Politic-O-Pinion

I’m a Liberal, and a liberal, and in many cases just a general wack-job-crazy-lady (minus the cats) if you’re looking to box me in.  But I, for one, will miss John Tory.  I was actually saddened - at least a little bit - when he lost the by-election yesterday and more saddened still when he resigned as leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.

In 2007 I came very close to voting for Mr. Tory’s party because of him.  Unfortunately, as with many people, it seemed, his announcement that he intended to fund religious schools reminded me that the Reptilian Kitten Eater is my guy.

He just seems to lack political instinct, or something.  Perhaps it’s just an inability to be able to command the direction of the debate during elections.  His loss in a long-Conservative riding was surprising until you realize that his opponent managed to paint him as an upstart who was using the riding as a means to an end.   It’s hard to fight against that image.

I’m glad of the win for us - the good guys - however, and I would be lying to say otherwise.  But I’m sad that John Tory - an at-least-semi-sensible Conservative - is out of the game.

Farewell and good luck, John Tory, you’ll be missed even on this side of the aisle…  at least a little bit.

Harper Hypocrisy.  I bet there are a half-million Google results if you search for that term.  But why are we surprised anymore?

The latest is that the Prime Minister has appointed Justice Thomas Cromwell of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, circumventing a process that would have given input from all parties on the nomination process.  Mr. Harper had previously opined that justices should go through a more rigorous and openly scrutinized process prior to appointment.

The Prime Minister has claimed that he still wants to use the all-party House panel to scrutinize appointments to the Supreme Court - just not this time.  Next time, y’know, when it’s the other guys turn, he’ll be totally back on the bandwagon.

I don’t necessarily dislike the nomination of Justice Cromwell to the Supreme Court, what I know of him - which is admittedly only what I’ve read online and a half-dozen or so of his decisions - he seems like a prudent jurist.  I don’t disagree with the notion of a balanced - left and right, that is - court, either.

However, hypocrisy needs to be called out and branded as such.  Own it, Harper, if you’re going to engage in it.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced his nominations for the 18 empty seats in Canada’s Senate.

Among the nominees are long-time broadcasters Pamela Wallin and much-speculated nominee Mike Duffy. Also in the list of 18 is Olympic medallist Nancy Greene.

See the full list here.

At this point the nominations are old news, but I really truly thought it might just be a ploy or something.  I mean, his own base has to see that this is total hypocrisy.  He has repeated wailed that Senators should be elected not appointed; now through this act he has become what he has decried for all these years.

We all know that these nominations are for the Prime Minister to make, but it is up to the Governor General to make the appointments.  I’m still hoping that she won’t, but my hope isn’t that strong.

In 1948 the United Nations adopted a document called the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This document spells out the rights of all humans: That we’re born free and equal; that all rights are endowed without consideration of any kind such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

It does not, however, mentioned sexual orientation or gender identity.

With this being the 60th anniversary of the UDHR, France and the Netherlands decided to offer up an additional declaration which would add protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Sixty-six nations have signed on to show their support.

Among those nations refusing to sign are Syria, Saudi Arabia, China and the United States. Yes, the United States has chosen to follow the lead of human rights giants such as China and Saudi Arabia.

The draft of the document states “We urge states to take all the necessary measures, in particular legislative or administrative, to ensure that sexual orientation or gender identity may under no circumstances be the basis for criminal penalties, in particular executions, arrests or detention”. It is non-binding. States are being urged, not directed, to follow the declaration.

The fear for the United States is that this could affect the exclusion of service for gays in the military. It could impact the ability for the federal government to allow the states to decide on their homosexuality laws.

These notions are, of course, crap.

Homosexuality is still illegal in seven nations: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Mauritania, Nigeria, Sudan, Yemen and Iran. These are the same nations - along with China and Russia - that the United States is now getting its social guidance from. That should scare the hell out of everyone living in the US.

Not just LGBT folks. Everyone.

The Syrian envoy, who was speaking on behalf of 58 nations who reject the declaration, claimed that “genetic factors” to homosexuality haven’t been proven and that protections for something that is seen as a “choice” shoudn’t be extended.

Language, religion, political opinion and social origin as provided by the original charter, on the other hand, are hard-coded in to our DNA.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a good idea. Including a provision which protects everyone against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is imperative.

I have read a lot lately about how many in the blogosphere feel that the coalition has served its purpose; that it has done what was needed, that is to say that it forced the Conservatives to back down on some of their more idealogical initiatives.  These same bloggers are intimating, and some are expressing outright, that the coalition need not govern that it as a looming entity full of maybe is enough.

It’s not.

I don’t even care about the whole 62% stuff, because that number is crap; so is 38%.

All I care about is the fact that the majority of members of parliament - the so-called Opposition Members - feel that they can work together, as a government, to lead this country.  That’s enough to sell me.

Each member of parliament was elected in their own right.  That means those 308 members of parliament have the right to govern as they see fit in whatever configuration they see fit.  So long as parliament is functional and responsible, that’s all that matters.  If they screw it up they’ll pay for it in the polls come election day.

So, has the coalition served its purpose?  I hope not.  I sincerely hope that this coalition party carries forward and forms a government and leads this country in a responsible and unifying way.  Too long politics in Canada has meant partisan politics “to the exclusion of all others”.

It is time for that to stop.

The coalition cannot succeed in that manner without following through to its natural conclusion: forming a government and proving once and for all that political parties in this country well and truly can come together and integrate their idealogical stances for the betterment of the country as a whole.

And anyone who says the word separatist should be cuffed upside the head.

 Loading ...