Peter Miliken's ruling this week gave Parliament the power to decide which of the thousands of pages of material on the Afghan detainee controversy could be released to the public.
The Conservatives had already hired former Supreme Court Judge Frank Iacobucci to decide which documents could be published. However, Iacobucci was supposed to report to the government, not to Parliament.
Michael Ignatieff suggested that Iacobucci's mandate could simply be changed to have him report to Parliament rather than the government. The Bloc and NDP are categorally against this proposal, and want instead for select MPs -who would be sworn to secrecy- to decide which documents are fit for publication.
The opposition parties need to compromise. The Bloc and NDP are right to point out that, given the historic nature of the Speaker's ruling, Parliament should not respond by hiring a proxy to undertake a function to which it just laid claim. But MPs have neither the time nor the expertise to make informed decisions on which documents to release. Hence Frank Iacobucci.
The solution is simple. Follow Michael Ignatieff's suggestion by getting Iacobucci to report to Parliament, and put in charge a small group of MPs to supervise his work. That way, if Mr. Iacobucci ever wanted to hide information that would reflect poorly on the government, Parliament would be able to overrule him.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Back To The Blog
After an extended April holiday, this news makes me want to get back to blogging.
Most Conservatives are obviously against abortion, but I just wonder whether they are not using this announcement as a handy way to deflect attention from the Rahim Jaffer stories.
Most Canadians are in favour of abortion, but their votes are split between the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and the Greens. It's not clear that this anti-abortion stance will do much damage at all to the Conservatives, especially if they are trying to make gains in newly immigrated religious communities, many of which oppose to abortion rights.
The Conservatives have taken a big hit in the polls this week because of the Jaffer affair, and it seems to me that they would be quite happy if we all starting talking about abortion instead.
Anyway, just a thought!
Most Conservatives are obviously against abortion, but I just wonder whether they are not using this announcement as a handy way to deflect attention from the Rahim Jaffer stories.
Most Canadians are in favour of abortion, but their votes are split between the Liberals, Bloc, NDP and the Greens. It's not clear that this anti-abortion stance will do much damage at all to the Conservatives, especially if they are trying to make gains in newly immigrated religious communities, many of which oppose to abortion rights.
The Conservatives have taken a big hit in the polls this week because of the Jaffer affair, and it seems to me that they would be quite happy if we all starting talking about abortion instead.
Anyway, just a thought!
Friday, March 26, 2010
Lies
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.
-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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)