Jason Kenney's Guyed For New ConserCanadians

.

GO

.

h/t Holly Stick at Bread 'n Roses

Canada, Mean ? ? ? ?

Yesterday Slate published an excellent piece by Christopher Flavelle summarizing the state of today's Canadian politics. Thanks to our friend IP at Idealistic Pragmatist for pointing us to it. Read the whole article here.

What's the Matter With Canada?

How the world's nicest country turned mean.
By Christopher Flavelle - Friday, Sept. 12, 2008

Last Sunday, news came that Canada—sensible, quiet, some would even say boring Canada—will hold an election on Oct. 14, its third in four years. Those outside the country may wonder what the problem is; in Canada, after all, health care is free, the dollar is strong, same-sex marriage is legal, and the government had the good sense to stay out of Iraq. You might think of Canada as the un-America, where the only debate ought to be whether to spend the country's growing oil wealth on faster snowmobiles, bigger hockey rinks, or Anne Murray box sets.

But beneath the calm exterior, Canada's political system is in turmoil. Since 2004, a succession of unstable minority governments has led to a constant campaign frenzy, brutalizing Canada's once-broad political consensus and producing a series of policies at odds with the country's socially liberal, fiscally conservative identity. Canada is quietly becoming a political basket case, and this latest election may make things even worse.

Just scan the headlines. In June, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned that Canada—for years the only G8 country to post regular budget surpluses—was likely to fall into deficit this year, thanks to a reckless cut to the national sales tax. In February, the government proposed denying funding to films and TV shows whose content it deemed "not in the public interest," sparking cries of censorship from a sector that has historically received public support. In 2007, a member of the governing Conservative Party proposed a bill that would reopen the debate over abortion, a topic that governments both liberal and conservative have avoided for decades.

Please read the whole article. I know, I know, what does a USian writer know about Canadian politics? Read it. You'll see.

And then, those of you that can vote, please do.

Those of us that can't are depending on you . . . .

Harper chooses gay superhero to be new symbol of Canada

Harper is going to take a certain amount of flack for choosing a gay francophone superhero from X-Men to be the new symbol of Canadian, uh, pride, but personally I think it's just terribly terribly bold of him.

G&M : PMO sets sights on North Star's guiding light

"In a new bid to foster national pride and confidence in its leadership, the Stephen Harper government is urging Canadians to look up, look way up.

As the Conservatives search for a more inspirational way to deliver their message and replace the worn-out catchphrase "Canada's New Government," the lobbyists and strategists who deliver the government line were told after last week's Throne Speech to make use of a reference to the North Star that showed up toward the end of the speech.

"To help you effectively communicate with your local media, as well as your constituents, we have included general messaging on the Speech from the Throne," says a PMO memo obtained by The Globe and Mail.

Among the elements of the Throne Speech that the memo urges them to highlight, the first is this lyrical passage: "Like the North Star, Canada has been a guide to other nations..."

The memo does not say specifically how the strategists should use the reference."

Oh come on, strategists, how tough is that?

According to wikipedia, NorthStar is a Quebecois superhero who first joins the Front de Libération du Québec to gain Quebec independence but soon sees the error of his ways and renounces terrorism to join Alpha Flight, a superhero group financed by the Canadian government.

His X-Men bio divulges that in addition to being a world class Olympic skier who makes his home at the north pole, NorthStar is also a martial arts master, a trapeze artist, and an accomplished novelist.

Now what could be more Canadian than that?

"Sources have told The Globe that the North Star terminology was to have been peppered throughout the speech, rather than just at the end.

"When you're following the North Star you're always going in the right direction," said the source in explaining its appeal."

Strategists, start your engines.

As Impolitical says : Must...repeat...North...Star....

Supporting the Troops

Over the last several weeks we've seen Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Defense Minister Gordon O'Connor and Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day twist and squirm on the issue of prisoners of war captured by the Canadian military in Afghanistan. They seemed to have hit a new low last week when Harper, who has never served in the military (or even had a job in the private sector) tried to deflect criticsm of his gormless defence minister by suggesting that anyone who hadn't served in the military was not fit to criticize those who had. By the same reckoning I suppose those who have never taught school should be barred from criticism of the education system and those of us who have never held a seat in the House of Commons should just keep our traps shut and be grateful for the fine job the Gnu Gummint of Kanada is doing on our behalf.
This is, of course, to use the technical term complete and utter bullshit. Canada is not a military dictatorship, the armed forces answer to their civilian overseers, who are supposed to answer to the voters.
This week, they've sunk a notch lower in their emulation of the national security state to the south, where anything the government does, no matter how many of its own laws it breaks, can be justified by claiming it is being done in the interest of national security (Just like they do in such enlightened democracies as North Korea and Burma. The government is now stonewalling on releasing information about the number of prisoners taken in Afghanistan, saying the enemy could use such information for propaganda purposes or to hurt our gallant boys in harm's way defending our way of life over there so that we don't have to fight the terrorists over here and why aren't you wearing red with yellow ribbons you islamoanarchofacist pinko bastard?
Doris wants to know how we dare to even ask questions:

"Detainees are not simply people who have jay-walked," Day said. "These are
people who are suspected terrorists."

"That has been the air of the questioning, so much so that our troops tell us they think they're being accused of doing wrong things."

Doris better go read the Geneva Conventions again, because if the military is handing over prisoners to be tortured, they are doing the "wrong thing" -- the kind of wrong thing that could land people in the Hague. By asking these questions and demanding the military act properly we are supporting them, we are making sure they don't inadvertently violate international law and commit a war crime by mimicing the conduct of our neighbors to the south.
It is not the job of the grunts in the field or their immediate superiors to determine whether the Afghan government tortures prisoners. They should be able to take the word of the minister of defense and the prime minister and the chief of defense staff who job it is to determine what happens to prisoners taken on the battlefield. It very definitely is their responsibility to determine whether the Afghans are likely to torture any prisoners we hand over to them.
The opposition are doing their job, the voters are doing thier the troops are doing theirs -- why isn't the government doing its job?

crossposted at The Woodshed