Freedom is My Nationality

Wildrose Alliance ahead in the polls

2009-12-11T10:04:00.002-05:00

The National Post is reporting that the Wildrose Alliance would form the government of Alberta if the election was held tomorrow. It really is too bad that the election is two years from now. A lot can happen in two years and WA supporters should not open the champagne bottle yet. It doesn't look like Mr. Stelmach has anything going for him, but he has been underestimated before.

The next two years can be put to good use. The WA is a new party and they need to prove that they have the depth to form a government. Stephen Harper solved this problem in 2004 by recruiting former provincial ministers. But Danielle Smith and her rising party has to come up with their own solution.

Great job so far Ms. Smith, but the journey to power is far from over.

Vancouver stifles free speech for the sake of the Olympics

2009-12-11T08:44:00.003-05:00

The Globe & Mail is reporting that a Vancouver gallery was forced to remove a mural that was anti-Olympic. The city claimed that it was graffiti but apparently murals have been displayed for a long time without complaint from the city. It was only when city officials didn't approve of the message being displayed did they take action.

The City of Vancouver's actions here are baseless. They are taking steps to protect the Olympic image in the face of significant local opposition. So let me ask you, what is more important? Free expression or a track and field competition? City officials should get their priorities straight.

Sexual Harassment and You

2009-12-11T05:46:00.002-05:00

I have long said that the difference between a man being creepy and a man being charming is whether or not the woman is already attracted to them.

Watch the video that demonstrates this.

Parliament security bans free speech

2009-12-11T05:05:00.003-05:00

The Toronto Star is reporting that Greenpeace t-shirts have been banned from Parliament Hill. This is in response to the illegal protest by Greenpeace earlier this week. Such an excuse is not a good enough reason to trample on the Freedom of Expression.

I'm no fan of Greenpeace, but I don't see why people wearing their t-shirts should not be allowed in Parliament. A spokesperson from the Speaker's office said that it was a routine precaution and went on to say:

"When someone is invited in as a member of the public in either the chamber or a committee, they're invited in as an observer, that's it," she said. "They're not a participant, they're an observer."

First of all you aren't invited into the chamber, we as the people have the right to see what our Parliament is doing. Yes when we do visit we must understand that we are observers, but how does wearing a t-shirt make you a participant? Is it because of the political message of the shirt? I own several t-shirts that make political statements, including one that mimics the Coca-Cola logo by saying "Enjoy Capitalism." Does wearing that shirt make me a participant?

No of course not, the reason is because members of that organization pissed off Parliament's security. They made them look incompetent, so they are cracking down on anyone who may be associated with Greenpeace.

It should be pointed out that not everyone wearing a Greenpeace shirt is a member of Greenpeace. My shirt that I mentioned before is a Bureaucrash shirt, but I have never been a member of Bureaucrash. I wear the shirt, like many that wear Greenpeace shirts, because I support the organization (and find the shirt amusing). Basically Parliament security is accusing Greenpeace supporters of being troublemakers just because they support Greenpeace.

Actually maybe it isn't about the supporters of Greenpeace but the message. The Star article said that a reporter was allowed to enter with a Greenpeace shirt if she agreed to turn it inside out. So obviously they aren't trying to exclude Greenpeace supporters. It is the message of Greenpeace that they are trying to keep out; not dangerous individuals that could disrupt Parliament, but the ideas that Greenpeace represents.

Has the healthcare debate in the US gone insane?

2009-12-10T18:23:00.002-05:00

Brian Doherty at Reason thinks so.

Anytime that a Canadian says political debate in Canada is irrational and overly partisan, they should just take a good look at our neighbours to the south.

Get her! She's not a witch!

2009-12-10T09:50:00.003-05:00

Government can be insane sometimes and the law is no exception. In today's Globe & Mail there is a story of a woman being arrested for pretending to a witch. She is accused of having defrauded a lawyer out of a thousand dollars by claiming to be possessed by the ghost of the lawyer's dead sister.

She is clearly guilty of fraud. She said that she was something that she wasn't and was given money based on those false pretenses. So I don't understand why the police thought that she should be charged with this peculiar and little used law against pretending to have supernatural powers.

I once went to a lecture where the professor claimed that the civil court would be better at dealing with matters of justice than the criminal court. He pointed out that O.J. Simpson was not found guilty in a criminal court but was brought to some justice in a civil court. He also commented that codifying laws make for oddities and anachronism that brings about weirdness in the justice system. He said that we would be better off by returning to the pre-19th century legal system of common law tradition.

Maybe he was right.

Peter MacKay can be safely gotten rid of now

2009-12-10T07:32:00.003-05:00

John Ibbitson makes a case for why Stephen Harper will refuse to kick Defense Minister MacKay out of cabinet, even if he deserves to be booted. Though Mr. Ibbitson may be right in his over all argument, I disagree with one of his points:

Third, and most important, Peter MacKay is a partner in the Conservative coalition. Don't forget that this government is in office only because Mr. MacKay agreed to merge his Progressive Conservatives with Mr. Harper's Canadian Alliance back in 2003. Firing Mr. MacKay would split the party.

In 2005 Peter MacKay threatened to split apart the Conservative Party. At the convention Scott Reid campaigned to change the leadership rules to a one member one vote system, instead of the current riding based electoral college. This was seen by Mr. MacKay, and others, as an attack on the PC section of the party. So in response Mr. MacKay threatened to lead a revolt.

It was a dramatic moment at the convention. It led to one of the media's favourite stories of Stephen Harper, his kicking a chair across a room in anger. Yet that was also four years ago and a lot has changed since then. The Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives are now very much entwined into a single party. The Conservative Party is no longer so weak that one man can split it apart.

The most significant change is that the Conservatives are in government, and they are unlikely to be out of government any time soon. Being securely in government is the greatest uniting factor for any political party. It means that loyalty will be awarded with patronage and dissenters will be left in the cold.

In short Mr. MacKay can no longer lead a revolt because he has nothing to offer his potential followers. His chances of becoming Prime Minister isn't exactly overwhelming, especially if he breaks away to start his own party. So there would be little opportunity for him to reward those that remain loyal to the old PC name.

If the Prime Minister really had to or even just wanted to, he could easily take the axe to Minister MacKay.

Israel as a Theocracy

2009-12-09T09:41:00.000-05:00

The Israeli Justice Minister recently mused that the law should move towards the Torah. To be clear, he wasn't suggesting that laws should be inspired by the religious traditions. He was saying the Laws of the Torah should be the laws of Israel.

I would be frightened by this if it wasn't for the massive political backlash against those comments. In a world of oppression and cruelty, we don't need to see a democracy morph into a theocracy.

Bernier's Comeback!

2009-12-09T08:24:00.004-05:00

My favourite former Minister may be back in Cabinet before Christmas, according to columnist Don Martin. I think that there is a strong case for the likelihood of Maxine Bernier's return. There has already been evidence of Stephen Harper rebuilding bridges with the popular MP.

Mr. Bernier has two advantages that makes him impossible for Mr. Harper to ignore him.

1. He has staying power. Even with the scandals of the last Parliament, Mr. Bernier has proven that he can win his seat and keep winning it.

2. He is from the Quebec City area. Any Conservative majority government is going to be partly built on Quebec City. A charming and well known Minister from the area could make all the difference.

So why is this such good news? Why am I excited about Minister Bernier? His videos demonstrate his deep understanding of Freedom and Responsibility and also there is his long time support for the flat tax. Such ideas are a welcome addition to the highest levels of government.

Debate in Scotland about Prostitution

2009-12-09T07:40:00.004-05:00

The Scottish Parliament is considering legislation that would increase the criminality of prostitution. The idea is to attack the "demand" for purchased sex. This law is based on a similar law recently passed in Sweden and would make it illegal to purchase or attempt to purchase sexual favours.

The Scotsman presents two different perspectives to the question: Should vice laws be tightened? (These are selected portions of the article)

Yes:

But that impact also directly affects the families of those involved and the communities where this appalling trade takes place.

In a great many cases, these communities will be living in a state of fear and anxiety because of the criminality that surrounds prostitution.

Organised crime plays a massive part in perpetuating prostitution in this country and elsewhere. Ruthless criminals see only profit in the sale of people for sex. They have no concept of the devastation they cause – if they have to control and ultimately ruin the lives of others then it is a price that has to be paid.

No:

THE "End Prostitution Now" campaign is unrealistic. We have seen similar strategies in the past, it's something that's been happening not just for decades, but millennia.

There have been various attempts to criminalise buyers and organisers of prostitution, and Glasgow City Council has been building towards this campaign since 1999. They have been looking for other local authorities to support them, but there is no consensus among councils on this issue.

Research suggests that the type of legislation being proposed will only increase the vulnerability of women – a review of the legislation in Sweden found that sex workers had been subject to increased violent attacks.

In Sweden, women have been forced to use their own private residences for selling sexual services, but often they are reported and then made homeless. If this legislation goes ahead here, it will see the indoors industry in Glasgow multiply enormously.

If you don't want cancer drink beer!

2009-12-09T07:32:00.001-05:00

This from the Scotsman...

...I will never get cancer.

Who would have been stopped by the gun registry?

2009-12-09T04:45:00.002-05:00

Rondi Adamson writes a worthy column about the gun registry at Libertas Post:

Gun registry doesn't make sense

It makes sense, on the 20th anniversary of the December 6 Montreal massacre, to remember the victims -- the dead and the wounded.

It makes sense to talk about violence against women, to talk about mental illness, the dangers of ignoring warning signs, as well as how to strike the balance between acting on those warning signs and not being alarmist.

But it makes no sense to use December 6 as a justification for keeping the long-gun registry.

Yet women’s groups and anti-gun activists areusing the anniversary for just that reason. After parliament voted, in early November, to repeal the registry, Alexa Conradi, president ofthe Federation des femmes du Quebec said, “Close to 20 years after the shooting, we seem to be forgetting why we decided to do this in the first place.”

The Montreal massacre may well have been the catalyst for the gun registry, but if the years since have shown us that it is expensive and ineffectual, does keeping it honour the dead -- or protect any future victims?

The gun registry would not have stopped Marc Lepine, though it may have forced him to register his semi-automatic rifle first.

(Read More)

Could NDP fortunes in Quebec mark the end of separatism?

2009-12-09T04:18:00.004-05:00

It has long been said that Quebec politics does not operate under Left-Right competition but Federalist-Separatist competition. As much as I deplore the terms left wing and right wing, there is some truth to this.

The usual party cleavages are around the role of government. Even when parties are relatively similar in their conceptualization of government, they differ in the details of what they want government to do. Should this subsididy go to that person or that person? Should taxes be cut or should wealth transfer be increased? Should government regulate the personal habits of individuals, if so what habits should be regulated?

These debates take place in Quebec but their party system does not revolve around them. Instead their party system revolves around the question, should Quebec be independent?

On either the federal or provincial level, voters in Quebec cannot avoid this issue during elections. Even if you are voting for the PQ to support their health policy, you must be aware that you are voting for a separatist party.

The NDP have traditionally been squeezed out from this debate. The Liberals staunchly support federalism, the Conservatives usually support a more decentralized federalism, and the BQ support Independence. There isn't much room for the NDP to contribute. Even when they try they lack credibility because they have never held office at the federal level. The fourth party could hypothetically have influence on many areas of public policy, but what could they possibly do to influence a constitutional debate?

Yet for the past few years we have been witnessing a rise of the NDP in Quebec. Perhaps this is a sign that the old debate is beginning to lose its sizzle. Quebec voters who dislike Harper are looking for an alternative. They don't seem to like Mr. Ignatteiff much and in general they will "park their vote" with the BQ as a sort of damn all vote. Still the NDP are doing better in Quebec than I have ever known them to do. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that they are on the cusp of a breakthrough in Quebec. If so let us hope it comes at a cost to the BQ and to separatism in Quebec.

Anti-Communism Cartoon

2009-12-07T13:02:00.000-05:00

Not a bad way to describe it:

Global warming sceptics should be taken seriously

2009-12-05T07:14:00.003-05:00

Ms. May says that Mr. Harper doesn't get it. The truth is that she doesn't get it.

I am not what some may call a man made global warming denier. I am more of a sceptic. There is a lot of area that has to be studied in the scientific community before I'm willing to take a side. I'm sorry to those that say otherwise, but there are still serious people making serious criticisms of the conclusions that have been made. I am not willing to destroy the economy on a hunch.

Here is a quote from one of the articles I linked above. I think it sums it up nicely:

"I honestly don't know whether it is a big problem, a little problem or a medium problem. And I don't think the skeptics have proven that global warming is not a problem."

Coynes on the China incident

2009-12-04T11:32:00.002-05:00

This pretty much sums up my opinion on the whole humiliating Canada just because you can thing...

Bill O'Reilly supports the legalization of pot

2009-11-25T07:17:00.002-05:00

In this segment Fox New's Bill O'Reilly says that he "doesn't care what adults do, I don't care if they smoke pot." You then goes on to explain that he doesn't want children to smoke pot.

Bill O'Reilly and I are in complete agreement. Especially considering that the most harmful aspect of pot smoking is heightened in younger people. So make it legal for anyone above the age of 18.

Also note Chong's awesome shirt.

The solution to US debt

2009-11-25T07:12:00.000-05:00

U.S. Government Stages Fake Coup To Wipe Out National Debt

I want to be a Member of Parliament

2009-11-25T04:48:00.002-05:00

Usually I would sputter in outrage at the government using tax dollars for the purpose of boozing up MPs. But with billions of dollars being thrown into the waste basket every year, I just can't work up the same energy for $2 000. (Though I am surprised that the Speaker of the House has an entertaining budget of $170 000. What affairs of state would really require a Speaker to entertain?)

So instead I'm going to be very jealous. I am a man who loves his scotch (in my more honest moments I will admit that is part of the reason I came to Edinburgh for grad school). The idea that I could go to a free scotch tasting, if only I convince about 30 000 of my neighbours to send me as their voice in the Parliament of the People, is surprisingly enticing.

I may run next time around.

Liberal leader's to do list

2009-11-24T14:41:00.002-05:00

Libertas Post has obtained a copy of Michael Ignatieff's to do list.

The best thing written about the Krieber thing

2009-11-24T04:51:00.002-05:00

This from Scot Feschuk at Maclean's.

It is one of those rare posts that make me really wish I had written it. Though I will add one thing to it. My favourite thing about the Krieber incident is that I did not know the name of Dion's wife before this little foray into commentary. Way to be known Mrs. Krieber.

How to get your readers to read your article

2009-11-24T04:49:00.001-05:00

This was the opening paragraph of this article:

Students from a Mississauga high school reached out and touched the Prime Minister's Office today, and are claiming that the PMO touched back.

Kinky eh?

Why are policies different?

2009-11-21T09:12:00.003-05:00

There are three factors to why policies that address the same issue vary so much between political systems: ideas, interests, and institutions. No study of policy differences would be complete without reference to all three of these concepts. Ideas are defined in this essay as Craig Parsons defines them: “claims about descriptions of the world, casual relationships or the normative legitimacy of certain actions.”(Parsons 2002: 48) Interests are defined along an economic or rational choice model. That is, each actor attempts to maximize their own utility. Institutions will be defined as formal arrangements of individuals who are regulated by enforceable rules and decision making (Pontusson 1995: 25).

Each of these concepts has a place within the policy process. Solutions and perceptions of issues originate with ideas. If there is a sufficiently powerful actor with an interest connected to that issue or solution, then the policy is placed on the political agenda. Once the various actors’ interests have been negotiated or pacified the policy is adopted by the institutions. The institutions then adapt the policy to fit the existing framework. This is a simplified model of how policy is developed and implemented. It is also a simplification of the relationship between the three concepts. This model will however serve to demonstrate the reasons that policy differs between polities.

Ideas, the first stage of the model, are fundamental in explaining the origin of policy (Beland 2009: 703). Daniel Beland writes that ideas shape assumptions, provide discursive tools for actors, and often shape the agenda (Beland 2009: 702). Ideas are the most significant for how they shape assumptions. Organizational institutionalists argue that cultural assumptions produce certain policy outcomes (Campbell 1998: 382). The example of this given by Frank Dobin (as cited Campbell 1998: 382) is the difference in which France and the United States of America handled the construction of a railway network. USA, with a more individualist cultural bias, was more decentralized in their railway construction than collectivist France.

Beyond affecting solutions, ideas can shape the perception of what needs to be solved. Jean-Claude Barbier discussed French concepts of employment precariousness and its lack of counterpart in the United Kingdom (Barbier 2004). French and British employment policy would thus differ greatly because United Kingdom officials would not consider precariousness whereas it would be central in France’s employment policy. The assumptions formed by ideas create this policy difference at the very beginning of the process.

In any polity there is a limited space for policy debate on the political agenda (Beland 2009: 705). It requires a significant actor, such as political parties, unions, public servants, or businesses, to move this policy onto the agenda (Campbell 1998: 379). This is the second stage of the model mentioned in the introduction.

Since policies require an interested actor to get on the political agenda, the variant interests and distribution in power within different polities explains differences between policy outcomes. Distribution of power is important because having an interested actor is not always enough. Some actors may not be powerful enough to overcome the counter interests of another actor (Galston 2006: 549). Iain McLean in his article Rational Choice and Politics enters into a discussion of the power relations between actors with his use of the prisoner’s dilemma (McLean 1991: 502). He first assumes that politicians and civil servants, as human beings, are self interested (McLean 1991: 500). They may occasionally act in the interests of the greater good, but it is extraordinarily rare that any human being would act radically against their own interest. It is therefore important to understand how power relations work to understand why some policies are implemented and others are not.

The power relations and indeed the interests of actors are partly shaped by the institutions (Pontusson 1995: 119). It is the institutionalized power relations and interests that are crucial to the development of policy (Pontusson 1995: 120). Consider the electoral system as an example of an institution that shapes interests. Kenneth Arrow points out that in any electorate there are many possible majorities and it is the institutions that give them shape (Galston 2006: 545). A real world example of a policy affected by an electoral system would be the USA’s environmental policy bias towards ethanol fuel. The reason for this bias can easily be traced to the order of Presidential primaries, which give corn growers in Iowa disproportionate power. Presidential candidates give their support for ethanol to ensure that they would gain an early lead against their opponents. In this way the institution of the electoral system influences the policies that politicians have an interest in.

Beyond institutions affecting the interests of actors, they also affect the manner in which a policy concept is actually implemented, which is the third and final stage of the model. John Hudson et al provide a clear example of this in his comparison of Third Way policies in the United Kingdom and Germany (Hudson et al 2008). German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair were both Third Way proponents with a similar enough vision to publish a joint document of policy principles (Hudson et al 2008: 209). However, as Hudson points out, the institutional history of Germany and the UK are significantly different (Hudson et al 2008: 211). This meant that the actual application of these joint principles were different. For example Mr. Blair increased employment regulation and Mr. Schroder decreased employment regulation, which actually brought the two countries closer together (Hudson et al 2008: 217). This example demonstrates that even with the same ideas, institutions can create different policy outcomes.

This paper has been working with a simplified policy development model of ideas being adopted by interests then adaption by existing institutions. At each stage it is clear how different political systems can have different policy outcomes. Between polities ideas, interests, and institutions are all different. They each then have a different effect on the policy out comes in different polities.

(This is a thousand word essay I wrote for my graduate program. If anyone is interested in the references you can e-mail me for the bibliography hughmacintyre@aol.com)

Shut up Lisa MacLeod (VI): Six things you should know about Lisa MacLeod shutting up

2009-11-20T06:22:00.004-05:00

It was demanded upon me to make this next installment of my popular series: Shut up Lisa MacLeod.

Today's episode involves an opinion piece that she co-wrote for the National Post, regarding the HST. In it she isn't as mind numbingly foolish as she has been previously, so maybe she should get someone to co-write everything she says. But luckily for my readers there is still plenty of silliness to mock.

She makes six points in opposition to the Harmonized Sales Tax:

1. Ontario is surrendering its constitutional taxation powers.

Canada is one of the few countries in the world that allows regional governments unlimited taxation powers. Believe me, many in the Scottish Government looks towards Canada with envy. So this indeed is an important power to protect. Luckily it isn't actually in danger. The Parliament of Ontario is still free to levy all the taxes that they want thank you very much.

I admit that most of the knots and bolts issues regarding the sales tax will be handled by the Federal government. MacLeod claims that this means taxation without representation. As if Ontario wasn't represented in the Federal Parliament. Wait...what province is the Finance Minister from again...I forget...

2. There will be a hidden tax

The GST is currently at 5% and the PST is currently at 8%. What exactly is being hidden here? Is it that she's afraid Ontarians can't do basic math?

3. There is no evidence that harmonized taxes work in other federal jurisdictions

Her argument here is basically that just because it has been done in other countries doesn't mean that it will work well here. This is not an entirely unfounded complaint. One of the things I'm learning about in Grad school is pitfalls of cross country policy analyses. It is not so simple to say that something was done there so we can do the exact same thing here. The institutions and organizations are different in every country.

That being said it is possible to learn from the mistakes and successes of other country's policy. We can take those lessons, adjust them to particularly Canadian needs, and apply them. How do I know that this can be done? Well because it is done all the time. You would in fact be hard pressed to find policy proposals in Canada that wasn't in some way partially based on policies in an other jurisdiction. So why won't HST work in Canada again?

4. It will cost businesses money and resources to learn the new system

This is true. It is also true of any policy change made ever. There is always a capital investment made into learning how a law, policy, or institution works. That is part of the reason why it is so hard to change things, people don't want to give up that investment. This is basically an argument against the government doing anything...hang on...hmmm...

But anyway I doubt the cost will be as much as say MPPs moving to half day or MPPs recieving free childcare.

5. Companies that are exempt won't be exempt anymore

Well good. It is bizarre to me that the government picks and chooses who pays more taxes and who pays less. The government shouldn't be giving unnatural advantages to companies or industries. If her argument here is that taxing businesses ultimately hurts consumers, then yes I agree. So we should get rid of all corporate taxes right?

6. It would be hard or impossible to undue the HST

This is a good thing if you think the HST is a good thing. It isn't really an argument for not doing it. I guess if you were unsure about the HST you would rather that it be easily reversed once it has been tested. But still, this isn't an actual argument against the HST.

Nice try though...

CCF fights for raw milk

2009-11-19T05:04:00.003-05:00

Last year William Joseph wrote on this blog supporting Michael Schmidt, the raw milk crusader. Mr. Schmidt has dedicated his time and resources to reverse a law forbidding people from selling raw milk. Both Will and I have full heartily supported his cause.

Now it seems that he is going to get stronger backing than some blog (though an awesome blog).

The Canadian Constitution Foundation, a well known freedom loving organization that advances the cause through the courts, has taken up Mr. Schmidt's cause.

The CCF has announced that it will represent Mr. Schmidt in ongoing litigation challenging the constitutionality of the raw milk ban.

“This is about the rights of Canadians to choose a product that is safely consumed by tens of thousands of people around the world. It’s also about the right to earn an honest living free from government regulations that are unnecessary, unreasonable and unfair,” said CCF Litigation Director Karen Selick.

“There have been huge technological improvements in refrigeration, transportation and pathogen testing, in addition to the entrenchment of individuals’ constitutional rights. Consumers who want freedom of choice expect their government to make the transition to the twenty-first century and to respect their rights,” added Selick.