The Court Challenges Programme

The folks over at My Blahg have been going on about the cancellation of the Court Challenges Programme. (Site). Lorne Gunter of the National Post provides this explanation:

The Bear Blog » The root of all evil ?

Not only did left-leaning interest groups want to keep CCP cash flowing into their legal departments, they understood that if they controlled the CCP granting process, they could keep groups opposed to their viewpoints from receiving equal funding, thereby giving their own causes an unfair advantage in court.

This seems a perfectly good reason for axing a programme. Consider this: if the NDP were to form a government and found that the Fraser Institute had been receiving most of its funding from the Federal Government, then, I would suspect that they'd axe that funding. It would seem reasonable of them to do that.

All that being said, the principle for which the CCP was formed is an excellent one. The idea is that freedom and equality belong to us all. The courts are an instrument that help to insure that equality. But since the freedom to challenge legislation in the courts is meaningless without the financial power to do so, the CCP is an essential element of our system of freedoms. Because no one knows when they might be without the resources and with the need to challenge legislation, we are all less free now than we were before. This is a disappointing state of affairs. A non-biased CCP-type mechanism needs to be established in the wake of these cuts.

powered by performancing firefox

More on Afghanistan

Idealistic Pragmatist: The NDP's real position on Afghanistan

So again, in point form and rephrased into plain language, the reasons for the NDP's official stance on Afghanistan are as follows:

[1]* like the war in Iraq, the Afghanistan war is poorly planned
[2]* also like the war in Iraq, too much money and effort is being poured into combat while the humanitarian side is being neglected
[3]* we're following the U.S.'s lead in a mission that's supposed to be Canada's
[4]* it's impossible to win a war when we don't have a clear statement of what winning would entail, and
[5]* as things now stand, we're not doing any long-term good over there.
[Numbers courtesy of Ramblings]

Though I am eagerly awaiting response on my previous post I would like to quickly comment on the quotation above.

1. Upon what information is this statement based? What kind of planning are we talking about? I doubt the average Dipper/Blogger is privy to war planning.
2. Is the humanitarian side being neglected?  Remember we were asking for more combat troops recently? The reason was not that NATO countries have not participated in Afghanistan, it was because they are only participating where it is safe to do reconstruction. So, in reality it is the combat side of the house that is suffering.
3. The US is withdrawing more troops every year:

The U.S. force in Afghanistan will be drawn down from 19,000 to 16,500
this year, although both military and civilian leaders have promised an
American presence in the country for years to come.

We have substantial command positions in ISAF and the operation is a multilateral NATO run affair. (See "Which countries are contributing")
4. Winning would certainly not be made easier by withdrawing troops.  This is an argument for better analysis and communication.  What would be a clear definition of success?  How about when the Taliban are no longer capable of fielding an army? The definition is not up to me, but when you think about this question it is not so easy to answer, but that doesn't make the war unwinnable, just unpredictable... much like the way war has been for a long time.
5. Is that what Karzai thinks?  Do you really think that what we have done so far is going to have only a limited long term impact?

powered by performancing firefox

powered by performancing firefox

Enlightened Moderation

This is good...

Gen Musharraf at the UN on Tart Cider: Around the World in 80 Canapés

We also need to bridge, through dialogue and understanding, the growing divide between the Islamic and Western worlds. In particular, it is imperative to end racial and religious discrimination against Muslims and to prohibit the defamation of Islam.

powered by performancing firefox

Afghanistan

There has been a lot said about the situation in Afghanistan, but I think Scott Brison said it best:

I am fortunate to live in a country that has allowed me to become an elected Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, I would be thrown in prison or executed for being gay. The same fundamental human rights that we enjoy in Canada are no less important than the rights of the people of Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to defend those rights, at home and abroad. Those rights should be the basis of a values-based, principled Canadian foreign policy. Our country must be willing to stand up for the values that we espouse. I don't take these rights for granted. (Link)

Yesterday, and for the last couple of years we have been a witness to the price that has to be paid when you stand up and stand for something. The price of believing in equality, is understanding that everyone is equal, not just our countrymen. Human rights and freedom is about equality.

The Taliban is probably one of the most despicable governments we've seen in a long time. It has no inclination towards rights, equality or freedom let alone any idea of an equal right to basic liberty. So, since we are engaged in combating the scourge of the Taliban any talk of disengagement will involve, in all likelihood, strengthening the Taliban's position. Ipso facto one is strengthening the hand of inequality and repression.

So, my question is: Why would the NDP, whose leader has said:

I do not subscribe to the view that human rights are a buffet from which one can selectively choose. (Link)

Urge the Government of Canada to do the following:

1. Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan; (Link) [I'm lazy and didn't search the NDP site for its version... I trust this guy... he's a philosopher]

Clearly it is not out of pacifism because in the same resolution they want to send our troops to Darfur:

2. Increase significantly our resource and financial commitments to United Nations led multilateral Peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives such as Darfur; (Link)

So why commit to Darfur and not to Afghanistan? This looks like picking and choosing from the smorgasbord of failed states and human rights catastrophes.

I will not debate the relative merits of these tragedies. The criticisms that seem to most often be made against staying in Afghanistan is a) Americans are involved and b) the casualties in Afghanistan are too high.

The first argument is absolutely ridiculous (from principles). The fact that you have Americans helping you in your goal does not make your null or void.

The second argument needs to be argued. The fact that the rates are high or higher than others is not a reason in itself for disengagement (See Tart Cider, Wonder Dog and Wrangler). The argument has to made with respect to the objective that high casualties are interfering with or making the objective unattainable. Understand that a commitment to use military force is a commitment to take casualties however unfortunate or tragic. When the armed forces are deployed in operations there is always a risk of casualties. The fact of casualties is not an argument against ceasing an operation. One may argue that the operation was never worth anyone's life in the first place, but I haven't heard that, yet.

This leads to the last point in the NDP resolution:

Support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building in that country so that reconstruction efforts and good governance are achieved;(Link)

I am a bit confused about this point given that point 1 would pull all of our troops out of the country. That being said a UN force would have to face the same problem, namely, the Taliban grip on the South. How do you do point 3 when the Taliban can field fighters in a pitched battle in certain areas? Unless you ride on the coat tails of NATO - expecting them to continue to fight and die while you get the accolades at home for saying "look I'm reconstructing and not fighting". My point is that an argument for democracy building cannot be made without a plan for security. Remember the NATO mission does have UN blessing and that as a member nation it is entirely within the rights of the US to contribute troops.

Lastly, Dinner Table makes this point:

It calls for a continuation of development assistance for Afghanistan and democratic peace building so that good governance is achieved, not merely a fake democracy where the interests of human rights abusers and war lords are best served.(Link)

This is a legitimate concern. However, neither the drug nor the imperfect democracy point necessitate disengagement on the scale envisioned by the NDP. The drug issue was faced early on in the operation and was, to my recollection, a conscious decision. [Commanders, I believe, thought that it would be better to fight just the Taliban and not the poppy growers and the Taliban... I know the Taliban dislikes opium... but my enemy's enemy is my friend]. As far as Democracy and Human Rights are concerned, remember, it takes a long time to get them right. Remember the Florida recounts and Residential Schools? Perfect democracies and Human Rights regimes don't happen over night they require people with the courage to stand up with conviction and the strength to remain standing.

powered by performancing firefox

NDP Values

Something I was working on and shelved for a couple of days:

It is now official NDP Policy:

Members of the federal New Democratic Party on Saturday overwhelmingly endorsed party leader Jack Layton's call to pull Canadian troops from Afghanistan.The vote came during the national party's convention in Quebec City, where the mission in Afghanistan has dominated discussions and debates.

However at the same convention a lady going by the name "Jane Doe" spoke. As reported by Dinner Table Donts:

Jane Doe urged Youth Delegates to stand up and speak out againt sexual violence against women, to treat it with the same distaste as racism, sexism, agism, and all other destable practices.

The implication is, and I think it to be true, that the NDP is against all of those detestable practices. In addition, the NDP is in favour of some form of equality. So, what about working to insure that some people in Afghanistan begin to be afforded shelter from those detestable practices?
Well, a strategy of disengagement from that country when the foe stands as the antithesis of equality and the champion of dispicable tactics seems to call into question any principles of equal access to rights. The principles of equality, particularly a principle of equal access to rights and freedom would seem to demand some kind of engagement in Afghanistan.

More to come...

Liberal Attack Ad

So a couple of things came to mind when I saw the now famous attack ad here are a couple of those thoughts:

• There are soldiers in my city and the liberals are in power
  
• Maybe the liberals don't expect soldiers to have guns?
  
• if the liberals start saying "we aren't making this up" what are they doing when they don't say that?

Just a few thoughts...

CBC

This has been bugging me recently:

The CBC is on strike - locked out really - and being a good Canadian I don't really care too much about the issues. What bugs me about the whole thing, however is that there is very little coverage of the dispute in any of the other papers and media. This fact brings out a few issues:
1. The most commented issue is that allowing the strike to continue gives us taxpayers very little value for the subsidies that we are providing the public broadcaster. But, of course, settling a labour dispute hastily provides little value either

The next two issues area bit sinister and really bug me - from an ethical perspective:

2. The lack of coverage of the dispute makes it more difficult for the public to be informed about the issues and put pressure on the CBC. This keeps the CBC (competition) from producing their traditional product allowing other broadcasters to compete with an advantage.

3. Again, by not keeping the public aware of the lockout the other broadcasters are given an advantage because the CBC workers' cause will gain little sympathy from the public and will thus be at a disadvantage at the bargaining table. This, of course is an advantage for other broadcasters because their employees are members of the same union and any agreements favourable to guild members will be an advantage for any future bargaining.

NAFTA and Canada's National Interest

Many people are talking about revisiting NAFTA these days. The conservatives have mentioned that they would consider renegotiating the treaty. Kinsella comments on that here (Sept 8).

What really started the whole topic was the issue of softwood lumber. The trade in softwood is of course covered by NAFTA and so the trade should be free. In the event that one party to the agreement is unhappy with the other's trading practices then the treaty ought to stipulate how the disagreement is to be resolved. Of course, the treaty does just that and since Canada and the US have been disagreeing we have sought to have the issue resolved using the NAFTA framework. Unfortunately the US has not felt bound to resolve the issue in that manner preferring a negotiated settlement.

This all goes to show something that I have been arguing for some time. Namely, Canada's primary national interest lies in achieving a system of fair and effective international law. With effective mechanisms in place and respect for international institutions Canada is capable of punching far beyond its weight, but without such a system it is doomed to negotiate settlements that may not be as advantageous to the Canadian economy.

There are of course other more important, more idea-listic-logical, reasons why international law is good. These are the advantages that accrue to Canada and the world when right and justice have a greater sway on the goings on of the world than does might and power. But, these advantages cannot come about if governments are unwilling to live up to their bargains and would rather sacrifice their word for an extra $1000 going to domestic builders for every new home.

If I may finish this by pointing out that for these reasons avoiding the Iraq entanglement was good. It was obvious at the outset of that affair that international law would suffer. Now with the insurgency, and the American prison scandals the cause of international law is at a nadir. I would hope that Canadian politicians would strive to adopt a foreign policy that seeks to strengthen the traditions of international law at every moment.

Same Sex Marriage Not a Religious Issue

I was watching CBC Newsworld this afternoon when a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress wasn interviewed and said that he and his organisation support the SSM bill. I checked out their website and pulled this from their mission statement:

Muslim Canadian Congress/Mission Statement: "Members of the Muslim Canadian Congress come from all parts of the world with diverse ethnic and racial backgrounds. We are proud of our Muslim heritage and the great contribution of Islam to human civilization. As Muslim Canadians we believe in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Canadian constitution as our guiding principles. "

The individual and this mission statement seems to be very wise. The individual articulated a position that separated the SSM issue from religion as religion. What the issue really is, is a matter of individual freedom as equal freedom. The freedom that individuals have to participate in their religion as they see it depends fundamentally on the extent to which the state treats individuals as free and equal. This means that the state ought to treat the personal and spiritual lives as a place where legislation ought not to intrude. That is, legislation ought to only intrude on that area only to the extent that it serves to make individuals equal.

So long as the legislation does not require religions to perform the marriages or endorse them, then I think this legislation is an improvement on our current state of affairs. Legislation that strengthens equality strengthens the abilities of individuals to live according to their religion. I believe that this idea is what was underlying the statements I heard on CBC because he stated that his support was out of respect for the plight of others to garner respect and recognition. Respect is what equality is all about!

National Post

The National Post mentioned that the University of Western Ontario is giving Dr Morgantaller an Honourary Doctorate. The Globe and Mail reported on Saturday that the Bank ofMontreal has been providing an anti-abortion group with access to its charity Mastercard. Both stories expressed indignation and anger that the Bank or the University would associate themselves with the person or organisation in question.

It is hard for me to believe that in Canada these stories run and that people get into such states over these things. I understand that the issue is extremely important to many people, and I would suggest that you wouldn't be a very thoughtful person if the issue did not elicit any response. It is for that very reason that I wonder why people must call for the boycoting of the bank and the denunciation of the University.

In a democracy the facilitation and the promotion of dialogue on issues - especially ones of such personal importance - is a good in itself. Providing means for legitimate groups to raise money for their causes is an important public service that banks are in a unique position to perform. Banks would cease to perform that function the moment that they begin to discriminate between which causes are worthy of support and which are not. To discriminate in this manner would be to hurt the ambitions of individuals in the pursuit of their legitimate ends. Moreover, working to stop banks from supporting charities in this manner hurts the charities that one might support. If the Bank decided against supporting the anti-abortion group, then what would they do with an application from a pro-abortion group.

As for the University, the line may be a little bit more blurry, but not fundamentally different. The honouring of individuals does not necessarily mean the endorsement of that person's opinion. Universities give degrees honourary or otherwise to people who disagree with eachother. The conferal ofa degree ought to, and for the most part does, represent a contribution to knowledge, the community or educated discussion.

In the interest of of disclosure: I have a BMO Card affiliated with a charity, but not the one in question.

The BC Election

So there is an election coming soon to BC. For various reasons I am not in a position to comment too much on BC politics right now. I have, however had some time to go over some of the things with respect to the referendum on electoral change. So far, I have not come to a decision on the merits of the proposed system, however, I have some thoughts.

Often people say: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." I am leaning towards support of the old system, but I am not convinced that it is without flaws. Here are some reasons why the First Past the Post (FPP) system that we have is not ideal:

• The proportionality problem: This is the problem of electing members by plurality instead of majority and consequently having a house whose numbers of sitting members do not reflect the proportion of votes the member's parties received.
• The independence problem: Members of a house are not independent enough of their parties to vote in the interest of what they see as the best interest of the province. This is a symptom of a system that requires candidates to staple their fortunes to the party ticket.
  
• The constituency problem: With a clearly defined constituency members are always able to fall back on the will of their constituency in order to avoid making hard decisions - that is right decisions that may seem unpopular.
• The Paucity of Parties Problem: Perhaps a side-effect of the proportionality problem the FPP system seems to discourage the establishment of new parties because of the difficulty in breaching the entrenched blocks of power. Federally this problem seems to have been beaten because 2 things: 1. The ready to hand blocks of voters that come by way of regional parties; and, 2, the large numbers of seats that are up for grabs that disperse the size of blocks that need tobeestablished in order to elect members.
  

I am not saying these are are the only problems or the most pressing, or even that one system can solve all of these problems and be attractive. Simply, I am saying that any opportunity to revise a system as important as our electoral system ought to be seized and the system examined for its merits. That opportunity ought not be wasted because of a smug satisfaction with a system that has worked and continues to work though is not perfect.

Blogger's Code of Ethics

I saw this the other day on Warren Kinsella's blog. I will endeavour to follow it.

Warren Kinsella: "A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS" Originally the Code Came from CyberJournalist.Net

A BLOGGERS' CODE OF ETHICS

Be Honest and Fair
Bloggers should be honest and fair in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Bloggers should:
• Never plagiarize.
• Identify and link to sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
• Make certain that Weblog entries, quotations, headlines, photos and all other content do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of photos without disclosing what has been changed. Image enhancement is only acceptable for for technical clarity. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Never publish information they know is inaccurate -- and if publishing questionable information, make it clear it's in doubt.
• Distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish factual information and commentary from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.

Minimize Harm
Ethical bloggers treat sources and subjects as human beings deserving of respect.
Bloggers should:
• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by Weblog content. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of information is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects, victims of sex crimes and criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.

Be Accountable
Bloggers should:
• Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
• Explain each Weblog's mission and invite dialogue with the public over its content and the bloggers' conduct.
• Disclose conflicts of interest, affiliations, activities and personal agendas.
• Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence content. When exceptions are made, disclose them fully to readers.
• Be wary of sources offering information for favors. When accepting such information, disclose the favors.
• Expose unethical practices of other bloggers.
• Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

Conscientious Objectors as Refugees

Today the refugee board ruled against Jeremy Hinzman. Mr Hinzman applied for refugee status in Canada because he objected to the war in Iraq.

Before I continue, let me say a few things about my approach: I don't want to get into the particulars of any cases. Rather I would like to examine the principles and ideas that certain cases bring to light.

So, here we go...

Is in inconsistent to be a conscientious objector and to remain a member of the armed forces?

I don't think it is.

• One may have joined the armed forces under certain political conditions. After some time those conditions change and what may have been inconceivable at one time may be a politically possible. Under such conditions it seems consistent to remain dedicated to the principles that brought one into the military and hope that the objectionable possibilities don't materialise.
  
• The obligation one has to one's military contract is of a fundamentally different category than a moral obligation. A military obligation is highly contingent. That is it relies on certain things: being paid, receiving a uniform, being provisioned. A moral obligation not to participate in unjust wars has no contingencies. In this sense it would seem that until something trumps one's military contract that obligation holds.

Welcome

Here we go, the first post. expect more.