Remember that $15 Billion In Military Spending

As with the replacement of the Hercules aircraft, we see the Harper government only considering one bid in the matter.

There are good reasons for government purchases - including the military's - to be held under a public tender process. First and foremost is the whole notion of oversight. An untendered process - which is basically what we have here - depends on who can grease the right palms in Ottawa to get the job. The Canadian Government has a very well developed notion of tendering contracts - developed over decades. To not use that process is both foolish and abusive of taxpayer dollars.

Of course, we knew this was going to happen some months ago, but it's yet another nail to be hammered into Harper's political coffin.

Just Wait For The Whining

It seems that in Ontario, a judge has ruled that a child can have more than 2 parents.

[Update]:Here's the full text of the actual ruling.
[/Update]

I'll put money down that the first thing out of the right-wingnut-o-sphere will be a bunch of whining about how this is promoting polygamy and other assorted evils. (Not to mention - Gay Adoption (oh the horror!))

However, let's take a closer look at the facts shall we?

Court was told the child has three parents: his biological father and mother (identified in court documents as B.B. and C.C., respectively) and C.C.'s partner, the appellant A.A.

A.A. and C.C. have been in a stable same-sex union since 1990. In 1999, they decided to start a family with the assistance of their friend B.B.

The two women would be the primary caregivers of the child, but they believed it would be in the child's best interests that B.B. remain involved in the child's life.

Suddenly this all makes a lot more sense. The fact is that the two women have been in a long term, stable lesbian relationship. The father is a friend of the couple and has been directly involved all the way along.

"Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother," the appeal court heard. "Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care."

So, what we have here is clearly not polygamy, but really not much different than the situation that can occur when a couple splits and the children wind up living with one of the parents in another relationship. In such a situation the "step parent" has a great deal of parental involvement with those children, and certainly can have basic parental authority where schools and the like are concerned. To me, this isn't much different than a "new spouse adoption" of their spouse's offspring from prior relationships.

The fact that the biological father has remained an active part of the child's life is admirable, and the reality that the two women appear to be sharing the job of raising the child simply further reinforces the reality that GLBT people are perfectly capable of being good parents.

Just to review some of the legalities involved:

The Children's Law Reform Act does not reflect current society, the appeal court judges ruled.

"There is no doubt that the Legislature did not foresee for the possibility of declarations of parentage for two women, but that is a product of the social conditions and medical knowledge at the time," they wrote. "The Legislature did not turn its mind to that possibility, so that over 30 years later the gap in the legislation has been revealed."

As a result, the statute does not provide for the best interests of the child in this case, the judges said.

"The Act does not deal with, nor contemplate, the disadvantages that a child born into a relationship of two mothers, two fathers or as in this case two mothers and one father might suffer."

The Attorney General for Ontario did not chose to intervene to support the legislation, the ruling noted.

In other words, the laws being applied to prevent this adoption simply are not written to deal with the situation before the courts.

However, we can look forward to a great deal of hand wringing and paranoid ramblings from the religious right wing in the coming days over this - especially as they try to mutate things into a completely bogus family values argument.

[Update]
As expected, the usual talking points are being raised: Polygamy, "Courts making Laws" and of course "what about the children"/"Family Values" in various forums.

Talking Point #1: Polygamy

This is clearly not a case involving polygamy. Nor does it open the door to it in any sense I can think of. If anything, this opens the door for couples where remarriage is in the game, and the "new spouse" is seen by both parents as a positive part of the relationship. This is NOT polygamy, any more than two divorced people remaining in close contact after divorce is - even if one of them remarries.

Talking Point #2: Activist Judges (or "The Courts are Making Law")

Again, this is a complete crock. The ruling itself talks about Parens Patriae, which is basically the right of the state (and courts are part of the state) to intervene where laws are incomplete or otherwise fail to deal with a situation - in particular where people who are not "legally competent" are involved (children for example).

The court is not "making law" here, it is exercising a classical judicial right to ensure that the best interests of a citizen are looked after. In fact, the use of such wording within the decision itself makes it quite clear that future decisions citing this case cannot readily broaden the decision itself.

Talking Point #3: "what about the children"/"Family Values"

From the ruling itself:

[2] In 2003, A.A. applied to Aston J. for a declaration that, like B.B. and C.C., she was D.D.’s parent, specifically his mother. Had he thought he had jurisdiction, Aston J. would have made that declaration. He found at para. 8 that:

The child is a bright, healthy, happy individual who is obviously thriving in a loving family that meets his every need. The applicant has been a daily and consistent presence in his life. She is fully committed to a parental role. She has the support of the two biological parents who themselves recognize her equal status with them.

Clearly, the child is the important point here, and the child is doing well. There is no indicator of harm involved.

14] A.A., B.B. and C.C. seek to have A.A.’s motherhood recognized to give her all the rights and obligations of a custodial parent. Legal recognition of her relationship with her son would also determine other kindred relationships. In their very helpful factums, the M.D.R. Intervenors and the Children’s Lawyer summarize the importance of a declaration of parentage from the point of view of the parent and the child:

· the declaration of parentage is a lifelong immutable declaration of status;

· it allows the parent to fully participate in the child’s life;

· the declared parent has to consent to any future adoption;

· the declaration determines lineage;

· the declaration ensures that the child will inherit on intestacy;

· the declared parent may obtain an OHIP card, a social insurance number, airline tickets and passports for the child;

· the child of a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen, even if born outside of Canada (Citizenship Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-29, s. 3(1)(b));[2]

· the declared parent may register the child in school; and,

· the declared parent may assert her rights under various laws such as the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, S.O. 1996, c. 2, Sched. A., s. 20(1)5.

[15] Perhaps one of the greatest fears faced by lesbian mothers is the death of the birth mother. Without a declaration of parentage or some other order, the surviving partner would be unable to make decisions for their minor child, such as critical decisions about health care: see M.D.R. at para. 220. As the M.D.R. Intervenors say: “A declaration of parentage provides practical and symbolic recognition of the parent-child relationship.” An excerpt from the M.D.R. record dramatically demonstrates the importance of the declaration from the child’s point of view. I resort to this part of the M.D.R. record because D.D. is too young to provide this kind of information. The twelve-year old child of one of the applicants said this in her affidavit:

I just want both my moms recognized as my moms. Most of my friends have not had to think about things like this—they take for granted that their parents are legally recognized as their parents. I would like my family recognized the same way as any other family, not treated differently because both my parents are women.

…

It would help if the government and the law recognized that I have two moms. It would help more people to understand. It would make my life easier. I want my family to be accepted and included, just like everybody else’s family.

[16] In M.D.R. at paras. 227 and 228, Rivard J. referred to some of the submissions discussed in the Victorian Law Reform Commission’s position paper entitled Assisted Reproductive Technology & Adoption: Position Paper Two: Parentage at pp. 15 and 17:

These submissions reported that the non-birth mother often encounters obstacles and ignorance, and at times hostility, in her dealings with government agencies and service providers where legal status is a relevant factor. Because the non-birth mother cannot be named as a parent on the child's birth certificate, she is unable to produce evidence of her relationship to the child unless she has taken steps to obtain a Family Court parenting order or some form of written authority from the birth mother.

Perhaps this pair of paragraphs from the ruling underscores the spirit of the child's interests best. By making the declaration involved, the court is ensuring that a key caregiver in the child's life will remain so, even in the event of a tragedy. This is clearly the desire of the child as well as the adults involved.
[/Update]

In This Morning's Globe and Mail

We find an assortment interesting tidbits:

Harper appears to be setting up a Cabinet Shuffle. Okay - not exactly a surprise. The initial lineup of ministers was, well disappointing to say the least. (With both Ambrose and Mackay demonstrating something closer to incompetence as opposed to ineptitude)

This is, along with a lot of other things we'll see in the coming months, basic electioneering at play.

Andrew Heard is talking about how Harper's "Senate Reform Lite" bill (C-43) is quite likely in violation of various aspects of our Constitution (and laws).

Given the amount of Conservative legislation that is to some degree or another in conflict with the Constitution - either in the letter or spirit - I continue to suspect that Harper is trying to foment a crisis to justify opening things up. I'm sure he knows that most Canadians have just about zero interesting in another Meech Lake or Charlottetown Accord at the moment, and needs to sow an arbitrary sense of discontent about the Constitution to justify whatever he wants to do. (Which no doubt would mean some ham-handed rewrite of the Charter of Rights for starters)

And lastly, following up on Myriam Bedard, it seems that her daughter is on a hunger strike of sorts in a show of solidarity with her imprisoned mother. Which goes a little further to reinforce my suspicion that this whole debacle is really a spat between the two parents, and the involvement of official processes is merely one manipulating the system to the detriment of the other.

(It still doesn't justify the "sit on our thumbs" approach that foreign affairs is taking)

Creating Martyrs

Whether or not Saddam Hussein got a fair trial, or was the whole process a "kangaroo court" orchestrated from Washington is a matter open for ongoing debate. I have my reservations as to how fair any trial is in circumstances where what passes for "civil government" barely extends beyond the range of an assault rifle.

However, what's done is done. Hussein has been executed (the video's out there somewhere, but I'm not inclined to link to such ghoulishness), and now the fallout of that act will start to occur.

Looking around the Al Jazeera website, I came across this article which summarizes some of the reactions in the immediate aftermath of Hussein's execution and burial.

The media reactions seem to range from debate over the timing of the execution being seen as offensive to some groups, to analysis of why the US should get its troops out of Iraq. Interestingly, it looks like there's quite a bit of emphasis on the US presence in Iraq - which is both understandable and very bad news.

The Lebanese Arabic daily Al-Safir said that Saddam was the first Arab president to be executed under occupation,...

When I say it's "bad news" - it's bad news for those who want Saddam Hussein to be a non-issue, and it's really not good for those who claim that the wars that BushCo has started in the Middle East are "protecting America".

By emphasizing that Hussein was executed while Iraq was still occupied by US troops, several key aspects of this mess become magnified:

1) It creates significant questions about the validity of the whole trial and execution process - especially in the minds of "average" people.

2) It detracts from the crimes that Hussein was accused of, moving the focus away from his actions as Iraq's President, and focusing them squarely on the US occupiers.

3) It winds up painting Hussein as a victim, rather than a perpetrator.

The combination sets the stage for people in the Middle East to grow the legend of Saddam Hussein as the "Leader who stood up courageously" in the face of American occupation, and paid the ultimate price for it.

Whether al Jazeera and other regional news outlets are "fostering" this image, it's not hard to see it emerging quite naturally. By being in a hurry to execute Hussein, Iraq (and by complicit actions, the United States) has created a ghost that will be extremely hard to put down - especially if Hussein continues to be painted in terms of a questionable trial and execution.

If Saddam Hussein becomes "Saddam Hussein of Legend", a mere withdrawal of US troops from Iraq may not be adequate to assuage the sense of grievance that will fester in the region.

In the short term, I wouldn't want to be an American trooper on the ground in Iraq. What has been (to know) a cross between civil war and a resistance action may well turn into a war of attrition.

So ... George ... the next move is up to you. Choose wisely - much more than your ego is riding on it.

More on Kingsley's Resignation (Elections Canada)

A few days ago, I commented on The Resignation of the head of Elections Canada, commenting that it was awfully suspicious coming so close on the heels to yet another spat between Harper's Conservatives and Elections Canada over some basic accounting practices.

Well, it seems that Mr. Harper is playing out yet another "grudge match" with Ottawa. Harper's Comments about Elections Canada (and by proxy, Kingsley) over the years show us a few more aspects of the man who is currently playing at Prime Minister:

Comments made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper over the years about Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada's top elections watchdog who is now resigning:

-"Canada is recognized around the world for its commitment to democracy and its highly-evolved electoral processes. Mr. Kingsley served as ambassador for Canadian democracy."

-Harper on Dec. 28, announcing Kingsley's resignation departure.

-"During his long career in public administration, Mr. Kingsley has always served Canadians to the very best of his ability. The Government of Canada appreciates his contributions."

-Harper on Dec. 28.

-"The jackasses at Elections Canada are out of control," - Harper in a 2001 letter to solicit funds for a B.C. man charged with violating the election act by posting election results on the Internet before all polls had closed.

-"Not only will a successful court challenge restore a precious right to Canadians, it will also drive home to Kingsley that such iron-fisted bully tactics have no place in a free and democratic society."

-Harper in the same 2001 letter.

-"Jean-Pierre Kingsley is reacting more like a state policeman than a public servant."

-Harper in a 2000 news release issued by the National Citizens' Coalition. He was reacting to Kingsley's public musings about making voting a legal requirement.

-"What's next? Would Kingsley's police use the election register to go house to house to force people to the polls or arrest them? It's simply bizarre. Parliament should think carefully about whether this guy has the approach to elections administration that a 21st century democracy requires."

-Harper in same 2000 press release.

Yes, one can be "gracious" in victory (having pushed Kingsley out the door two years early), but it still reeks of revenge and the kind of grudge that small people insist on carrying about for years.

Two workers were charged with placing a newspaper ad that claimed a local lead in an Ontario riding, without disclosing that their own party had conducted the poll. The elections act forbids publishing poll results without providing basic methodological details about how the survey was conducted - or by whom.

"This is the kind of garbage we're getting into - and more shockingly the kind of garbage that Jean-Pierre Kingsley and people at Elections Canada increasingly think is their business," Harper said in 2002.

So ... you broke the rules, got slapped for it, and somehow now you want to take it out on the people charged with enforcing the rules. Typical of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party - rules and standards apply to everybody but them.

What's So Great About Canada?

Recently, I've encountered a few people on the political right-wing who seem to define their negative image of Canada in terms of everything American. This goes a long ways to explain Stephen Harper's fawning sycophancy towards Washington, and really irritates the heck out of me.

The argument goes a little like this: Canada is a small nation, and has never made any "major" contributions to the world. Supposedly there are no major Canadian inventions that dominate world life the way that the Automobile has {whether that's an American invention is open to some debate}. Canada hasn't started and won any major wars, etc, and is therefore an eminently forgettable nation.

With all due respect to my American readers, I simply do not accept that Canada is obliged to define itself relative to a nation 10 times its size that it borders on.

My self respect as a Canadian is not defined by "great landmark" moments forged in fire. That isn't Canada's past.

My Canada is a nation that tries to look after its own. We brought this nation into being in a spirit of collaboration, not conflict, and that colours our politics and presence in the world to this day - I hope that it continues to do so.

Canada is a nation filled with people who have a quiet resolve. We have populated and built this country out of lands that many had seen as uninhabitable. We didn't accomplish this by the "great acts" of a few individuals, but more through the collective effort of all Canadians. The CPR which spans this nation was built by Canadians because we knew that we needed the transportation link for this nation to prosper.

We are a nation who chose in the 1960s to make medical care available to all Canadians, regardless of income or circumstances. We are a nation whose politicians wrote a Charter of Rights into our Constitution - a model that has been emulated by many emerging democracies since.

Our soldiers acquitted themselves heroically in WWI and WWII; since then Canada's Military has taken on a role as peacemaker, builder rather than aggressor. Although often low key efforts, talk to the people who have lived with Canadian peacekeepers on the ground (e.g. Cyprus or Egypt in the 1970s), you seldom find anything but admiration and respect.

Canada has its share of major inventions (remember the Canadarm anybody? - or the Avro Arrow which conservative short-sightedness killed?) Among computer scientists, few would ignore the contributions of James Gosling to the field of computing. {and there are many others}

Our culture is diverse and broad reaching - each major region of Canada is notably different, and produces its own unique flavor of writers, artists and the like. The writers of the prairies are quite different from Margaret Atwood, or any of a dozen other writers from Canada. Musically, we have our collection of greats, like Maureen Forrester and Glenn Gould. Pop acts like The Tragically Hip, Shania Twain, or Anne Murray have taken contemporary Canadian music well beyond Canada's borders. Canada has never been a cultural wasteland, but is perhaps only just beginning to find its own voice.

Canada is like that kid in school that everybody pretty much ignored, but at the same time was smart enough to be able to explain what the other students missed in class. Not always noticed, or even heard, but there and quietly successful in our own way.

So, as 2006 comes to a close, Canada remains a proud nation with much to be proud of. Those who would denigrate Canada's accomplishments and contributions do so at the peril of falling into Abraham Lincoln's trap:

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Politicizing Regulatory Panels ... Silently

I've carped many times before about how the Harper government is implementing a social conservative agenda by the back door - and often as secretly as possible.

In the Globe and Mail today, I learned that the government's board overseeing Assisted Human Reproduction Canada has no field experts in it.

Coming from a government with known, close ties to the TheoCon set, it appears that Harper has already descended into the land of selecting people for their political affiliations, not their expertise.

There's a couple of things of interest here - the agency website doesn't list who the appointees are (yet), as well as this announcement comes out when Parliament is not sitting. Once again, Harper has torn a page from the Ralph Klein Book of Tactics(tm), and tried to operate under the radar when it cannot readily be held to account for its actions.

According to the Globe and Mail article:

The new body will be co-chaired by John Hamm, a family doctor and the former Conservative premier of Nova Scotia, and Elinor Wilson, a former CEO of the Canadian Public Health Association.

The government also appointed, among others, a professor of Jewish studies who has written of his opposition to abortion unless the life of the mother is being threatened, a social anthropologist who is the director of research for the Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto, and a Montreal oncologist who has spoken against euthanasia at an anti-abortion conference.

John Hamm - Lessee, former politico, although he is an MD. {Whether he has the background for some of the more subtle issues involved in reproductive issues, is open to discussion}
Elinor Wilson - Reads like her bio is that of a long term bureaucrat.

As for the other characters, I don't have names to go hunting for some of their past, but I am somewhat amazed that a Professor of Jewish Studies, or a Social Anthropologist, would have adequate knowledge of medicine and medical ethics to be considered 'qualified' to dictate regulatory policy around reproductive technology.