Why The CPC Should Hang on to Stephen Harper

Regular readers of this space will know that in general, I am not a big fan of Stephen Harper and his party. My reasons for this are largely due to differences in basic philosophy about how this nation works (or should work).

Goodness knows, Stephen Harper has been more successful in accomplishing the gymnastic feat of inserting both feet into his mouth than his predecessors (and considering Stockwell Day's abysmal performance, that's saying something!)

Okay, Stephen takes truly awful pictures, and lord knows it's painfully obvious that he's about as uncomfortable before the media as I would be were I in his position. Having said that, he's also a smart man. Whatever else you say about him, he is obviously intelligent. Naive, perhaps, but intelligent. I think he's learning the hard way the exact same lessons that Preston Manning learned once he reached Ottawa. Coming from a single-party province like Alberta, the cut and thrust of politics in Ottawa is a rude awakening for leadership politicians from Alberta.

I believe that Harper is the best hope the CPC has for future electoral success. Why do I say this?

First, I think Mr. Harper is ultimately intelligent enough to be able to learn from his mistakes. Hopefully, when the House of Commons sits in the fall, we will see a much more refined Stephen Harper heading up Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. (If we don't, I'll consider retracting this entry...) After the very public bruising he took last term, I can only imagine that he will change his presentation and demeanor considerably.

Second, the CPC desperately needs to build some credibility outside of Alberta. The constant pattern of "eating their young" every time they lose an election, or things go "badly" for them in the latest sitting of parliament is disastrous. It suggests to voters that the party is internally deeply fractured, and that breeds mistrust. Yes, voters don't like the Liberals, and view them as corrupt, but the Liberals are seen as "the devil we know". Corrupt, yes, but known.

Third, it will take a couple of elections for the CPC to manage to start convincing voters (outside of Alberta) that they represent something comprehensible - and are more than simply a western protest party.

Lastly, the most rabid of Conservative supporters in Alberta are starting to turn towards Separatist/Firewall movements - frustrated mostly by the fact that they haven't "got their way" in Ottawa this past session of Parliament. (Boo hoo - if they'd learn to look past the end of their noses, they might start to figure out that politics is a lot more than Ralph Klein's idiot edicts - something the rest of the country seems to understand just fine)

Besides - in the meantime, Harper might just learn enough about how Ottawa works to actually advance his party's platform. Of course, in their frustration the most radical elements of the current CPC will slowly dissipate into the ether, returning the party to a moderate stance which will play reasonably well for much of Canada. The various radical elements in the current party just make voters uneasy. The ongoing paranoid fiction spun by the separatist/firewall elements will steadily find their way into political irrelevance. (Just as they did in the early 1980s when the Western Canada Concept and a few other "separatist" protest parties had a brief heyday.)

Is Liberal Democracy Failing?

One of the pet complaints of politicians in Canada is the so-called "Democratic Deficit". The sense that the Federal Liberals have been in power for far too long, and have lost sight of the needs of the nation as a whole is strong and pervasive.

Yet, at the same time, we seem to be starved for alternatives. Emerging parties are held in a stranglehold by a first-past-the-post system of candidate selection that makes elections more about brand recognition than actual policies.

In the United States, the inherent conflict between the various divisions of government seem to be increasingly prominent, and increasingly significant - almost to the point of driving the agenda. An article hinting that Bush may appoint John Bolton as ambassador to the UN while the Congress is recessed this summer is perhaps one of the more disturbing little chestnuts I've seen out of Washington lately. A reporter was recently jailed for refusing to reveal sources for a story she was investigating to a Grand Jury. Along with the renewal of the "Patriot Act", it seems that the very key liberties that make a democracy work are being eroded south of the border.

Ah - but we are in Canada, so what does it matter that the US democracy is crumbling? Directly, it probably doesn't matter a lot. But it does matter. Yesterday's arrest of the leader of the B.C.-based Marijuana Party is troubling if one looks at it as a political event.

Essentially, I see two problems here. First, are the implications of foreign law enforcement officials demanding that Canadian law enforcement conduct arrest and search warrants on their behalf. Especially in areas where our laws don't seem to align very well. (Yes - I am quite aware of the fact that there are legal issues relating to treaties and other international agreements involved) There is a deeply troubling sense that comes to me from having the American "War on Drugs" being waged by the DEA through Canadian proxy.

The second, more worrisome aspect of it, is the political implications of subjecting the leader of a political party to criminal proceedings in a foreign country. One can begin to suspect that we have American policy and law being imposed upon a Canadian Citizen, largely for his political beliefs. (The US has been deeply opposed to any liberalization of the "Pot Laws" in Canada)

Frankly, selling Marijuana seeds - in Canada or the US was a stupid thing to do, and I'm not particularly sympathetic to Emery's plight in that regard. A quick search on Google for "Marijuana Seed" turns up more than a few on-line brokers of pot seeds. Emery is far from the only broker of such seeds. Which leads me to suspect that the US DEA action is at least partially political in its roots. The US wants to make sure that its neighbor doesn't liberalize it's drug laws. (After all, we just slapped the Bushite crowd in the face pretty hard with changes to marriage law - and that's after the millions of dollars that US lobby groups such as "Focus on the Family" pumped into this country over the last year or so.)

So...what do we have - a government in the United States that is doing everything it can to erode the rights of its citizens, is planning to circumvent its own processes because the executive can't get "it's way", and now seems not only determined to drag its policy wars into Canada, but is intent on shutting down a part of Canada's political dialogue.

Worried yet?

Can Conservative Politicians Read?

I found this little gem lurking on the web this morning. Apparently, the Conservatives want to amend the Divorce Act so that it "better reflects the priority of children's rights".

Okay - it's a noble enough thing. All too often, when parents divorce, the children wind up as pawns, caught in the middle of their parents' difficulties. I would have no particular problem with amending the divorce act to give the courts - and law enforcement officials - more tools for dealing with deadbeat parents who don't contribute to the rearing of their children, or that provide for reasonable access.

... MP Jay Hill, has a private member's bill currently before the House of Commons that proposes such changes to the Divorce Act

After reading that little gem, I went and dug up MP Hill's bill, and read it.

The first thing that struck me was that 80% of the bill is redundant - it's already specified in great hoary detail in section 16 of the act. By placing their amendment in section 15, Hill has simply created a situation where the act is logically inconsistent with itself. (Section 16 deals with custody issues, section 15 deals with support obligations)

Looking further at it, the resulting law creates some fairly serious problems into the future for a couple divorcing:

1. The "best interests" of the child are inadequately defined. This leaves it open to the interpretation of the judiciary. Phrases like "best interests" are always worrisome in law.

2. It creates a situation where abusive relationships could well be reinforced/continued as a result. (Remember, the child may not be the victim of abuse)

3. The amendment presupposes that it is 'always' in the best interests of the child to have a relationship with both parents. This may not be true for a variety of reasons - not merely child abuse.

4. It constrains the mobility of the custodial parent, possibly unreasonably.

5. Once again, as is the case with other parts of the divorce act, it fails utterly to put in place penalties for non-compliance.

6. Even if both parents agree to a "shared parenting" arrangement as part of the settlement, the amended law makes little or no effective provision to deal with situations where domestic violence has been part of the picture. In fact, wording in the amendment would hamstring the ability of the court to consider such issues.

If there is a problem with respect to the impact of divorce on families today, it is not the divorce itself, nor is it the custody issues per se. It is the utter lack of ability to enforce spousal and child support orders. The so-called "deadbeat parent" routine happens far too often, and the law is virtually toothless about it.

I know of one situation where the child is "co-parented", but one of the parents contributes nothing towards the support of the child - whether it be school fees, food, clothing or daycare. Why? Because the courts have no tools whatsoever to enforce a support order with. (and at this point, the primary custodial parent is so sick of the whole mess, they're just living with it - fortunately, they can make ends meet.)

Instead of mucking around with the divorce law to create some idealized notion of a child with a happy relationship with both parents, the Conservatives would do well to spend a bit of time coming up with ways to allow the courts (and law enforcement) to enforce the support and custody orders.

The Divorce Act already deals with issues of custody and support. The Conservative amendment is little more than a sad attempt at making it harder for a couple to divorce, in the misguided notion that it's "better for the children" if a couple stays together.

If this country elects a Conservative government in the near future, expect to see an attempt to legislate society back to the 1950's idealization of the "nuclear family". At best such a legislative regime would be ill-advised. At worst, it could be very damaging to a lot of people - no matter how noble its goals.

What To Do If...

Your anti-paranoia medication isn't working...

Symptoms: For no rational reason whatsoever, you believe that someone is "out to get you"; A fear of old horrors coming back to life; a complete loss of perspective outside of your little box.

Treatment: Therapy, along with regular doses of reality and appropriate sedatives.

Sample Case: Paul Jackson, Columnist...

When I read Jackson's latest tirade, I could have sworn he was in competition with Bishop Henry for the "Tying Unrelated Issues Together" award.

In his latest column, he manages through some twists of illogic to tie together:

1. Paul Martin's comments about Chuck Cadman
2. Senator Grant Mitchell's recent commentary about Conservative Politicians
3. National Security Issues - especially in light of recent bombings in London
4. Control over Alberta's natural resources (The NEP's coming back, dontcha know)
5. Belinda Stronach at the Stampede. (Hey - at least she didn't manage to do "Cowboy-Business-Fetish Crossover" fashion!)

My goodness - what ties all of these issues together? I don't know - only the most paranoid of thinking can possibly link these things together. It's sort of like the nut-cases in the US that insist that Area 51 is keeping crashed UFOs, and the Government is busy trying to cover it all up. I think Jackson almost out-did Bishop Henry's irrational linkage of unrelated topics earlier this year in his now infamous "pastoral letter".

Somebody get Mr. Jackson a sedative and a nice "I-Love-Me Jacket" - he's apt to injure something (his brain) if he attempts actual rational thought.

Unrest in Iraq, Bombings in Madrid, London and Sharm el Sheikh

There have been a number of commentators lately expressing varying degrees of bewilderment and consernation over the recent spate of bombings.

It seems unlikely to believe that Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, London, Madrid and 9/11 are all related. Certainly, it seems even less likely that there is some "ubermind" bringing it all together.

After all, the bombehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifrs are often from places other than Iraq or Afghanistan - what interest could a Pakistani, or Syrian have in blowing themselves up in a suicide bombing? Reasoning further, the logic then decides that the terrorists that organize these bombings are completely unreasoning, irrational rebels without a clue or cause to speak of.

Even national leaders like Tony Blair change their rationalizations from one day to the next - first claiming that the terrorists hate "our freedoms", then turning to radical Islam as a causal explanation.

It doesn't take a genius to put current events up to the mirror of history. In the wake of World War I, the Treaty of Sevres substantially laid the groundwork for the national borders that we see in maps of the Middle East today. Little in that treaty, or any subsequent alteration of Middle Eastern borders had anything to do with recognizing natural political regions and divisions in the region. (Of course, at the end of the British Colonial era, this is not a big surprise)

However, beyond recognizing that the current geo-political environment has its roots in the early part of the last century. Since then, so-called "western" interests have tacitly and overtly supported some pretty awful regimes in the region - using the Lyndon Johnson "He might be a bastard, but he's our bastard" logic. Great, so for the last 100 years or so (I'll politely ignore pre WWI conquests of the region), foreign powers have propped up corrupt and abusive regimes. (Saddam Hussein, the Shah in Iran, among others)

So, when the United States rolls in to push over the government in Iraq (or Afghanistan, for that matter), do you think that just maybe the Arabs have good reason to be deeply suspicious? I certainly do! Then, just for giggles, we get to add the most recent incidents of abuse that have been either alleged or shown to have happened to prisoners under American control. (Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay - any of these ring any bells??) Factual or fictional, the point is that once out in the wild, these allegations will serve to reinforce Arab mistrust of "Western" interests.

Now, we come to the bombings and civil war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why bomb Sharm el Sheikh? Why bomb the London Subways? Why 9/11? It's pretty simple - instead of just buying oil from the Arabs, foreign powers have decided that they had to control the oil supply. In doing so, they supported governments that abused their people, and broke every principle that America and its allies allegedly stand for. Coordinated or not, it isn't difficult to see where different groups will come up with different ways of lashing out at their perceived oppressors. The Arab isn't stupid - all but a few would realize that they simply haven't got the resources to stand in the face of American heavy armor. So - they resort to tactics they know will disrupt things - suicide bombings, car bombings, whatever. These are all cheap, easily organized operations that can have a devastating impact on the people.

Anyone who is perceived to be an ally of the "enemy" becomes a target. It's not a focused lashing out - that isn't necessary.

Can you negotiate with these people - no. Can we understand them - yes. Will further heavy military intervention in the region have any effect? No - at least not if the desired effect is to stabilize the region.

Is there a solution? Yes - but it involves handling the Arab states as economic partners and leaving them to sort out their own politics. Military invasion is a lousy way to make peace, and an even less effective way to gain trust.

Grow a Sense of Humour

It appears that one of the key attributes Canada's Conservative backers are missing these days is a sense of humour.

Sure enough, after the recently published picture of Stephen Harper at the Calgary Stampede, Conservative writers and bloggers are using this as more fodder to whine about how awful central Canada is to Western Politicians.

Whether it's clueless goofs like Link Byfield, or rants on Conservative Blogs (which are turning into Alberta Separatist blogs lately), the whine is constant - "How awful Central Canada is to the Alberta politician".

Quit taking it so seriously - geez! I'm actually sympathetic to Harper as far as that picture goes - it's awful, and really, about all you can do is laugh about it. Of course, the commentators are using it as another excuse to whinge about how awful Canada is for Western Canadian leaders. After all, Central Canada laughed Stockwell Day down, as well as Joe Clark. (I will point out that Joe Clark stuck it out beyond anyone's expectations, and became one of Canada's most respected parliamentarians)

Conservative supporters have to grow a sense of humour. My goodness, if I got myself tangled in knots over some of the truly awful pictures of me (anyone who has seen my yearbook photos in the past will remember those - I hated school photographs), I'd be a thoroughly dysfunctional collection of neuroses. (I may be, depending on your perspective)

The best thing the Conservatives could do for themselves is take that picture (awful as it is), and instead of whining about the picture and the inevitable jokes about it, use it to start growing a sense of humour. Okay, your leader doesn't take good pictures - get over it. (It's not like Jean Chretien took good pictures either. (But then again is was some brain-boys in the then PC party that tried to play that in an attack ad, wasn't it) Harper's human - that's a good start.

Now he has to learn to politic a little - and that means more than just putting a "good public show" forward. It means also learning to say what you want to say, and leave some room to maneuver later, should it become necessary. Alberta has been electing its provincial PC party for so long, that politicians from Alberta tend to assume that they can say whatever they wish and pay little or no penalty for it. The rest of Canada is a tad bit different. A little bit of humour would go a long ways.

Free Trade? - Get Real!

For the last couple of years, Canadian cattle producers have been shut out from the US market after a single case of BSE was found.

In the last few weeks, an assortment of court rulings in the US have reopened the US border to Canadian cattle. Of course, between RCALF-USA and now the Montana Governer, it seems that our cattle producers are up for more difficulties.

Okay, I respect the fact that any country has the right to protect its own interests, but given the number of years that the Canadian and American cattle industries were intertwined, it stands to pretty good logic that if Canada has BSE, you can pretty much guarantee that the American herd has the same problem lurking somewhere.

As far as I'm concerned, the BSE issue is a manufactured crisis. The actions of various protectionist groups in the US, as well as the US Federal Government have underscored the long-standing sense that I've had that the "Free Trade" agreements that former Prime Minister Mulroney committed Canada are a one way agreement. It's free trade only when American interests are favoured.

The BSE situation is but one more example of the one-way nature of so-called "free trade". If Canada moves to protect its interests, Americans threaten to sue under the NAFTA rules. Meanwhile, America continues to restrict sales of so many Canadian products (softwood lumber, steel to name a few) even when the NAFTA and WTO boards have ruled against them. It's quickly becoming time for Canada to walk away from NAFTA/FTA until the Americans start to honor their responsibilities under those agreements.