"Amending hate crime legislation to include 'sex'": Its A Terrible Idea

The Liberal Women's caucus wants to "Amend existing hate crime legislation to include “sex”, the legal description for gender."

http://www.liberal.ca/pdf/docs/pinkbook_en.pdf

The whole point of hate crime legislation is not to further punish any crime that is motivated by hate. That would be a long list indeed. No the point of such legislation is instrumental and not punitive. The purpose is to target organizations (e.g., the KKK) and segments of the population (e.g., young males who routinely beat up gay males for sport) who target identifiable groups (e.g, racial minorities) for no other reason than what members of these groups look like or what sex they sleep with. As women in Canada are not targeted by various fringe groups or targeted and beaten up by gangs of bored youth, there is no reason to include women in such at list.

It is only the instrumental function of such legislation that half way justifies such a policy. If it serves no instrumental purpose, handing out different sentences depending on who is victimized is a perversion of justice.

This is not to say that there might not be cause in the future. Take what has happened in France with regard to the hijab. Many French officials argued for a ban on religious symbols in schools because of the threat of violence many young French muslim women and girls felt if they did not don a hijab. If such a menace was to arise here in Canada, using hate crime legislation to target those, who use violence to enforce such a dress code, may be in order.

Liberals Ignore Non-Religious Canadians at their own Peril

It is high time those Liberals who encourage the party to court evangelicals address the non-religious elephant in the living room. When it comes to religion, by far the quickest growing group in absolute terms is non-religious Canadians. 16.2 % of Canadians describe themselves as non-religious in the 2001 census; this represented a 44% increase since 1991 and increase of nearly 1.5 million. According to 2008 stats Canada study by 2005, that number had reached 22% amongst those over 15. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.pdf There are far more non-religious Canadians than there are evangelicals Canadians and non-religious Canadians are younger. Your average non-religious person is 31. Your average baptist, for example, is 39. Furthermore, the extent of such a trend is masked by the fact that the overwhelming majority of Quebecers still identify as being Catholic even as Church attendance in Quebec continues to plummet there and 43% of Canadians did not attend a place of worship in the last year. Add to all of this the fact that growth of non -religious voters is concentrated in the very areas in which the Liberals stand a chance of winning some seats. For instance, 42% of Vancouverites describe themselves as non-religious.

Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Study of evangelical voting patterns is full of Holes

According to The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada between 1996 and 2008 evangelical Canadians left the Liberals in favour of the NDP and Conservatives. Their conclusions are based on 5 different polls. One taken in 1996, one in 2003, one in 2004, an exit poll in 2006, and finally one taken 2008.

http://files.efc-canada.net/min/rc/cft/V02I03/Evangelical_Voting_Trends_1996-2008.pdf

Their conclusions are problematic. One look at the 1996 is enough to cast doubt on their conclusions.

Among decided voters, the 1996 poll showed the Liberals leading the Reform party 45.7% to 24.7 in Western Canada and 58.8 to 8.2 in Ontario. The poll also had the Liberals ahead of the Bloc 49.2 to 33.8 in Quebec and ahead of the PCs 60 to 21.3 in Atlantic Canada. A Year later, this is how things broke down in the 1997 election. Reform finished with 42.8% in Western Canada and 19.1% in Ontario. The Liberals meanwhile captured 27.7% of popular vote in Western Canada and 49.5% in Ontario. The Liberals captured 36.7% of the vote of the popular vote in Quebec and 34% in Atlantic Canada.

There is no basis for considering this poll. It is an obvious outlier.

The 2003 poll is better, but still support for Canadian Alliance looks to be massively understated.

The 2003 poll put the Liberals at 53.3% in Ontario and the Canadian Alliance at 10%. The same poll had the Liberals leading the Canadian Alliance 34.8 to 24.7% in Western Canada.

In the 2000 election the Canadian Alliance took 49.6% of the popular vote in Western Canada and 23.6% of the vote in Ontario During the 2004 election, the Conservatives took 31.5 of the vote in Ontario and 45.3% in Western Canada.

Still based on the other polls, there is evidence of evangelical Canadians having left the Liberals for the Conservatives in slightly greater numbers than the rest of the population in Ontario between 2004 and 2006 and that this trend increased much more so between 2006 and 2008. In the whole of Canada, the Liberal evangelical vote collapsed in 2008.

What there is not evidence for that the evangelical voters left the Liberals for the NDP. Sure, between 2006 and 2008 there does appear movement from the Liberals to the NDP in Ontario However, this is not matched elsewhere and seems to have more to do with NDP taking northern Ontario away from the Liberals. Indeed, 2008 the evangelicals in Western Canada left the NDP in far greater numbers than they did the Liberals. Furthermore, that poll seems to have understated Liberal and Conservative support; it put the Liberals at 28.2 and they finsished with 33.8; and it put the Conservatives at 35.3% and they finished with 39.2%.

The contention of the authors that evangelicals left the Liberals because they felt hard done by is simply not supported by the evidence. Even the notion that evangleical voters left the Liberals because of SSM is problemtic albeit plausible. Only 25% of evangelical voters listed "moral issues" as determining how they voted and this included both SSM and the sponorship scandal. Based strictly on the numbers one would have to say that Green Shift drove more evangelicals away than SSM ever did.

The political consquences of Means tested Social policy and making early childhood education Pay off Politically

Under Martin and Chretien the Liberals abandoned universality in favor of means tested programs. This pleased Stephen Harper. "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy…These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party" Dion continued in this vein and today Michael Igantieff also does. By turning every social program on offer into a form of welfare, the ability of the Liberals to offer anything other than tax cuts is very limited. It goes without saying that means tested social programs do not win elections; the populace is not going to get excited about paying for a service that only a small percentage of the public can use. Without returning to the concept of the universality the Liberals are destined to become virtually indistinguishable from the Conservatives on all but social issues and Ignatieff seems hell bent on changing that.

Of course, the one exception to such a dispiriting turn is the Liberals early childhood proposal. However, even here there are major problems. First and foremost, it is unclear as to what the Liberals are offering. The goal of the program was ostensibly to work with the provinces to set up an early childhood education program for children under 6. However, to the average voter this amounted to little more than a vague promise to provide more daycare -- which the Liberals said early childhood education was not --- at sometime in the future; they could not figure out what this would mean for their lives. To add insult to injury, Liberals willingness to consider different deals for different provinces has muddied things all the more.

If the Liberals reintroduce such a program in the future, they need to present it in a form in which voters can understand. This is what they should do. They should promise to provide all day preschool and kindergarten for every 4 and 5 year old in Canada.

Fall unfolding like it always does

Its fall, and like every fall the leaves are turning colour and beginning to fall and Conservatives are beating the Liberals like circus monkeys. It is true; the Conservatives do not have much front end talent when compared to past Liberal governments and we are all the worse for it. However, one thing the Conservatives have that the Liberals do not is back room boys with a clue. Given all summer to prepare, the Liberals brass gave us Michael in the woods. Michael in the Woods! Scott Reid and David Herle were rightly ridiculed for what happened to the Liberals in 2004 and 2006. However, when lined up against who has come since they look like geniuses.

Euthanasia and Afghanistan: Ignatieff must pass the test

The Ignatieff faces two upcoming litmus tests. The first one is Quebec's euthanasia debate; Quebec doctors want it. If the Liberals are so thick as to not throw their weight behind Quebec doctors, they deserve to loose the next election. The second is Afghanistan. The Conservatives promised to extend the Afghanistan mission past 2011. This is an opportunity. Spending a billions on mission that is doomed to failure and greatly increases the likelihood that Canada will be attacked by terrorists home grown or otherwise. However, given Igantieff's track record, I would not hold my breath.

The Conservative's Baby Bonus

Give the Tories credit. In marked contrast to the Liberal's early childhood education plan, the Tory baby bonus is truly universal, and did not take years to implement. Once upon a time the Liberals believed in universality. However, beyond half heartedly defending universal social programs they introduced in the 1960s, the Liberals idea of universality these days is pandering to all groups in equal measure. Ever since Martin and Chretein the Liberals have supported nothing but means tested social programs and an early childhood education plan that was so inadequately funded it hardly deserved to be called universal. The Liberals are kidding themselves if they think they can win elections by promising benefits to one group of people and having us all pay for that program. Given a choice between Tory tax cuts and paying for other people's social services, the portion of the populace that is not eligible --pretty much everybody --- will take the offer of a Tory tax cuts every time. Furthermore, it is also infinitely easier to explain a universal social program --- everybody gets X -- then it is explaining a means tested policy.

Liberals, Conservatives and Law and Order Issues

The political advantage the Conservatives get from justice issues is not from their being major differences between the major parties, but from other factors. One such factor is the very subject being debated. As Tom Flanagan crowed after the 2006 election, there are certain issues that favour the Conservatives and the economy is one. No matter how successful the Liberals were in balancing the books and creating jobs, Conservative research suggested that when it came to economics people trusted the Conservatives more than they did the Liberals. It not much of leap to suggest the same is true for crime. After all, to presume that the public has a working knowledge of each party's justice policies is giving the public way too much credit; the public trades in stereotypes and they are always going to believe that Conservatives are tougher. This is especially so now. The Conservatives are in power and while 'tougher' crime measures grab headlines, Liberal support for those measures does not. To add insult to injury even if the Liberals were able to convince Canadians that they support all Conservative measures, and I very much doubt that they can, the Conservatives have argued and will continue to argue that Liberals had ability to introduce such policies when they were in power and failed to do so. In sum, sentencing measures, are a loosing proposition for the Liberals and following in line will not stop the bleeding. The public discourse is not evidence based.

So what can the Liberals do when it comes to justice issues. They have to change the debate to one about sentencing to one based on the law itself. This always ignites debate; for in marked contrast to sentencing issues, were the public's profound ignorance and dogmatism crowds out any debate, the public loves discussing such issues. Doing so also changes the political dynamics; the Liberals go from looking weak to looking edgy and the Conservatives go from looking tough to looking regressive. Trudeau's Omnibus bill was edgy; SSM was edgy. Of course this presupposes that there are issues that the Liberals can throw their support behind and not get killed politically. Luckily for the Liberals there are two. The first one is euthanasia and the if the Liberals are so thick as to not throw their weight behind Quebec doctors, they deserve to loose the next election. This one is a no brainier. The other one is an issue I have been harping on for years and that is the legalization of marijuana.

Now whenever I have suggested such a position before I have been greeted by a scores of Liberals suggesting that decrimalization and not legalization is the way to go. My answer as always been the same. There is no political benefit to merely decriminalizing marijuana; among other things, it is just not that edgy and it does not break open the libertarian social conservative divide. Furthermore, the Liberals really need to take a stand. They can not continue to straddle both sides of political divide. When it comes to marijuana for example their position on possession has been pretty lax since Chretein quipped that he would have a joint in one hand and the money for his fine in other. At the same time, they have been ever more supportive of tougher penalties for drug trafficking . To say that such stances are mutually inconsistent would be an understatement. How can consuming a joint be no worse than speeding and something virtually every Liberal leader can laugh about but passing one worthy of a year in jail?

Liberals Can No Longer stay the Course

There is no evidence that the Conservatives are going to impode. Indeed, far from it. All the evidence suggests that the Conservative numbers have returned to where they have been for almost 4 years now, i.e., around 36 to 37 percent. The Liberal spring numbers appear now as fleeting and shallow as the Montreal convention numbers. Furthermore, outside of Quebec, there no evidence that the Liberals are making any inroads. This is in marked contrast to what the Conservatives are doing; the Conservatives seem to be consolidating some of the gains they made in Ontario, the Maritimes and in BC at the Liberals expense during Dion's reign.

Needless to say, there also no evidence that Michael Igantieff has the ability to charm. He is not charismatic; he is not funny; and he does not wow people with his looks. Strip away the intellectual and there is nothing there to sell. Those liberal bloggers that trumpeted the Michael in the woods ads as being positive ought of be ashamed of themselves. The ad was predictably bad -- although no worse than the horrible "positive" ads Dion ran in the last election. If the Liberals are going to continue to run away from substantive issues, I at least hope the Liberal brass comes to realize that when it comes to ads "we can do better" we can go negative. Now to be fair, the party is not the only one falling down on selling the leader; Igantieff's attempt to appear rooted by intertwining his family's personal history with that of country's bores both the public and pundits to tears.

So were do the Liberals go from here. They have to reverse course. So far the Liberal approach has been to move closer to the Conservatives on the big picture issues (e.g., Afghanistan, taxes and crime) well all the well hyping minor differences and shrilly complaining about minor scandals. Such an approach is doomed to failure. Your average Canadian knows next to nothing about politics, especially about political minutiae, and furthermore does not care that it does not know, . If the Liberals continue down this road, the Liberals will be no better off than they are now. A bored and apathetic public will return a Conservative minority to power or worse give Harper a majority.

The Liberals have to run towards controversial social issues and not away from them. Ignatieff has spent too much time in the US. The party has deluded itself into believing that issues such as same same marriage and the gun registry has hurt the party in Ontario, especially with evangalgical voters. There is very little to recommend such a blinkered view. 1) The combined Alliance and PC vote in 2000 was much higher than the total Conservative vote in 2004. Ontario residents did not migrate to the NDP because they were miffed about SSM and the gun registry implemented some 6 years before. 2) To pretend that Liberal Onatrio totals between 1993 and 2000 were normal is laughable. The country voted regionally like never before and this included Ontario. 3) While there is no evidence to suggest that SSM cost the Liberals a single seat west of Ontario, there is evidence to believe that such policies helped the Liberals in the Lowermainland. The Liberals went up there in 2004 and 2006 despite a marked downturn in national numbers. 4) Quebec is the one part of Canada the Liberals have change to grow and social liberalism seems the best means of putting the Conservatives on the run there and attracting Quebec voters.

Above all else, the Liberals need to again embrace universality. That means embracing the social democratic success of the 1960s, the core of the party's brand and promising to build on them. It also means abandoning, as much as possible, the degenerite liberalism assocaited with collective rights, affirmative action and asymmetrical federalism.

Ignatieff and crew: Too boring not too Toronto

Word has it that Ignatieff and crew are too 416 heavy. The pundits are wrong. No self respecting urbanite would identify with party that is about as edgy as Mr Rogers. The Liberals are the party of the status quo and their vote for us we are safe and boring mantra appeals to no one.

The Liberals have forgotten their roots. Sure they talk about Lester Pearson, Trudeau, Health care and the Canadian pension plan. However, the party has abandoned the principle of universality and it is hard see this group of insipid accountants introducing anything half as bold as Trudeau's Omnibus bill. If they ever want regain the interest of Canadians, they better give both a hard look.

My Political Wish List

Things that need to be legalized

1) marijuana,

2) prostitution

3) euthanasia.


Needed Federal Programs

1) Dental dental

2) National Child Care program

3) Natonal Drug plan


Upgrading of national standards

1) National minimum wage

2) Miniumum 4 weeks vacation a year. This is the European minimum.

3) Massive increase the number of ridings. The hinterlands have way too much electoral clout.


Things that need to be abolished

1) Native Rights If someone was to suggest that land should be reserved for, say, Chinese Canadians and that Chinese Canadians should have rights that other Canadians do not have, you would first ask them to lie down; you would then call 911 and tell the person at the other end of the line that you believe that the person before you had suffered a stroke and that paramedics should come quick. Whether it be billions lost to illegal cigarette sales, or setting up school food programs for kids who live on land that if divided equally would net them tens of millions on the open market, it hard to think of anything quite so daft.

2) The Senate.

3) Family Unification If the main point of a high rate of immigration is to lessen the effects of an aging population, what sense does it make to allow immigrants to sponsor their parents and grandparents? The average immigrant to Canada is only a bit younger than the average Canadian. Now do not get me wrong. Canada needs more immigrants -- alot more. Canada needs to at least triple the number of economic immigrants to Canada each year. However at the same time as it needs to do that, it needs to all but eliminate every other category of immigrant. Also, there needs to be a greater emphasis and youth, and language skills.

4) The ability of employers to bring in unskilled temporary workers. The Canadian tax payer should not be paying to have temporary unskilled workers brought in just so the Tim Horton's and company can undercut wages of Canadians. If they want workers, they can pay the piper.

The Liberal Ads are Stupid

The Liberals think they can win by being dull, boring, middle of the road and above all nice. The Liberals strategists seem convinced that if only the Liberals successfully put the Canadian people asleep, when they wake they will vote Liberal in droves. This is the only way of making sense of those moronic Michael in the woods ads and party's complete unwillingness to release interesting policy.

Of course the ads are more than just a complete waste of money. It is hard to think of an ad campaign that could do more harm. Ignatieff has all the charisma of a funeral home director --- and rather than distract Canadians focus they draw attention to this very fact. To add insult to injury, the ads build on the campaign the Conservatives unleashed against Dion. The Conservatives successfully painted Dion as a wimp. Apparently, the Liberals decided that why stop with Dion? Why not portray the entire Liberal party as wimps? The Liberals can support any number of brain dead Conservative crime bills. It will not do a lick of good if the Liberals are spending millions having Igantieff say some motivational crap in the middle of a forest. He is sweater short of Mr Rogers. Nothing says soft on crime like a forest setting, cheesy music and promise that "we can do better".

If the Liberals truly wanted to counter the Conservative ad campaign, then they could first unveil some bold new policy. With no Liberal platform to speak of, the Conservatives are having a easy time portraying Ignatieff as in it only for himself. The Liberals can also start firing back. That would at least show that public that Ignatieff was not a wimp like Dion was. Be more like Trudeau. He literally told his political opponents to fuck off.

The Conservatives have made Ignatieff's past an issue. So make Stephen Harper's past an issue. Juxtapose Harper's serial Canadian bashing with Ignatieff's academic, and journalistic achievments. Yes I know that would mean bringing the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of the closest. However, the notion this was something to be downplayed and did play well in seats that the Liberals actually have a chance of winning is ridiculous. For the hundred time the Liberals need to regain what they lost in suburban Toronto, and Vancouver and hope for breakthrough in Quebec. The flip side of dragging the cosmopotain Ignatieff out of closet is that doing so might stop Ignatieff from turning every other speech into a talk about his long dead relatives.

Afghan Myths

1) They want us there. In the country as a whole this is true, but in 4 provinces where the fighting is concentrated it is not. Over 2 thirds of Afghans in Kandahar province want us gone.

2) The Afghan army is making progress. Indeed they are. However three things need to be pointed out. One, the army is made up of a dispropriate number of ethnic minorities, e.g., Harara in the Kandahar region. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/12/08/081208fa_fact_wood Far from being a source of stability this can be source of instability. Two, the capability of the Taliban is growing faster than the effectiveness of the Afghan army. As one US marine was recently commented, "they fight like marines now". And of course they do; every technique that the US passes on to the Afghan army is passed on to the Taliban. Three, the army might be doing better, but the Afghan police force is still an unmediated disaster.

3) If Canada leaves, then Afghanistan risks again becoming home to Al Qaeda training bases. This is just silly. For starters, if Canada leaves, the US will still be there. For another 911 gave the US carte blanche to take out any Al Qaeada base in Afghanistan until the end of time. For Christ sakes, the US has no qualms about targeting Al Qaeda figures in Pakistan.

4) Canada being there makes us less likely to be attacked. Thank god we have moved beyond this little ditty. This talking point has always been the height of intellectual dishonsty To wit: When the would be Ontario bombers were arrested Andrew Coyne noted on the National that Al Qaeda had long listed Canada as a potential target, that no Western country is immune from attack, and that the arrests were yet further reason for pursuing a more muscular approach in Afghanistan. What Coyne failed to note however was that the would be bombers did not have any connection to Al Qaeda, according to the Crown the accused were motivated by the Afghan mission and the reason Al Qaeda has targeted Canada is because of our presence in Afghanistan. This is the Al Qaeda threat Coyne was referring to.
“What do your governments want from their alliance with America in attacking usin Afghanistan? I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germanyand Australia.”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/osamabinladen/tape.html

(Subsequently, Al Qaeda twice threatened Canada with terror acts because of Afghanistan. In one of those times, Al Qaeda’s second in command referred to Canada has “second rate crusaders”. http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e9f20f44-ec19-470c-9ac3-6c79218d4d91 )

Only an ideologue would have the chutzpah to use Al Qaeda’s threat related to our presence in Afghanistan as proof that Al Qaeda will attack any western target, as if Switzerland and the US are equally likely targets, and that we should therefore step up operations in Afghanistan.

Of course, the threat the Afghan mission poises to Canada goes beyond the economics and loss of life. A terrorist attack, inspired by Canada 's presence in Afghanistan, might revitalize the Quebec’s separatist movement, especially if Quebec is the victim. Currently the Afghan mission is opposed by 70% of Quebecers. If Quebecers die as a result of us being there, the separatists will use it as a reason why Quebecers need their own country with its own foreign policy. Given what has transpired in Ontario, what happened in Spain and Britain, the chances of such an attack or not insignificant.

Finally, 20% of Canadians are born outside the country and Canada has the highest per capita immigration rate in the world. A terrorist attack has the potential to badly maul Canada's social fabric.

"You aint seen nothing yet"

The Liberals do not have answer for the strongly hinted at immigration reforms, they do not have answer to the Conservatives idiotic crime push, they do have answer to equally stupid senate reform and they not have answer to those Conservative ads. The party is completely devoid of ideas and scared of its own shadow. The party does not set the agenda; they only respond to the Conservative one. All we have seen from the Liberals, at least in English Canada, is that horrible ad.

Hockey Camp invites

Let me get this straight. Dan Hamhuis, Dan Cleary, and Marc Staal are good enough to get an invite to camp, but Jason Spezza, Marc Savard, Brain Campbell are not. This looks like 2006 all over again. That year Crosby, Spezza, E. Staal did not make the team as starters but Kris Draper did! One person that should have been left off the list and thankfully was, was Chris Osgood. He had a 887 save % last year. That was the lowest total of any starting goalie in the league. His backup Ty Conklin had a 909 save %.

There is no way that all three Staal brothers should have been invited. One look at Marc Staal's numbers tells the whole story. 3 goals 12 helpers and minus 7 do not gold medals make. As for Jordan, he did not even top 50 points last year and he is no selke candidate. Indeed, he was given the task of checking Ovechkin in the playoffs. Ovechkin finished the series with 8 goals and 6 helpers in 7 games.

Here is rough break down of who I would have as the final 25.

G: Mason, Brodeur, Luongo

D: Burns, Weber, Pronger, Niedermayer, Keith, Bouwmeester, Phaneuff, Green

F: Getzlaf (C), E. Staal (W), Nash (W), Thorton (C), Heatley (W), Crosby (C), LeCaviler (C), St. Louis (W), Doan (W), Ignalia (W) Carter (C), Richards (C) Marleau (W) Toews (W)

Move Carter and E. Staal to the wings. Staal moved to the rightwing to play with Getzlaf and Nash in the world Championships.

Did Ahmadinejad kill Michael Jackson?

To say the least, it is depressing that the Major Networks have left the Iran story so that they could cover the Michael Jackson Story.

6 Reasons why Mandatory Minimums for Drug Crimes are bad Idea

1) Imprisoning someone is hugely expensive and in terms of bang for your buck, by far and away the worst form of crime prevention.

2) Longer sentences do not deter junkies in anyway. The research on this is clear. The same goes for gang bangers. With regard to gang bangers, it is the likelihood of arrest and not the severity of punishment that deters them.

3) Conservatives are using a dragnet approach and this causes more harm then good. Mandatory minimums, especially for drug crimes, radically curtail social mobility and encourages social dislocation. With all the emphasis conservatives place on "family values", you would think that conservatives would realize having a critical mass of young fathers in lower income neighborhoods in jail does not do wonders for "family values". Once you get a critical mass of ex cons in area, the prospect of taking back that neighborhood from the gangs is virtually nil.

4) With all the focus the Conservatives have given to crime issues you would think that it is of foremost concern. However, crime is not a problem in Canada. The Conservatives --- and Liberals -- are promising to build a bridge when there is no body of water. Crime is down and becoming more concentrated among those on the margins of society. If one is not involved in the drug trade or prostitution, the chances of one being a victim of a violent crime are very slight indeed.

5) Locking up more and more gang members is no way to weaken the reach of gangs. The individuals might suffer but the organizations thrive. Indeed, plenty of gangs started as prison gangs (e.g., the Red Command and the PCC is Brazil and the Aryan Brotherhood in the US) and other gangs spread as result (e.g., the Crips and Bloods).

6) Yes drug related crime is going through the roof. However, cracking down on drugs, ,especially now, does more harm than good. There is near universal agreement on experts that mandatory minimums for drug related offensives do not reduce crime. A better approach would be to decriminalize the possession of all drugs a la what Portugal did, adopt heroin maintenance programs a la what the Swiss did and above all legalize marijuana. Marijuana is the seed capital for whole host of criminal activities. We need to nip this is the bud.

If Phil Fontaine, Why not Bernard Landry et al too?

"Wooed by federal political parties and corporate Canada, Assembly of First Nations national Chief Phil Fontaine is contemplating leaving the native organization, forgoing a run for a fourth term, a close friend says.
The federal Liberal and NDP parties have both asked Fontaine to run in the next federal election,"
http://www.calgaryherald.com/First+Nations+chief+considers+offers+from+corporate+world/1638152/story.html

In related news Liberals are courting, Bernard Landry, Lucien Bouchard, and Jacques Parizeau and using Jean Lapierre as a go between.

Liberals: Canada's Seinfeld Party

First the Liberals held a Seinfeld convention. Now with the demand for universal EI standard off the table the transformation is complete. The Liberals stand for nothing. They are Canada's Seinfeld Party. Indeed, the Liberals idea of universality these days is to pander to all groups in equal measure. The following are but a few examples. Quebec wanted to be recognized as a nation; presto it was so. When it came to equalization, the Maritimes wanted their oil revenues not to be counted and presto the Atlantic Accord was passed. One can only imagine if Alberta asked for the same. Canada's native community wanted the farm and and presto the provinces championed an accord, the Kelowna Accord, that the Liberal said the feds would fit the bill for.

As for Ignatieff, he claims he is Pearson Liberal, but he has proved time and again that he is willing to dress up in Conservative drag in order to attract the Tim Horton's crowd.

Are the Liberals worth supporting?

Lost in all the excitement about the Liberals moving up in the polls are questions about the Liberal party itself. Are the Liberals worth supporting? These days it seems to me that the only redeeming feature about the Liberals are that they are not Conservatives.