King Arthur Movie Tristan

Remember during the election all the stories, what an upstanding, honest, ethical guy Stéphane Dion is? So how come today he is negotiating to bring the traitorous Bloc Quebecois into the government of Canada and the story is, Stephen Harper blinked, as I heard it reported on three different newscasts this afternoon?

I'm still trying to imagine Stephen Harper negotiating to put Gilles Duceppe in cabinet, and not being called a traitor. Yet nobody is calling Stéphane Dion or Jack Layton a traitor (or hypocrite,, since they would be teh first to scream if Harper did this). I'm going to spend some time looking for it tonight, but wasn't there once a picture of the two of them sitting together that ran as a "look how close they are" story?

Oh, and one last request for the media, can we please stop calling it a stimulus package and call it what it is? A spending package! This is nothing more than Bob Rae, spend your self rich stupidity that the Liberals Bloc and NDP are screaming for, and it's bad public policy. Last week you were yelling deficit, he's put us in deficit, this week your yelling spend! Spend!! SPEND!!! And shame on the media for letting you get away with it.

Want to overthrow the legally, elected, constitutionally legal government? Then what is your plan. Let Canadians know exactly what you mean by stimulus.

************************
Update: From the comments:

*“We would see him [Stephen Harper] and (Bloc Québécois Leader) Gilles Duceppe, if they get enough seats, working together to dismantle this country that all of us are so proud of." (Paul Martin, Toronto Star, December 3, 2005)
* Martin questioned how the Tory leader can explain “his common agenda with the separatists.” (Ottawa Citizen, June 3, 2005)
* “Stephen Harper has made it so clear that he is prepared to do the Bloc's bidding in Parliament, which I find incomprehensible...” (Paul Martin, Ottawa Citizen, April 28, 2005)
* “Let me tell you, Stephen Harper, you made an alliance with the Bloc, not me. The Bloc wants only one thing: a referendum to divide us and break up our country.” (Paul Martin, Globe and Mail, November 29, 2005)
* “The Conservative Party and the separatists … want this Parliament to fail because the Bloc wants Canada to fail.” (Public Works Minister Scott Brison, Hansard, May 2, 2005)
* “…it is impossible to understand why the Conservative Party supports the Bloc” (Scott Brison, Hansard, April 5, 2005)
* “It has become clear that the Conservative-Bloc alliance is alive and well, despite the Leader of the Opposition's claims to the contrary.” (Susan Kadis, Hansard, May 17, 2005)
* “It is an unholy alliance [Between Conservatives and the Bloc] and Canadians need to know all about it. I take great exception to the hypocrisy of saying that they are not in bed with the Bloc and the separatists because they are.” (Roy Cullen, Hansard, April 14, 2005)

I, as an individual, this blog and numerous other bloggers are in support of Resolution P-203 and we put forward the following statement of support

We strongly support those members of the Conservative Party of Canada who seek to repeal Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt" are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that "truth" is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13. Intent or fair comment are also not defenses. In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 100% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence. The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

Please support Resolution P-203, and preserve Canadians' Charter right to freedom of expression.

Because if conservatives won't protect us from the pimply minions of bureaucracy, who will?

The resolution is available in .pdf version, or .doc version.

I saw this for the first time the other day, some teenage girl near the local high school smoking a small cigar, or cigarillo (oh, and spitting). Used to be us dads had to worry our daughters would bring home some tattooed, stogy chomping sailor, now we have to worry they'll become one.

It's done everywhere else in North America that I have ever been to. It's done in Europe. In Paris you can buy vintage wine in the corner store. Stop at the corner store for a few quick items, grab a six pack of Guinness while I'm at it. Beer at the grocery store is hardly some new, untried concept. It is used, and has worked in hundreds of jurisdictions in the world, and there's no reason it can't work here.

I've posted before on this, back during the Ontario election where John Tory was tentatively prepared to study the idea:

Now granted, nothing drastic from our man Tory. Just a few trial locations, study the question: as if Quebec, Alberta and B.C., the U.S.A. and Europe are not test location enough. Really, the data exists, the idea works. But from baby steps like this comes full fledged working policy, so I'll take what I can get.

Now, Halton Conservative MP, Ted Chudleigh, has a petition to allow beer to be sold in grocery stores, and is prepared to present it at Queens Park. There is an on-line petition, however according to MP Chudleigh's blog: "Actual paper signatures are necessary to ensure authenticity."

Ending the Soviet style marketing approach would lower prices, increase convenience of both purchase and bottle return, increase accessibility to the market for small brewers especially in local markets, and would bring Ontario into the 21st century.

The petition is here, print it off, sign it (and get others to), and mail it to:

Derek Forward, 2000 Appleby Line, Suite232, Burlington, ON L7L 7H7

It’s time that Ontario joined every other jurisdiction in the 21st century.

Of course a petition from an opposition MP is hardly the stuff of government policy, but if enough people sign the petition, it becomes harder to ignore. It may not be policy, but maybe it's the start of something.

Somebody call the politicians!!

In all the fuss I have heard about David Miller, Joe Pantalone or Maria Augimeri being missing in action during the exploding neighbourhood crisis, nobody has explained what they would actually do to improve anything. It's astounding to me that nobody - NOBODY - has suggested they are better off out of the way of the productive work.

It is time, past time, for the people displaced by the explosion to return home and back to some form of normality. There is no way, none whatsoever, that David Miller and his band of merry counsellors can speed that along. Therefore, they are better off getting out of the way of the guys in hazmat suits and letting the guys with hammers and screwdrivers get on with their work.

There's plenty of time for finger pointing, blame fixing and responsibility denial in September. Meanwhile the rest of us can have some peace from it all.

Not Canada week. Not Canada season - this is not your birthday which these days run from the Friday before your birthday to the Sunday after. Sorry, but Canada Day should occur, and the holiday be on, July 1st.

On July 1st we celebrate the forming of the Dominion of Canada by the signing of the British North America Act (BNA Act). That signing occurred on July 1st, 1867. Note that it is not "on or about the first Monday in July", but on July 1st. This folks, is the holiday.

Lorrie Goldstein and the ever more communistic ("...richer people are bigger polluters and should be treated accordingly",) Paul Berton had point/counterpoint on this subject today - irrelevant point/less relevant point would be more accurate: why do Canadians seem to think Canada day should always be a long weekend? Apparently it's bad immigration policy and not enough Canadian history taught in schools.

I say it's personal narcissism that is the problem. We all think that life should evolve in a way that's convenient for us. If the founders of our country didn't have brains enough to write the BNA Act in such a way as to make Canada Day on a Monday, then the pimply minions of bureaucracy should make it so. Too many Canadians think patriotism can be found in a beer commercial, knowing how to say "rrrrroll up the rrrrrim" and agreeing/disagreeing with Don Cherry. We brag about the greatest country in the world but think it's over the line to have a holiday to celebrate this great country on a Tuesday. Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what more your country can do for you, preferably in perpetuity &tc.

Today is Canada Day, and should be the holiday. There is no reasonable argument against it except the purely selfish one. Yet last week radio shows were full of hosts and callers who thought the holiday should just be Monday. It's a great country, get out there tonight and celebrate it: I know I will, just as soon as I'm finished work.

Thanks to Justice Max Teitelbaum who has declared John Gomery was biased against Jean Chrétien and therefore, his conclusion that Chrétien, and his chief of staff Jean Pelletier, bore some responsibility was wrong. Chrétien was said to be "very very pleased. Chrétien ran a $100 million program in which up to $40 million is said to have gone missing. He is either responsible, or extremely incompetent. As he cannot be responsible, isn't Justice Teitelbaum just declaring Chrétien incompetent? So again, thanks to Justice Teitelbaum for clearing that up.

Actually, as Justice Teitelbaum makes Justice Gomery's findings invalid, and as it's probably an election year, Prime Minister Harper should call a new enquiry into the sponsorship scandal. Think another enquiry would find the Prime Minister had no responsibility when $400M in malfeasance was happening under his watch? And it can't hurt Harpers re-election chances.

Oh, to the person who's going to comment that Gomery cost more to conduct than was stolen and it would be a waste to spend it again: I accept that argument as soon as you show me where you made the same argument re: Brian Mulroney.

I have become a fan of Rondi Adamson the last year. Unfortunately, she is usually turning up at The Star or The Globe and Mail, the two dailies I don't regularly read. Today however, she turned up at The Sun, which I managed to catch without having to resort to those internets.

A different slant on the various Maxime Bernier "scandals," noting that what his "spouse" was wearing at his swearing in is minor compared to the fact he is allowed to declare her a "spouse for travelling purposes," and fly her around at taxpayer expense, after dating her only a few months:

For Bernier to designate Couillard -- a woman he had apparently only dated briefly -- a "spouse" is setting the limbo bar so low for what constitutes a "spouse" that a wee beastie could dance its little way under it. It is also inconsistent with the outrage at Couillard's decolletage last summer. Why the priggishness there, but not in her "spouse" status? Surely social conservatives should be offended.

Fiscal conservatives should be troubled, as well...

Prior to running for election in Beauce, Bernier had served as vice-president of Quebec's leading free market think-tank, the Montreal Economic Institute. In his previous incarnation, he would have been unimpressed with someone's girlfriend -- flat or big-chested -- tagging along on the company dime.

I submit that this piece was probably written before Bernier's resignation (although not before the news of the envelope-gate). However, I would suggest that Adamson makes a good case for his resignation even before the top secret envelope under the pillow routine, and would guess that PM Harper had pencilled Bernier for a shuffle during the summer when nobody was paying attention.

how I felt all those years:

Clark said that he does not have a political affinity for any of the current federal parties, noting that he was a "political orphan."

When Joe Clark is running the Conservative party, a conservative guy like me was pretty much an orphan.

Now will the press please stop treating this guy like he has an ounce of credibility?

Prime Minister Harper's much touted consumer protection law announcement this past Tuesday came with the usual editorial comments politicians throw into these things. For at least the 2nd time during his Prime Ministership Harper has uttered the pejorative phrase "the almighty dollar." Here's the quote, as given by the National Post's lead editorial on Thursday:

He detailed new regulation that will "improve our safety and our health," while getting tough with nasty companies "who care more about the almighty dollar than the safety of their customers."

As I pointed out last time he used it, the almighty dollar is the kind of "Hargrovian" comment you would find Michael Moore using. It is a leftist phrase meant to demean scary capitalists like Harper.

After using the phrase twice, and after Tuesday's legislation and yesterdays aerospace announcement, I'm beginning to think Jean Cretien was right all along, Harper has a scary hidden agenda - if your conservative.

Back "in the day," 25 or so years ago, I tended towards the drink a bit. Not a house drinker either, a barfly. One night a buddy and I were at the Cannonball in Bramalea (is it still there?) and we got sitting with this guy who had, literally, just sold the farm. He was sitting with (if I remember correct) $80,000 in his pocket and was on what you might modestly call a bender.

He decided to include us in his good time and the drinks were soon coming almost faster than we could drink them (almost). We did a thing were we would come up with a drink we had never had, and suddenly we were drinking three of them. I recall a few white Russians and black Russians, but truly little else. I have no doubt that guy woke up a few weeks, or months later with no farm, no money and one hell of a headache.

I thought of that guy today while reading about the Ontario budget delivered Tuesday by Dwight Duncan. Dalton McGuinty's Liberals have decided to spend any surplus they find. In Tuesday's budget that was an extra $5B they "found" and will promptly spend. As Terence Corcoran put it:

If the province had collected an extra $10-billion this year instead of $5-billion, it would have spent it.

He's dead right, and that's exactly what they said, if we have it, we spend it. $5B, $10B, $20B. It's really the same spending approach as the guy who sold the farm at the Cannonball: he hadn't budgeted on the money, thus it was found money, "hey lets go on a bender." At the end of the day he had nothing to show for the sold farm, but boy, what a hangover.

It makes you wonder: what kind of hangover are Ontario taxpayers going to wake up with when Dalton and Dwight have finished spending our found money?

Like many people I have been following the Tibet protests closely and waiting to see what would happen. I have been thinking about the possibility of a boycott, and confess to be squeamish about it. Many of the young athletes who have trained their asses off will never get another chance. They deserve their kick at the Olympics, and unless things get much worse in Tibet, I can't support a call to take the Olympics away from those athletes.

Politicians, however, are a different kettle of fish. I have been thinking for about a week now that the politicians/world leaders should definitely boycott the Olympics. No delegations of VIPs, no official visits, no junkets to Bejing. If all the leaders in the free world would do so, it would send a powerful message. I know it could be Stephen Harper's only chance to take his kids to an Olympics, I know how important it is for our betters to see and be seen at these events, but there will be other junkets, other opportunities to hob-knob.

Last Tuesday French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner suggested the European Union should boycott the opening ceremonies, and yesterday Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said he would boycott the opening. All well and good, but a complete boycott by all official delegations would be far better.

Don't lets use our athletes as pawns, lets use our political class as pawns. No 2008 Olympic junket for politicians and bureaucrats.

Now if I could just find a bumper sticker.

I'm beginning to grow very weary of OPP commissioner Julian Fantino. It's not how he does his job so much, and some of the things he says. Take for instance yesterday. Caledonia protesters targeted the Fantino compound in Woodbridge. About 20 protesters marched around peacefully and made speeches.

It's extremely debatable whether Fantino's house, and subsequently neighbourhood, should have been targeted on this way. But what does Fantino have to say about the protesters:

Why people would think that their actions today -- their very personal actions today -- would deter me or the OPP from doing our job. That shows a certain amount of desperation.

Do ya think that people who have been under siege, who's neighbourhoods, in fact their community has been ruined by an illegal occupation, in which Fantino's police force will not enforce the law, are desperate? I would have thought they were pulling their hair out of their head crazy by now. The thing is Mr. Fantino, "that shows a certain amount of desperation," may be a put down against apolitical opponent, but these aren't political opponents. These are desperate citizens asking that their property be protected.

It is, in fact, the whole point of taking the protest to your street, because they are desperate, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it. Commissioner Fantino, stop treating citizens you are sworn to serve and protect like they are your political opponents, and start doing your job.

Regarding this...

The examples keep piling up.

On the other hand, one of my favourite quotes is, "You want your freedom? Don't take government money."

Same rule applies to government housing.

...that it's stress related?

Me, I love the idea that Toronto catholic school taxpayers pay her "expensive restaurant bills... on weekend nights where the bill is delivered around midnight", Then they get to pay for her "plus sized clothing and lingerie."

The Royal Canadian Mint will not be charging the city of Toronto for using the likeness of a penny in it's one-cent tax refund campaign last year. The mint owns the trademark for Candian currency, and had invoiced the city of Toronto for daring to use their trademark themselves:

...a taxpayer-owned corporation licensed to make money -- literally and for profit -- the mint insists it must protect trademarks just like any other business.

Even "50 Cent" rapper Curtis Jackson registered his stage name in Canada.

"Everyone should understand that they can't get a free ride from the mint when it comes to them using our intellectual property," Reeves said.

But hold on one minute. It's not the mints money, it's not the mints trademark - it's ours. Canadians. Every damn one of us. Much like the Borque-poppy incident a couple of Novembers ago, the mint only holds any trademark in trust for Canadians, not to use against us. It is our symbol, not theirs.

As such:

Next they'll be telling us we can't use the Canadian flag.

I'm puttering around work with a hangover, swearing up and down that I'm off booze for good - never again - this time I mean it - when I hear John Tory is talking about a trial of selling beer and wine in corner stores. Normally, that would cause me to sit and write a nice, John Tory friendly article with a title like...

But no, today I don't care as I'm "off booze for good - never again - this time I mean it" and it occurs to me if John Tory is having as much trouble connecting with the rest of the electorate as he is me, then he's in real trouble.

Hangovers and a bad case of the zactly's aside, here's how that article cited above might have went:


Finally a Policy Idea I Can Raise a Glass Too.

Back in mid-august we were entertaining our young nephew, who lives in Ottawa. His parents were on their way down to pick him up after a few day stay at our house, and I had no beer in the house. So we were puttering around Friday night, not expecting his parents until after 11:00, and I decided to pick up some beer, in case they were thirsty after their long drive. It was 9:15 on a Friday night, and I was out of luck. Both the Hespeler beer and liquor stores were closed. 9:15 on a Friday night in the middle of the summer.

Thus was born a beer and liquor store abolitionist.

So when John Tory announced yesterday that he would look at selling beer and wine in corner stores he made me sit up and take notice.

Now granted, nothing drastic from our man Tory. Just a few trial locations, study the question: as if Quebec, Alberta and B.C., the U.S.A. and Europe are not test location enough. Really, the data exists, the idea works. But from baby steps like this comes full fledged working policy, so I'll take what I can get.

And don't give me any of that "minors will have an easier time getting alcohol," argument. When I was growing up the beer and liquor stores were the one place you could get alcohol, but try and get into a privately operated bar, and no dice. The same still holds true, and it holds true for a reason. There is no repercussions, either to the unionized employee or the store itself, if somebody sells to a minor in a government run store. But a private operation has much to lose, including their licence, their employees face dismissal for transgressions. There is no reason to believe the same will not hold true at convenience stores.

And please John, tell me you also mean grocery stores: for the environments sake if no other reason. I'm forever making an extra trip instead of grabbing a bottle/few cans of Guinness at the grocery store.

All that said, John Tory is looking for a trial location for his project, I have a little village in mind that needs a place were beer can be had after 9:00 on a Friday night.

I knew as I was framing this post in my mind whilst working today, that I would be pretty lonely in my opinion. I knew already what the great Joe Warmington had to say, could have guessed what Right Girl and Wonder Woman were saying, yet still found myself agreeing with David Miller.

I, and this blog, have been supporters of our troops since day one. I used to own one of those magnets, until some anti-war-Bush-hating-BirkenstockAndSock -wearing-smelly-old-needs-a-haircut-hippy-unionist stole mine (or it fell off, who really knows)(see picture right). But again, I must say it, David Miller is right: showing the ribbon can be construed as a political statement.

The debate, then, ought to be, should we be making political statements on public emergency vehicles? And perhaps, a reasonable answer is no.

I happen to think they belong there, I happen to be happy that Rob Ford was prophetic ( "It should be 45-0," adds Councillor Rob Ford. "We should all be 100% behind our brave troops."). But, if the answer is no, we should not be making political statements on public emergency vehicles, that means NO political statements: no breast cancer ribbons; no firetrucks in the gay pride parade. Not just, no right of centre political statements, no political statements. And that's what is really galling everybody. They know this wouldn't even be a question if this was any other cause.

For me though, the best part of this was the bit nobody noticed. The ribbons would stay on until removed during routine maintenance. That means that, unless you are a highly paid unionized mechanic in the city of Toronto, you are not qualified to remove an over sized fridge magnet from a fire truck.

Fortunately, this is all moot, as Toronto council voted 45 - 0 to keep the ribbons. Apparently the city of Toronto e-mail servers were getting a work out.

Some time ago, New Zealand was looking at impose content requirements on its broadcasters:

...whether or not New Zealand should impose local content requirements on its broadcasters. Advocates were pushing for a legislated requirement that radio and television stations play a certain amount of content created by New Zealand artists and producers. Such measures, it was argued, would help preserve the cultural specificity of the land of the long white cloud.

Economist Martin Richardson looked at other countries who had done so, very specifically Canada. He examined the CRTC's 35% rule, which states that "all radio stations must ensure that 35% of their popular musical selections are Canadian each week."

Many people, of course, point to Celine Dion, Shania Twian or Nickelback as success stories from the 35% content rule, Richardson sees them as the failure of the rule:

“If you listen to people like Celine Dion, Shania Twain, or Avril Lavigne, they are Canadian, they get played – or, at least, used to get played – preferentially on Canadian radio stations, but they sound generically international,” Richardson says. “There is nothing distinctively Canadian about them at all, as opposed to some of their predecessors. Why? Once you have a cultural quota in place, you are forcing consumers to listen to more local content. Let’s assume that consumers have a preference for more international-type content. The obvious incentive is for local artists to start producing international music. The whole point of this is to preserve the local content, but actually by putting a restriction in place, you give local providers a very strong incentive to actually change their style and sound much more international."

What you get, in other words, is Canadians that don't sound Canadian. You gain the performer, but lose the uniquely Canadian voice. This article is a good read if you are interested in Canadian cultural issues.

Oh, and New Zealand? "Eventually the country’s broadcasters agreed to voluntary local content targets."