The Libby Indictments

Witnessing the independence of the legal system is always heartening, even if the charges brought against the Vice President's Chief of Staff ultimately turn out to be exxagerated or false.

Here in Canada, we seem to have a great system of figuring out when people do stupid things in government - cabinet ministers resign all the time, the Gomery inquiry made it absolutely clear to all reasonable individuals that there was political direction in ensuring that the Liberal Party received government money, and there's so many other examples as well.

However, and this is crucial, no one ever seems to go to jail. No one ever seems to get charged with any crimes. During the Nixon and Reagan administrations, numerous individuals faced legal consequences for various crimes. Bill Clinton himself, while in office had to negotiate certain punishments with an independent counsel for commiting perjury infront of a Grand Jury.

Maybe the situation in Canada will change with the Gomery Report on Tuesday, but I seriously doubt it.

Is the legal system not as independent in Canada? Maybe...

I even remember Stephen Harper saying something so seemingly stupid a few months ago when he was complaining about the light sentence for one of the Adscam advertising executives and he blamed the Liberals for it. It seemed as if he was suggesting that the Liberals should have interfered in the independent legal process to ensure harsher punishments - how silly.

Now... the Liberals are exactly the opposite. If they did actually interfere, I could only imagine it in order to ensure lighter sentences.

I would've never thunk

There was a story a few days ago in the news that Gilles Duceppe had (somewhat controversially) stated that a sovereign Quebec would indeed have its own army. I was mildly surprised by these statements, especially since Duceppe stated that Quebec might even need "to go to war" (even if he was referring to "humanitarian war", that's still somewhat surprising.)

I always thought the reason a number of western militaries still existed was because they were simply a relic of the past, an entity that national governments found too radical to terminate. And that, if Canada was founded today, instead of in 1867, partly in response to an American threat to Canadian sovereignty, we wouldn't even bother to establish a military.

Well, I guess I was wrong, at least in relation to Quebec.

And I'm happy to see that Gilles Duceppe recognizes that it is undignified for a nation to be without an armed forces, for the sake of protecting one's own sovereignty, and also for the sake of not being a pacifist in this world, turning a blind eye to certain injustices that could be stopped by the courageous work of the men and women who make up the military.

More evidence that abortion is evil

A stunning and heartwarning (at the same time) article today in the Washington Post.

The sentence before the beginning of the report sums it all up:

Prenatal testing is making your right to abort a disabled child more like "your duty" to abort a disabled child.

I think the female gender was the first to suffer the selective wrath of abortion.

Disabled people suffer it too now in large numbers.

Who's next? Gays? Fat people? Maybe even ugly people?

???

A Conservative MP is proposing a law to toughen mandatory sentences for carrying a gun (5 years), firing a gun (10 years) and hurting/killing someone with a gun (15 years).

Maybe it's just because the media reports are misleading, but what the hell??? 5 years for CARRYING a gun???

The reports almost try to portray the courts in a negative light for previously declaring such laws cruel and unusual. If the laws banning "carrying" went into effect, they surely would be cruel and unusual as well.

I know that the law is intended to go after criminals, but people generally carry guns for self defense, even in the case of criminals.

I don't see how or why the Conservative caucus is so united behind this idea.

Two posts in two days!

Obviously, feeling detached (previous post) has much to do with both a) feeling powerless in affecting change, and b) doubts about whether the change that you could affect is worth fighting for.

I was thinking about whether I would be any different if I were an American, instead of a Canadian, in terms of how I looked at how I could personally affect government, and in doing so, I realized that "fighting" for social issues oddly seems like a more tangible goal than fighting for spending restraint, tax cuts and stuff like that - at least for a lot of people.

Let me explain.

Firstly, fighting for "social issues" in America is actually possible. In Canada, it is not. There is such an atmosphere up here that villainizes social conservatives that it really makes me quite sad. Media and political elites hold Canadian social conservatives in such contempt that it is hard to imagine how it's possible for them to feel included in the process at all. Here's an interesting side point: if you're really bored, pathetic and geeky like me, read Hansard (transcripts from Parliament) from the 35th Canadian Parliament. The 35th Parliament was when Reform was first elected by sweeping through much of the west. Before Question Period is the Member Statement time period, and looking through the Reform Member Statements was absolutely stunning. Such open, vocal and unapologetic social conservatism - it's quite a sight to see. You wouldn't see anything like it today, and sadly, I'm afraid we never will again.

And on top of all of that, I'm not even much of a social conservative. I'm not particularly offended by gay marriage and I'm often on the other side of "socially conservative" positions, except with one significant issue: abortion, a subject that I've always opposed in almost all circumstances. It feels weird for me to say that, as if Canadians aren't supposed to publicly state their opposition to abortion. In America, it seems perfectly acceptable to state one's opposition to abortion, in Canada it seems very risky.

This sort of deals with current events... (i.e. the nomination of not one, but two people who are question marks on the issue of whether the American constitution guarantees a right to the privacy of an abortion), but many Americans can somewhat realistically expect to overturn legalized, nationalized, abortion-on-demand by electing reliably conservative Presidents and Senators.

In Canada, the prospect of placing limits on abortion is such a taboo topic that people who have it as a priority can only realistically feel nothing but hopeless despair. I think we're one of only 6 countries in the world that has no restrictions on abortion until the point of viability. And the sad thing is that a majority of Canadians, while labelling themselves as pro-choice only feel that abortion should be available in "some" but not "all" cases. This is sad because the popular will of the people will never materialize itself into concrete action because there are so many utterly shameless demagogues out there who will do whatever they can to confuse the issue to voters in order to secure the smallest of political advantages.

This is why so many Canadians feel detached, and I'm only referring mostly to social conservatives, a group of which I do not consider myself a member.

It seems pretty impossible to affect change in Canada, at least on the national level.

Detached

The lack of posts on this blog is due mainly to the fact that I feel pretty detached nowadays from many of the issues that I used to think and write about.

I don't know why I feel detached from the issue of Canada's government, but I do. There's no rational basis for feeling this way, but I feel detached anyway.

When I step back and think about it objectively, all my political inclinations are still the same:

I still think most of the things that I've thought about politics since I was 12 or 13 years old. Almost all of my domestic political beliefs are influenced by a strong belief in unregulated capitalism and almost all of my views on foreign policy are influenced by a strong belief in the ability (and duty) of the west to influence the rest of the world into becoming as democratic and free as itself.

In regards to Canadian politics more specifically, I still think that Stephen Harper would likely make the best Prime Minister in Canadian history (due to a complete lack of competition in the category and not due in particular to any greatness surrounding Stephen Harper's personality which seems pretty mediocre - my judgment has everything to do with ideology and Harper is the most ideologically conservative (according to my definition of conservativism) potential Prime Minister alive today.)

That's basically it. I have these beliefs, and I believe strongly in them, but I don't feel any passion or desire to fight for these beliefs, nor do I feel any inclination to persuade people to feel as I do. I don't even care that much if my country (Canada) hurts itself by carrying forward a weak or immoral foreign policy nor do I care very much if Canadians elect governments that promote economic dependency, low incomes and unemployment. Again, I should care, but for some reason, I don't. I especially don't care very much now about the daily events that make up Canadian political life - I care somewhat for the results that a better government might bring, but that's about it.

And that explains the lack of posts on this blog.

However, I will make an effort starting now to post more regularly anyhow.