An Open Letter to Taliban Steve

Dear Steve (you jerk),


It is with dismay and disgust that I write these words.

I thought you were a leader cut from a different clothe. Your cold steel blue gaze that suggests a disregard for humanity, your tight-scripted signature on the letter promoting Albertan separatism, your campaigning on accountability and transparency while muzzling your own members, the allure of your economist background without ever having practiced what you preached – all this said that you were a man that would lead this nation and to hell with everyone else.

Now I see that you are a fraud. You are nothing more than the NDP in the slow lane. You are simply doing good things for populist reasons.

You were not suppose to care about people! You only cared about taxpayers. Huge government debts simply show how ineffective government is, right? Therefore, taxpayers like me are in the best position to judge how much extra beer and popcorn can be bought with tax savings.

Then you went all NDP on us and promised that our troops would be out of Afghanistan in a determined period. You were in the middle of an election so it was okay to hide your true motives. Then you agreed with the NDP to provide increase Employment Insurance benefits to the self-employed. Okay – this hurt, but it was a small thing and was used just to show how weak the Liberals are on social change. But now you are going to sided with world leaders and negotiate with the Taliban to end the conflict? This is preposterous! How dare you let peace get in the way of a good military stand-off.

I spent the last four years on blogs, twitter, and the commentary sections of the Globe and Mail and the National Post ridiculing “Taliban Jack”. Now you are telling me that Jack Layton was right!!! (See how incredulous I am – I used three exclamation marks!!!)

This having to negotiate to end the conflict is ludicrous. If a drunk at a bar spills his drink on your girl, you punch him out. It is as simple as that. The Taliban are the drunk, the United States is the girl and we are the testosterone filled meat head. You don’t accept an apology, an offer of a free drink, nor do you talk to him and send him on his way. You punch him out.

Instead, you want to talk to the Taliban to solve the problem. I find this ridiculous. For that I will now dub you “Taliban Steve” and see how you like that!

No longer your friend,

Wheatsheaf

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/28/and-you-all-laughed/

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/01/28/ahead-of-his-time/

The mens rea of pie

Like an actor misquoting Shakespeare, Liberal MP Gerry Byrne stumbles through a legislative interpretative dance.

In an interview with radio station VOCM in St. John’s on Tuesday, Mr. Byrne said he thinks what happened should be reviewed under the legal definition of terrorism.

“When someone actually coaches or conducts criminal behaviour to impose a political agenda on each and every other citizen of Canada, that does seem to me to meet the test of a terrorist organization,” said the MP from Newfoundland and Labrador.

“I am calling on the Government of Canada to actually investigate whether or not this organization, PETA, is acting as a terrorist organization under the test that exists under Canadian law.”

Unfortunately there is truth to what he speaks.

When most of us think of terrorists, we imagine foreigners (i.e. people who do not look like us) plotting nefarious, if ill conceived, acts in a foreign land. It is what is portrayed on televisions shows like 24 or in movies like True Lies. Rarely do we have a terrorist who is portrayed like a Timothy McVeigh. It is the unfortunate outcome of profiling.

The truth is that under the terrorism provisions of the Criminal Code, practically anyone could be a terrorist – including the evil pie throwers. “Terrorist activity” is defined, in part, as:

(b) an act or omission, in or outside Canada,

(i) that is committed
(A) in whole or in part for a political, religious or ideological purpose, objective or cause, and
(B) in whole or in part with the intention of intimidating the public, or a segment of the public, with regard to its security, including its economic security, or compelling a person, a government or a domestic or an international organization to do or to refrain from doing any act, whether the public or the person, government or organization is inside or outside Canada, and
(ii) that intentionally
(A) causes death or serious bodily harm to a person by the use of violence,
(B) endangers a person’s life,
(C) causes a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or any segment of the public,
(D) causes substantial property damage, whether to public or private property, if causing such damage is likely to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C), or
(E) causes serious interference with or serious disruption of an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private, other than as a result of advocacy, protest, dissent or stoppage of work that is not intended to result in the conduct or harm referred to in any of clauses (A) to (C),

and includes a conspiracy, attempt or threat to commit any such act or omission, or being an accessory after the fact or counselling in relation to any such act or omission, but, for greater certainty, does not include an act or omission that is committed during an armed conflict and that, at the time and in the place of its commission, is in accordance with customary international law or conventional international law applicable to the conflict, or the activities undertaken by military forces of a state in the exercise of their official duties, to the extent that those activities are governed by other rules of international law.

So, basically, a terrorist act involves a person or group who has a political, religious or ideological objective who intentionally causes death, harm, property damage, risk to public health or safety or interferes with an essential service.

Based on that definition, it is surprising that not more individuals and organizations are not listed on the terrorists lists. Take the PETA pie throwing incident.

· The pie thrower, as supported by PETA who claimed responsibility, supports the ethical treatment of animals, and in particular, is against the killing of seals. Clearly they have a political cause.

· The pie thrower intentionally threw a pie in the face of Minister of Fisheries. Thus we have an actus reus.

· By throwing the pie, the health and safety of the Minister was put in danger. Not to mention, the tofu cream pie probably caused damage to the Minister’s suit thereby requiring some serious dry cleaning bills (i.e. property damage).

· When the pie thrower was escorted out, she started yelling about the killing of seals. Thus, providing evidence of the mens rea.

Let’s set aside the video evidence of a woman, who was not a known journalist, was sitting in the front row, took out a pie, started babbling, and proceeded to approach the Minister and put the pie in her face (wake up ministerial staffers). Clearly there was a lapse of security, judgment and attention.

Thus, based on the definition of terrorist activity, both the pie thrower and PETA should be placed on the terrorist list. That way, their finances and assets can be frozen, and no financial organizations (including casinos), may entered into business with them. As an outlawed group, it would only be a matter of time that PETA would whither because of the starvation from funds. That way they would no longer have the funds to operate tofu cream missiles off the coast of Newfoundland. But that is just crazy talk, eh Gerry:

“The objective here should be to dispel rumours and conspiracy theories,” Gerry Byrne, the Liberal MP for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, told The Canadian Press yesterday.

Declining service

During the Lorne Calvert era, the NDP and Saskatchewan Party engaged in simplistic debates on the merits of crown corporations. Brad Wall used to stand up, get red in the face with veins popping from his neck as if he was about to blow a gasket and shout about the NDP “picking winners and losers”. The NDP’s various responders, whether it be Sonntag, Lautermilch or Calvert himself, always followed the approach that if the private sector could do it better, then the government would not be involved.

In away it was ironic that Wall would issue such voluminous attacks on the Calvert NDP, for if there was ever an NDP administration that supported the private sector this was it. It is not by accident that the most liberal approach to oil and gas development in Canada was ushered in under Calvert’s watch. Perhaps it was the follow out of Spudco in the 1990s, or that the NDP was so fearful of losing that they kowtowed to the cries against nationalization, Calvert’s NDP was not prepared to provide government support to any economic development initiative.

However, Calvert’s NDP did draw the line in the sand in that they continued to support crown corporations that provided a public service. Despite subtle shifts in policy, NDP administrations have long understood that the private sector is not necessarily interested in growing Saskatchewan. For example, not long after SaskOil was privatized and rebranded Wascana Energy, they up and moved their offices to Calgary.

Thus, the NDP continued to support the Saskatchewan Transportation Company. Here was a crown corporation that competed in a competitive industry – an industry that is monopolized by the likes of Greyhound. STC was never profitable. As rural populations shrink, it would never be profitable. STC was often at the centre of debate on whether it should be cut loose, but at the end of the day there was a belief that this was a service that no other would provide.

Brad Wall’s government have taken the opposite approach. STC is a money looser so to hell with rural populations. There decision to cut routes is akin to VIA Rails termination of rail service to places like Regina and Moose Jaw. Now those communities are not services by rail travel, because a region of 250,000 could not support a rail line. Instead you have to go to Duck Mountain to catch the train and Regina has a nice Casino where rail station once stood. Moose Jaw, a city built on rail service, continues its decline. STC’s decline will hurt rural and hard to reach communities.

But what should one expect from a government strapped for cash? When you base your budget on the volatility of resource prices, eventually you will come up short. But it will be the poor people who pay for the Saskatchewan Party’s incompetency. It is not people with money who ride the STC buses. And by “people with money” I mean anyone who has a car. If people have cars, they do not need buses. Unfortunately in a place like Saskatchewan, where so many communities are spread out, not everyone has a car. This just means people who are less fortunate will not have the resources to visit friends, families, and small communities.

STC was never about making money. STC was about servicing communities.

Re Shuffling

Stephen Harper shuffles his cabinet as often as he shuffles his principles. Because he is stuck with a minority government that prevents him from his goal of controller of Canada, this happens to be pretty often. Well... at least often in the sense that principles are pillars of support that change every few months because of polling numbers or the whim of your closed circle of advisers.

So the word on the mean streets of Ottawa is that there will be a Cabinet shuffle on Tuesday, forced because of Greg Thompson's decision to step down. Or...perhaps that is the other way around... that Thompson was forced to step down. One never to enjoy air travel, he may want find an opportunity that requires less travel...say like the Senate, for example. Luckily there is a Senate seat in New Brunswick that Harper is itching to fill. Moreover, Thompson is one of the last three surviving MPs from the Joe Clark era. Although many PCers long ago forgot they disagreed with the crazy western right wingers and embraced the Conservatives when presented with the option of submission or castration, surely the loss of one of the few remaining leaders of the PCs must be a sign of marginalization of the PC wing.

The other exit that is expected is that Vic Toews will be bumped to the Manitoba bench. This is one of Ottawa's longest living rumours - competing with the three-year duration of James Moore's promotion to cabinet rumour that finally ended in the fall of 2008. Toews has been said to be vying for that post since his days as Justice Minister, which prevented him from appointing himself. Therefore he has been a good soldier by acting as the President of the Treasury Board, at least in title as he avoided the department's business.

Otherwise, it is doubtful that there will be any big changes. At the end of the day, Harper is loyal and only make changes when he feels there is something to gain, not a problem to solve. Therefore, despite much media speculation, Peter Mackay will be hanging tough at Defence. The incompetently competent Lawrence Cannon will stay in place at Foreign Affairs. Stockwell Day, a proven an inept leader, has transformed into an adept manager as Minister of International Trade. Jim Flaherty will stay put - because why would you change Finance Ministers just a month for presenting a budget? Although Bev Oda should be dismissed as Minister of International Cooperation over the fiasco that is Rights and Democracy, it is hard to believe that she has any say in actual appointments. James Moore has quieted the ruckus over cultural avoidance at Heritage, and Jim Prentice has moved portfolios too many times. Besides, he stayed out of trouble in Copenhagen, which was This was no mean feet considering one of his predecessors performances in Bali.

Speaking of Ambrose, she could be the surprise demotion. Having peaked as the attractive MP in opposition, she has been spiraling down towards invisibility ever since. Besides, with a government in a serious deficit situation and rumoured to be downloading responsibility to the provinces (also another reason to keep Flaherty in Finance - he has first hand experience on screwing over other levels of government and getting away with it), Harper will want an Intergovernmental Affairs Minister that can stick-handle the provinces.

The other demotion will likely be Lisa Raitt. Harper has a tendency to remove a Minister only once the heat over their incompetency has died down. Now would be that time for Raitt. Unlike Ambrose who may be out, Raitt will get a less attractive post than her current Natural Resources, but will likely remain at the Cabinet table.

So who will be in and where? Good question. Thank you for asking, but I can only guess.

If Ambrose gets shifted out of Cabinet, Harper needs to elevate a female or risk headlines that the mini-shuffle was about demoting women. What better than but to replace one successful Alberta female politician with another? Thus Diane Ablonczy may be promoted to a safe place like President of the Treasury Board. This elevates Ablonczy's wisdom at the Cabinet table, but puts her in a place where she can do little damage like give out funding to pride parades. Moreover, with rumours of cuts to the civil service abound, a female touch may be considered more sensitive.

The position of Intergovernmental Affairs could go two ways. One option would be to return Mad Max Bernier to Cabinet. This would be a popular francophone in charge of provincial relations. However, with a military base in his riding, Bernier would also be an excellent selection for the position of Veteran Affairs. The other would be to place Raitt in the position, thereby having an individual with management experience in charge of tough provincial negotiations.

House Cleaning

Happy New Years. May the year be heavy on the clover.

Doing a little house cleaning here at wheatsheafsk.com by tossing out my two bits on perennial topics of interest.

First up: The Polls.

Apparently Canadians do care about prorogation and do not care about Ignatieff. Despite all the wonderful discussion about the Liberals having hit levels not seen since Dion, i.e. last year, come election time Canadians will support Ignatieff and the Liberals. Not support, like let's let these guys govern level support, but more than 26% support. The Liberal Party is the great default. It is that place where one does not have to think about the consequences. The Liberals will waffle on any issue, provide consistent management, and every is secure in the knowledge that no drastic change will occur. They are kind of like Bell Canada in that way - a huge inefficient corporation, that provides steady if not spectacular returns, that has crappy customer service but do manage to have the phone lines operate. Ignatieff fits as leader beautifully as he comes with a trusted intellectual pedigree. Although his deep intellectual writings are a series of personal reflections, this counts for something among everyone who wants to read something without having to think about it. Voters will prefer this intellectual pedigree for a Prime Minister, over, say someone like Jack Layton, who voters would rather go for a beer with.

As the Conservatives have managed the aid to Haiti situation well, this will be feather in their cap to recovery.

The parties that should tread cautious are the two that have benefited in the polls from the prorogation issue. Although the NDP have consistently harped on Harper's lack of respect for government and democracy, there rise to 19% might prove fleeting. There hard work on one issue has made off. Unfortunately for them, they must find the spark of another issue to build the momentum. The Greens have benefited from prorogation for, well as far as I can tell, no reason at all. This has to be worrying for them as it means that there numbers are artificially inflated - people are parking their vote with the Green (and I suspect with the NDP, and perhaps the Liberals) for the sake of the polls in the aftermath of prorogation - this may not be a reflection of what would happen if an election were held today.

Which moves us to the second topic: election speculation.

I am inclined to believe that, despite certain media's fascination with the idea that an election will be this spring, it will not. There is a sentiment that with a positive bounce from the Olympics, mixed with an election style Speech from the Throne and a budget, the Tories will push for an election in March/April. What this situation takes into account is that if the Tories may want an election, they will make it happen. And that is correct. But is it in the Tories interest to force an election?

The wildcard is the Liberals, and with a policy convention in March, lackluster polling, a lack of communication on why they should be counted on to govern, it is unlikely that the Liberals will want an election any time soon. Moreover, it unclear on whether the NDP or Bloc would want to push for one. The Tories would have to have an egregious budget that would prevent all of the opposition parties from supporting it. But then it is again the Tories orchestrating the timing of the election.

That is not to say that there will not be one in 2010 - simply that it will not be in March or April.

I will deal with more immediate predictions, re cabinet shuffles, tomorrow.

Election speculation - Liberal wo

Polling numbers and Liberals rebound