermind of the terrorist attacks that killed 3000 innocent people is getting a civil trial, while Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing an American soldier by throwing a hand grenade, once again, aged 16, is being put through the ordeal of a full military trial.
Our Government is allowed to ask for the repatriation of Omar Khadr, a request that is virtually certain to be granted. But our government is refusing to do so. What does this say about the people running our country? Actually, what does this say about us, we the people who voted them in?
Eric Holder, despite his promise to work for Muhammed's execution, has actually done him a kind of favour. He could have had Mohammed tried in a military court, where proceedings would have been shrouded in secrecy. Instead, he has made him the centre of attention in a case that is sure to turn into a media circus. Khalid Mohammed has even expressed his wish to die as a 'martyr', so the death penalty might end up turning more muslims -and indeed non muslims- against the United States.
As the decision about Khalid Mohammed was made public, another decision mattered even more to Canadians. Omar Khadr, the Canadian citizen who was captured in Afghanistan aged 16 and spent the last 7 years of his life at Guantanamo bay, will be tried in military court.
US military courts, by the way, are awful beasts. They accept certain kinds of 'coercive evidence' and have unique proceedures that lack the transparency of civil courts.
So here's the situation. The mastermind of the terrorist attacks that killed 3000 innocent people is getting a civil trial, while Omar Khadr, who is accused of killing an American soldier by throwing a hand grenade, once again, aged 16, is being put through the ordeal of a full military trial.
Our Government is allowed to ask for the repatriation of Omar Khadr, a request that is virtually certain to be granted. But our government is refusing to do so. What does this say about the people running our country? Actually, what does this say about us, we the people who voted them in?
Monday, November 9, 2009
Sarko
Une histoire qui fera rire bien des gens: http://decodeurs.blog.lemonde.fr/2009/11/09/sarkozy-etait-il-a-berlin-le-9-novembre-1989/
Figurez-vous que Nicolas Sarkozy (ou peut-être plutôt son attaché de presse) a affiché sur sa page Facebook le récit d'un voyage à Berlin en novembre 1989 où il aurait assisté avec Alain Juppé à la chute du mur.
Et bien non!
Des incohérences dans le texte Facebook de Sarkozy ont mis des journalistes du Monde sur la piste du scoop. Ils ont fait enquête, et voici leur conclusion: Sarkozy était bien à Berlin en novembre 1989... mais le 16, pas le 9!
Reste à voir ce qu'en pensera Sarko.
Figurez-vous que Nicolas Sarkozy (ou peut-être plutôt son attaché de presse) a affiché sur sa page Facebook le récit d'un voyage à Berlin en novembre 1989 où il aurait assisté avec Alain Juppé à la chute du mur.
Et bien non!
Des incohérences dans le texte Facebook de Sarkozy ont mis des journalistes du Monde sur la piste du scoop. Ils ont fait enquête, et voici leur conclusion: Sarkozy était bien à Berlin en novembre 1989... mais le 16, pas le 9!
Reste à voir ce qu'en pensera Sarko.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Back To Blogging - Le retour du combattant
Hi All, salut la compagnie -
As you've hopefully noticed, I've taken a break from my blogging activities because I've just gone through the two busiest weeks of my lives. Mais me voici de retour!
Pas grand chose à signaler en ce début d'hiver, à part la décision prise par Michael Ignatieff de remplacer son chef de Cabinet, Ian Davey, par Peter Donolo, un ancien conseiller de Jean Chrétien. Davey est celui qui a recruté Ignatieff alors qu'il était encore à Harvard. Il a ensuite dirigé sa campagne de leadership.
Ignatieff paraît en tout cas particulièrement impitoyable... un peu l'inverse de Dion. Peut-être faut-il être impitoyable pour réussir en politique. Dion aurait sans doute été différent, mais on sait tous ce que la majorité a pensé de lui...
As you've hopefully noticed, I've taken a break from my blogging activities because I've just gone through the two busiest weeks of my lives. Mais me voici de retour!
Pas grand chose à signaler en ce début d'hiver, à part la décision prise par Michael Ignatieff de remplacer son chef de Cabinet, Ian Davey, par Peter Donolo, un ancien conseiller de Jean Chrétien. Davey est celui qui a recruté Ignatieff alors qu'il était encore à Harvard. Il a ensuite dirigé sa campagne de leadership.
Ignatieff paraît en tout cas particulièrement impitoyable... un peu l'inverse de Dion. Peut-être faut-il être impitoyable pour réussir en politique. Dion aurait sans doute été différent, mais on sait tous ce que la majorité a pensé de lui...
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Roman Polanski
Un article effarant dans le Nouvel observateur au sujet de l'Affaire Roman Polanski.
Contrairement à ce que beaucoup de gens semblent croire, Polanski ne s'est pas retrouvé en Suisse par manque de précautions. Il possédait (et possède encore) un chalet à Gstaad, dans le canton de Berne, qu'il avait pu acheter en toute légalité malgré son statut de personne recherchée aux États-Unis. Il ne pouvait savoir que les autorités suisses décideraient cette année de l'arrêter.
La police suisse vient d'avouer avoir pris contact avec Washington avant l'arrivée de Polanski pour savoir 'si leur mandat d'extradition émis en 2005 était toujours valable.'
Le Nouvel Obs pose une question intéressante: tout ceci est-il une conséquence de la quasi faillite de UBS qui a été freinée en partie par le gouvernement américain?
Contrairement à ce que beaucoup de gens semblent croire, Polanski ne s'est pas retrouvé en Suisse par manque de précautions. Il possédait (et possède encore) un chalet à Gstaad, dans le canton de Berne, qu'il avait pu acheter en toute légalité malgré son statut de personne recherchée aux États-Unis. Il ne pouvait savoir que les autorités suisses décideraient cette année de l'arrêter.
La police suisse vient d'avouer avoir pris contact avec Washington avant l'arrivée de Polanski pour savoir 'si leur mandat d'extradition émis en 2005 était toujours valable.'
Le Nouvel Obs pose une question intéressante: tout ceci est-il une conséquence de la quasi faillite de UBS qui a été freinée en partie par le gouvernement américain?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Back To The Bonus
According to this article is TimesOnline, investment bankers in London and New York are expected to enjoy the largest bonuses on record.
That's right: the largest bonuses on record.
Apparently, after 'the worst financial crisis since the great depression', the market is going through one of the greatest bull runs in decades. J.P. Morgan reported a 72% rise in third quarter profits. London employees at Goldman Sachs are expected to receive an average of about $748,000 in salary and bonus this year.
So does this mean the financial crisis is over, or is it simply a temporary uptick? I'll let economist answer that one, but if it turns out that the world has gotten itself out of financial crisis, I suggest that we celebrate bonus season this year. After all, if investment bankers are raking in million dollar bonuses, it means that coordinated efforts of the world's economies have been able to limit the effects of a financial crisis that had the potential to paralyse the world's economy for many years.
That's right: the largest bonuses on record.
Apparently, after 'the worst financial crisis since the great depression', the market is going through one of the greatest bull runs in decades. J.P. Morgan reported a 72% rise in third quarter profits. London employees at Goldman Sachs are expected to receive an average of about $748,000 in salary and bonus this year.
So does this mean the financial crisis is over, or is it simply a temporary uptick? I'll let economist answer that one, but if it turns out that the world has gotten itself out of financial crisis, I suggest that we celebrate bonus season this year. After all, if investment bankers are raking in million dollar bonuses, it means that coordinated efforts of the world's economies have been able to limit the effects of a financial crisis that had the potential to paralyse the world's economy for many years.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Peace Prize
I have nothing at all against Barack Obama, but there’s something wrong when a President who has been in office for nine months and who recently sent 21 000 new soldiers to Afghanistan wins the Nobel Peace Prize.
Obama is full of promise, and with time, it is quite likely that he will do enough to merit the Peace Prize. But we should give him time. Giving the Peace Prize to someone who has done very little yet only devalues the award.
It’s interesting that the Nobel Committee justified its decision by writing that "only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." This is true, of course, but it speaks as much about Obama as about the Office of President of the United States.
Obama actually said as much himself: "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations, (…) To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
If there’s one thing to be noted from this prize, it is not Obama's so far minor accomplishments, but the world’s complete reliance on the United States for international leadership. If the United States do not take the lead on the world stage, if the President does make rousing speeches that foster hope in all peoples of the world, nobody will. Now, as much as ever, the world needs America.
Obama is full of promise, and with time, it is quite likely that he will do enough to merit the Peace Prize. But we should give him time. Giving the Peace Prize to someone who has done very little yet only devalues the award.
It’s interesting that the Nobel Committee justified its decision by writing that "only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future." This is true, of course, but it speaks as much about Obama as about the Office of President of the United States.
Obama actually said as much himself: "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations, (…) To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
If there’s one thing to be noted from this prize, it is not Obama's so far minor accomplishments, but the world’s complete reliance on the United States for international leadership. If the United States do not take the lead on the world stage, if the President does make rousing speeches that foster hope in all peoples of the world, nobody will. Now, as much as ever, the world needs America.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Advice...
There's a building consensus among journalists that Michael Ignatieff needs to present some major ideas if he wants to reverse his slide in the polls. ''The opposition needs bold economic ideas, not copycat Harperism,'' write Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail. ''To be a credible alternative, the Liberals need to be fearless''.
It's funny, but I seem to recall a certain Stéphane Dion presenting as fearless, innovative, and visionary a plan as anyone could have asked for. It was called, if you recall, the Green Shift.
The Green Shift didn't do Stéphane Dion much good, did it. Actually, it was used by the Conservative attack machine to cement Dion's image as an out of touch academic, an image that the media was only too happy to sustain.
So, dear Michael Ignatieff, if you want to avoid Dion's fate, stick to your current strategy. Present ideas, certainly, but keep them vague. And this above all: to the media's hypocrisy be true.
It's funny, but I seem to recall a certain Stéphane Dion presenting as fearless, innovative, and visionary a plan as anyone could have asked for. It was called, if you recall, the Green Shift.
The Green Shift didn't do Stéphane Dion much good, did it. Actually, it was used by the Conservative attack machine to cement Dion's image as an out of touch academic, an image that the media was only too happy to sustain.
So, dear Michael Ignatieff, if you want to avoid Dion's fate, stick to your current strategy. Present ideas, certainly, but keep them vague. And this above all: to the media's hypocrisy be true.
Friday, October 2, 2009
President Blair
With the Irish referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon likely to result in a 'yes' vote, the European Union looks set to undergo a major transformation that could turn it into a more centralised political entity.
The Treaty of Lisbon is a kind of Constitution that theoretically gives Europe a united foreign policy, army and significantly enlarges the reach of European institutions. It also gives Europe a President, elected for a two and a half year term.
The frontrunner for the President's job, even though he has still not declared his intention to run, is none other than Tony Blair.
This article in the Daily Telegraph, a right wing British newspaper, provides an interesting analysis of how a Blair Presidency could change Europe.
Obviously, Tony Blair would have an easier time generating media coverage than any other candidate, but I'm not sure that I buy in to the idea that electing Tony Blair as President would instantly establish Europe as a world player. Tony Blair may be famous, but he has many ennemies (see Irak War) and, sadly, he certainly hasn't made headlines as peace envoy of the 'Quartet' to the Middle-East. The way I see it, it's a risk, but maybe taking a risk is just what Europe needs.
The Treaty of Lisbon is a kind of Constitution that theoretically gives Europe a united foreign policy, army and significantly enlarges the reach of European institutions. It also gives Europe a President, elected for a two and a half year term.
The frontrunner for the President's job, even though he has still not declared his intention to run, is none other than Tony Blair.
This article in the Daily Telegraph, a right wing British newspaper, provides an interesting analysis of how a Blair Presidency could change Europe.
Obviously, Tony Blair would have an easier time generating media coverage than any other candidate, but I'm not sure that I buy in to the idea that electing Tony Blair as President would instantly establish Europe as a world player. Tony Blair may be famous, but he has many ennemies (see Irak War) and, sadly, he certainly hasn't made headlines as peace envoy of the 'Quartet' to the Middle-East. The way I see it, it's a risk, but maybe taking a risk is just what Europe needs.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Bloqué
La une de Cyberpresse au moment où j'écris ce message: Ignatieff perd ses plumes au Québec.
La une du Globe and Mail: Ignatieff stands firm in Quebec.
Hier, c'était le contraire. Le Globe avait un gros titre peu flatteur à l'égard d'Ignatieff tandis que Cyberpresse semblait en dire du bien. Tout ceci ne fait que montrer à quel point l'actualité, c'est d'abord et avant tout une affaire de perceptions.
Pour revenir à la une de Cyberpresse, qui renvoie à un nouveau sondage dans lequel Ignatieff obtient à peine autant d'appuis que Stéphane Dion au Québec, il est indéniable que le parti Libéral traverse une semaine extrêmement difficile au Québec. En fait, ce sondage ne fait que confirmer une baisse générale du taux de popularité des Libéraux qui se prolonge depuis les mois d'été.
Tout porte à croire que le Bloc remportera encore une majorité de sièges au Québec et que la prochaine élection se décidera comme d'habitude en Ontario. Cela n'a rien d'anormal, puisque tant en aussi longtemps que 35% de la population québécoise restera souverainiste, le Bloc québécois tirera avantage de notre système électoral de Westminster pour obtenir la grande majorité des sièges.
Les médias sont obsédés par la situation politique au Québec, qu'ils voient encore comme le principal champ de bataille de toute campagne électorale fédérale. Sauf que, s'il l'était autrefois, le Québec n'est plus un champ de bataille important. C'est plutôt une terre occupée par le Bloc Québécois.
Les deux tiers des 75 sièges québécois dans la Chambre des communes sont gagnés d'avance pour le Bloc. Les libéraux ont eux aussi une douzaine de sièges qu'ils peuvent difficilement perdre. Il n'y a donc que 10 à 15 circonscriptions qui sont véritablement en jeu au Québec. Dix à quinze circonscriptions, c'est trop peu pour gagner une élection.
Comme d'habitude ce sera donc l'Ontario qui décidera du vainqueur. Ignatieff fera campagne à Toronto et pour Toronto, précisément ce que Gilles Ducceppe lui reprochait récemment de faire. M. Ducceppe n'a pas expliqué que c'est à cause de son parti qu'Ignatieff ignorera peut-être le Québec, au profit des autres provinces. C'est le parti de Gilles Duceppe qui est responsable de la perte de poids politique de sa propre province.
La une du Globe and Mail: Ignatieff stands firm in Quebec.
Hier, c'était le contraire. Le Globe avait un gros titre peu flatteur à l'égard d'Ignatieff tandis que Cyberpresse semblait en dire du bien. Tout ceci ne fait que montrer à quel point l'actualité, c'est d'abord et avant tout une affaire de perceptions.
Pour revenir à la une de Cyberpresse, qui renvoie à un nouveau sondage dans lequel Ignatieff obtient à peine autant d'appuis que Stéphane Dion au Québec, il est indéniable que le parti Libéral traverse une semaine extrêmement difficile au Québec. En fait, ce sondage ne fait que confirmer une baisse générale du taux de popularité des Libéraux qui se prolonge depuis les mois d'été.
Tout porte à croire que le Bloc remportera encore une majorité de sièges au Québec et que la prochaine élection se décidera comme d'habitude en Ontario. Cela n'a rien d'anormal, puisque tant en aussi longtemps que 35% de la population québécoise restera souverainiste, le Bloc québécois tirera avantage de notre système électoral de Westminster pour obtenir la grande majorité des sièges.
Les médias sont obsédés par la situation politique au Québec, qu'ils voient encore comme le principal champ de bataille de toute campagne électorale fédérale. Sauf que, s'il l'était autrefois, le Québec n'est plus un champ de bataille important. C'est plutôt une terre occupée par le Bloc Québécois.
Les deux tiers des 75 sièges québécois dans la Chambre des communes sont gagnés d'avance pour le Bloc. Les libéraux ont eux aussi une douzaine de sièges qu'ils peuvent difficilement perdre. Il n'y a donc que 10 à 15 circonscriptions qui sont véritablement en jeu au Québec. Dix à quinze circonscriptions, c'est trop peu pour gagner une élection.
Comme d'habitude ce sera donc l'Ontario qui décidera du vainqueur. Ignatieff fera campagne à Toronto et pour Toronto, précisément ce que Gilles Ducceppe lui reprochait récemment de faire. M. Ducceppe n'a pas expliqué que c'est à cause de son parti qu'Ignatieff ignorera peut-être le Québec, au profit des autres provinces. C'est le parti de Gilles Duceppe qui est responsable de la perte de poids politique de sa propre province.
Monday, September 28, 2009
O'Coderre
Journalists are having a field day over the resignation of Michael Ignatieff's Quebec Lieutenant Denis Coderre. While these kinds of stories never look good from the outside, there is a pretty significant silver lining for the Liberals: the fact that Denis Coderre is out of the way.
Denis Coderre has long been my least favourite Liberal MP. He can usually be counted on to take populists positions (see Shane Doan affair) and to drag his party down the ethical ladder by behaving in the House in a way that would make John Baird proud.
Coderre was a key member of Ignatieff's Leadership team -though he was widely thought to have ambitions of his own- and this fact has always surprised me. Apparently, he was quite a good organiser, but the idea that Ignatieff, a former intellectual who is usually criticized for being aloof would ally himself with a hyper-partisan loudmouth struck me as bizarre.
Coderre resigned after Ignatieff overrode him by appointing former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon as Liberal candidate in Outremont (a formerly safe riding held by Cauchon now in the hands of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP) when Coderre wanted someone else. It is said that Coderre saw Cauchon as a possible rival in a future leadership race and wanted him out of the way. The mere fact that he did not want Cauchon to run in Outremont, when, as a former and well-liked MP for that riding, Cauchon obviously stood the best chance of dethroning Mulcair seems to confirm these suspicisons.
In other news, Michaëlle Jean and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan apprently sang John Lennon's famous anthem 'Give Peace A Chance' during her most recent visit. I may be wrong, but I don't think Lennon would be pleased...
Denis Coderre has long been my least favourite Liberal MP. He can usually be counted on to take populists positions (see Shane Doan affair) and to drag his party down the ethical ladder by behaving in the House in a way that would make John Baird proud.
Coderre was a key member of Ignatieff's Leadership team -though he was widely thought to have ambitions of his own- and this fact has always surprised me. Apparently, he was quite a good organiser, but the idea that Ignatieff, a former intellectual who is usually criticized for being aloof would ally himself with a hyper-partisan loudmouth struck me as bizarre.
Coderre resigned after Ignatieff overrode him by appointing former Justice Minister Martin Cauchon as Liberal candidate in Outremont (a formerly safe riding held by Cauchon now in the hands of Thomas Mulcair and the NDP) when Coderre wanted someone else. It is said that Coderre saw Cauchon as a possible rival in a future leadership race and wanted him out of the way. The mere fact that he did not want Cauchon to run in Outremont, when, as a former and well-liked MP for that riding, Cauchon obviously stood the best chance of dethroning Mulcair seems to confirm these suspicisons.
In other news, Michaëlle Jean and Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan apprently sang John Lennon's famous anthem 'Give Peace A Chance' during her most recent visit. I may be wrong, but I don't think Lennon would be pleased...
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Less Is More
In the coming weeks, a bill will be introduced in the House to increase the number of seats by 30 to 35. Ontario, Albterta and BC will be the beneficiaries.
These provinces have been quite seriously underrepresented for the past two decades, so this move is understandable.
But here's the problem: this the country will continue to grow for the foreseable future, so at the rate we're moving, the House will have 400 members (far more than it can cope with) by the end of the century. Britain went in that direction -simply adding seats indefinitely-, and they now have so many MPs that there is only standing room for backbenchers. The situation has gotten to the point where Gordon Brown wants to reduce the number of MPs. Clearly, we need to put a permanent system in place that will spare Parliament from having to do as British and add 20 odd seats every 20 years.
I would suggest capping the House at 240 members (the size it will reach if the aforementioned bill passes), and mandating Elections Canada to reditribute ridings every ten years or so. This would mean that some MPs would lose their ridings, while other ridings would be created out of nothing. But anyone who has seen the poor British MPs huddled together tightly on their benches in miserable working conditions will agree that it's a better plan than the alternative.
These provinces have been quite seriously underrepresented for the past two decades, so this move is understandable.
But here's the problem: this the country will continue to grow for the foreseable future, so at the rate we're moving, the House will have 400 members (far more than it can cope with) by the end of the century. Britain went in that direction -simply adding seats indefinitely-, and they now have so many MPs that there is only standing room for backbenchers. The situation has gotten to the point where Gordon Brown wants to reduce the number of MPs. Clearly, we need to put a permanent system in place that will spare Parliament from having to do as British and add 20 odd seats every 20 years.
I would suggest capping the House at 240 members (the size it will reach if the aforementioned bill passes), and mandating Elections Canada to reditribute ridings every ten years or so. This would mean that some MPs would lose their ridings, while other ridings would be created out of nothing. But anyone who has seen the poor British MPs huddled together tightly on their benches in miserable working conditions will agree that it's a better plan than the alternative.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Royaume de l'hypocrisie
Le ministre de l'environnement Jim Prentice a critiqué hier le discours fort attendu de Hu Jintao dans lequel le Président chinois a annoncé les mesures que compte prendre son pays pour lutter contre les changements climatiques. M. Prentice avait raison dans la mesure où la Chine, bien évidemment, n'a pas présenté de plan crédible. En fait, M. Hu n'a pas fixé une seule cible de réduction d'émissions dans son discours, se contentant simplement d'énoncer quelques objectifs vagues.
Le problème, c'est que le Canada non plus, n'a pas de plan crédible. Le pseudo-plan vert des Conservateurs a été unanimement condamné dès son adoption, et il risque d'être encore plus inefficace qu'on ne le pensait puisqu'il repose sur une technologie -la séquestration du carbone- qui, si l'on s'en tient à un récent rapport du Munk Centre for International Studies , risque de ne jamais voir le jour.
Comme d'habitude, notre cher pays fait bien piètre figure. Comme d'habitude nous ne sommes que des hypocrites.
Soit dit en passant, pour ceux qui ont envie de rire un peu, je vous recommande cet article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-has-key-role-in-shaping-g8s-future/article1297761/
Le problème, c'est que le Canada non plus, n'a pas de plan crédible. Le pseudo-plan vert des Conservateurs a été unanimement condamné dès son adoption, et il risque d'être encore plus inefficace qu'on ne le pensait puisqu'il repose sur une technologie -la séquestration du carbone- qui, si l'on s'en tient à un récent rapport du Munk Centre for International Studies , risque de ne jamais voir le jour.
Comme d'habitude, notre cher pays fait bien piètre figure. Comme d'habitude nous ne sommes que des hypocrites.
Soit dit en passant, pour ceux qui ont envie de rire un peu, je vous recommande cet article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/harper-has-key-role-in-shaping-g8s-future/article1297761/
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Haffer, le Monde
Si on pense que ça va mal chez nous, il est parfois bon de jeter un coup d'œil à l'étranger.
En lisant Le Monde aujourd'hui (version en ligne, évidemment), mon attention s'est portée sur un article où il était question des problèmes de Ségolène Royale.
L'article parlait d'une fraude présumée pendant la course à la direction du PS qui aurait donné à Martine Aubry une victoire illégitime sur Ségolène Royale.
Les détails commencent à faire surface et Royale, évidemment, est dans tous ses états. Mais voyez ce qu'en pense Jean-Marc Ayrault, le président du groupe socialiste à l'Assemblée nationale:
"Il y a des habitudes du parti qui sont regrettables (...) mais il faut tourner la page. C'est la demande écrasante des adhérents et des électeurs. Je crois qu'il faut que [Mme Royal] se concentre – comme les autres socialistes d'ailleurs – sur une échéance très importante qu'il faut réussir : les régionales dans quelques mois."
Soyons clairs. Il est probable qu'il y ait eu fraude pendant la course à la direction du Parti socialiste (2ème parti de France). Loin de s'en émouvoir, un gros canon du parti appelle plutôt au calme et demande au militants de se concentrer sur le prochain scrutin.
Vous imaginez si il y avait eu des accusations de fraude contre un chef de parti canadien? L'histoire aurait fait la une de tous les journaux et la carrière politique de l'accusée aurait été sans doute détruite. En France, cette histoire de fraude semble somme toute assez banale.
Pour terminer, un petit mot sur Rahim Jaffer, ancien député conservateur de l'Alberta, mari de la ministre Helena Guergis, et membre influent de l'ancienne Alliance. M. Jaffer a été arrêté pour possession de drogues et conduite en état d'ébriété. POurquoi est-ce que ce sont toujours le conservateurs socialement à droite qui se font pincer pour leur réalité contraire à leurs propres lois.
En lisant Le Monde aujourd'hui (version en ligne, évidemment), mon attention s'est portée sur un article où il était question des problèmes de Ségolène Royale.
L'article parlait d'une fraude présumée pendant la course à la direction du PS qui aurait donné à Martine Aubry une victoire illégitime sur Ségolène Royale.
Les détails commencent à faire surface et Royale, évidemment, est dans tous ses états. Mais voyez ce qu'en pense Jean-Marc Ayrault, le président du groupe socialiste à l'Assemblée nationale:
"Il y a des habitudes du parti qui sont regrettables (...) mais il faut tourner la page. C'est la demande écrasante des adhérents et des électeurs. Je crois qu'il faut que [Mme Royal] se concentre – comme les autres socialistes d'ailleurs – sur une échéance très importante qu'il faut réussir : les régionales dans quelques mois."
Soyons clairs. Il est probable qu'il y ait eu fraude pendant la course à la direction du Parti socialiste (2ème parti de France). Loin de s'en émouvoir, un gros canon du parti appelle plutôt au calme et demande au militants de se concentrer sur le prochain scrutin.
Vous imaginez si il y avait eu des accusations de fraude contre un chef de parti canadien? L'histoire aurait fait la une de tous les journaux et la carrière politique de l'accusée aurait été sans doute détruite. En France, cette histoire de fraude semble somme toute assez banale.
Pour terminer, un petit mot sur Rahim Jaffer, ancien député conservateur de l'Alberta, mari de la ministre Helena Guergis, et membre influent de l'ancienne Alliance. M. Jaffer a été arrêté pour possession de drogues et conduite en état d'ébriété. POurquoi est-ce que ce sont toujours le conservateurs socialement à droite qui se font pincer pour leur réalité contraire à leurs propres lois.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The Minority
We're likely to have our fourth federal election in six years, and it is highly unlikely to produce anything other than a minority government. Many people, as evidenced by this Globe and Mail poll, are asking themselves whether the system is broken.
The system is not broken, but it has one problem: the Bloc Quebecois.
It generally takes roughly 40% of the popular vote for a party to win a majority government. In 1997, the Liberals won a narrow majority with 38% of the popular vote, but they benefited from vote splitting between the Alliance and the PCs, each of whom took 19%.
Now that the right has been united, the Liberal Party can no longer win majorities by taking advantage of our first-past-the-post system.
This is where the Bloc comes in. Roughly 35% of Quebecers will vote Bloc no matter what because they are separatists, so 10% of votes cast in each general election can in effect be discarded. This means that the winning party needs to find the 40% of the popular vote it needs for a majority among the remaining 90% of voters, which is next to impossible. It would mean winning 45% of the non Bloc votes. To put things into perspective, the last party that was able to win more than 45% of the popular vote was the 1984 incarnation of the PCs led by Brian Mulroney.
In the last election, the Conservatives won 38% of the popular vote to the Liberals' 26%. If the 9.98% of Canadians who voted Bloc were divided evenly among the three main parties, this would tip the Conservatives over the 40% barrier and mean that we would probably have a majority Harper government. After all, Jean Chrétien's 1993 Liberals only needed 41% of the popular vote to take 60% of seats in the general election that saw the PCs take 2 seats and 16% of votes.
With the Bloc not likely to disappear, the only way out of minority government would be for one of the three major parties to implode. If the NDP were to return to single digits as in the 90s, this might make it possible for the Liberals to take a slim majority, but that's highly unlikely.
Whatever happens in the next election, we can brace ourselves for more minorities barring a dramatic change in public mood.
The system is not broken, but it has one problem: the Bloc Quebecois.
It generally takes roughly 40% of the popular vote for a party to win a majority government. In 1997, the Liberals won a narrow majority with 38% of the popular vote, but they benefited from vote splitting between the Alliance and the PCs, each of whom took 19%.
Now that the right has been united, the Liberal Party can no longer win majorities by taking advantage of our first-past-the-post system.
This is where the Bloc comes in. Roughly 35% of Quebecers will vote Bloc no matter what because they are separatists, so 10% of votes cast in each general election can in effect be discarded. This means that the winning party needs to find the 40% of the popular vote it needs for a majority among the remaining 90% of voters, which is next to impossible. It would mean winning 45% of the non Bloc votes. To put things into perspective, the last party that was able to win more than 45% of the popular vote was the 1984 incarnation of the PCs led by Brian Mulroney.
In the last election, the Conservatives won 38% of the popular vote to the Liberals' 26%. If the 9.98% of Canadians who voted Bloc were divided evenly among the three main parties, this would tip the Conservatives over the 40% barrier and mean that we would probably have a majority Harper government. After all, Jean Chrétien's 1993 Liberals only needed 41% of the popular vote to take 60% of seats in the general election that saw the PCs take 2 seats and 16% of votes.
With the Bloc not likely to disappear, the only way out of minority government would be for one of the three major parties to implode. If the NDP were to return to single digits as in the 90s, this might make it possible for the Liberals to take a slim majority, but that's highly unlikely.
Whatever happens in the next election, we can brace ourselves for more minorities barring a dramatic change in public mood.
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Poor Globe
Read this editorial in the Globe and Mail!
Is it possible to be anymore anti-intellectual? And how many self-respecting newspapers in this world write editorials about an ad?
Is it possible to be anymore anti-intellectual? And how many self-respecting newspapers in this world write editorials about an ad?
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Opacity Of Hope
I usually like the things Barack Obama says; I almost always like the way he says them. But when it comes to putting his words into action, the U.S. President still has some work to do.
Obama has long been advocating a reform of the American health care system. He made a campaign promise to put in place a taxpayer funded public system as we have Canada (though without the Canadian restrictions on optional private healthcare). He claimed repeatedly that reforming the health system was his first priority.
Yet according to this report on TimesOnline, Obama is now ready to abandon his pledge of bringing in public healthcare because of a sharp decline in his approval ratings.
Obama may yet succeed, but it seems increasingly unlikely. Bill Clinton stumbled at the same block, and the stars don't seem to be lining up any differently today. If Obama does succeed, he will instantly become one of the most influential politicians in U.S. history. If he fails, he will still be regarded as transformational, but in the same way as Bill Clinton, not as Franklin Roosevelt.
All of this reminds us once again of how important is it for leaders to have personal courage. It's one think to speak well, to look driven, or to look competent. Truly great leaders are the ones who have the will of iron to make the unpopular but necessary decisions. Stephen Harper doesn't have this, as he has shown for the last three and a half years. Michael Ignatieff, the new Liberal Leader, is certainly like Obama in terms of his passion for writing and his Harvard pedigree, but there's no evidence to suggest that he has personal courage. The only leader of recent times with true personal courage was Stéphane Dion. He was responsible for the passage of the Clarity Act, which cost him his reputation is Quebec. He presented his Green Shift before the election campaign, which was undeniably a brave things to do.
Dion might have been unelectable, but he might have been a better Prime Minister that the universally loved Barack Obama is President
Obama has long been advocating a reform of the American health care system. He made a campaign promise to put in place a taxpayer funded public system as we have Canada (though without the Canadian restrictions on optional private healthcare). He claimed repeatedly that reforming the health system was his first priority.
Yet according to this report on TimesOnline, Obama is now ready to abandon his pledge of bringing in public healthcare because of a sharp decline in his approval ratings.
Obama may yet succeed, but it seems increasingly unlikely. Bill Clinton stumbled at the same block, and the stars don't seem to be lining up any differently today. If Obama does succeed, he will instantly become one of the most influential politicians in U.S. history. If he fails, he will still be regarded as transformational, but in the same way as Bill Clinton, not as Franklin Roosevelt.
All of this reminds us once again of how important is it for leaders to have personal courage. It's one think to speak well, to look driven, or to look competent. Truly great leaders are the ones who have the will of iron to make the unpopular but necessary decisions. Stephen Harper doesn't have this, as he has shown for the last three and a half years. Michael Ignatieff, the new Liberal Leader, is certainly like Obama in terms of his passion for writing and his Harvard pedigree, but there's no evidence to suggest that he has personal courage. The only leader of recent times with true personal courage was Stéphane Dion. He was responsible for the passage of the Clarity Act, which cost him his reputation is Quebec. He presented his Green Shift before the election campaign, which was undeniably a brave things to do.
Dion might have been unelectable, but he might have been a better Prime Minister that the universally loved Barack Obama is President
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Les petites pièces
Nous avons chez nous un gigantesque bol rempli de pièces de monnaie de 1 et de 5 cents. Il doit y en avoir pour à peu près deux dollars… et environ deux kilos.
Je suis parfaitement sûr que ces pièces ne seront jamais dépensées. Elles ne feront que traîner, en continuant de s’accumuler jusqu’au jour où mes parents décideront de vendre la maison.
Le Groupe Desjardins a déclaré que l’existence même de la pièce de un cent coute 130 millions de dollars par année à l’économie canadienne. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’il s’avère que la plupart des familles sont comme la mienne, et qu’au lieu de depenser le contenu de leur bol de petites pièces, elles le laissent traîner.
Il est grand temps que nous trouvions le courage de nous débarrasser de ces petites pièces qui ne font qu’alourdir nos poches et saigner l’économie. Le pouvoir d’achat d’une pièce de un cent en 1870 correspondait à celui de 27 cents aujourd’hui. Pour une fois, nous devrions effectuer un bref retour au 19ème siècle en retirant les pièces de un cent, cinq cents, et pourquoi pas même dix cents. Nous pourrions peut-être aussi en profiter pour exiger que les commerces incluent les taxes dans leurs prix affichés, pour que le montant affiché corresponde enfin au montant payé.
Je suis parfaitement sûr que ces pièces ne seront jamais dépensées. Elles ne feront que traîner, en continuant de s’accumuler jusqu’au jour où mes parents décideront de vendre la maison.
Le Groupe Desjardins a déclaré que l’existence même de la pièce de un cent coute 130 millions de dollars par année à l’économie canadienne. Pourquoi ? Parce qu’il s’avère que la plupart des familles sont comme la mienne, et qu’au lieu de depenser le contenu de leur bol de petites pièces, elles le laissent traîner.
Il est grand temps que nous trouvions le courage de nous débarrasser de ces petites pièces qui ne font qu’alourdir nos poches et saigner l’économie. Le pouvoir d’achat d’une pièce de un cent en 1870 correspondait à celui de 27 cents aujourd’hui. Pour une fois, nous devrions effectuer un bref retour au 19ème siècle en retirant les pièces de un cent, cinq cents, et pourquoi pas même dix cents. Nous pourrions peut-être aussi en profiter pour exiger que les commerces incluent les taxes dans leurs prix affichés, pour que le montant affiché corresponde enfin au montant payé.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
The Media
Stéphane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on December 2nd 2006. Few people expected his victory. He arrived at the Montreal leadership convention as the fourth placed candidate, holding only sixteen percent of elected delegates, and his campaign spent a million dollars less than Bob Rae’s. On top of that, his convention speech ran over time and his microphone was cut off before he reached the end.
Dion won by being everyone’s second choice. Front-runner Michael Ignatieff was polarizing while Bob Rae was considered dead in Ontario. Stéphane Dion was a candidate everyone could live with. He was also a candidate delegates could feel proud voting for because he was perceived as having more moral fibre than simply political horse sense. Choosing Dion was a slap in the face to all those like Jack Layton who had claimed a few months earlier that Dion was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."
Stéphane Dion was not the first choice of his fellow Liberal MPs, most of whom supported Michael Ignatieff. His strongest supporters in the months leading up to the Montreal leadership convention were in the Press. Dion was officially endorsed by the Montreal Gazette and by the Globe and Mail, who described him in an editorial as “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation.” Other newspapers praised Dion’s courage and integrity. Even Le Devoir, a Québec paper with sovereignist leanings, wrote that “Dion is the candidate who, in the course of the leadership race, made among the strongest contribution of ideas.” Le Devoir only chose Michael Ignatieff because of his sympathy for Québec nationalism.
In late January 2007, less than two months after Stéphane Dion’s leadership victory, the Conservative Party rolled out a series of now infamous attack ads that sought to portray Dion as a weak leader. The ads featured clips of Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden criticizing their party’s environmental record in a leadership debate. Dion was then shown answering “This is unfair!” and “Do you think it’s easy to make priorities?”
The Conservative ads were unfavourably received by the Canadian public. A Harris-Decima poll published on February 7th at the end of the ad blitz showed that fifty-nine percent of Canadians who had seen the ads found them unfair, while only twenty-two percent found them fair. The media were also unanimous in their criticism. Even journalists at the right-wing National Post found the ads morally questionable.
Polling agencies detected a small shift in voting intentions from the Liberals to the Conservatives in the aftermath of the negative ad campaign. Nanos Research and Harris-Decima put the two parties in a statistical tie, while Strategic Counsel gave the Conservatives a slight lead. However, considering that the nearest confidence vote was at least a month away, and that the Liberal Party still enjoyed higher levels of support than in the previous election, it would have been difficult, at the time, to call the negative advertising campaign a success.
But that’s exactly what the media did. Soon after the ads started playing, journalists began to suggest that Stephane Dion was being “redefined in the eyes of Canadians”. Just as the Conservative ads had alleged, they explained Canadians were unsure about Dion’s leadership skills and that Dion needed to present an ‘alternative vision for the country.’ Public opinion polls, once again, did not back these claims up. But no matter. In a few short weeks, Stephane Dion went from being “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation” to a “weak leader unable to lead his party.
After the negative ads, everything Dion did was reported through the lens of ‘weakness’ and ‘lack of leadership’. His refusal to make personal attacks in Question Period became a sign of his inability to lead. When he presented, in November 2007, his ‘30-50’ plan to cut poverty which was meant to provide the alternative vision for Canada the media had been asking for, his plan was dismissed by journalists as ‘too intellectual’ and ‘difficult for Canadians to understand’. Journalists started finding problems that no one had ever noticed before. For instance, they decided that Canadians could no longer understand his English, even though they had managed fine during the leadership campaign and the ten years he spent previously as a cabinet minister. When Dion, to much applause from economists, published his ‘Green Shift’ – laying out his strategy for making individual and corporate tax burdens depend more on their carbon consumption and less on their income, , journalists decided that he would never be able to sell it. ‘Ah, they sighed mournfully, ‘in this age of 30 second sound bites Dion’s Green Shift doesn’t stand a chance against the well-oiled Tory machine.’
Stephen Harper, during the same period, was running into situations that seriously put his ethics into question. In Question Period he was routinely offensive, and he handpicked ministers to dodge questions aimed at him, which they often achieved by insulting Opposition members. During the ‘Statements by Members’ period, which immediately precedes Question Period and is in principle reserved for declarations by MPs about local issues affecting their ridings, Conservative backbenchers were instructed to read vicious statements about Dion to destabilise him. In May 2007 it was discovered that the Conservative Party had given all of its MP who were chairing House of Commons Committees a 200 page handbook providing them with guidance on obstructing and manipulating committee proceedings.
The Prime Minister’s media image was strangely resilient despite these repeated ethical transgressions. It almost seemed as if his viciousness in the House of Commons and his well-documented efforts to exert control over the media only contributed to his image of ‘competence’ and ‘strength’. Even when Conservative Party headquarters were raided by the RCMP at the request of Elections Canada, some journalists seemed to conclude that the any illegal scheme only highlighted the Prime Minister’s strategic brilliance and desire to win.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Stéphane Dion’s leadership of the Liberal Party. He was not a good communicator and even less of an inspirational figure. He seems to have been a terrible fundraiser and he also showed poor political judgment on many occasions. For example, he waited until the last possible minute to name Jocelyn Coulon, a dour although highly accomplished academic, as Liberal candidate for the 2007 Outremont by-election: Coulon was handed the task of defeating in a few short months the NDP’s charismatic Thomas Mulcair who had been campaigning all year. But Stéphane Dion is exactly the type of politician journalists claim to want. He is undeniably competent, principled, and, as the Globe and Mail wrote, courageous. He made the environment a priority and presented policies that, even if they were hard to sell, certainly had in mind the good of country.
The media is full of contradictions. Journalists lament the paucity of intelligent political debate but dismiss policies with the slightest trace of complexity as ‘too difficult to understand.’ It never occurs to them that they should be trying to make them understood. The media bemoans Canada’s pathetic environmental record, but goes on to criticize Stéphane Dion for being naïve enough to believe that he could sell a carbon tax in tough economic times. So-called pundits appeal for more decorum in the House of Commons, and then go on to say that Stéphane Dion looks weak in Question Period. Journalists deplore the lack of talent in Canadian politics, contrasting our leaders with Barack Obama and his team of highly accomplished cabinet ministers, but at the same time they call Stéphane Dion a ‘nerd’ and smear him with articles titled ‘Is Dion’s trouble his ear, or his head?’ (Greg Weston, London Free Press) and phrases like ‘If Mr. Dion were any weaker, he'd need a blood transfusion’ (Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail). Then they are surprised that talented people don’t go into politics. The media cries out for more integrity in politics, yet most newspapers endorse not the man whose integrity was never in question, but the one whose mind is often described, with a mix of respect and fascination, as Machiavellian.
The media covers politics like a sporting event. It covers the politics of politics, judging leaders not on their ability to govern, but on their ability to win. It’s well known just how much the media influences on our perception of politicians. Journalists, after all, are our eyes and ears: our main link to what is being said on Parliament Hill and of getting the information we need to make rational political choices. Journalists, therefore, have a responsibility to cover politics in a coherent manner. If they ask for integrity, they must support a politician who demonstrates it, even if that politician wears glasses and speaks English with an accent. If they ask for comprehensive policies and serious debate, they must find ways to make complex policies accessible to Canadians who don’t follow politics.
The fact is that there’s no one to cover the media like the media. If they lament the modern media culture, they must change it.
Dion won by being everyone’s second choice. Front-runner Michael Ignatieff was polarizing while Bob Rae was considered dead in Ontario. Stéphane Dion was a candidate everyone could live with. He was also a candidate delegates could feel proud voting for because he was perceived as having more moral fibre than simply political horse sense. Choosing Dion was a slap in the face to all those like Jack Layton who had claimed a few months earlier that Dion was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."
Stéphane Dion was not the first choice of his fellow Liberal MPs, most of whom supported Michael Ignatieff. His strongest supporters in the months leading up to the Montreal leadership convention were in the Press. Dion was officially endorsed by the Montreal Gazette and by the Globe and Mail, who described him in an editorial as “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation.” Other newspapers praised Dion’s courage and integrity. Even Le Devoir, a Québec paper with sovereignist leanings, wrote that “Dion is the candidate who, in the course of the leadership race, made among the strongest contribution of ideas.” Le Devoir only chose Michael Ignatieff because of his sympathy for Québec nationalism.
In late January 2007, less than two months after Stéphane Dion’s leadership victory, the Conservative Party rolled out a series of now infamous attack ads that sought to portray Dion as a weak leader. The ads featured clips of Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden criticizing their party’s environmental record in a leadership debate. Dion was then shown answering “This is unfair!” and “Do you think it’s easy to make priorities?”
The Conservative ads were unfavourably received by the Canadian public. A Harris-Decima poll published on February 7th at the end of the ad blitz showed that fifty-nine percent of Canadians who had seen the ads found them unfair, while only twenty-two percent found them fair. The media were also unanimous in their criticism. Even journalists at the right-wing National Post found the ads morally questionable.
Polling agencies detected a small shift in voting intentions from the Liberals to the Conservatives in the aftermath of the negative ad campaign. Nanos Research and Harris-Decima put the two parties in a statistical tie, while Strategic Counsel gave the Conservatives a slight lead. However, considering that the nearest confidence vote was at least a month away, and that the Liberal Party still enjoyed higher levels of support than in the previous election, it would have been difficult, at the time, to call the negative advertising campaign a success.
But that’s exactly what the media did. Soon after the ads started playing, journalists began to suggest that Stephane Dion was being “redefined in the eyes of Canadians”. Just as the Conservative ads had alleged, they explained Canadians were unsure about Dion’s leadership skills and that Dion needed to present an ‘alternative vision for the country.’ Public opinion polls, once again, did not back these claims up. But no matter. In a few short weeks, Stephane Dion went from being “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation” to a “weak leader unable to lead his party.
After the negative ads, everything Dion did was reported through the lens of ‘weakness’ and ‘lack of leadership’. His refusal to make personal attacks in Question Period became a sign of his inability to lead. When he presented, in November 2007, his ‘30-50’ plan to cut poverty which was meant to provide the alternative vision for Canada the media had been asking for, his plan was dismissed by journalists as ‘too intellectual’ and ‘difficult for Canadians to understand’. Journalists started finding problems that no one had ever noticed before. For instance, they decided that Canadians could no longer understand his English, even though they had managed fine during the leadership campaign and the ten years he spent previously as a cabinet minister. When Dion, to much applause from economists, published his ‘Green Shift’ – laying out his strategy for making individual and corporate tax burdens depend more on their carbon consumption and less on their income, , journalists decided that he would never be able to sell it. ‘Ah, they sighed mournfully, ‘in this age of 30 second sound bites Dion’s Green Shift doesn’t stand a chance against the well-oiled Tory machine.’
Stephen Harper, during the same period, was running into situations that seriously put his ethics into question. In Question Period he was routinely offensive, and he handpicked ministers to dodge questions aimed at him, which they often achieved by insulting Opposition members. During the ‘Statements by Members’ period, which immediately precedes Question Period and is in principle reserved for declarations by MPs about local issues affecting their ridings, Conservative backbenchers were instructed to read vicious statements about Dion to destabilise him. In May 2007 it was discovered that the Conservative Party had given all of its MP who were chairing House of Commons Committees a 200 page handbook providing them with guidance on obstructing and manipulating committee proceedings.
The Prime Minister’s media image was strangely resilient despite these repeated ethical transgressions. It almost seemed as if his viciousness in the House of Commons and his well-documented efforts to exert control over the media only contributed to his image of ‘competence’ and ‘strength’. Even when Conservative Party headquarters were raided by the RCMP at the request of Elections Canada, some journalists seemed to conclude that the any illegal scheme only highlighted the Prime Minister’s strategic brilliance and desire to win.
There are many legitimate reasons to criticize Stéphane Dion’s leadership of the Liberal Party. He was not a good communicator and even less of an inspirational figure. He seems to have been a terrible fundraiser and he also showed poor political judgment on many occasions. For example, he waited until the last possible minute to name Jocelyn Coulon, a dour although highly accomplished academic, as Liberal candidate for the 2007 Outremont by-election: Coulon was handed the task of defeating in a few short months the NDP’s charismatic Thomas Mulcair who had been campaigning all year. But Stéphane Dion is exactly the type of politician journalists claim to want. He is undeniably competent, principled, and, as the Globe and Mail wrote, courageous. He made the environment a priority and presented policies that, even if they were hard to sell, certainly had in mind the good of country.
The media is full of contradictions. Journalists lament the paucity of intelligent political debate but dismiss policies with the slightest trace of complexity as ‘too difficult to understand.’ It never occurs to them that they should be trying to make them understood. The media bemoans Canada’s pathetic environmental record, but goes on to criticize Stéphane Dion for being naïve enough to believe that he could sell a carbon tax in tough economic times. So-called pundits appeal for more decorum in the House of Commons, and then go on to say that Stéphane Dion looks weak in Question Period. Journalists deplore the lack of talent in Canadian politics, contrasting our leaders with Barack Obama and his team of highly accomplished cabinet ministers, but at the same time they call Stéphane Dion a ‘nerd’ and smear him with articles titled ‘Is Dion’s trouble his ear, or his head?’ (Greg Weston, London Free Press) and phrases like ‘If Mr. Dion were any weaker, he'd need a blood transfusion’ (Margaret Wente, The Globe and Mail). Then they are surprised that talented people don’t go into politics. The media cries out for more integrity in politics, yet most newspapers endorse not the man whose integrity was never in question, but the one whose mind is often described, with a mix of respect and fascination, as Machiavellian.
The media covers politics like a sporting event. It covers the politics of politics, judging leaders not on their ability to govern, but on their ability to win. It’s well known just how much the media influences on our perception of politicians. Journalists, after all, are our eyes and ears: our main link to what is being said on Parliament Hill and of getting the information we need to make rational political choices. Journalists, therefore, have a responsibility to cover politics in a coherent manner. If they ask for integrity, they must support a politician who demonstrates it, even if that politician wears glasses and speaks English with an accent. If they ask for comprehensive policies and serious debate, they must find ways to make complex policies accessible to Canadians who don’t follow politics.
The fact is that there’s no one to cover the media like the media. If they lament the modern media culture, they must change it.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Multiculturalism
I've been away for the past three weeks, so here's a very long post to make up!
Canada has been officially multicultural since 1971 and this policy has been subject to controversy since inception. Canadian multiculturalism, as it is usually described, is a vision of our society as a mosaic of ethnic groups, each of which have their own culture and traditions. This contrasts with the model found in most European countries of a single, historically-rooted national society and the American model of an ever evolving melting pot. In accordance with our policy of official multiculturalism, immigrants who settle in Canada are encouraged to preserve their culture and traditions, notably by forming cultural organisations with fellow immigrants of the same ethnic origin. Federal and provincial governments award millions of dollars in grants every year to such organisations, and also support festivals and public events that celebrate the cultural heritage of New Canadians.
Multiculturalism has always been criticized on multiple fronts. Many people purport that a policy which encourages immigrants to preserve the traditions of their motherland and to seek out fellow immigrants of the same descent inevitably encourages ghettoisation and discourages integration into mainstream society. Others, most notably in Quebec, would prefer a more traditional vision of Canadian society that recognizes the cultural primacy of the three founding peoples. They believe that immigrants should be encouraged to assimilate into the established cultures – principally Quebecois and English Canadian- and to let go of their former traditions. Many Quebecois are also hostile towards multiculturalism because they believe it reduces their own cultural nation to an ethnic group like any other. They say that, since Quebecois culture and the French language is spoken by a minority in North America and therefore under threat, the national government should not be encouraging the development of rival ethnic communities in the province.
But if we look at our country objectively, giving weight to statistics rather than anecdote, it is hard to avoid concluding that these objections are little more than scaremongering.
Canadian cities are among the most diverse in the world, providing their residents with a high general standard of living and employment. Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto, which absorb roughly 70% of the 250 000 immigrants admitted to Canada each year, have consistently maintained a median income comparable to the provincial median, moderate unemployment and a relatively low rate of crime. Of course, immigrants are not evenly distributed throughout these cities. As has traditionally been the case around the world, immigrants of same descent tend to group together and many neighbourhoods therefore have a high proportion of immigrants of same ethnic origin. But since the standard of living is generally high, it is not accurate to say that our cities are becoming ghettoised.
There are admittedly a handful of areas –the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver and the Jane and Finch corridor in Toronto being the most notable- that have a high proportion of immigrants and which are also beset by serious social problems. The situation in these neighbourhoods gets a lot of media coverage, and rightly so, but we sometimes forget how small they are. Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside has less than 20 000 residents. Jane and Finch has roughly 85 000. To put things in context, Canada has welcomed 3.5 million immigrants in the past 15 years. There are far more New Canadians living in Richmond, a municipality in metro Vancouver in which 65.1% of the population belongs to a visible minority and the average income is only slightly below the provincial average, than in the Downtown Eastside. There are far more immigrants who have settled in Markham, an affluent town of roughly 275 000 people in the GTA where most residents are foreign-born, than in the Jane and Finch corridor.
Information released by the Correctional Service of Canada indicates that visible minorities are not over-represented in Canadian prisons. In fact Asians, who make up the bulk of new immigrants, are significantly under-represented. This contrasts sharply with the situation in France, a staunch advocate of immediate assimilation, where it is estimated that between 60 and 70% of prison inmates are from immigrant families and a similar proportion are Muslim. It also contrasts with the situation in the United-States, home of the melting pot where Hispanic males are incarcerated at a per capita rate six times that of white males.
In Canada it is not the immigrant population that is over-represented in jails, but the aboriginal population. The irony is undeniable. Roughly 20% of offenders incarcerated in the Canadian penitentiary system are of Aboriginal ethnicity, despite the fact that First-Nations only represent 3.8% of the Canadian population. Native Canadians suffer from many of the problems that are associated with immigrants in Europe and Afro-Americans in the United States. The employment rate of Native Canadians is around 70% while the employment rate of non-Natives is above 80%. The Caledon Institute of Public Policy published a study showing that 58% of Aboriginals on reserve between the ages of 20 and 24 haven’t finished high school.
In contrast immigrants and, most importantly, their children, are actually among the best educated Canadians. The immigration selection process places great weight on education, so it is perhaps not particularly surprising that immigrants are, on average, better educated than Canadian born citizens. Significantly, however, a study by University of Ottawa professor Miles Corak (based on 2001 census data) showed that this advantage is replicated in the second generation. In other words, the children of immigrants (even those without a university degree) are better educated than the children of parents who were born in Canada. Second-generation immigrants are also more ambitious. A 2006 study revealed that 78% of visible minority immigrant youths hope to complete at least one university degree, while only 59% of non visible minority youths born in Canada expressed this objective. This is not the case in most other countries, where children of immigrants typically don’t do as well at school as native-born children. Canada has the distinction of being one of only three countries in the OECD where second-generation immigrants scored higher in primary school than native-born children in math and reading tests.
It’s tempting to claim that New Canadians are struggling to integrate mainstream society on the basis of a few highly publicized anecdotes and polls that claim to measure the national pride level of immigrants. The fact that second-generation immigrants are doing so well at school, coupled with the low crime rate of visible minorities and comfortable standard of living in most immigrant communities shows that, actually, Canada isn’t having serious difficulty with integration. Is this thanks to multiculturalism or despite it? Who knows and, frankly, who cares? Whatever we’re doing is working, and as common wisdom would suggest ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.
Many people argue that Canada isn’t nearly as multicultural as it claims. And certainly the policy of multiculturalism often seems to correspond more to rhetoric than to actual practice. Sixty-nine percent of Canadian say that immigrants should “integrate and become part of the Canadian culture,” rather than “maintain their [own] identity.” Equally significantly, our governments also spend far more money and energy on the protection of Francophone and First-Nations communities than on the preservation of immigrant cultures. The province of Quebec rejects multiculturalism in favour of an approach that gives primacy to French. The federal government allows it to virtually run its immigration policy, with the result that 60% of immigrants who settle in Quebec are now francophone.
A 1994 study by University of Toronto sociologists Jeffrey Reitz and Raymond Breton found that language retention of third-generation immigrants was less than 1 per cent both in multicultural Canada and in the melting-pot United States. This is as good an indication as any that it doesn’t really matter what integration policy government chooses to follow, because this doesn’t seem to influence the 99% assimilation rate. The only thing we should acknowledge about assimilation in Canada is that it seems to run more smoothly than in most other western countries. Most European countries also have reasonably powerful far-right parties that are openly racist and committed to the expulsion of immigrants. In Canada, there is no far-right. Australia, the U.K., France, Belgium and the United States have all had serious riots in the past 20 years involving thousands of people, all caused by poor relations between the immigrant community and the rest of society. And although there was a riot in North Montreal on the night of August 10, 2008 involving a few hundred people that was viewed as a reaction to suspected racial profiling by the Montreal police force, this is small potatoes in comparison to the civil unrest that has been experienced in most other western countries.
So maybe multiculturalism is a good thing after all. Or maybe welcoming immigrants successfully is simply part of who we are.
Canada has been officially multicultural since 1971 and this policy has been subject to controversy since inception. Canadian multiculturalism, as it is usually described, is a vision of our society as a mosaic of ethnic groups, each of which have their own culture and traditions. This contrasts with the model found in most European countries of a single, historically-rooted national society and the American model of an ever evolving melting pot. In accordance with our policy of official multiculturalism, immigrants who settle in Canada are encouraged to preserve their culture and traditions, notably by forming cultural organisations with fellow immigrants of the same ethnic origin. Federal and provincial governments award millions of dollars in grants every year to such organisations, and also support festivals and public events that celebrate the cultural heritage of New Canadians.
Multiculturalism has always been criticized on multiple fronts. Many people purport that a policy which encourages immigrants to preserve the traditions of their motherland and to seek out fellow immigrants of the same descent inevitably encourages ghettoisation and discourages integration into mainstream society. Others, most notably in Quebec, would prefer a more traditional vision of Canadian society that recognizes the cultural primacy of the three founding peoples. They believe that immigrants should be encouraged to assimilate into the established cultures – principally Quebecois and English Canadian- and to let go of their former traditions. Many Quebecois are also hostile towards multiculturalism because they believe it reduces their own cultural nation to an ethnic group like any other. They say that, since Quebecois culture and the French language is spoken by a minority in North America and therefore under threat, the national government should not be encouraging the development of rival ethnic communities in the province.
But if we look at our country objectively, giving weight to statistics rather than anecdote, it is hard to avoid concluding that these objections are little more than scaremongering.
Canadian cities are among the most diverse in the world, providing their residents with a high general standard of living and employment. Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto, which absorb roughly 70% of the 250 000 immigrants admitted to Canada each year, have consistently maintained a median income comparable to the provincial median, moderate unemployment and a relatively low rate of crime. Of course, immigrants are not evenly distributed throughout these cities. As has traditionally been the case around the world, immigrants of same descent tend to group together and many neighbourhoods therefore have a high proportion of immigrants of same ethnic origin. But since the standard of living is generally high, it is not accurate to say that our cities are becoming ghettoised.
There are admittedly a handful of areas –the Downtown Eastside in Vancouver and the Jane and Finch corridor in Toronto being the most notable- that have a high proportion of immigrants and which are also beset by serious social problems. The situation in these neighbourhoods gets a lot of media coverage, and rightly so, but we sometimes forget how small they are. Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside has less than 20 000 residents. Jane and Finch has roughly 85 000. To put things in context, Canada has welcomed 3.5 million immigrants in the past 15 years. There are far more New Canadians living in Richmond, a municipality in metro Vancouver in which 65.1% of the population belongs to a visible minority and the average income is only slightly below the provincial average, than in the Downtown Eastside. There are far more immigrants who have settled in Markham, an affluent town of roughly 275 000 people in the GTA where most residents are foreign-born, than in the Jane and Finch corridor.
Information released by the Correctional Service of Canada indicates that visible minorities are not over-represented in Canadian prisons. In fact Asians, who make up the bulk of new immigrants, are significantly under-represented. This contrasts sharply with the situation in France, a staunch advocate of immediate assimilation, where it is estimated that between 60 and 70% of prison inmates are from immigrant families and a similar proportion are Muslim. It also contrasts with the situation in the United-States, home of the melting pot where Hispanic males are incarcerated at a per capita rate six times that of white males.
In Canada it is not the immigrant population that is over-represented in jails, but the aboriginal population. The irony is undeniable. Roughly 20% of offenders incarcerated in the Canadian penitentiary system are of Aboriginal ethnicity, despite the fact that First-Nations only represent 3.8% of the Canadian population. Native Canadians suffer from many of the problems that are associated with immigrants in Europe and Afro-Americans in the United States. The employment rate of Native Canadians is around 70% while the employment rate of non-Natives is above 80%. The Caledon Institute of Public Policy published a study showing that 58% of Aboriginals on reserve between the ages of 20 and 24 haven’t finished high school.
In contrast immigrants and, most importantly, their children, are actually among the best educated Canadians. The immigration selection process places great weight on education, so it is perhaps not particularly surprising that immigrants are, on average, better educated than Canadian born citizens. Significantly, however, a study by University of Ottawa professor Miles Corak (based on 2001 census data) showed that this advantage is replicated in the second generation. In other words, the children of immigrants (even those without a university degree) are better educated than the children of parents who were born in Canada. Second-generation immigrants are also more ambitious. A 2006 study revealed that 78% of visible minority immigrant youths hope to complete at least one university degree, while only 59% of non visible minority youths born in Canada expressed this objective. This is not the case in most other countries, where children of immigrants typically don’t do as well at school as native-born children. Canada has the distinction of being one of only three countries in the OECD where second-generation immigrants scored higher in primary school than native-born children in math and reading tests.
It’s tempting to claim that New Canadians are struggling to integrate mainstream society on the basis of a few highly publicized anecdotes and polls that claim to measure the national pride level of immigrants. The fact that second-generation immigrants are doing so well at school, coupled with the low crime rate of visible minorities and comfortable standard of living in most immigrant communities shows that, actually, Canada isn’t having serious difficulty with integration. Is this thanks to multiculturalism or despite it? Who knows and, frankly, who cares? Whatever we’re doing is working, and as common wisdom would suggest ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.
Many people argue that Canada isn’t nearly as multicultural as it claims. And certainly the policy of multiculturalism often seems to correspond more to rhetoric than to actual practice. Sixty-nine percent of Canadian say that immigrants should “integrate and become part of the Canadian culture,” rather than “maintain their [own] identity.” Equally significantly, our governments also spend far more money and energy on the protection of Francophone and First-Nations communities than on the preservation of immigrant cultures. The province of Quebec rejects multiculturalism in favour of an approach that gives primacy to French. The federal government allows it to virtually run its immigration policy, with the result that 60% of immigrants who settle in Quebec are now francophone.
A 1994 study by University of Toronto sociologists Jeffrey Reitz and Raymond Breton found that language retention of third-generation immigrants was less than 1 per cent both in multicultural Canada and in the melting-pot United States. This is as good an indication as any that it doesn’t really matter what integration policy government chooses to follow, because this doesn’t seem to influence the 99% assimilation rate. The only thing we should acknowledge about assimilation in Canada is that it seems to run more smoothly than in most other western countries. Most European countries also have reasonably powerful far-right parties that are openly racist and committed to the expulsion of immigrants. In Canada, there is no far-right. Australia, the U.K., France, Belgium and the United States have all had serious riots in the past 20 years involving thousands of people, all caused by poor relations between the immigrant community and the rest of society. And although there was a riot in North Montreal on the night of August 10, 2008 involving a few hundred people that was viewed as a reaction to suspected racial profiling by the Montreal police force, this is small potatoes in comparison to the civil unrest that has been experienced in most other western countries.
So maybe multiculturalism is a good thing after all. Or maybe welcoming immigrants successfully is simply part of who we are.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Angliciser Montréal
Le conseiller municipal montréalais Nicolas Montmorency vient de lancer une campagne pour rebaptiser la rue Amherst. La rue tient son nom du Baron Jeffrey Amherst, commandant-en-chef des armées britanniques qui est connu, entre autres choses, pour avoir tenté d'exterminer des populations autochtones en distribuant des couvertures infectées par la variole.
Nicolas Montmorency soutient qu'il est «tout à fait inacceptable qu'un homme ayant tenu des propos soutenant l'extermination des Amérindiens soit honoré». Peut-être a-t-il raison, mais si on devait apppliquer ce même principe à toutes les rues du Québec, il y en aurait des centaines à rebabtiser. Tous les villages ont bien leur avenue Frontenac (et il y existe aussi un certain château) malgré le fait que Louis de Buade, Comte de Frontenac ait mené une guerre sans merci aux Iroquois.
Evidemment, Montmorency ne veut pas repabtiser la rue Amherst à cause des propos que le général Amherst a tenu au sujet des autochtones au 18ème siècle. Il veut repabtiser la rue parce que Amherst est un nom anglophone. Il a d'ailleurs fondé un groupe Facebook qu'il a nommé 'Francisation des rues de Montréal / Rue Amherst'.
Dire qu'au 21ème, il y a encore des élus qui perdent leur temps à franciser des rues dans des quartiers anglophones (la rue Amherst est dans Ville-Marie). Le moment est venu pour M. Montmorency et ses copains de passer au prochain sujet.
Nicolas Montmorency soutient qu'il est «tout à fait inacceptable qu'un homme ayant tenu des propos soutenant l'extermination des Amérindiens soit honoré». Peut-être a-t-il raison, mais si on devait apppliquer ce même principe à toutes les rues du Québec, il y en aurait des centaines à rebabtiser. Tous les villages ont bien leur avenue Frontenac (et il y existe aussi un certain château) malgré le fait que Louis de Buade, Comte de Frontenac ait mené une guerre sans merci aux Iroquois.
Evidemment, Montmorency ne veut pas repabtiser la rue Amherst à cause des propos que le général Amherst a tenu au sujet des autochtones au 18ème siècle. Il veut repabtiser la rue parce que Amherst est un nom anglophone. Il a d'ailleurs fondé un groupe Facebook qu'il a nommé 'Francisation des rues de Montréal / Rue Amherst'.
Dire qu'au 21ème, il y a encore des élus qui perdent leur temps à franciser des rues dans des quartiers anglophones (la rue Amherst est dans Ville-Marie). Le moment est venu pour M. Montmorency et ses copains de passer au prochain sujet.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Cash for Clunkers
After less than a week, the U.S. government's new Cash for Clunkers programme has already met its targets.
The Cash for Clunkers programmes offers car owners $3,500 or $4,500 to purchase new, more fuel-efficient vehicles in the exchange for scrapping their old car. The programme is designed to stimulate the auto industry and reduce the U.S. carbon footprint.
Cash for Clunkers is expensive. It has already eaten one billion dollars of public funds, and the House of Representatives has had to approve two billion more. But is it that effective?
It's estimated that every billion dollars spent on this programme will bring 250 thousand fuel-efficient car purchases. Some of these cars would be purchased anyway, but the unprecedented spike in sales indicates that, at the very least, some people are buying earlier than expected.
If the House spends 4 billion dollars on the programme, which seems to be the amount agreed on, this will replace 1 million old, inefficient vehicles with new, fuel-efficient ones.
1 million cars may sound like a lot, but its actually very little. Approximately 10 million vehicles are sold in the United States every year. The benefit to the auto industry of this programme will therefore be limited. The modest overall gain in fuel efficiency that will reduce the American carbon footprint will also be vastly offset by the millions of new cars hitting the road every year in China, India and other developing countries, most of which are inefficient.
Increasing car efficiency might makes economic sense, but it won't stop global warming. The only way to stop global warming is to find radical new technology, like hydrogen fuel cells, for instance, to bring car emissions down to zero. Improving mileage and reducing emissions by a few percent is great in principle, but it's simply not enough.
The Cash for Clunkers programmes offers car owners $3,500 or $4,500 to purchase new, more fuel-efficient vehicles in the exchange for scrapping their old car. The programme is designed to stimulate the auto industry and reduce the U.S. carbon footprint.
Cash for Clunkers is expensive. It has already eaten one billion dollars of public funds, and the House of Representatives has had to approve two billion more. But is it that effective?
It's estimated that every billion dollars spent on this programme will bring 250 thousand fuel-efficient car purchases. Some of these cars would be purchased anyway, but the unprecedented spike in sales indicates that, at the very least, some people are buying earlier than expected.
If the House spends 4 billion dollars on the programme, which seems to be the amount agreed on, this will replace 1 million old, inefficient vehicles with new, fuel-efficient ones.
1 million cars may sound like a lot, but its actually very little. Approximately 10 million vehicles are sold in the United States every year. The benefit to the auto industry of this programme will therefore be limited. The modest overall gain in fuel efficiency that will reduce the American carbon footprint will also be vastly offset by the millions of new cars hitting the road every year in China, India and other developing countries, most of which are inefficient.
Increasing car efficiency might makes economic sense, but it won't stop global warming. The only way to stop global warming is to find radical new technology, like hydrogen fuel cells, for instance, to bring car emissions down to zero. Improving mileage and reducing emissions by a few percent is great in principle, but it's simply not enough.
Fun fact
Here are some facts:
All members of Barack Obama’s cabinet have earned university degrees and 21 out of 23 hold postgraduate degrees.
15 of the 38 ministers that Stephen Harper named after winning the 2008 election do not hold a university degree.
All members of Barack Obama’s cabinet have earned university degrees and 21 out of 23 hold postgraduate degrees.
15 of the 38 ministers that Stephen Harper named after winning the 2008 election do not hold a university degree.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Just Joking
Many people were pleased when former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was replaced by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto. Musharraf was almost a dictator and exerted complete control over the press. He sometimes took television broadcasters off air when he was facing political opposition.
It seems that Asif Ali Zardari isn't much better. He has just made it a criminal offense to make fun of him. Pakistanis who send jokes by email, text message or blog ridiculing him risk arrest and a 14 year prison sentence.
Since I'm not Pakistani, I don't risk anything, so I'd like to post on this blog some Zardari jokes listed in the Daily Telegraph.
Zardari jokes:
* "Terrorists have kidnapped our beloved Zardari and are demanding $5,000,000 or they will burn him with petrol. Please donate what you can. I have donated five litres."
* To commemorate the ascension to the Presidency, Pakistan Post has officially launched a new stamp. But the people of Pakistan are confused which side on the stamp to spit on.
* Robber: "Give me all your money!"
Zardari: "Don't you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari."
Robber: "OK. Give me all my money"
It seems that Asif Ali Zardari isn't much better. He has just made it a criminal offense to make fun of him. Pakistanis who send jokes by email, text message or blog ridiculing him risk arrest and a 14 year prison sentence.
Since I'm not Pakistani, I don't risk anything, so I'd like to post on this blog some Zardari jokes listed in the Daily Telegraph.
Zardari jokes:
* "Terrorists have kidnapped our beloved Zardari and are demanding $5,000,000 or they will burn him with petrol. Please donate what you can. I have donated five litres."
* To commemorate the ascension to the Presidency, Pakistan Post has officially launched a new stamp. But the people of Pakistan are confused which side on the stamp to spit on.
* Robber: "Give me all your money!"
Zardari: "Don't you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari."
Robber: "OK. Give me all my money"
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Gouverneur général
Michaëlle Jean termine la quatrième année de son mandat de Gouverneur général. Son travail au Canada et à l’étranger est presque unanimement salué par les observateurs. Elle à réussi un exploit que beaucoup de gens croyaient impossible : succéder dans l’honneur à Adrienne Clarkson, qui était reconnue à la fin de son mandat comme le Gouverneur général le plus influent depuis George Vanier.
Chacune à leur façon, Michaëlle Jean et Adrienne Clarkson ont su réinventer la fonction de Gouverneur général. A l’origine, le Gouverneur général était un personnage politique relativement important chargé de représenter la Couronne britannique au Canada. Au fil du vingtième siècle, le Canada s’est autonomisé, le Gouverneur général à perdu le peu d’influence qu’il avait et il a fallu redéfinir son rôle.
Le nouveau gouverneur général, tel qu’imaginé par Clarkson et Jean, est citoyen modèle, rassembleur qui représente le pays à l’étranger et assume des fonctions cérémoniales comme tout chef d’état. C’est un personnage respecté, dépourvu de tout bagage politique, qui possède une aura comparable à celle du premier ministre.
Le gouverneur général, c’est en quelque sorte un deuxième premier ministre. Il distribue des honneurs militaires, accueille les dignitaires étrangers à l’aéroport et se rend sur les lieux de catastrophes naturelles pour réconforter les victimes. Il joue le rôle d’un chef d’état, mais sans être un politicien.
Ce système permet au Premier-ministre de faire le travail pour lequel il a été élu. Le Premier-ministre est censé diriger le gouvernement et implanter son programme électoral. Il n’est pas censé distribuer des sacs de riz dans des villages inondés ou se faire prendre en photo dans un uniforme de pompier pendant un feu de forêt. Il est préférable aussi qu’il ne soit pas obligé de faire le tour de toutes les communautés du pays chaque année.
Le gouverneur général ne sert pas seulement à libérer du temps pour le premier ministre. C’est aussi un individu qui peut s’acquitter de ses fonctions beaucoup mieux que le premier ministre.
On sait tous que les gens les plus admirables ne sont pas nécessairement ceux qui sont élus. Pour être premier ministre, il est bien plus important d’avoir l’instinct politique que d’être un citoyen modèle avec un parcours distingué. Or puisque le Gouverneur général est nommé plutôt qu’élu, il est possible de choisir des individus vraiment exceptionnels qui ne réussiraient pas nécessairement dans l’arène politique. Comme nous avons pu le constater dans les 20 dernières années, les premiers ministres, ne sont pas nécessairement des individus exceptionnels. Adrienne Clarkson et Michaëlle Jean, elles, le sont.
Le Canada a donc la chance d’envoyer Adrienne Clarkson comme représentant à l’étranger plutôt que Jean Chrétien ou Paul Martin, et Michaëlle Jean au lieu de Stephen Harper. Quand on pense qu’un pays comme l’Italie est encore représenté par Silvio Berlusconi, s’il avait un Gouverneur général, peut-être que se serait Umberto Eco qui viendrait en visite officielle.
Chacune à leur façon, Michaëlle Jean et Adrienne Clarkson ont su réinventer la fonction de Gouverneur général. A l’origine, le Gouverneur général était un personnage politique relativement important chargé de représenter la Couronne britannique au Canada. Au fil du vingtième siècle, le Canada s’est autonomisé, le Gouverneur général à perdu le peu d’influence qu’il avait et il a fallu redéfinir son rôle.
Le nouveau gouverneur général, tel qu’imaginé par Clarkson et Jean, est citoyen modèle, rassembleur qui représente le pays à l’étranger et assume des fonctions cérémoniales comme tout chef d’état. C’est un personnage respecté, dépourvu de tout bagage politique, qui possède une aura comparable à celle du premier ministre.
Le gouverneur général, c’est en quelque sorte un deuxième premier ministre. Il distribue des honneurs militaires, accueille les dignitaires étrangers à l’aéroport et se rend sur les lieux de catastrophes naturelles pour réconforter les victimes. Il joue le rôle d’un chef d’état, mais sans être un politicien.
Ce système permet au Premier-ministre de faire le travail pour lequel il a été élu. Le Premier-ministre est censé diriger le gouvernement et implanter son programme électoral. Il n’est pas censé distribuer des sacs de riz dans des villages inondés ou se faire prendre en photo dans un uniforme de pompier pendant un feu de forêt. Il est préférable aussi qu’il ne soit pas obligé de faire le tour de toutes les communautés du pays chaque année.
Le gouverneur général ne sert pas seulement à libérer du temps pour le premier ministre. C’est aussi un individu qui peut s’acquitter de ses fonctions beaucoup mieux que le premier ministre.
On sait tous que les gens les plus admirables ne sont pas nécessairement ceux qui sont élus. Pour être premier ministre, il est bien plus important d’avoir l’instinct politique que d’être un citoyen modèle avec un parcours distingué. Or puisque le Gouverneur général est nommé plutôt qu’élu, il est possible de choisir des individus vraiment exceptionnels qui ne réussiraient pas nécessairement dans l’arène politique. Comme nous avons pu le constater dans les 20 dernières années, les premiers ministres, ne sont pas nécessairement des individus exceptionnels. Adrienne Clarkson et Michaëlle Jean, elles, le sont.
Le Canada a donc la chance d’envoyer Adrienne Clarkson comme représentant à l’étranger plutôt que Jean Chrétien ou Paul Martin, et Michaëlle Jean au lieu de Stephen Harper. Quand on pense qu’un pays comme l’Italie est encore représenté par Silvio Berlusconi, s’il avait un Gouverneur général, peut-être que se serait Umberto Eco qui viendrait en visite officielle.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Visas
I'm away in New Zealand and I don't have access to a computer. This accounts for the diminishing frequency of posts.
I want to say a few words about the new visa restriction that the Canadian government is imposing on Mexico and the Czech Republic. The government claims that the number of refugee claimants from those countries has increased to the point where a visa restriction is necessary.
I don't know about the situation in Mexico, but the idea of imposing visa requirements on the Czech republic makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Czech Republic is a democratic, relatively wealthy state that is part of the Schengen Agreement. Anyone residing in the Czech Republic can travel all through Europe to wealthy countries that include France, Germany, the Netherlands and many others. I understand that there are refugee claimants from the Czech Republic, but if wealthy European countries with a similar standard of living as Canada's let Czech citizens travel without any ID, I just can't see why on earth they should need a visa to come to Canada.
I want to say a few words about the new visa restriction that the Canadian government is imposing on Mexico and the Czech Republic. The government claims that the number of refugee claimants from those countries has increased to the point where a visa restriction is necessary.
I don't know about the situation in Mexico, but the idea of imposing visa requirements on the Czech republic makes absolutely no sense to me.
The Czech Republic is a democratic, relatively wealthy state that is part of the Schengen Agreement. Anyone residing in the Czech Republic can travel all through Europe to wealthy countries that include France, Germany, the Netherlands and many others. I understand that there are refugee claimants from the Czech Republic, but if wealthy European countries with a similar standard of living as Canada's let Czech citizens travel without any ID, I just can't see why on earth they should need a visa to come to Canada.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Histoire
Je suis allé à la librairie aujourd'hui pour acheter un livre sur l'histoire du monde. Je prépare le SAT World History Subject Test et je dois être prêt d'ici le mois d'octobre. J'ai trouvé quelques titres français qui semblaient intéressants, mais je me suis aperçu que la soi-disant histoire du monde qu'ils prétendaient raconter n'était en fait qu'une histoire élargie de la civilisation européenne. Or pour le SAT, il faut vraiment connaître l'histoire du monde. Il faut en savoir à peu près autant sur la dynastie Ming que sur les capétiens. Il faut être capable de répondre à des questions sur le rôle des femmes dans la société néolithique et sur les coutumes des tribus autochtones de l'Afrique centrale.
Comme quoi, le reproche qu'on fait souvent aux américains qu'ils s'intéressent uniquement à leur propre pays ne trouve pas écho dans leur programme d'histoire. En revanche, plusieurs auteurs français de livres sérieux qui se vendent en Europe et en Amérique du Nord sont capables de consacrer dix pages au role de la France pendant la seconde guerre mondiale dans des livres censés raconter l'histoire du monde qui n'en font pas quatre cents.
Comme quoi, le reproche qu'on fait souvent aux américains qu'ils s'intéressent uniquement à leur propre pays ne trouve pas écho dans leur programme d'histoire. En revanche, plusieurs auteurs français de livres sérieux qui se vendent en Europe et en Amérique du Nord sont capables de consacrer dix pages au role de la France pendant la seconde guerre mondiale dans des livres censés raconter l'histoire du monde qui n'en font pas quatre cents.
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin resigned yesterday from her job as Governor of Alaska. Many observers are taking that as a sign that she plans to run for the 2012 republican nomination. All I can say is: may Sarah Palin run. I don't think the american people are crazy enough to elect Sarah Palin, but republican party members just might be!
Sunday, June 21, 2009
My Absence
As you may have noticed, I haven't posted anything new for a week. This is because I've been away at a music institute where I have very limited access to computers. I will be at the institute until July 1st, so I probably won't be able to post anything until then.
After July first, I will of course return to my regular blogging duties. Thanks!
After July first, I will of course return to my regular blogging duties. Thanks!
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Ahmadinejad
According to a report in The Guardian, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is likely to be defeated in tomorrow's election by the 'moderate green' Mir Hossein Mousavi.
As long as the vote isn't rigged, experts are predicting that Mousavi will win by a fairly large margin. Iranians are apparently growing increasingly dissatisfied with Ahmadinedjad, which has also lead to fears of civil unrest if he were somehow to keep his job.
Mousavi is neither a saint nor a liberator, but he is quite significantly to the lef of Ahmadinejad and has pledged to increase personal freedoms.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, after being threatened by the Americans, condemned by the UN security council and attacked by most of the planet, Ahmadinejad were removed by the people of Iran. It just goes to show how, often, the greatest antidote is time.
As long as the vote isn't rigged, experts are predicting that Mousavi will win by a fairly large margin. Iranians are apparently growing increasingly dissatisfied with Ahmadinedjad, which has also lead to fears of civil unrest if he were somehow to keep his job.
Mousavi is neither a saint nor a liberator, but he is quite significantly to the lef of Ahmadinejad and has pledged to increase personal freedoms.
Wouldn't it be ironic if, after being threatened by the Americans, condemned by the UN security council and attacked by most of the planet, Ahmadinejad were removed by the people of Iran. It just goes to show how, often, the greatest antidote is time.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Gripe Porcine
Selon un reportage du Monde, l'Organisation Mondiale de la Santé sera vraisemblablement obligée de faire passer au stade 6 le niveau d'alerte autour de la pandémie de grippe A (H1N1).
D'après les données du Monde, il y aurait jusqu'à maintenant 21 940 cas confirmés de grippe A, dont 125 mortels, dans 69 pays. Le passage au stade 6 signifierait que le virus se propage dans au moins deux régions différentes du monde, ce qui en ferait la première pandémie du 21ème siècle.
Le stade 6 est le niveau d'alerte le plus élevé dont dispse l'OMS. Pourtant, comme nous l'avons tous constaté, la grippe A n'est plus une menace immédiate. Le virus tue très peu de ses victimes, et si une mutation qui le rendrait plus meurtrier n'est pas à exclure, aucune n'a été observée jusqu'à présent.
A mon avis, il faudrait que l'organisation revoie la définition des niveaux d'alertes pour tenir compte non seulement de la propagation du virus mais aussi du taux de mortalié. Le passage au niveau d'alterte maximal devrait être un événement rare réservé à des crises immédiates comme, par exemple, la grippe espagnole. Il faut que "niveau d'alterte six" soit synonyme de "danger de mort pour tous".
En classant la grippe porcine (grippe A) de la même façon qu'elle classerait la grippe espagnole, l'OMS induit les observateurs en erreur. Lorsque la prochaine grippe meurtrière arrivera, beaucoup de gens refuseront peut-être, en pensant à la grippe porcine, de prendre la menace au sérieux.
D'après les données du Monde, il y aurait jusqu'à maintenant 21 940 cas confirmés de grippe A, dont 125 mortels, dans 69 pays. Le passage au stade 6 signifierait que le virus se propage dans au moins deux régions différentes du monde, ce qui en ferait la première pandémie du 21ème siècle.
Le stade 6 est le niveau d'alerte le plus élevé dont dispse l'OMS. Pourtant, comme nous l'avons tous constaté, la grippe A n'est plus une menace immédiate. Le virus tue très peu de ses victimes, et si une mutation qui le rendrait plus meurtrier n'est pas à exclure, aucune n'a été observée jusqu'à présent.
A mon avis, il faudrait que l'organisation revoie la définition des niveaux d'alertes pour tenir compte non seulement de la propagation du virus mais aussi du taux de mortalié. Le passage au niveau d'alterte maximal devrait être un événement rare réservé à des crises immédiates comme, par exemple, la grippe espagnole. Il faut que "niveau d'alterte six" soit synonyme de "danger de mort pour tous".
En classant la grippe porcine (grippe A) de la même façon qu'elle classerait la grippe espagnole, l'OMS induit les observateurs en erreur. Lorsque la prochaine grippe meurtrière arrivera, beaucoup de gens refuseront peut-être, en pensant à la grippe porcine, de prendre la menace au sérieux.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Dear Leader II
According to reports, North-Korea’s self-styled Dear Leader Kim Jong-il is preparing to hand over power to his youngest son, Kim Jong-un. The regime’s obsession with secrecy means that there are no current pictures of Jong-un, but Kim Jong-il’s former personal Japanese Sushi chef claimed in a book that Jong-un “has superb physical gifts, is a big drinker and never admits defeat”.
The one thing that we are fairly certain of is that Kim Jong-un spent a few years studying at the International School in Berne. Former students describe him in a positive light. David Gatley, the director of the school between 1993 to 2004, is quoted as saying that Jong-un “ wasn't a show off, and he often would get involved in separating two friends who were fighting. He had a lot of friends among the children of American diplomats. He went on school trips. He once went to Eastern Europe on a trip organized by the drama department. We had a lot of trouble getting him a visa.”
How does it work? How can someone who studied in Switzerland, who became friends with American diplomats and who was apparently good a mediating peace between classmates return to North-Korea and take a leadership position in an oppressive regime?
Clearly, Kim Jong-un is a man who could have become a perfectly respectable Swiss citizen. Had he been born in different circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that he would have descended into violence. As his former principal and classmates tell us, he was not genetically programmed to be a remorseless tyrant.
The story of Kim Jong-il shows just how important it is to be raised in the right environment. We’re all capable of doing terrible things if we are manipulated or trained to do so. We must stay vigilant, because even good kids like Kim Jong-il can be turned into monsters.
The one thing that we are fairly certain of is that Kim Jong-un spent a few years studying at the International School in Berne. Former students describe him in a positive light. David Gatley, the director of the school between 1993 to 2004, is quoted as saying that Jong-un “ wasn't a show off, and he often would get involved in separating two friends who were fighting. He had a lot of friends among the children of American diplomats. He went on school trips. He once went to Eastern Europe on a trip organized by the drama department. We had a lot of trouble getting him a visa.”
How does it work? How can someone who studied in Switzerland, who became friends with American diplomats and who was apparently good a mediating peace between classmates return to North-Korea and take a leadership position in an oppressive regime?
Clearly, Kim Jong-un is a man who could have become a perfectly respectable Swiss citizen. Had he been born in different circumstances, there is nothing to suggest that he would have descended into violence. As his former principal and classmates tell us, he was not genetically programmed to be a remorseless tyrant.
The story of Kim Jong-il shows just how important it is to be raised in the right environment. We’re all capable of doing terrible things if we are manipulated or trained to do so. We must stay vigilant, because even good kids like Kim Jong-il can be turned into monsters.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Outliers
Those of you who have read Malcolm Gladwell's latest bestseller, Outliers, will remember the passage at the beginning of the books where he shows that a disproportionate number of all-star junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year. Gladwell attributes this to the fact that slightly older players have a slight size advantage as children and are therefore more likely to get into competitive leagues with better coaches and more hours of practice.
This seems like a truly astonishing statistic, but it's also slightly misleading. While it's true that an overwhelming proportion of top junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year, this is not the case at the top of the NHL. This year, for instance, the top three scorers in the NHL were born respectively in July, August and September. Wayne Gretzky was born on January 21st but Mario Lemieux was born on October 5fth. Really, among the top, top players, among the best of the best, there doesn't seem to be any clustering of brithdates.
Gladwell's book is about Outliers, so it's a little bit misleading for him to study junior hockey players -who aren't really outliers- rather than NHL stars.
This seems like a truly astonishing statistic, but it's also slightly misleading. While it's true that an overwhelming proportion of top junior hockey players are born in the first months of the year, this is not the case at the top of the NHL. This year, for instance, the top three scorers in the NHL were born respectively in July, August and September. Wayne Gretzky was born on January 21st but Mario Lemieux was born on October 5fth. Really, among the top, top players, among the best of the best, there doesn't seem to be any clustering of brithdates.
Gladwell's book is about Outliers, so it's a little bit misleading for him to study junior hockey players -who aren't really outliers- rather than NHL stars.
Don't be fooled
Some of you may have read that the Conservative negative ads have worked. This seems to be the general media consensus, and it is all based on a poll which can be consulted here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-a-tims-man-but-ignatieff-inspires/article1161277/
However, there's a serious snag. While the poll does show that Harper is perceived as more patriotic than Ignatieff, there are no earlier polls to compare current results with. In other words, there's no before and after; just the after.
However, there's a serious snag. While the poll does show that Harper is perceived as more patriotic than Ignatieff, there are no earlier polls to compare current results with. In other words, there's no before and after; just the after.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Eh bien voilà. Après plusieurs semaines de spéculation, le Ministère des finances a avoué que le déficit fédéral atteindrait les 50 milliards de dollars cette année. C'est 20 milliards de plus qu'avait annoncé Jim Flaherty dans son dernier budget.
20 millards! Voilà une bien grosse somme d'argent. Mais que signifie-t-elle dans le contexte économique actuel? Y a-t-il vraiment matière à s'inquiéter?
Oui et non.
Pour le gouvernement canadien, 20 milliards de dollars, ce n'est pas une si grosse somme. Rappelons-nous que les gouvernements libéraux faisaient souvent des erreurs de dix à 20 milliards de dollars dans leurs prévisions budgétaires. Évidemment, dans leur cas, il s'agissait de surplus et non pas de déficits...
20 milliards de dollars, c'est non seulement une somme d'argent assez modeste pour un gouvernement, mais c'est aussi une somme que le Canada peut se permettre de dépenser (voire même de gaspiller). La dette canadienne, calculée en fonction du PIB national, est la plus petite du G8. Grâce à 15 ans de prospérité et gestion compétente du trésor public, le gouvernement du Canada a les moyens de dépenser de l'argent.
Ce dont on devrait s'inquiéter, ce n'est pas d'avoir une dette de cinquante milliards à rembourser mais d'avoir encore aux commandes le gouvernement qui nous a mis dans cette situation. Soyons précis, le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas responsable de la crise économique et il avait raison de mettre les finances du pays dans le rouge pour relancer l'économie. Mais en baissant la TPS de deux points, le gouvernement s'est privé d'environ 10 milliards de dollars de revenus annuels, ce qui, en deux ans, donne notre nombre magique: 20 milliards.
20 millards! Voilà une bien grosse somme d'argent. Mais que signifie-t-elle dans le contexte économique actuel? Y a-t-il vraiment matière à s'inquiéter?
Oui et non.
Pour le gouvernement canadien, 20 milliards de dollars, ce n'est pas une si grosse somme. Rappelons-nous que les gouvernements libéraux faisaient souvent des erreurs de dix à 20 milliards de dollars dans leurs prévisions budgétaires. Évidemment, dans leur cas, il s'agissait de surplus et non pas de déficits...
20 milliards de dollars, c'est non seulement une somme d'argent assez modeste pour un gouvernement, mais c'est aussi une somme que le Canada peut se permettre de dépenser (voire même de gaspiller). La dette canadienne, calculée en fonction du PIB national, est la plus petite du G8. Grâce à 15 ans de prospérité et gestion compétente du trésor public, le gouvernement du Canada a les moyens de dépenser de l'argent.
Ce dont on devrait s'inquiéter, ce n'est pas d'avoir une dette de cinquante milliards à rembourser mais d'avoir encore aux commandes le gouvernement qui nous a mis dans cette situation. Soyons précis, le gouvernement conservateur n'est pas responsable de la crise économique et il avait raison de mettre les finances du pays dans le rouge pour relancer l'économie. Mais en baissant la TPS de deux points, le gouvernement s'est privé d'environ 10 milliards de dollars de revenus annuels, ce qui, en deux ans, donne notre nombre magique: 20 milliards.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Things
I'm tired, it's late, and I can't find any ideas, so I'll simply as I usually do: post a cartoon from the Globe and Mail.
The one story I did find worth following in the past few days was the suicide of former Korean President Roh Moo-hyun who killed himself because of allegations of corruption. President Roh's name was being dragged through the mud until his death but he is now being mourned by thousands in a tremendous outpour of public sympathy. Of course, this sympathy won't make Roh feel much better at this stage, but it might have helped him avoid suicide if it had manifested itself earlier.
Now, think of Brian Mulroney, who was apparently driven to tears by aggressive reporters this week. If he were to die tomorrow of heart failure -or to commit suicide-, we would forget all about the Oliphant inquiry and remember only for successes as Prime Minister.
Maybe we should try doings things in the opposite order from now on: respect former holders of public office while they are alive and drag their names through the mud after their death.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Guantanamo
Barack Obama's pledge to close the Guantanamo Bay prison by January 2010 is looking more unlikely by the day. The US Senate and House of Representatives have both overwhelmingly voted to prevent the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the US.
This latest episode just shows how hard it is for Americans to exorcise the demons of Bush's years in power. It's not just the logistical quagmire that comes with having to find a home for 200 or so presumed terrorists. Just as bad is the paranoia. Six months after Bush's farewell, after Obama's election, Americans are still scared.
US Senators and Congressmen can't honestly believe that it would be impossible to find a safe home for 200 or so prisoners in the United-States. They're smart individuals, and objectively, they would all agree that transferring 200 men from Cuba to a high security US detention centre would be a feasible undertaking for the most powerful nation in the world. But they're still scared. They still have that impulse of the Bush years that hears the word "terrorist" and immediately associates it with "panic.
Dear Obama: Good luck!
This latest episode just shows how hard it is for Americans to exorcise the demons of Bush's years in power. It's not just the logistical quagmire that comes with having to find a home for 200 or so presumed terrorists. Just as bad is the paranoia. Six months after Bush's farewell, after Obama's election, Americans are still scared.
US Senators and Congressmen can't honestly believe that it would be impossible to find a safe home for 200 or so prisoners in the United-States. They're smart individuals, and objectively, they would all agree that transferring 200 men from Cuba to a high security US detention centre would be a feasible undertaking for the most powerful nation in the world. But they're still scared. They still have that impulse of the Bush years that hears the word "terrorist" and immediately associates it with "panic.
Dear Obama: Good luck!
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Free Ride
The Ignatieff negative ads have been out for about a week now. Has anyone noticed how little response there has been from the media? The ads seem to have gone largely unnoticed.
When the Conservatives ran their fist ads against Stéphane Dion, it was a much bigger media event. In a matter of days, the ads cought on and journalists started inserting into their stories the idea that Stéphane Dion was weak (an idea they hadn't previously thought of).
The contrast is worth noting. Maybe the one true statement that the Conservatives have come up with about Michael Ignatieff is that the media have "given him a free ride". Or maybe the media simply chose make Dion crash.
When the Conservatives ran their fist ads against Stéphane Dion, it was a much bigger media event. In a matter of days, the ads cought on and journalists started inserting into their stories the idea that Stéphane Dion was weak (an idea they hadn't previously thought of).
The contrast is worth noting. Maybe the one true statement that the Conservatives have come up with about Michael Ignatieff is that the media have "given him a free ride". Or maybe the media simply chose make Dion crash.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
I’ve been trying all week to write an ending to my previous piece. I’ve decided that I’d be better starting again from scratch. I’ll post my new version some time next week.
-
In the past two days, three politicians have been facing questioning about alleged illegal activities. Brian Mulroney is being questioned by the Oliphant enquiry about his dealings with the Karlheinz Shreiber. Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien is in Court answering to bribery charges. Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is being grilled by the partisan House of Commons ethics committee about the alleged abuse of foreign caregivers whom she hired to look after her mother.
What bothers me about this situation is not the fact that three important politicians are facing allegations of criminal conduct. Quite to the contrary, I’m disturbed that we see anything wrong with politicians facing allegations.
In my books, allegations are allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An individual who is facing criminal charges can keep his reputation intact until the charges have been proven.
We have already made Brian Mulroney into “Lying Brian” even though he has never been sentenced in court. Ruby Dhalla’s political career is over because two nannies publicly accused her of abusing them. This is wrong.
We have no right to stigmatise individuals whose only crime is to be accused. The fact of the matter is that court system is the only body able to establish guilt. Until guilt has been proven, we have a duty to treat the accused like any other citizen. After all, we never know when we might find ourselves facing serious charges. All it takes is one public lie and a reputation that took a lifetime to build can be irreversibly destroyed.
-
In the past two days, three politicians have been facing questioning about alleged illegal activities. Brian Mulroney is being questioned by the Oliphant enquiry about his dealings with the Karlheinz Shreiber. Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien is in Court answering to bribery charges. Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla is being grilled by the partisan House of Commons ethics committee about the alleged abuse of foreign caregivers whom she hired to look after her mother.
What bothers me about this situation is not the fact that three important politicians are facing allegations of criminal conduct. Quite to the contrary, I’m disturbed that we see anything wrong with politicians facing allegations.
In my books, allegations are allegations. A defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. An individual who is facing criminal charges can keep his reputation intact until the charges have been proven.
We have already made Brian Mulroney into “Lying Brian” even though he has never been sentenced in court. Ruby Dhalla’s political career is over because two nannies publicly accused her of abusing them. This is wrong.
We have no right to stigmatise individuals whose only crime is to be accused. The fact of the matter is that court system is the only body able to establish guilt. Until guilt has been proven, we have a duty to treat the accused like any other citizen. After all, we never know when we might find ourselves facing serious charges. All it takes is one public lie and a reputation that took a lifetime to build can be irreversibly destroyed.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Continuation
There are currently one million French Canadians living outside Quebec. Most are scattered along the Quebec border in Ontario and New-Brunswick. A few more are in Winnipeg. The francophones of English Canada face a difficult situation by living in an English society. English is inevitably the language of their daily life, so they can only be francophones at home. As such they cannot be true francophones; not as long as they greet strangers with ‘Hello’ rather than ‘Bonjour’.
This is what it means to live in a minority. However hard one struggles to maintain a language, how ever desperately one tries to hold on to a culture, it is impossible outside the confines of the cultural centre and the family home. Life in a minority is life with people who are culturally deaf. Assimilation is very hard to avoid.
What to make of it depends on one’s point of view. Our immigration system relies on assimilation. Otherwise, Canada would see the emergence of cultural ghettos and the social problems that come with them. Many new Canadians also dream of assimilation. Their goal is for their children to children grow up as full members of Canadian society, even if means they abandon the culture of their ancestors.
To French Canadians, assimilation is above all a source of fear. The fear of disappearing has long been a source of great angst. It’s easy to o see why: seven million or so French speakers are surrounded by over three hundred million Anglophones. The numbers are unreal.
Assimilation captivates the lives of French Canadians. Even in Quebec, an objectively Francophone province, not a month goes by without some minor controversy being caused by a Montreal newspaper about the abuse of French in the province. In the rest of Canada, fears of assimilation are supported by statistics.
(To be continued.)
This is what it means to live in a minority. However hard one struggles to maintain a language, how ever desperately one tries to hold on to a culture, it is impossible outside the confines of the cultural centre and the family home. Life in a minority is life with people who are culturally deaf. Assimilation is very hard to avoid.
What to make of it depends on one’s point of view. Our immigration system relies on assimilation. Otherwise, Canada would see the emergence of cultural ghettos and the social problems that come with them. Many new Canadians also dream of assimilation. Their goal is for their children to children grow up as full members of Canadian society, even if means they abandon the culture of their ancestors.
To French Canadians, assimilation is above all a source of fear. The fear of disappearing has long been a source of great angst. It’s easy to o see why: seven million or so French speakers are surrounded by over three hundred million Anglophones. The numbers are unreal.
Assimilation captivates the lives of French Canadians. Even in Quebec, an objectively Francophone province, not a month goes by without some minor controversy being caused by a Montreal newspaper about the abuse of French in the province. In the rest of Canada, fears of assimilation are supported by statistics.
(To be continued.)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Part 2 (Redone)
This is the continuation of a recent post, but its really a new beginning since I felt that the last post missed the point.
How does a bilingual Canadian, walking his dog in a park, say ‘Hello’ to a stranger? He has options, after all. He can say ‘Hi! Beautiful day, isn’t it!’ or he can say ‘Bonjour! Quelle belle journée!’ If he really can’t decide on a language, he can nod his head and smile.
My personal experience, as a bilingual Canadian who doesn’t own a dog but loves to go for a walk, is that one language takes precedence over the other. I live in Ottawa, so I naturally speak to strangers in English. On the rare instances that I cross the bridge to Québec, I immediately switch over to French.
If one defines the language of a society by the language in which strangers greet each other, the picture of Canada is very clear. Quebec society is French because everywhere in the province, with the possible exception of the West Island of Montreal, strangers say ‘bonjour’ rather than ‘hello’. The rest of Canada is English because even in the most multiethnic neighbourhoods, English is the common language that is spoken in the street.
There are currently one million French Canadians living outside Quebec. Most are scattered along the Quebec border in Ontario and New-Brunswick. A few more are in Winnipeg. The francophones of English Canada face a difficult situation by living in an English society. Since English is inevitably the language of their daily life, they are only be francophones at home. They cannot be true francophones; not as long as they greet strangers with ‘Hello’ rather than ‘Bonjour’.
(To be continued)
How does a bilingual Canadian, walking his dog in a park, say ‘Hello’ to a stranger? He has options, after all. He can say ‘Hi! Beautiful day, isn’t it!’ or he can say ‘Bonjour! Quelle belle journée!’ If he really can’t decide on a language, he can nod his head and smile.
My personal experience, as a bilingual Canadian who doesn’t own a dog but loves to go for a walk, is that one language takes precedence over the other. I live in Ottawa, so I naturally speak to strangers in English. On the rare instances that I cross the bridge to Québec, I immediately switch over to French.
If one defines the language of a society by the language in which strangers greet each other, the picture of Canada is very clear. Quebec society is French because everywhere in the province, with the possible exception of the West Island of Montreal, strangers say ‘bonjour’ rather than ‘hello’. The rest of Canada is English because even in the most multiethnic neighbourhoods, English is the common language that is spoken in the street.
There are currently one million French Canadians living outside Quebec. Most are scattered along the Quebec border in Ontario and New-Brunswick. A few more are in Winnipeg. The francophones of English Canada face a difficult situation by living in an English society. Since English is inevitably the language of their daily life, they are only be francophones at home. They cannot be true francophones; not as long as they greet strangers with ‘Hello’ rather than ‘Bonjour’.
(To be continued)
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Disappearing Communities
Canada is not bilingual. The province of Québec is exclusively French speaking. Everywhere else is English.
French survived in Québec because the provincial government protected it with laws. Laws made French the language of business and professional life. They also ensured the demographic stability of Francophones by making it impossible for immigrants to send their children to public school in any other language.
Canada outside Québec is an English country. People work and interact in English and consume a northern strain of American culture. There are only a million francophones. Most live along the Quebec border in Ontario and New-Brunswick. A few more are in Winnipeg and Edmonton.
Unlike the Québécois, these small French communities are not protected by language laws. Surrounded by English, they are assimilating slowly but surely, against their will.
(to be continued)
French survived in Québec because the provincial government protected it with laws. Laws made French the language of business and professional life. They also ensured the demographic stability of Francophones by making it impossible for immigrants to send their children to public school in any other language.
Canada outside Québec is an English country. People work and interact in English and consume a northern strain of American culture. There are only a million francophones. Most live along the Quebec border in Ontario and New-Brunswick. A few more are in Winnipeg and Edmonton.
Unlike the Québécois, these small French communities are not protected by language laws. Surrounded by English, they are assimilating slowly but surely, against their will.
(to be continued)
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Epistola sur le multiculturalisme
Le multiculturalisme, comme le hockey, est l’un de ses sujets dont les Canadiens débattent beucoup. Malheureusement, comme dans le hockey encore, l’émotion a tendance à dominer le débat. Quand les politiciens et journalistes s’en mêlent, ils y ajoutent la démagogie. Il est donc normal que beaucoup de gens aient du mal à s’y retrouver. Essayons de faire le tri dans les idées.
Le multiculturalisme est critiqué sur deux points principaux. D’abord, on lui reproche de ralentir l’intégration des immigrants en les encourageant à garder leur culture d’origine. Ensuite, on affirme qu’il porte atteinte à l’égalité des citoyens et à la laïcité de l’état en permettant à certaines personnes de contourner les lois au nom de la religion.
Sur le premier axe, il y a des bonnes nouvelles : la réalité sur le terrain, mesurée statistiquement, montre qu’il n’y a pas matière à s’inquiéter. Le Canada ne connaît pas les problèmes de violence raciste observés dans plusieurs pays européens. Nos grandes villes ont des quartiers ethniques, mais ce ne sont pas des ghettos puisqu’il n’y a pas de pauvreté endémique et que la concentration d’immigrants de même origine n’est jamais aussi élevée qu’on le croit. Dans la ville de Brampton, par exemple, qui est parfois qualifiée de «ghetto Sikh», 67,78% des habitants sont chrétiens et le revenu médian est de 27,187 $, par rapport à 25,615 $ pour tout le Canada.
Autre excellente nouvelle : Statistiques Canada indique que les immigrants du Canada et leurs enfants, loin de souffrir du manque de dynamisme qu’on retrouve par exemple dans les «cités» immigrantes de la banlieue parisienne, sont généralement ambitieux. En 2006, une étude révélait que 79% des enfants immigrants faisant partie d’une minorité visible comptaient obtenir un diplôme universitaire, tandis que seulement 57% des enfants nés au Canada partageaient cet objectif.
On ne peut donc pas dire que l’immigration au Canada pose problème. En fait, ceux qui font face aux plus importants défis, ce sont les autochtones. Notons bien l’ironie. Le taux d’emploi chez les autochtones hors-réserve est de 70,1%. Il est de 82,5% pour les non-autochtones. Dans les réserves, le Caledon Institute of Public Policy rapporte de 58% des jeunes de 20 à 24 ans n’ont pas de diplôme d’études secondaires. Le taux de suicide est cinq fois plus élevé chez les jeunes autochtones que chez les non-autochtones.
Le gouvernement fédéral a longtemps cherché à intégrer de force les autochtones dans la société canadienne anglo-saxonne et on comprend maintenant à quel point c’était dangereux. En cherchant à briser les liens des autochtones avec leur culture ancestrale, le gouvernement a créé un vide culturel qui est à l’origine de nombre des problèmes auxquels les autochtones font face aujourd’hui. Faut-il y voir la preuve du bien fondé du multiculturalisme, qui cherche précisément à maintenir ses liens? Peut-être. En tout cas, une forme de multiculturalisme aurait été souhaitable lorsque les colonisateurs européens sont arrivés en Amérique du Nord. Ce même multiculturalisme semble aussi bien fonctionner aujourd’hui, comme en témoigne l’état excellent des communautés immigrantes du Canada.
Que dire, alors, de cette deuxième critique : que le multiculturalisme affaiblit l’égalité des citoyens et la laïcité de l’état en permettant aux immigrants de contourner les lois au nom de la religion? Tout simplement qu’il n’y a aucun lien entre le multiculturalisme et l’application des lois. Le multiculturalisme, c’est simplement un engagement de l’état d’aider les immigrants qui le souhaitent à maintenir les liens avec la culture de leurs parents. Concrètement, ça veut dire que le gouvernement verse chaque année quelques centaines de millions de dollars à des associations ethno-culturelles et qu’il ne met pas les nouveaux arrivants dans des situations où ils se sentent obligés d’abandonner leur culture d’origine pour se faire acceptés, comme par exemple en leur demandant de signer un contrat promettant de souscrire aux valeurs de leur pays d’accueil.
L’idée selon laquelle le caractère multiculturel du Canada devrait permettre à certaines personnes de se soustraire aux lois pour des motifs religieux est insensée : il n’y a aucune contradiction entre le multiculturalisme et l’application égalitaire des lois. Depuis Locke, nous définissons comme principe démocratique fondamental que ce qui est interdit en société civile l’est aussi dans le cadre de la religion. Il y a aucune raison pour laquelle le multiculturalisme devrait nous poussé à revoir ce principe. Rien n’empêche d’encourager les immigrants à maintenir les liens avec leur culture d’origine –l’ojectif du multiculturalisme- tout en les obligeant à écarter les éléments de cette culture qui sont interdits par la loi.
Le Canada est officiellement multiculturel depuis 1971. Comme nous l’avons vu précédemment, l’immigration se porte bien aujourd’hui. Est-ce grâce, ou en dépit du multiculturalisme, qui sait? Certains pays officiellement multiculturels comme le Royaume-Uni et le Pays-Bas ont des problèmes important d’intégration et même de terrorisme. D’autres pays qui préconisent l’intégration immédiate comme la France, la Belgique et la Suisse, font face à une montée de la violence raciste. En fait, il n’y a aucun modèle qui semble fonctionner partout. On constate cependant que l’intégration se fait plus facilement dans les pays comme le Canada, les Etats-Unis et l’Australie qui ont été peuplé récemment par des colons et où l’écrasante majorité de la population, au fond, est immigrante. Tout ceci n’est peut-être donc qu’une question de mentalités : qu’un pays soit multiculturel, pluriculturel, uniculturel ou culturellement vide, le plus important, c’est d’être tolérant.
Le multiculturalisme est critiqué sur deux points principaux. D’abord, on lui reproche de ralentir l’intégration des immigrants en les encourageant à garder leur culture d’origine. Ensuite, on affirme qu’il porte atteinte à l’égalité des citoyens et à la laïcité de l’état en permettant à certaines personnes de contourner les lois au nom de la religion.
Sur le premier axe, il y a des bonnes nouvelles : la réalité sur le terrain, mesurée statistiquement, montre qu’il n’y a pas matière à s’inquiéter. Le Canada ne connaît pas les problèmes de violence raciste observés dans plusieurs pays européens. Nos grandes villes ont des quartiers ethniques, mais ce ne sont pas des ghettos puisqu’il n’y a pas de pauvreté endémique et que la concentration d’immigrants de même origine n’est jamais aussi élevée qu’on le croit. Dans la ville de Brampton, par exemple, qui est parfois qualifiée de «ghetto Sikh», 67,78% des habitants sont chrétiens et le revenu médian est de 27,187 $, par rapport à 25,615 $ pour tout le Canada.
Autre excellente nouvelle : Statistiques Canada indique que les immigrants du Canada et leurs enfants, loin de souffrir du manque de dynamisme qu’on retrouve par exemple dans les «cités» immigrantes de la banlieue parisienne, sont généralement ambitieux. En 2006, une étude révélait que 79% des enfants immigrants faisant partie d’une minorité visible comptaient obtenir un diplôme universitaire, tandis que seulement 57% des enfants nés au Canada partageaient cet objectif.
On ne peut donc pas dire que l’immigration au Canada pose problème. En fait, ceux qui font face aux plus importants défis, ce sont les autochtones. Notons bien l’ironie. Le taux d’emploi chez les autochtones hors-réserve est de 70,1%. Il est de 82,5% pour les non-autochtones. Dans les réserves, le Caledon Institute of Public Policy rapporte de 58% des jeunes de 20 à 24 ans n’ont pas de diplôme d’études secondaires. Le taux de suicide est cinq fois plus élevé chez les jeunes autochtones que chez les non-autochtones.
Le gouvernement fédéral a longtemps cherché à intégrer de force les autochtones dans la société canadienne anglo-saxonne et on comprend maintenant à quel point c’était dangereux. En cherchant à briser les liens des autochtones avec leur culture ancestrale, le gouvernement a créé un vide culturel qui est à l’origine de nombre des problèmes auxquels les autochtones font face aujourd’hui. Faut-il y voir la preuve du bien fondé du multiculturalisme, qui cherche précisément à maintenir ses liens? Peut-être. En tout cas, une forme de multiculturalisme aurait été souhaitable lorsque les colonisateurs européens sont arrivés en Amérique du Nord. Ce même multiculturalisme semble aussi bien fonctionner aujourd’hui, comme en témoigne l’état excellent des communautés immigrantes du Canada.
Que dire, alors, de cette deuxième critique : que le multiculturalisme affaiblit l’égalité des citoyens et la laïcité de l’état en permettant aux immigrants de contourner les lois au nom de la religion? Tout simplement qu’il n’y a aucun lien entre le multiculturalisme et l’application des lois. Le multiculturalisme, c’est simplement un engagement de l’état d’aider les immigrants qui le souhaitent à maintenir les liens avec la culture de leurs parents. Concrètement, ça veut dire que le gouvernement verse chaque année quelques centaines de millions de dollars à des associations ethno-culturelles et qu’il ne met pas les nouveaux arrivants dans des situations où ils se sentent obligés d’abandonner leur culture d’origine pour se faire acceptés, comme par exemple en leur demandant de signer un contrat promettant de souscrire aux valeurs de leur pays d’accueil.
L’idée selon laquelle le caractère multiculturel du Canada devrait permettre à certaines personnes de se soustraire aux lois pour des motifs religieux est insensée : il n’y a aucune contradiction entre le multiculturalisme et l’application égalitaire des lois. Depuis Locke, nous définissons comme principe démocratique fondamental que ce qui est interdit en société civile l’est aussi dans le cadre de la religion. Il y a aucune raison pour laquelle le multiculturalisme devrait nous poussé à revoir ce principe. Rien n’empêche d’encourager les immigrants à maintenir les liens avec leur culture d’origine –l’ojectif du multiculturalisme- tout en les obligeant à écarter les éléments de cette culture qui sont interdits par la loi.
Le Canada est officiellement multiculturel depuis 1971. Comme nous l’avons vu précédemment, l’immigration se porte bien aujourd’hui. Est-ce grâce, ou en dépit du multiculturalisme, qui sait? Certains pays officiellement multiculturels comme le Royaume-Uni et le Pays-Bas ont des problèmes important d’intégration et même de terrorisme. D’autres pays qui préconisent l’intégration immédiate comme la France, la Belgique et la Suisse, font face à une montée de la violence raciste. En fait, il n’y a aucun modèle qui semble fonctionner partout. On constate cependant que l’intégration se fait plus facilement dans les pays comme le Canada, les Etats-Unis et l’Australie qui ont été peuplé récemment par des colons et où l’écrasante majorité de la population, au fond, est immigrante. Tout ceci n’est peut-être donc qu’une question de mentalités : qu’un pays soit multiculturel, pluriculturel, uniculturel ou culturellement vide, le plus important, c’est d’être tolérant.
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Media
Stéphane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal Party of Canada on December 2nd 2006. Few people expected his victory. He arrived at the Montreal leadership convention as the fourth placed candidate with only sixteen percent of elected delegates and his campaign spent a million dollars less than Bob Rae’s. On top of that, his convention speech ran over time and his microphone was cut off before he reached the end.
Dion won, it turned out, by being everyone’s second choice. Front-runner Michael Ignatieff was polarizing while Bob Rae was considered dead in Ontario. Stéphane Dion was a candidate everyone could live with. He was also a candidate delegates could feel proud voting for, because his personality stronger morally than politically. Choosing Dion was a slap in the face to all those like Jack Layton who had claimed a few months earlier that Dion was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."
Stéphane Dion was not the first choice of Liberal MPs, the majority of whom supported Michael Ignatieff. His strongest supporters in the months leading up to the Montreal leadership convention were in the Press. Dion was officially endorsed by the Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail, who described him in an editorial as “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation.” Newspapers who chose other candidates all recognized his courage and integrity. Even Le Devoir, a Québec paper with sovereigntist leanings, wrote that “Dion is the candidate who, in the course of the leadership race, made among the strongest contribution of ideas.” Their only reason for choosing Michael Ignatieff over him was his sympathy to Québec nationalism.
In late January 2007, less than two months after Stéphane Dion’s leadership victory, the Conservative Party rolled out a series of now infamous attack ads portraying Dion as a weak leader. The ads featured clips of Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden criticizing their party’s environmental record in a leadership debate. Dion was shown answering “This is unfair!” and “Do you think its easy to make priorities?” The ads were unfavourably received. A Harris-Decima poll published on February 7th at the end of the ad blitz showed that fifty-nine percent of Canadians who had seen the ads found them unfair, while only twenty-two percent found them fair. The media were unanimous in their criticism. Even journalists at the National Post found the ads morally questionable.
Polling agencies detected a small shift in voting intentions from the Liberals to the Conservatives in the aftermath of the campaign. Nanos Research and Harris-Decima put the two parties in a statistical tie, while Strategic Counsel gave the Conservatives a slight lead. However, considering that the nearest confidence vote was at least a month away and that the Liberal Party still enjoyed higher levels of support than in the last election, if would have been difficult, at the time, to call the negative advertising campaign a success.
It turned out that the real effect of the ads was to redefine Stéphane Dion for the media. In a few short weeks, he went from being “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation” to a weak intellectual unable to lead his party. The Conservatives succeeded at creating a new Stéphane Dion that had little to do with the one who had been in politics for the previous ten years. Journalists, obviously, claimed that Dion had been redefined in the eyes of Canadian, but the public opinion polls mentioned above clearly demonstrate that they were the only ones whose opinion had been swayed.
From then on, everything Dion did was reported through the lens of “weakness” and “lack of leadership”. His refusal to make personal attacks in Question Period became a sign of his inability to lead. His attempts to put forward progressive public policy for debate, as he did with the 30-50 plan against poverty, were dismissed by the media as “too intellectual” and “difficult for average Canadians to understand”. Journalists started finding problems that no one had ever considered before. For instance, they decided that Canadians could no longer understand his English, even though they had managed fine in the ten years he spent as a cabinet minister. When Dion he published his Green Shift, that economists largely applauded, he was, predictably, decapitated.
All that time, Stephen Harper was acting like a bully and running into situations that seriously put in question his morality. Everyday, in Question Period, his party handpicked ministers to dodge questions and insult opposition members. In the short slot before Question Period reserved for MP statements about issues affecting their riding, Conservative backbenchers were instructed to read vicious statements about Dion to destabilise him. In May 2007, it was discovered that the Conservative Party had given all its MP chairing House of Commons Committees a 200 page handbook on obstructing and manipulating proceedings.
Yet none of these things did him much harm to Stephen Harper’s public image. Actually, his viciousness in the House of Commons, and, most strangely, his well documented control over the media, seemed to contribute to his image of “competence” and “strength”. Even when Conservative Party headquarters were raided by the RCMP at the request of Elections Canada, the media seemed to conclude that the any illegal scheme only highlighted the Prime Minister’s strategic intelligence and desire to win.
The hypocrisy is startling. Journalists never miss an opportunity to complain about demagoguery, the lack of decorum in the House of Commons, the paucity of intelligent political debate and the lack of a long term vision in government. Yet when the Conservative Party releases negative ads, they are the first to fall for them. When Stéphane Dion, the one politician who meets all their moral criteria, is elected Liberal Leader, rather than praising him and supporting him, they decide that Canadians will not understand him.
When Steven Harper, who is exactly the type of politician journalists claim to hate, acts like a bully in the House of Commons, they simply decide that it’s just part of his driven, strong personality. When his party’s shifty financing mechanisms are picked up by Elections Canada, or when Donna Cadman, one of his candidates, claims that his party offered a one million dollar bribe to an MP, journalists decide that these issues just demonstrate of Harper’s Machiavellian strategic intelligence.
The fact is that those in the media can say whatever they want. If they want Stéphane Dion to be seen as an aloof academic, they can claim that “Canadians have a hard time understanding him”. If they want Stephen Harper to be seen as an unethical politician, they can say that “Canadians find his posturing extremely distasteful” or “Canadians won’t be impressed by this blatant show of partisanship”. Journalists never know what Canadians are thinking, unless they use scientific opinion polls. Usually, they simply, speculate on what the public believes as if it were fact, and end up influencing the public.
It is clear that the media have a tremendous influence on the way the public interprets political events. On the night of the last election, a University professor actually demonstrated on Radio-Canada that the media weight of the various party leaders was almost identical to the score they received.
Since the media have such a large political impact, they also have a duty to cover politics in a morally right way. They should never let politicians get away with dishonourable behaviour in the House of Commons. They should never let budgets that are condemned by all economists be defined by spin doctors. They should work to explain to Canadians complicated political measures, rather than complain about the “30 second modern media culture” that they are themselves responsible for. The media, at the moment, claims to want honourable, sincere and cerebral politicians, but the way they cover politics encourages demagoguery. They are failing us.
Dion won, it turned out, by being everyone’s second choice. Front-runner Michael Ignatieff was polarizing while Bob Rae was considered dead in Ontario. Stéphane Dion was a candidate everyone could live with. He was also a candidate delegates could feel proud voting for, because his personality stronger morally than politically. Choosing Dion was a slap in the face to all those like Jack Layton who had claimed a few months earlier that Dion was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."
Stéphane Dion was not the first choice of Liberal MPs, the majority of whom supported Michael Ignatieff. His strongest supporters in the months leading up to the Montreal leadership convention were in the Press. Dion was officially endorsed by the Montreal Gazette and the Globe and Mail, who described him in an editorial as “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation.” Newspapers who chose other candidates all recognized his courage and integrity. Even Le Devoir, a Québec paper with sovereigntist leanings, wrote that “Dion is the candidate who, in the course of the leadership race, made among the strongest contribution of ideas.” Their only reason for choosing Michael Ignatieff over him was his sympathy to Québec nationalism.
In late January 2007, less than two months after Stéphane Dion’s leadership victory, the Conservative Party rolled out a series of now infamous attack ads portraying Dion as a weak leader. The ads featured clips of Michael Ignatieff and Ken Dryden criticizing their party’s environmental record in a leadership debate. Dion was shown answering “This is unfair!” and “Do you think its easy to make priorities?” The ads were unfavourably received. A Harris-Decima poll published on February 7th at the end of the ad blitz showed that fifty-nine percent of Canadians who had seen the ads found them unfair, while only twenty-two percent found them fair. The media were unanimous in their criticism. Even journalists at the National Post found the ads morally questionable.
Polling agencies detected a small shift in voting intentions from the Liberals to the Conservatives in the aftermath of the campaign. Nanos Research and Harris-Decima put the two parties in a statistical tie, while Strategic Counsel gave the Conservatives a slight lead. However, considering that the nearest confidence vote was at least a month away and that the Liberal Party still enjoyed higher levels of support than in the last election, if would have been difficult, at the time, to call the negative advertising campaign a success.
It turned out that the real effect of the ads was to redefine Stéphane Dion for the media. In a few short weeks, he went from being “arguably the most courageous Canadian politician of his generation” to a weak intellectual unable to lead his party. The Conservatives succeeded at creating a new Stéphane Dion that had little to do with the one who had been in politics for the previous ten years. Journalists, obviously, claimed that Dion had been redefined in the eyes of Canadian, but the public opinion polls mentioned above clearly demonstrate that they were the only ones whose opinion had been swayed.
From then on, everything Dion did was reported through the lens of “weakness” and “lack of leadership”. His refusal to make personal attacks in Question Period became a sign of his inability to lead. His attempts to put forward progressive public policy for debate, as he did with the 30-50 plan against poverty, were dismissed by the media as “too intellectual” and “difficult for average Canadians to understand”. Journalists started finding problems that no one had ever considered before. For instance, they decided that Canadians could no longer understand his English, even though they had managed fine in the ten years he spent as a cabinet minister. When Dion he published his Green Shift, that economists largely applauded, he was, predictably, decapitated.
All that time, Stephen Harper was acting like a bully and running into situations that seriously put in question his morality. Everyday, in Question Period, his party handpicked ministers to dodge questions and insult opposition members. In the short slot before Question Period reserved for MP statements about issues affecting their riding, Conservative backbenchers were instructed to read vicious statements about Dion to destabilise him. In May 2007, it was discovered that the Conservative Party had given all its MP chairing House of Commons Committees a 200 page handbook on obstructing and manipulating proceedings.
Yet none of these things did him much harm to Stephen Harper’s public image. Actually, his viciousness in the House of Commons, and, most strangely, his well documented control over the media, seemed to contribute to his image of “competence” and “strength”. Even when Conservative Party headquarters were raided by the RCMP at the request of Elections Canada, the media seemed to conclude that the any illegal scheme only highlighted the Prime Minister’s strategic intelligence and desire to win.
The hypocrisy is startling. Journalists never miss an opportunity to complain about demagoguery, the lack of decorum in the House of Commons, the paucity of intelligent political debate and the lack of a long term vision in government. Yet when the Conservative Party releases negative ads, they are the first to fall for them. When Stéphane Dion, the one politician who meets all their moral criteria, is elected Liberal Leader, rather than praising him and supporting him, they decide that Canadians will not understand him.
When Steven Harper, who is exactly the type of politician journalists claim to hate, acts like a bully in the House of Commons, they simply decide that it’s just part of his driven, strong personality. When his party’s shifty financing mechanisms are picked up by Elections Canada, or when Donna Cadman, one of his candidates, claims that his party offered a one million dollar bribe to an MP, journalists decide that these issues just demonstrate of Harper’s Machiavellian strategic intelligence.
The fact is that those in the media can say whatever they want. If they want Stéphane Dion to be seen as an aloof academic, they can claim that “Canadians have a hard time understanding him”. If they want Stephen Harper to be seen as an unethical politician, they can say that “Canadians find his posturing extremely distasteful” or “Canadians won’t be impressed by this blatant show of partisanship”. Journalists never know what Canadians are thinking, unless they use scientific opinion polls. Usually, they simply, speculate on what the public believes as if it were fact, and end up influencing the public.
It is clear that the media have a tremendous influence on the way the public interprets political events. On the night of the last election, a University professor actually demonstrated on Radio-Canada that the media weight of the various party leaders was almost identical to the score they received.
Since the media have such a large political impact, they also have a duty to cover politics in a morally right way. They should never let politicians get away with dishonourable behaviour in the House of Commons. They should never let budgets that are condemned by all economists be defined by spin doctors. They should work to explain to Canadians complicated political measures, rather than complain about the “30 second modern media culture” that they are themselves responsible for. The media, at the moment, claims to want honourable, sincere and cerebral politicians, but the way they cover politics encourages demagoguery. They are failing us.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Trying Too Hard, Part 3
If many parents don’t insist on their children being with them for supper, they do insist on staying in touch. Cell phones are now being described as “the world’s longest umbilical chords’: a sign of modern parents’ obsession with keeping their kids safe. A priori, this is a good thing; the problem is that parents aren’t necessarily very good at it.
Every single thing a person does carries a risk. Lying in bed carries a risk because the roof can collapse. Getting out of bed carries a risk, and I actually know someone who broke multiple ribs and a collarbone after tripping on sheets while getting out of bed. Since we can’t avoid risk, the trick is therefore to manage it. Luckily, nature has given us some useful tools: instinct and the capacity to learn.
Instinct tells us that jumping off a cliff is likely to result in death. We know that, simply by being human. Learning is more complicated because it only works through experience. To learn that turning too sharply at high speed can make a car tip, it helps to start by tipping a tricycle. To learn that work done at the last minute is not usually very good, it helps to hand in a science project late in grade 7 and get a C-.
The danger of parents who try too hard to keep their children safe is that they stop them from experiencing life and thus make it impossible for them to learn to manage risk. This is very easy in a world where we are constantly bombarded with stories of boys and girls being kidnapped in residential streets or run over at crosswalks by drunk drivers, even if such events only have a one in a million chance of occurring.
Parents who try too hard only let their children get to school by their own means once they reach grade nine. Even by that age, they discourage their children from going through so called “dangerous” neighbourhoods and stay in touch constantly with the cell phone. They monitor internet use, censor emails and movies, and make sure that their children hang out with the “right” friends.
Unfortunately, the children of these parents miss out on countless opportunities to make mistakes. Because they can’t walk to school alone as ten year olds, they don’t learn that it’s dangerous to cross a street on a red light. Because they aren’t allowed to chat to their friends on MSN at twelve, they don’t learn how to self-limit computer usage and to detect scams and false identities. In other words, because they are being brought up in a bacteria free environment, they don’t develop antibodies.
This means that when the inevitable moment comes that these children find themselves without the guiding hand of their parents, they end up in unknown territory a make big mistakes. Because as children grow older and become, regardless of what their parents want, more independent, the stakes also increase. If, at twelve, the risk of being alone on MSN is that a child will use swear words are write nasty things, at fifteen, the risks are online gambling, cyber-bullying, identity theft, and others. These are the kinds of things that parents should really be worried about. After all, it’s not the end of the world if an eight year old injures his knee while biking alone in the neighbourhood. It’s more serious if a sixteen year old is rushed to hospital because he had never been out alone on a bike and hadn’t learnt that it was foolish to race with cars.
Every single thing a person does carries a risk. Lying in bed carries a risk because the roof can collapse. Getting out of bed carries a risk, and I actually know someone who broke multiple ribs and a collarbone after tripping on sheets while getting out of bed. Since we can’t avoid risk, the trick is therefore to manage it. Luckily, nature has given us some useful tools: instinct and the capacity to learn.
Instinct tells us that jumping off a cliff is likely to result in death. We know that, simply by being human. Learning is more complicated because it only works through experience. To learn that turning too sharply at high speed can make a car tip, it helps to start by tipping a tricycle. To learn that work done at the last minute is not usually very good, it helps to hand in a science project late in grade 7 and get a C-.
The danger of parents who try too hard to keep their children safe is that they stop them from experiencing life and thus make it impossible for them to learn to manage risk. This is very easy in a world where we are constantly bombarded with stories of boys and girls being kidnapped in residential streets or run over at crosswalks by drunk drivers, even if such events only have a one in a million chance of occurring.
Parents who try too hard only let their children get to school by their own means once they reach grade nine. Even by that age, they discourage their children from going through so called “dangerous” neighbourhoods and stay in touch constantly with the cell phone. They monitor internet use, censor emails and movies, and make sure that their children hang out with the “right” friends.
Unfortunately, the children of these parents miss out on countless opportunities to make mistakes. Because they can’t walk to school alone as ten year olds, they don’t learn that it’s dangerous to cross a street on a red light. Because they aren’t allowed to chat to their friends on MSN at twelve, they don’t learn how to self-limit computer usage and to detect scams and false identities. In other words, because they are being brought up in a bacteria free environment, they don’t develop antibodies.
This means that when the inevitable moment comes that these children find themselves without the guiding hand of their parents, they end up in unknown territory a make big mistakes. Because as children grow older and become, regardless of what their parents want, more independent, the stakes also increase. If, at twelve, the risk of being alone on MSN is that a child will use swear words are write nasty things, at fifteen, the risks are online gambling, cyber-bullying, identity theft, and others. These are the kinds of things that parents should really be worried about. After all, it’s not the end of the world if an eight year old injures his knee while biking alone in the neighbourhood. It’s more serious if a sixteen year old is rushed to hospital because he had never been out alone on a bike and hadn’t learnt that it was foolish to race with cars.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Trying Too Hard Part 2
Another area where we try too hard is health. Many doctors now recommend that parents give their children daily nutritional supplements, despite the fact that all of the nutrients required by a healthy body can be obtained by eating a balanced diet and by going outside.
The latest fad is vitamin D. After a series of studies came out at the same time and drew the media’s attention to the importance of vitamin D (despite the fact that dietitians have known about it for years), everyone got excited and started to take supplements.
But we seemed to forget than an average light skinned individual can meet daily vitamin D requirements by spending 15 minutes outside. The sun is also arguably a superior source of vitamin D because the body naturally regulates its consumption, so the risk of overdose associated with taking pills is eliminated.
Among the parents who know this, many still prefer that their kids stay inside, or to avoid being out without sunscreen, because of the UV rays. That forces the children to take pills, because even the lightest sunscreen (SPF-8) reduces vitamin D consumption by 95%. What nobody seems to understand is that there exists a natural sunscreen which doesn’t impede vitamin D consumption and allows the body to spend twice as long in the sun as would normally be safe. It’s an antioxidant called astaxanthin, and it is found in shrimp, crab, wild salmon, lobster and other red sea animals.
Any child who eats a balanced diet and who regularly goes outside will therefore get plenty of astaxanthin and vitamin D, without having to take any pills. That child will also benefit from leading an active lifestyle and eliminating artificial sources of nutrients, which can never be as good as the ones provided by nature. This is what concerned parents should be pushing for. Rather than coming home every fortnight with a container of multivitamins and protein supplements, they should home-cook balanced meals for supper and eat them as a family at the diner table. They should also get their children to walk or bike to school, and to only use sunscreen for prolonged exposure in the sun.
This might seem like common sense, but according to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, 40% of Canadian children eat less than five meals a week with their family, including breakfast and lunch. Since the meals that they eat alone are unlikely to be particularly nutritious, it’s unlikely that they eat a balanced diet, hence the need for supplements.
The latest fad is vitamin D. After a series of studies came out at the same time and drew the media’s attention to the importance of vitamin D (despite the fact that dietitians have known about it for years), everyone got excited and started to take supplements.
But we seemed to forget than an average light skinned individual can meet daily vitamin D requirements by spending 15 minutes outside. The sun is also arguably a superior source of vitamin D because the body naturally regulates its consumption, so the risk of overdose associated with taking pills is eliminated.
Among the parents who know this, many still prefer that their kids stay inside, or to avoid being out without sunscreen, because of the UV rays. That forces the children to take pills, because even the lightest sunscreen (SPF-8) reduces vitamin D consumption by 95%. What nobody seems to understand is that there exists a natural sunscreen which doesn’t impede vitamin D consumption and allows the body to spend twice as long in the sun as would normally be safe. It’s an antioxidant called astaxanthin, and it is found in shrimp, crab, wild salmon, lobster and other red sea animals.
Any child who eats a balanced diet and who regularly goes outside will therefore get plenty of astaxanthin and vitamin D, without having to take any pills. That child will also benefit from leading an active lifestyle and eliminating artificial sources of nutrients, which can never be as good as the ones provided by nature. This is what concerned parents should be pushing for. Rather than coming home every fortnight with a container of multivitamins and protein supplements, they should home-cook balanced meals for supper and eat them as a family at the diner table. They should also get their children to walk or bike to school, and to only use sunscreen for prolonged exposure in the sun.
This might seem like common sense, but according to a study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health, 40% of Canadian children eat less than five meals a week with their family, including breakfast and lunch. Since the meals that they eat alone are unlikely to be particularly nutritious, it’s unlikely that they eat a balanced diet, hence the need for supplements.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)