Iggy's salami tactics

Jarret rightly points out that Ignatieff is now targeting Western ridings in an attempt to rebuild the Liberal party fortunes. The Hill Times article he references is a fairly stark warning, albeit with a couple misconceptions, to the federal Tories.

The days of "Vote for me just because my ideas are good" are no longer, and we have an opponent who is prepared to fire his campaign machine selectively. To make matters more difficult (for us), Ignatieff is the kind of guy who recognizes that the Party has a problem, and has been doing so since Dion's leadership bid.

"God knows this party has made mistakes out in Western Canada and I know them," Mr. Ignatieff said. "We have to be honest enough with our neighbours and citizens to say, we didn't always get it right. We didn't always listen with respect. We didn't always understand what had to be done'."

I for one welcome Ignatieff's and Goodale's strategies. They show maturity and an appreciation of reality. Tories hold "crackable" ridings, which in the current situation are solely for us to lose. As we expand our reach toward a majority, every riding is precious. The Liberals, on the other hand, stand to gain a lot while risking little.

To borrow a "Yes, Prime Minister" quote, Iggy aims to slice our minority riding by riding, election after election. Keeping the Conservative Party in a weaker and weaker minority will help Grits and Dippers dictate policy and trigger elections when their campaign machines are ready for another knife touch to the Tory support bologna roll.

Am I the only one to see this both as dangerous to the CPC and a welcome change in Canadian political strategy? "Character assassination" as Dion called it has seen its heyday, as has slamming past mistakes and past policy proposals. Sure recalling broken "no-coalition" promises may catch a few people's attention, but if we are to resist the new Liberal selective fire we have to win on our own merits and out of our own skill, not the clumsiness of the Opposition.

One-size-burns-all

Quebec teachers burn out by the dozen. With anxiety, stress and depression on the rise (according to union stats) those who are to ensure Quebec's intellectual future reach their breaking point and refuse to cope passively with the system. From walking out on a misbehaving class to taking long term leave, a signal is sent that something just isn't right.

Before we suspect malicious intent, let's stop and think. Let us now imagine the frustration of discovering that your students don't care for your knowledge, that you may not uphold your right to be respected as a superior and a teacher, that there's always someone who will expect more and more of you without any right to demand it but their own perceived worth of your skill. I would quake too, and throw everything to the dogs.

One of the oft-cited concerns is the integration of special-needs students in the classrooms. Though everyone has the right to education, let's be honest and admit that learning is not something that can be fit into a one-size-fits-all model. Some may be inclined to interpretation rather than calculation, some will excel in areas of investigation and fact, some will be best served by different teaching tools and techniques. Quotas, targets and o.s.f.a. classrooms eventually lead to frustration. Compounded with discipline lack and some parents' arrogance (well, yes, there is, we the public aren't faultless either) this creates an environment which any teacher, unionized or not, would find unacceptable.

Those with no passion for teaching and learning wouldn't care to walk out or feel any sort of frustration at their growing inability to perform the job to the highest standards. Quebec's woes may be the warning sign that many of the real teachers we should guard as a jewel of our education system are about to crack.

Purpose - who truly lost it

CBC's Don Pittis argues politicians miss out the "human factor" in all their stimulus planning, that the general populace in the States is as good as in a motivation coma. Though I agree with his analysis (you can give man the money but you can't make him spend it right) I disagree with his conclusion that a new "sense of purpose" is needed.

People tend to strive to improve their situation, earn a better livelihood and seek their own maximum happiness. Without digressing into Objectivist arguments, US consumers forgot that a loan is not as earned as a honest income. It was money, to spend at their heart's volition. We all saw the ads for car loans, vacation loans, plasma TV loans, as if the whole economy was supposed, like in a defaulting third-world country, to run on credit and a shopkeeper's "black book". I was brought up in cultures where debt is considered an infamy to be hidden, and I'm sure glad for this moral code I acquired. If I and my family can live within our modest means, why can't everyone else?

Pittis wants to rest from the shock and let society find a new sense of purpose. The United States has been made great by the purpose of generations of Americans: to do something better than anyone around them could. This purpose is still alive in those who hold true to it, and they're the ones who are getting screwed by the stimuli. The true purpose of "Live by your means and seek to increase them" is in no way served by showering the cause of the crisis with freshly-minted cash.

Because if the growth by IOU was a delusion of the masses, patching it up with new fabric is a well thought-out plan by the Administration to close their eyes and keep the broken roller-coaster running without replacing a single rail. It's the government who've lost the sense of purpose, and this is why these purposeless bailouts will not work as they were intended to, if at all.

His rights are as good as mine

What may seem like a perversion of justice at first will instead be remembered, I hope, as a landmark case re-enshrining rights too often violated on the impulse of fear. Radical scum cleric Abu Qatada will be compensated for unlawful detention.

His deportation case has already cleared the court system and he will be booted out of the UK, the country that gave him refuge and which he spat on. But his original detention without charge on terrorism suspicion was a stain on Britain's rule of law and right. The current ECHR ruling sets the record straight: charge or be charged!

However great the threats we face, we must not sink to the lowness of the dictatorships where suspicion is a valid arrest motive and silence is an acceptable charge. Often the test of our love of liberty and rights is how prepared we are to extend them to our enemy. If it wants to maintain a credible anti-terrorism record, Britain should beef up its intelligence service, re-route police resources and stop fearing being politically incorrect. After all, sending undercover agents into a mosque or a culture centre to record a hateful sermon would be a much more efficient way to obtain enough proof to prosecute and expel the Qatada-like hatemongers.

Oft invoked as a scarecrow by complainants of dubious repute, the ECHR nevertheless has so far played a key role in bringing to the public's attention the rights violations carried out in EU member states, and other countries accepting its jurisdiction. Unlike our own HRC's, the ECHR does not create rights of its own. It merely looks after the EU Human Rights Charter, a sound document tarnished by local interpretations such as the UK one.

EU rights law vs natural evolution of the Monarchy

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. If the Act of Settlement, which bars Catholics and those marrying Catholics from succeeding to the British throne be amended, so be it. But please, keep European human rights laws out of it. It is a narrow-minded approach to a very complex problem. Which means anyone attempting to argue the case from a solely EU law standpoint will botch up a 300-year-old law.

The Sovereign, aside from being a British head of State, i.e. subject to EU law, is also the head of State of a score other countries which, thankfully, are not associated with the EU and, according to the Statute of Westminster, are to be treated as equals. Canada had its Constitution patriated in 1982, thus any change to the way the Monarch in Right of Canada is chosen will have to be validated by Canadian authorities, and others.

Laws evolve, and laws dealing with outdated turmoils even more so. It would be stupid, however, to attack a solid law with a jackhammer without considering its repercussions. The stability of the whole Anglican world is at stake. The unity of the Commonwealth is on the scales. Should the amendment be rejected by a national Privy Council, the Commonwealth Realms would have split dynasties. The rift in the Anglican confession could become even larger.

As always, the Law of Unintended Consequences applies. So, drivers of legislative evolution, tread carefully. And do the world a favor: for once, don't invoke an oft-misinterpreted law to justify a change which is meritorious in and of itself.

An Italian tragedy comes to an end

The past few weeks in Italy have seen the circus of mediocrity set up around the tragic state of a 38-year old woman, Eluana Englaro, who has been in a permanent vegetative state for 17 years. As her father and proxy fought in the legal channels for the right to refuse forced feeding and hydration, the political majority exploited the situation.

The definitive sentence of the highest court in Italy, the Cassation, affirmed the right to refuse treatment, the father's right as proxy and Eluana's "implied will" to refuse treatment should such a situation arise. The Government attempted all sorts of tactics: threats (revocation of a clinic's license to practice), harassment (back-to-back police inspections), emergency decree to prohibit all interruptions of feeding (refused by the President as not responding to urgency criteria) and, finally, an ad-hoc law rushed through parliament with the same contents.

The unconstitutionality and sheer stupidity of those moves are evident to everyone. Denying patients' free choice of treatment is as stupid as attempting to overrule a Supreme Court sentence by legislative action. However, as in a final expression of her (proven) refusal to be coerced, Ms. Englaro defied neurologists' prognoses and died an hour ago, a mere four days after her artificial feeding was interrupted.

This is a human tragedy first and foremost, and I for one will not join in my compatriots' childish bickering. It is disappointing to see the supposed leaders of a nation grossly unable to maintain any degree of composture and maturity required to debate and face issues of a human death and great ethical dilemmas such as patient freedom.

This case was grey, but the shameful protagonism display that followed vindicates, in my eyes, the efforts of a father who first sought to bring his daughter back to consciousness and then to take her out of her bodily grave when all hope was lost. He fought a bitter and excruciating court battle, and won it solely on the strength of scientific and personality arguments. His courage is to be admired.

Local jobs for local people - with a strike to boot

As well as opportunities, economic crises tend to bring out the worst in a nation too. Look no further than the UK, whose public opinion has always been permeated with suspicion toward foreign workers (sorry Brits). A wave of solidarity strikes is sweeping the nation as workers at the Total Lindsey refinery cross their arms to protest a sub-contractor who uses its own (Italian) workforce.

Demanding that local workforce be sourced for local jobs is everyone's sacrosanct right, and I am not one to argue against this principle. However, the sub-contractor uses its workforce because it's trained to specification and has been known to the employer for longer. Furthermore, concerns about cheap labor are moot as UK law would prohibit paying anyone below minimum wage.

The simple truth is that British workers, and the contractors employing them, have priced themselves out of the contract. The Italian firm has a proven track record of excellence and offered the best price. Why SHOULDN'T Total choose their services?

Why should a multinational company put British workers first (as they demand) when an Italian company can do the same job cheaper and better, all within the confines of British law? The workers' frustration is legitimate, but there's nothing illegal in what Total has done. Foreign workers have helped Britain become the vibrant economy it was. Skilled immigration has filled the voids left by a crumbling education system.

And today, when trouble bites, all British workers can do is demand those who helped the country to be kicked out, discriminated, gratuitously humiliated without even saying "thanks" or "sorry". Ignorant protectionism and blind nationalism are ugly beasts. A sad state of affairs indeed.