They're everywhere



Not gay people. Well, them too. No, I was thinking of Members of Parliament, fearing the long-term effects of the "Gay Agenda":

(David Kilgour, Liberal MP, in conversation with Paula Simons of the Edmonton Journal) On Thursday, Kilgour told me that he opposes gay marriage, in part because, he says, once the government made same-sex marriage legal, it would have no logical reason not to allow three people to get married.



"So you're saying your fear is that gay marriage could lead to legalized polygamy?" I asked him, puzzled.



"And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," he responded.

And that's a Liberal. Gah!

It's Buy Nothing Day



Participate by not participating, as they say.

Spencer: for hire?



Warren Kinsella (who needs fixed links to individual posts) points out that Larry Spencer may not be the only asshat in Parliament. Check out this press release from the Alliance member for Yorkton-Melville, Garry Breitkreuz.



The punditry around this issue has been enlightening to me. In particular, I heard Progressive Conservative MP Scott Brison on a couple of occasions yesterday (I can hear the production discussions: "Hey, Brison's gay - let's see what he thinks of the merger now"), and he sounded smarter and more animated than at any time I heard him during the leadership. Not about how offended he personally was (though there was an edge of that), but about how guys like Spencer make the Alliance unelectable, and would make a merged party equally unelectable.



Peter MacKay must be thinking pretty hard about the merger now: "There is no place for such comments in the type of modern, inclusive Conservative Party we are about to build." I dunno - sounds to me like Harper is making room. His response that Spencer's statements "do not reflect party policy in any way, shape or form," are, as I heard a few different people comment, a little tepid.



In short, Tories have been sounding like reasonable, intelligent people - people who could govern this country - and Alliance representitives have sounded like cowards, trying to find political cover from these remarks even as they attempt to avoid saying that Spencer is wrong. After all, there's a certain part of the Alliance constituency that thinks like Spencer, and they don't want to lose those voters. That was made completely clear to me this morning as I listened to CBC Calgary's political panel, where the Tory Jock Osler spoke up in no uncertain terms to say that there was no room in any new Conservative Party for thinking like Spencer's, and Reformer Jocelyn Bergoner seemed upset only that Larry spoke out loud. (Link and correct spelling of names as they come available.)



In all the talk around what this will do to the merger plans, one has to at least consider the possibility that Larry Spencer knew his conversation with the Vancouver Sun would go over like a fart in hot tub among the Tories. The resistance to merger among the Tories comes from people who fear that the merger is really a takeover by the Canadian Alliance, but we haven't heard anything about any resistance to merger from old-timey Reformers. Is it possible that people like Larry Spencer are afraid of losing the social conservatism that was hand-in-hand with the economic conservatism in the early Reform Party days? I'm not sure Spencer has proved himself at any time in the past to be cagey enough to have come up with this sort of plan, but you never know.

RSS feed



By popular request, I'm now available via rss feed - the link is to the far lower left, below the counter.

Paving the way for the merger



Removing Larry Spencer as critic for "family issues" is a baby step in the right direction, but doesn't go nearly far enough. Does the Alliance really want a public face that can speak such unbelievable garbage, mixed in with a hefty dose of paranoia?

OTTAWA -- Canadian Alliance MP Larry Spencer, citing a "well-orchestrated" conspiracy that began in the 1960s that led to recent successes in the gay-rights movement, says he'd support any initiative to put homosexuality back in the Criminal Code of Canada.



...



But Spencer said any MP, and especially someone from his party, risks being labelled "a redneck or a hate-monger or homophobic" if they even mention such views in Parliament. (Imagine that! - Don)



...



...the conspiracy included the seduction and recruitment of young boys in playgrounds and locker rooms and the deliberate infiltration of North America's judiciary, schools, religious community, and entertainment industry.

He then presented a book to the Vancouver Sun editorial board, entitled The Protocols of the Elders of Stonewall. Okay, he didn't, but he might as well have. Here's your Nice Big Cup, Larry - don't drink it all at once.



So, back to today's issue: Spencer been removed from the "family issues" critic's portfolio, which is an excellent first step in removing him from the Alliance caucus, I suppose.



It all begs the question, are these the people that Tories want to be associated with? Has the party of Joe Clark, Grand Marshall of the 2001 Calgary Pride Parade, become this desperate? If that second step happens --- if Spencer is asked politely to put on his dancin' shoes and go "improve" the heterosexual-to-homosexual ratio on Broadway, and stop polluting Ottawa with his poisonous ideas --- then perhaps the Tories will have less reason to worry.

One question: why is everyone only noticing now?



The International Red Cross is weighing in on the Guantanimo prisoners.



Via Hesoid.

Dangerous toys

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli customs have seized a shipment of 450 singing, dancing Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein dolls under a law banning incitement.



The battery-powered Chinese-made figurines were confiscated at the northern port of Haifa, a Customs Authority spokeswoman said.



An Israeli-Arab businessman from the northern village of Qafr Qara admitted under questioning to importing the 400 copies of the Al Qaeda leader and 50 of the deposed Iraqi ruler, as a "gimmick", a customs statement said.



"The law doesn't exactly say that you cannot own a bin Laden doll, but neither he nor Saddam Hussein are exactly good educational role models," the spokeswoman said. (Story here)

Representing a good "educational role model" is a prerequisite to get a toy into Israel? Too bad - I guess they'll never see one of these.



Update: Haven't yet found the dolls in question, but some of these Russian nesting dolls are pretty disturbing. Note particularly the last one.

Another person who needs a blog:



A senior British judge has become the Master of the Obvious:

LONDON - One of Britain's most senior judges has criticized the U.S. for holding terror suspects at its military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, calling it a "monstrous failure of justice."



In a speech in London, Judge Johan Steyn, the third most senior judge, said the prisoners are being held illegally since their transfer from Afghanistan last year.



...



Steyn said Washington's purpose for holding the prisoners was to put them beyond the rule of law, the protection of any courts and at the mercy of victors.

Since I said this yesterday, and since I'm not that enormously perceptive, doesn't everyone already know this? Still, it's nice to hear it come from a voice within the justice system.

My mascot



No response one way or the other about Tina - I'm going to take that as approval. She has a semi-permanent home at the bottom of my page now.

Dick missed the memo:



Dick Cheney, yesterday:

In Iraq, a ruthless dictator cultivated weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. He gave support to terrorists and had a relationship with al Qaeda -- and his regime is no more.

That wasn't "yesterday" as in "deep in the mists of time". That would be the literal yesterday.



Via Hesoid.

Shows you what I know



Turns out there were and are Canadians in Guantanimo after all. I'm going to reserve judgement on the case of the Khadr brothers, since we seem to be in the nebulous territory of "he said, he said" (it's a patriarcial world, I fear), but I'm going to take a crazy left-wing stand, and come out in favour of due process. It's a cruel loophole the Americans are using to avoid giving these prisoners the protections of either the Geneva Convention or the law of the United States by hiding them offshore... do you suppose Dubya picked up this idea from his buddy Kenny Lay?



Update: As POGGe points out, secret prisoners and deportations to Syria are just as bad when Canada does it. I recommend the related Talk Left discussion thread for a description of some of the thornier issues around this case.

Speaking of Blair



The next time you hear someone complaining about the Prime Minister's coldness toward the current occupiers occupants of the White House, and the negative diplomatic and economic consequences thereof, consider the case of Britain:



- Canada's having trouble getting rid of illegal softwood lumber duties and getting beef over the border? Britain's steel industry can relate.



- Unhappy with Maher Arar's deportation? At least he didn't end up in Guantanimo, where he would likely still be.



More about the one-way Blair/Bush relationship here.

Politics as entertainment



Who cares if Tony Blair got involved with the US in Iraq? After all, he was mildly amusing on The Simpsons. All is forgiven!



Admittedly, Blair is one of a long line of politicians who figure that being entertaining is a good way of increasing one's profile and popularity. What politicians forget is that when it comes to being entertaining, they can't compete with professionals. If they continue to expand the role of "entertainingness" as a prerequisite to govern, there will be more Arnolds in our future.



Blair claims this was not the point at all, of course - he simply wanted to encourage tourism. I wonder if he vetted the script? It didn't really scream "Visit sunny Leeds".



Beyond the desire to be entertaining and therefore electable (a big motivation for the people who advise him, I'm sure), I suspect Blair's voice-acting debut might have been not entirely tourism-driven: "Hey, I was on the Simpsons!" Can't blame him for that, I suppose.

Excellent news



Eduard Shevardnadze is gone, gone, gone.



Now that he's gone, I hope Shevardnadze is rightfully remembered as the Soviet Foreign Minister during, and one of the architects of, Glasnost. It would have been sad to see him descend so far into the pit of totalitarianism that history would have forgotten his help in cancelling World War Three. His time in Georgia will be a footnote: a President who simply overstayed his welcome in office. Judging by comments from my friends and family, Canadians can relate to the concept.

The good old hockey game



Is the best game you can name.



And the best game you can name?



Is the good old hockey game.

"No, thanks"



It's exciting that in the wake of an election that opposition parties and international observers charitably described as "grotesquely fixed" (warning: not a direct quote, just a summary), the people of Georgia have stood up to say, Geez, you know, we tried the whole totalitarian thing, and we didn't enjoy it so much.



This trend has been going on since 1989, and I like it much more than the American theory of bombing people free. Democracy comes remarkably fast to people who stand up in huge numbers and take it, not through organized violence, but through refusal to play along with the fantasy of an unelected government claiming legitimacy. My money says Eduard Shevardnadze will be checking into the "Idi Amin Home for Aged Former Dictators" inside of two weeks.



Vive le Velvet Revolution!

Saturday Funnies



A friend forwarded me a link to today's Tom the Dancing Bug. I don't usually care for TtDB - I'm more of a Red Meat guy - but this week's comic is pretty damn sharp. Go. Read.

Another reason for an inquiry



I don't think it will take very much inquiring to dispel the idiotic dissembling of John Ashcroft.

U.S. Attorney-General John Ashcroft says the Bush administration received -- and believed -- assurances from Syria that it would not torture Maher Arar before deporting the Ottawa man to that Middle Eastern country.

And they're pretending to still believe it!

U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said that the Syrian embassy in Washington has told the U.S. that Arar was not tortured, consistent with assurances given before he was deported.

What do you suppose the chances are that Arar wasn't tortured? Could you find a Canadian who believes this, who thinks the harrowing report Arar shared is an elaborate lie?



Let me remind you what his story contains: his full public statement is here. I cannot imagine what I could quote from it that's representitive of the whole thing.



I'm pleased to report that Bill Graham and Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs believe Arar:

...a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham told CBC News Thursday that Arar had provided the government with a compelling account of his treatment, and despite what Ashcroft said, Ottawa had no reason to doubt the Canadian's story.

I guess it tells Canadians how far we've fallen in Bush administration eyes that they're more ready to believe the Government of Syria than they are the Government of Canada. Or perhaps it's simply that Syria is telling a more pleasing tale. Either of these possibilities is disconcerting.

Around the web:



I'm happy to admit it - it might have been quite a while before I noticed Peace, Order, and Good Government, eh? had he not posted a link to me first. So I'm glad he did - decent punditry and frequent posting is all I need. Now to talk about that template....



(edited for gender precision)

More Maher



I think most Canadians, however suspicious or trusting we might be of our government's role in this travesty of justice, have taken it as a given that the American officials acted improperly when they sent Maher Arar to Syria. Now Americans are beginning to notice that, too. Here and here and here and especially here, among others - intentionally or unintentionally, Mr. Arar is becoming the poster child for questionable imprisonments and deportations, an all-too-common experience since 9/11.



We like to blame Americans for stuff. It makes us feel superior. With Americans blaming themselves, how much easier could it be? But until we have full public disclosure about Canada's role in the deportation, I think we have to resist the urge to feel smug.