Two frightening news stories:
-The 2000+ pages of heavily censored documents on the Afghan detainee scandal that the government recently made public seem to have been censored, not by non-partisan civil servants, but by Conservative officials. There are inconsistencies in the censoring that suggest it was done by at least two independent censors.
See this article.
-We learn that the government has, without warning, stopped reporting injuries in Afghanistan as they occur, and will instead only disclose an annual summary. They claim that this move is designed to withold information from the Taliban (as if the Taliban read the Globe and Mail). Something smells.
Read this story.
Conspiracy theories are easy traps to fall into, but it's hard to know what to believe these days. One fact, however, is clear: this government is evil.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
More On The Voting Age
I submitted this piece to the Globe and Mail Facts & Arguments section. I doubt it will get published, so here it is for you to read!
I read Hamlet this year for my grade 12 English class. I had to hand in a six page report on every Act, complete a two and a half hour exam and write a 3000 word essay on the Prince of Denmark’s tragic flaw. I can’t help but ask, if it is reasonable to expect me to plough through 150 pages of Shakespearian prose and write a dissertation on a character that scholars have been trying to decipher for centuries, can I please have the vote?
Yes, I know the song: ‘When I was 16’, says the well-meaning baby-boomer, ‘all I cared about was partying and my guitar. Imagine if I’d had a say in tax policy.’ But I have news my friend: times have changed.
Teens today are more informed than ever before. We follow the news on Twitter as it unfolds and organize massive Facebook campaigns that bring together thousands of youths from Coast to Coast and beyond. We open political clubs at school and volunteer in our local campaigns. When George Bush last came to Ottawa, students at my Ottawa high school expressed such massive outrage that everyone in grade 11 and 12 was given the afternoon off to go and demonstrate on Parliament Hill. We’re more ambitious too. The number of high school students applying to university is at an all time high, and any admissions officer will tell you that the quality of the applicants has never been better.
Our democracy needs us. Voter turnout, in decline for the last twenty years, reached a record low in the last federal election where only 59,1% of eligible voters turned up at the polling station. Elections Canada blames young voters, adding that “it is part of a demographic trend that shows every sign of continuing well into the future.” But 16 year olds actually want to vote. During the last election campaign, my high school organized a mock election. The participation rate must have been bordering on 100%. In high school, we still find voting fun. If it can be integrated into the social framework -and schools can help by giving us time off to go to the polling station- research suggests that it will hold up as our cohort ages. Conversely, if young people are not brought into the political process, we risk weakening our democracy by creating an entire generation of non-voters.
This doesn’t mean we should let 10 year olds vote, though I’m sure they’d find it quite exciting. At some point, we need to draw the line. As a society, we have already drawn the line… at 16. Sure, 19 is the drinking age in Ontario and 18 is the age of majority in most provinces, but 16 is the age at which most of the rights and responsibilities that define adulthood are introduced. 16 is the minimum age for living alone. 16 is the minimum age for getting married. 16 is the age of sexual consent. 16 is the school leaving age in all but two provinces and 16 is the age at which it usually becomes possible to find a job. 16 is the minimum age for joining the reserves (17 is the minimum age for joining the full time army). Most importantly, 16 is the age at which violent criminals can be given adult sentences. Is it not an inherent contradiction to give a 16 year old an adult sentence while denying him the right to vote on the grounds that he cannot understand the law like an adult?
If we must be arbitrary, let’s at least be consistent. Society is free to decide that, at 17, I am too young to vote. But please, don’t give me an adult sentence while denying me the adult right to influence the law. Don’t take me into the Canadian Forces and send me to a war that I’m not allowed to vote on. And don’t let me let me live alone, get married and raise a baby if you believe that I’m not even mature enough to cast a ballot.
There’s a precedent to keep in mind. In 1990s, 6 of the 16 German lands reduced the voting age to 16 for municipal elections. The result was staggering. Turnout among 16 to 21 year olds was significantly higher than among 21 to 30 year olds. And not only did 16 year olds vote, they also voted differently and responsibly. German electoral statistics show that young people have tended to vote along slightly different lines than older cohorts, but always for mainstream parties. Thus, while young people don’t seem to be voting like their parents (an oft cited danger of extending the vote to 16 year olds), they are not endorsing extremists (another oft cited danger). Austria was impressed: in 2007, it became the first country in the European Union to extend the vote to 16 year olds at every level of government.
‘With rights come responsibilities.’ That’s what the principal told me on my first day of middle school. But with responsibilities come rights. That’s what we’ve still got to learn.
I read Hamlet this year for my grade 12 English class. I had to hand in a six page report on every Act, complete a two and a half hour exam and write a 3000 word essay on the Prince of Denmark’s tragic flaw. I can’t help but ask, if it is reasonable to expect me to plough through 150 pages of Shakespearian prose and write a dissertation on a character that scholars have been trying to decipher for centuries, can I please have the vote?
Yes, I know the song: ‘When I was 16’, says the well-meaning baby-boomer, ‘all I cared about was partying and my guitar. Imagine if I’d had a say in tax policy.’ But I have news my friend: times have changed.
Teens today are more informed than ever before. We follow the news on Twitter as it unfolds and organize massive Facebook campaigns that bring together thousands of youths from Coast to Coast and beyond. We open political clubs at school and volunteer in our local campaigns. When George Bush last came to Ottawa, students at my Ottawa high school expressed such massive outrage that everyone in grade 11 and 12 was given the afternoon off to go and demonstrate on Parliament Hill. We’re more ambitious too. The number of high school students applying to university is at an all time high, and any admissions officer will tell you that the quality of the applicants has never been better.
Our democracy needs us. Voter turnout, in decline for the last twenty years, reached a record low in the last federal election where only 59,1% of eligible voters turned up at the polling station. Elections Canada blames young voters, adding that “it is part of a demographic trend that shows every sign of continuing well into the future.” But 16 year olds actually want to vote. During the last election campaign, my high school organized a mock election. The participation rate must have been bordering on 100%. In high school, we still find voting fun. If it can be integrated into the social framework -and schools can help by giving us time off to go to the polling station- research suggests that it will hold up as our cohort ages. Conversely, if young people are not brought into the political process, we risk weakening our democracy by creating an entire generation of non-voters.
This doesn’t mean we should let 10 year olds vote, though I’m sure they’d find it quite exciting. At some point, we need to draw the line. As a society, we have already drawn the line… at 16. Sure, 19 is the drinking age in Ontario and 18 is the age of majority in most provinces, but 16 is the age at which most of the rights and responsibilities that define adulthood are introduced. 16 is the minimum age for living alone. 16 is the minimum age for getting married. 16 is the age of sexual consent. 16 is the school leaving age in all but two provinces and 16 is the age at which it usually becomes possible to find a job. 16 is the minimum age for joining the reserves (17 is the minimum age for joining the full time army). Most importantly, 16 is the age at which violent criminals can be given adult sentences. Is it not an inherent contradiction to give a 16 year old an adult sentence while denying him the right to vote on the grounds that he cannot understand the law like an adult?
If we must be arbitrary, let’s at least be consistent. Society is free to decide that, at 17, I am too young to vote. But please, don’t give me an adult sentence while denying me the adult right to influence the law. Don’t take me into the Canadian Forces and send me to a war that I’m not allowed to vote on. And don’t let me let me live alone, get married and raise a baby if you believe that I’m not even mature enough to cast a ballot.
There’s a precedent to keep in mind. In 1990s, 6 of the 16 German lands reduced the voting age to 16 for municipal elections. The result was staggering. Turnout among 16 to 21 year olds was significantly higher than among 21 to 30 year olds. And not only did 16 year olds vote, they also voted differently and responsibly. German electoral statistics show that young people have tended to vote along slightly different lines than older cohorts, but always for mainstream parties. Thus, while young people don’t seem to be voting like their parents (an oft cited danger of extending the vote to 16 year olds), they are not endorsing extremists (another oft cited danger). Austria was impressed: in 2007, it became the first country in the European Union to extend the vote to 16 year olds at every level of government.
‘With rights come responsibilities.’ That’s what the principal told me on my first day of middle school. But with responsibilities come rights. That’s what we’ve still got to learn.
Monday, March 22, 2010
La résistance
Gilles Duceppe ne s'honore pas par ses récents propos où il compare les militants souverainistes aux résistants français qui ont combattu les nazis.
J'en ai rencontré, moi, des vrais résistants français. Plutôt que d'être, comme les députés bloquistes, logés aux petits soins par le contribuable canadien, ils ont terminé la guerre à Buchenwald ne pesant plus que quarante kilos.
Mais loin de prôner la division, ces résistants qui, soixante ans plus tôt, avaient été torturés par les nazis, louaient les mérites d'une Europe fédérale où la France et l'Allemagne ne feraient plus qu'un.
On reste loin des militants souverainistes.
Mais ce qu'il y a de plus rageant, c'est ce concept de résistance. Les Québecois ne résistent à personne. Il suffit qu'ils montrent leur souhait de quitter la Confédération par un vote référendaire clair pour qu'il leur soit accordé. C'est le principe de la Loi sur la clarté. Le problème de Duceppe, au fond, il est tout simple: les Québécois ne veulent pas faire sécession.
J'en ai rencontré, moi, des vrais résistants français. Plutôt que d'être, comme les députés bloquistes, logés aux petits soins par le contribuable canadien, ils ont terminé la guerre à Buchenwald ne pesant plus que quarante kilos.
Mais loin de prôner la division, ces résistants qui, soixante ans plus tôt, avaient été torturés par les nazis, louaient les mérites d'une Europe fédérale où la France et l'Allemagne ne feraient plus qu'un.
On reste loin des militants souverainistes.
Mais ce qu'il y a de plus rageant, c'est ce concept de résistance. Les Québecois ne résistent à personne. Il suffit qu'ils montrent leur souhait de quitter la Confédération par un vote référendaire clair pour qu'il leur soit accordé. C'est le principe de la Loi sur la clarté. Le problème de Duceppe, au fond, il est tout simple: les Québécois ne veulent pas faire sécession.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Let's Lower The Voting Age
The British Labour Party is reportedly planning to include in its election manifesto the promise to bring the voting age down from 18 to 16.
This is an example Canada should follow. We can debate the maturity of 16 year olds for as long as we like, but the fact is that our court system already treats 16 year olds like adults. 16 year old criminals are sent to an adult prison and treated in court like adults.
With responsibilities come rights. If 16 year olds face the same laws and penalties as adults, they should have the same say as adults in making these laws.
Children under 16 (though sometimes only under 14, thanks to Harper) do not face the same penalties for breaking the law, so it is perfectly reasonable that they should have no say in making these laws. But it is a logical aberration to punish 16 and 17 year olds like adults without giving them the same voting rights.
This is an example Canada should follow. We can debate the maturity of 16 year olds for as long as we like, but the fact is that our court system already treats 16 year olds like adults. 16 year old criminals are sent to an adult prison and treated in court like adults.
With responsibilities come rights. If 16 year olds face the same laws and penalties as adults, they should have the same say as adults in making these laws.
Children under 16 (though sometimes only under 14, thanks to Harper) do not face the same penalties for breaking the law, so it is perfectly reasonable that they should have no say in making these laws. But it is a logical aberration to punish 16 and 17 year olds like adults without giving them the same voting rights.
Monday, March 15, 2010
La chasse aux phoques
En passant près du Parlement aujourd'hui, j'ai croisé un petit groupe de jeunes qui manifestaient contre la chasse aux phoques. Pour faire plus d'effet, ils avaient mis en scène la mise à mort d'un phoque, comme quoi une jeune étudiante déguisée en phoque était recroquevillée sur le trottoir avec de la peinture rouge plein le visage.
Cette manifestation répondait sans doute à la récente augmentation des quotas de la chasse aux phoques, décrétée cette semaine par le gouvernement. Mais s'il est vrai que la chasse au phoque n'est pas une activité particulièrement agréable à observer, il faut comprendre qu'elle n'a absolument rien de dangereux.
Les phoques sont surpeuplés. Leur population, qui se situe aujourd'hui entre 6 et 8 millions d'individus, a triplée depuis 1970. Encore cette année, on constate une augmentation de 50 000 individus. Quel danger d'en chasser chaque année 388 000, le nombre permis selon le plus récent quota: aucun.
La mise à mort d'un phoque est peut-être choquante, mais elle n'a rien de répugnant. Ce qui est répugnant, c'est plutôt l'élevage industriel d'animaux domestiqués, qui est pourtant pratiqué impunément dans tous ces pays européens qui trouvent le moyen de critiquer la chasse au phoque. La prochaine fois que les jeunes que j'ai croisés viendront manifester, il faudra qu'ils imitent la vie d'un bœuf, gavé depuis la naissance d'hormones de croissance, qu'on enferme dans un enclos à peine plus gros que son corps jusqu'à ce qu'il soit enfin rentable de l'abattre. La vie de phoque parait déjà plus gaie.
Le drame, c'est que ces idéalistes à court d'idées qui se battent contre la chasse aux phoques portent ainsi atteinte à la crédibilité d'environnementalistes plus sérieux.
Cette manifestation répondait sans doute à la récente augmentation des quotas de la chasse aux phoques, décrétée cette semaine par le gouvernement. Mais s'il est vrai que la chasse au phoque n'est pas une activité particulièrement agréable à observer, il faut comprendre qu'elle n'a absolument rien de dangereux.
Les phoques sont surpeuplés. Leur population, qui se situe aujourd'hui entre 6 et 8 millions d'individus, a triplée depuis 1970. Encore cette année, on constate une augmentation de 50 000 individus. Quel danger d'en chasser chaque année 388 000, le nombre permis selon le plus récent quota: aucun.
La mise à mort d'un phoque est peut-être choquante, mais elle n'a rien de répugnant. Ce qui est répugnant, c'est plutôt l'élevage industriel d'animaux domestiqués, qui est pourtant pratiqué impunément dans tous ces pays européens qui trouvent le moyen de critiquer la chasse au phoque. La prochaine fois que les jeunes que j'ai croisés viendront manifester, il faudra qu'ils imitent la vie d'un bœuf, gavé depuis la naissance d'hormones de croissance, qu'on enferme dans un enclos à peine plus gros que son corps jusqu'à ce qu'il soit enfin rentable de l'abattre. La vie de phoque parait déjà plus gaie.
Le drame, c'est que ces idéalistes à court d'idées qui se battent contre la chasse aux phoques portent ainsi atteinte à la crédibilité d'environnementalistes plus sérieux.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Le niqab
La question du port du niqab en voie publique fait son retour au Québec après l'expulsion d'une femme d'origine égyptienne du Cégep Saint-Laurent parce qu'elle refusait de découvrir son visage. Précision quelque peu ironique: cette femme, à qui on reproche un manque d'intégration, suivait un cours de français.
Comme beaucoup de gens, le niqab me choque. Je trouve absolument navrant que des femmes soient réduites à le porter, que se soit de leur propre gré ou à cause de pressions familiales. Les rares fois que je me suis retrouvé en présence de femmes portant le voile intégral, je me suis senti troublé, voire même un peu menacé.
Mais si je verrais volontiers disparaitre le niqab, je dois admettre que ceux qui demandent son interdiction sur la voie publique tiennent une position contradictoire. Le port du voile intégral peut signifier deux choses: le désir autonome et personnel qu'a une femme de se suivre son interprétation radicale du Coran, ou, plus probablement, la subordination des femmes à leurs maris et à leur religion dans une frange radicale ségréguée de la société.
Or, dans les deux cas de figure possibles, l'interdiction de porter le niqab ne présente qu'une solution superficielle au problème. S'il y a des femmes qui se sentent à tel point interpellées par l'interprétation la plus radicale de leur religion qu'elles choisissent de couvrir leur visage aux regards du public, l'interdiction du niqab, loin de les amener vers une interprétation plus modérée de leur religion, risque de renforcer leur paranoïa.
Dans les cas, sans doute plus nombreux, où des femmes se voient obliger par leur famille de porter le voile intégral, son interdiction ne fera que guérir les symptômes extérieurs d'un mal intérieur qui restera aussi virulent. S'il est vrai que nous ne verrons plus de niqabs dans les rues, les pressions familiales fondamentalistes qui obligent les femmes à porter le voile intégral subsisteront. Ceux qui prétendent que le niqab nuit à l'intégration se trompent de cible. Une femme qui porte le niqab ne s'intégrera pas plus facilement à société courante si on l'oblige à l'enlever, puisque les circonstances qui l'avaient amené à couvrir son visage rendront de toute façon impossible son intégration.
Comme beaucoup de gens, le niqab me choque. Je trouve absolument navrant que des femmes soient réduites à le porter, que se soit de leur propre gré ou à cause de pressions familiales. Les rares fois que je me suis retrouvé en présence de femmes portant le voile intégral, je me suis senti troublé, voire même un peu menacé.
Mais si je verrais volontiers disparaitre le niqab, je dois admettre que ceux qui demandent son interdiction sur la voie publique tiennent une position contradictoire. Le port du voile intégral peut signifier deux choses: le désir autonome et personnel qu'a une femme de se suivre son interprétation radicale du Coran, ou, plus probablement, la subordination des femmes à leurs maris et à leur religion dans une frange radicale ségréguée de la société.
Or, dans les deux cas de figure possibles, l'interdiction de porter le niqab ne présente qu'une solution superficielle au problème. S'il y a des femmes qui se sentent à tel point interpellées par l'interprétation la plus radicale de leur religion qu'elles choisissent de couvrir leur visage aux regards du public, l'interdiction du niqab, loin de les amener vers une interprétation plus modérée de leur religion, risque de renforcer leur paranoïa.
Dans les cas, sans doute plus nombreux, où des femmes se voient obliger par leur famille de porter le voile intégral, son interdiction ne fera que guérir les symptômes extérieurs d'un mal intérieur qui restera aussi virulent. S'il est vrai que nous ne verrons plus de niqabs dans les rues, les pressions familiales fondamentalistes qui obligent les femmes à porter le voile intégral subsisteront. Ceux qui prétendent que le niqab nuit à l'intégration se trompent de cible. Une femme qui porte le niqab ne s'intégrera pas plus facilement à société courante si on l'oblige à l'enlever, puisque les circonstances qui l'avaient amené à couvrir son visage rendront de toute façon impossible son intégration.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Tom Flanagan
Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary, is known as the man who shaped many of Stephen Harper's views. He actually spent a few years as Harper's personal adviser, and though the apparently fell-out, he remains influent in Conservative circles.
Flanagan is by all accounts a perfectly amiable gentleman. As a serious political scientist and well-connected Conservative, one can easily understand why journalists are so eager for his take on politics and current events. But Tom Flanagan isn't an expert on everything. Judging by coverage in the past few days, we seem to be taking his word a little too far.
Who did the Globe and Mail invite for its online real-time coverage of this week's budget: Tom Flanagan.
Who has the National Post been inviting to comment on the purpose of prorogation: Tom Flanagan.
Who has the Globe and Mail been inviting to discuss Senate Reform: Tom Flanagan.
Who has been telling every newspaper in the country that the patriotism of the conservative base explains the Government's decision not to change the lyrics of the national anthem two days after it promised to update them in its Speech from the Throne: Tom Flanagan.
Once again, I'm sure Tom Flanagan is a great guy... but surely he can't be an economist, a sociologist, an expert in constitutional law and a political scientist.
Flanagan is by all accounts a perfectly amiable gentleman. As a serious political scientist and well-connected Conservative, one can easily understand why journalists are so eager for his take on politics and current events. But Tom Flanagan isn't an expert on everything. Judging by coverage in the past few days, we seem to be taking his word a little too far.
Who did the Globe and Mail invite for its online real-time coverage of this week's budget: Tom Flanagan.
Who has the National Post been inviting to comment on the purpose of prorogation: Tom Flanagan.
Who has the Globe and Mail been inviting to discuss Senate Reform: Tom Flanagan.
Who has been telling every newspaper in the country that the patriotism of the conservative base explains the Government's decision not to change the lyrics of the national anthem two days after it promised to update them in its Speech from the Throne: Tom Flanagan.
Once again, I'm sure Tom Flanagan is a great guy... but surely he can't be an economist, a sociologist, an expert in constitutional law and a political scientist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)