Prorogue. It’s an interesting word. And it’s top of mind for many Canadians this week as we wonder what’s happening in our perplexing parliament.
Not even listed at Dictionary.com, prorogue is a British Parliamentary term that defines a situation when the Prime Minister arbitrarily postpones a vote rather than face the impending wrath of the House of Commons.
Let’s look at its etymology. Most online sources indicate this word comes from the Middle English term “prorogen”, and was derived from the Anglo-French “proroger”, and originally take from the Latin term “prorogare” meaning to “ask before”.
Now, I’m no scholar, but I have a different theory.
Doesn’t the Greek prefix “pro” mean to “be in favour”? And doesn’t the Anglo-Saxon term “rogue” translate into “scoundrel”?
Could it be “pro-scoundrel”?
Frankly, considering what’s happening in Ottawa this week, I think most Canadians would view my definition as being closer to the truth.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
A Canada First Coalition for Christmas
Oh, what a fascinating time to be a Canadian.
After years of declining interest in politics and government in general, Canada's three opposition parties have found a way to forget their long-held animosities and work together to oust the pro-American Conservative government. We could be living with a European-style coalition government by Christmas.
While the Tories are doing their best to pooh-pooh the idea, they seem to forget that Coalition Governments are indeed quite legal, and have historical precedence in Canada. All it takes is for the opposition parties to vote non-confidence in the Tories, and then convince the Governor General that they have a workable cabinet.
While it sounds fantastic, this plan just might work. Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and one-time NDP Leader Ed Broadbent are both working on behalf of the Coalition, and they have helped send the Tories into full retreat mode.
Sunday may have been the most extraordinary day in Canadian politics for more than a century.
It started when the Tories foolishly released a surreptitious recording of an NDP caucus conference call, wherein Jack Layton made some kind of apparent confession (?) about cooperating with the Bloc Quebec.
While youthful Tory pitchman Pierre Poilievre feigned outrage over Layton’s remarks, NDP deputy leader Thomas Muclair of Montreal made mincemeat of Harper’s parliamentary secretary by describing the recording as a “illegal interception of a communication” and a blatant breach of the criminal code. High profile criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby is on the case.
Reality, and their own impending doom, seemed to dawn on the government around mid-afternoon, when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told CTV’s Craig Oliver that the government would introduce its budget, complete with stimulus package, in the final week of January. Cynics will note the conveniently coincidental timing with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new American president.
So why has this happened, and is it really just a power grab by the opposition parties, as described by the now floundering Conservative government?
I think not.
Remember, this is the same Conservative government that has spent the past three years negotiating ‘deep integration’ and the little known Economic Security and Prosperity Partnership with the Bush White House. Those talks continue with the new Democratic-led U.S. government which has announced its intention to be far more protectionist that its Republican predecessors. Obama and his new team no doubt look to the free-trade-loving Conservatives as a natural partner.
Dion, Ignatieff, Rae, Layton and Duceppe deserve kudos for standing up for Canadian independence, which I hope is the real crux of what is happening in Ottawa today.
As the Americans ramp up their ‘USA First’ trading plan (watch CNN’s Lou Dobbs for a good outline of things in store for America’s trading partners), even some Tories are having serious doubts whether their apparently utopian ideal of a continental free trade zone can succeed, and whether it is even a good idea anymore, given the stated objectives of the new administration in Washington.
But back to Ottawa, and the matter at hand. I would feel a lot more confident in the future of this Coalition proposal if proposed cabinet ministers had his or her budgets ready to go on the day they announce the deal. These people have spent years trying to get into government, let's see how much homework they've done.
I also hope the Coalition shows a little leadership and brings in a somewhat smaller cabinet than the record-setting 38 Tories recently appointed by Harper. If a Coalition wants to prove their leadership, they need to show at least some restraint, especially in regards to their own themselves.
Indeed, there is still the possiblity that these coalition talks are nothing more than the convenient merging of several different power grabs at the same time and place. I hope not.
And the jury is till out on whether this coalition will succeed or not. Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing to see three of our political parties learning to work together in Parliament. Let's hope the Tories either join the discussions, or get out of the way.
After years of declining interest in politics and government in general, Canada's three opposition parties have found a way to forget their long-held animosities and work together to oust the pro-American Conservative government. We could be living with a European-style coalition government by Christmas.
While the Tories are doing their best to pooh-pooh the idea, they seem to forget that Coalition Governments are indeed quite legal, and have historical precedence in Canada. All it takes is for the opposition parties to vote non-confidence in the Tories, and then convince the Governor General that they have a workable cabinet.
While it sounds fantastic, this plan just might work. Former Prime Minister Jean Chretien and one-time NDP Leader Ed Broadbent are both working on behalf of the Coalition, and they have helped send the Tories into full retreat mode.
Sunday may have been the most extraordinary day in Canadian politics for more than a century.
It started when the Tories foolishly released a surreptitious recording of an NDP caucus conference call, wherein Jack Layton made some kind of apparent confession (?) about cooperating with the Bloc Quebec.
While youthful Tory pitchman Pierre Poilievre feigned outrage over Layton’s remarks, NDP deputy leader Thomas Muclair of Montreal made mincemeat of Harper’s parliamentary secretary by describing the recording as a “illegal interception of a communication” and a blatant breach of the criminal code. High profile criminal lawyer Clayton Ruby is on the case.
Reality, and their own impending doom, seemed to dawn on the government around mid-afternoon, when Finance Minister Jim Flaherty told CTV’s Craig Oliver that the government would introduce its budget, complete with stimulus package, in the final week of January. Cynics will note the conveniently coincidental timing with the inauguration of Barack Obama as the new American president.
So why has this happened, and is it really just a power grab by the opposition parties, as described by the now floundering Conservative government?
I think not.
Remember, this is the same Conservative government that has spent the past three years negotiating ‘deep integration’ and the little known Economic Security and Prosperity Partnership with the Bush White House. Those talks continue with the new Democratic-led U.S. government which has announced its intention to be far more protectionist that its Republican predecessors. Obama and his new team no doubt look to the free-trade-loving Conservatives as a natural partner.
Dion, Ignatieff, Rae, Layton and Duceppe deserve kudos for standing up for Canadian independence, which I hope is the real crux of what is happening in Ottawa today.
As the Americans ramp up their ‘USA First’ trading plan (watch CNN’s Lou Dobbs for a good outline of things in store for America’s trading partners), even some Tories are having serious doubts whether their apparently utopian ideal of a continental free trade zone can succeed, and whether it is even a good idea anymore, given the stated objectives of the new administration in Washington.
But back to Ottawa, and the matter at hand. I would feel a lot more confident in the future of this Coalition proposal if proposed cabinet ministers had his or her budgets ready to go on the day they announce the deal. These people have spent years trying to get into government, let's see how much homework they've done.
I also hope the Coalition shows a little leadership and brings in a somewhat smaller cabinet than the record-setting 38 Tories recently appointed by Harper. If a Coalition wants to prove their leadership, they need to show at least some restraint, especially in regards to their own themselves.
Indeed, there is still the possiblity that these coalition talks are nothing more than the convenient merging of several different power grabs at the same time and place. I hope not.
And the jury is till out on whether this coalition will succeed or not. Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing to see three of our political parties learning to work together in Parliament. Let's hope the Tories either join the discussions, or get out of the way.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Peacenik supports Afghan “war”
Welcome to my blog. Get ready to be upset, read a few rants and raves, and hopefully, maybe even a few breaking news stories.
First, a little bit about why I view myself as a ‘peacenik’ who supports Canada’s ongoing military involvement as part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
I have this apparent contradiction despite my eminently respectable resumé as a pacifist and peace activist. As early as the 1980s, I volunteered as a press release writer for the New Westminster End the Arms Race committee – during those heady days when 100,000 people attended the annual Peace March in downtown Vancouver. As a student journalist, around the same time, I served as a Canadian University Press Western Region Human Rights Coordinator. Furthermore, I am a proud 11th generation descendant of Quaker pioneers – Quakers being the religious denomination that created the ‘conscientious objector’ status for people who oppose spending their tax money on the military. (For the record, I am not a practicing Quaker, and do not withhold tax money for the military. This is, after all, just the history part.)
More recently, I have generously donated to Amnesty International, (giving monthly when I last had a regular paycheque) and writing about issues of importance to groups such as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (I also volunteered for the CCPA’s predecessor, Pacific Institute for Policy Alternatives, but that would just be more history).
So, with a background like that, why do I support this “war” in Afghanistan?
In a general sense, I have always believed that violence should only be used as an absolute last resort. And, for me, that means violence can only be used when responding to, and when attempting to stave off, an even greater violence. This attitude first expressed itself in 1985, when I was a wide-eyed youth delegate at the NDP national convention in Ottawa, where I abstained from voting on something that almost everyone else voted for – a demand for Canada’s immediate withdrawal from NATO. To be honest, I was conflicted on the subject, even then. I have a distant relative who once held a fairly high post in that organization, and I considered myself fairly well acquainted with the topics of peacekeeping and peace-making thanks to some substantive college-day research into arms reductions and disarmament treaties between World Wars One and Two. (By the way, every new peace treaty signed during that time allowed for greater arms buildup and deployment than its predecessors. You’ll note that this is quite similar to today’s world where international peace agreements are very often ignored and blatantly violated. I’ll try to blog about this stuff later.)
More recently, in an attempt to put my lofty ideals into more practical outlets, I joined two somewhat military-related associations, the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee and the Vancouver chapter of the Royal United Service Institute, the latter of which I am an associate member. (Did I mention my family connections?)
So much for the background. Now the meat and potatoes.
Specifically, my support for the “war” in Afghanistan is predicated on what happened on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent American decision to go to war against Iraq. As someone who watched more BBC (former paid subscriber) and Canadian news than the American networks, it was obvious to me that the U.S. government was about to embark on a potentially catastrophic military campaign against a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the vicious and deadly attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. I’m no 9-11 conspiracy theorist, but I truly believe that through a long series of mistakes and neglects, even preceding the election of George W. Bush, the U.S. administration simply let down America’s guard and allowed a small group of uneducated and otherwise poorly organized religious zealots to make a one-in-a-million strike against their sworn enemy.
The U.S. needed to respond, for sure, but why a war in Iraq when the terrorists were known to have been largely of Saudi origin, and trained in Afghanistan?
Knowing that the consequences of an ill-advised invasion of Iraq could very easily be catastrophic for the world, I hoped for some kind of counterbalance to prevent the conflict from escalating into World War Three. I felt some relief when former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien stuck a pin in the ever-expanding Iraq war balloon by deploying our troops to where the real enemy was located – Afghanistan, that impoverished and ancient country where international disputes and geopolitics have absolutely no meaning for the peasants and farmers who have been treated as peons and pawns by every imperial power on Earth since the dawn of western civilization.
I also breathed a sigh of relief when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that his country’s military take over military operations from the Americans in the Shia-controlled southern Basra region of Iraq. If the British played their cards properly – and they did – they could (and did) prevent the situation from escalating into a region-wide war, and avoid the animosity and involvement of the Iranians and their bellicose leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – whom I always considered to be a Muslim equivalent to George W. Bush.
And please, don’t get me wrong. I do not support waging a war against the good people of Afghanistan. My support for the ISAF is entirely predicated on the fact that this is NOT a traditional military operation, but a humanitarian campaign and a peace-making initiative. Even today, Canada is not at war ‘against’ Afghanistan, we are at war ‘in’ Afghanistan against the Taliban and other extremist and terrorist organizations that wish to enslave their own people, widen their influence and do mortal harm to anyone who stands in their way.
Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan at the request of that country’s democratically elected government, and our main role is to provide security for those civilian and international agencies that are doing GOOD WORK such as building new schools, hospitals, roads, electricity and water supply systems. Should those good works be successful, and there is every indication that they can be, and if we can avoid turning Afghanistan into the world-wide conflagration that was once threatening to engulf Iraq, Canada will be in the enviable position of proclaiming itself at the vanguard of protecting human rights, and helping to rebuild a nation that has already been devastated by centuries of war and exploitation.
Those are indeed noble goals that are well worth supporting.
But my opinion on Afghanistan will be much like my other opinions – it will change over time as circumstances warrant. Today, I support the timelines and recommendations laid out in the Manley Report, the principles ensconced in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, and our national commitment to the innocent people of Afghanistan.
Indeed, Afghanistan is not the only place in the world that could use Canada’s practiced and expert military hand, and I might even see myself one day supporting a greater role for our nation’s military in protecting and enhancing human rights in other parts of the world. Hmm, I wonder, ...
First, a little bit about why I view myself as a ‘peacenik’ who supports Canada’s ongoing military involvement as part of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
I have this apparent contradiction despite my eminently respectable resumé as a pacifist and peace activist. As early as the 1980s, I volunteered as a press release writer for the New Westminster End the Arms Race committee – during those heady days when 100,000 people attended the annual Peace March in downtown Vancouver. As a student journalist, around the same time, I served as a Canadian University Press Western Region Human Rights Coordinator. Furthermore, I am a proud 11th generation descendant of Quaker pioneers – Quakers being the religious denomination that created the ‘conscientious objector’ status for people who oppose spending their tax money on the military. (For the record, I am not a practicing Quaker, and do not withhold tax money for the military. This is, after all, just the history part.)
More recently, I have generously donated to Amnesty International, (giving monthly when I last had a regular paycheque) and writing about issues of importance to groups such as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (I also volunteered for the CCPA’s predecessor, Pacific Institute for Policy Alternatives, but that would just be more history).
So, with a background like that, why do I support this “war” in Afghanistan?
In a general sense, I have always believed that violence should only be used as an absolute last resort. And, for me, that means violence can only be used when responding to, and when attempting to stave off, an even greater violence. This attitude first expressed itself in 1985, when I was a wide-eyed youth delegate at the NDP national convention in Ottawa, where I abstained from voting on something that almost everyone else voted for – a demand for Canada’s immediate withdrawal from NATO. To be honest, I was conflicted on the subject, even then. I have a distant relative who once held a fairly high post in that organization, and I considered myself fairly well acquainted with the topics of peacekeeping and peace-making thanks to some substantive college-day research into arms reductions and disarmament treaties between World Wars One and Two. (By the way, every new peace treaty signed during that time allowed for greater arms buildup and deployment than its predecessors. You’ll note that this is quite similar to today’s world where international peace agreements are very often ignored and blatantly violated. I’ll try to blog about this stuff later.)
More recently, in an attempt to put my lofty ideals into more practical outlets, I joined two somewhat military-related associations, the Canada Afghanistan Solidarity Committee and the Vancouver chapter of the Royal United Service Institute, the latter of which I am an associate member. (Did I mention my family connections?)
So much for the background. Now the meat and potatoes.
Specifically, my support for the “war” in Afghanistan is predicated on what happened on September 11, 2001 and the subsequent American decision to go to war against Iraq. As someone who watched more BBC (former paid subscriber) and Canadian news than the American networks, it was obvious to me that the U.S. government was about to embark on a potentially catastrophic military campaign against a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the vicious and deadly attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. I’m no 9-11 conspiracy theorist, but I truly believe that through a long series of mistakes and neglects, even preceding the election of George W. Bush, the U.S. administration simply let down America’s guard and allowed a small group of uneducated and otherwise poorly organized religious zealots to make a one-in-a-million strike against their sworn enemy.
The U.S. needed to respond, for sure, but why a war in Iraq when the terrorists were known to have been largely of Saudi origin, and trained in Afghanistan?
Knowing that the consequences of an ill-advised invasion of Iraq could very easily be catastrophic for the world, I hoped for some kind of counterbalance to prevent the conflict from escalating into World War Three. I felt some relief when former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien stuck a pin in the ever-expanding Iraq war balloon by deploying our troops to where the real enemy was located – Afghanistan, that impoverished and ancient country where international disputes and geopolitics have absolutely no meaning for the peasants and farmers who have been treated as peons and pawns by every imperial power on Earth since the dawn of western civilization.
I also breathed a sigh of relief when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that his country’s military take over military operations from the Americans in the Shia-controlled southern Basra region of Iraq. If the British played their cards properly – and they did – they could (and did) prevent the situation from escalating into a region-wide war, and avoid the animosity and involvement of the Iranians and their bellicose leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – whom I always considered to be a Muslim equivalent to George W. Bush.
And please, don’t get me wrong. I do not support waging a war against the good people of Afghanistan. My support for the ISAF is entirely predicated on the fact that this is NOT a traditional military operation, but a humanitarian campaign and a peace-making initiative. Even today, Canada is not at war ‘against’ Afghanistan, we are at war ‘in’ Afghanistan against the Taliban and other extremist and terrorist organizations that wish to enslave their own people, widen their influence and do mortal harm to anyone who stands in their way.
Canadian Forces are in Afghanistan at the request of that country’s democratically elected government, and our main role is to provide security for those civilian and international agencies that are doing GOOD WORK such as building new schools, hospitals, roads, electricity and water supply systems. Should those good works be successful, and there is every indication that they can be, and if we can avoid turning Afghanistan into the world-wide conflagration that was once threatening to engulf Iraq, Canada will be in the enviable position of proclaiming itself at the vanguard of protecting human rights, and helping to rebuild a nation that has already been devastated by centuries of war and exploitation.
Those are indeed noble goals that are well worth supporting.
But my opinion on Afghanistan will be much like my other opinions – it will change over time as circumstances warrant. Today, I support the timelines and recommendations laid out in the Manley Report, the principles ensconced in the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms, and our national commitment to the innocent people of Afghanistan.
Indeed, Afghanistan is not the only place in the world that could use Canada’s practiced and expert military hand, and I might even see myself one day supporting a greater role for our nation’s military in protecting and enhancing human rights in other parts of the world. Hmm, I wonder, ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
