myata

I truly emphasise with your extremely painful experiences; no doubt it could have affected your intellectual capabilites; please forgive me my earlier, insensitive, comments. On the positive side, have you tried to seek a treatment, like e.g. for post-traumatic stress disorder? BTW discussing your past experiences was very insightful, but how exactly does it relate to the topic at hand?

If the aim was to prevent harm to pregnant, the way would have been to add it as a factor in sentencing, in the existing law (after a good discussion that is - how far we want to go defining special categories of citizens which are more "valuable" than everybody else?). This bill is specifically centered around harm to fetus. Nice try selling it as another goodie from Harper's "get tough on crime" basket. As it stands though, it's pure and simple about writing down something, anything, that would give it, fetus, some special unique status, or privilege. With the view, no doubt (otherwise why go through all the trouble?) to have it expanded should an opportunity (majority?) present itself.

OK, I got it, you don't understand... unfortunately, shouting about it won't make you any smarter.

In my understanding, it means 1) intellectual capacity to understand the challenges of the day, and come up with bold innovative solutions to meet them; and 2) courage and persistency to see them implemented in practice, and defend them if the need be. I agree it's one of the loaded words, but the alternative to not using it would be to invent a new one; anyways, in line with above, introducing the Charter was progressive; as well, implementation of some of the core national programs; also maybe eliminating deficit and restoring the country back to economic prosperity; What is important to understand, "progressive" in its true meaning is an attribute of one's current state, moment of development; not an adjective, that being added to the title, makes the bearer progressive forever. What's progressive at this time? Some challenges were already mentioned in the OP; such as, revival of democracy; measures to adress climate change, and general sustainability; vision for economic prosperity in the changing world (bulk manufacturing migrating overseas, general shortage of resources); social policies (e.g standardized quality daycare); None of the main political parties have both ingredients to be called "progressive"; the question about the other two is hypothetical because they won't have any realisitic chance to put their policies into practice, unless some major development a la OP happens. In my view, the Liberals began to lose their "progressive" status in the late years of Chretien; when the things got called from the PM office based on the chief's wish of the day, as opposed to democratic discussion and principle. Finally, I'd like to think that watching a game with a 4-pack of beer doesn't define Canadian's individuality, including political affiliation. If "bread and circuses" were all we aspire for, I don't see why we would ever need all this complicated democratic structures, multiple parties etc the ancestors left to us. Something more like China's model would suit us just fine.

No - looks like the simple, clear question just can't be answered.... They did it, but just can't explain why. Must be, divine inspiration... Of course, fits quite naturally into Harpers one little step at a time strategy - you know, piece of death penalty here, bit of pro-life there. But Liberals? Is that the kind of reinvention we're going to see from them, now?

And the next day - after it's passed (if it's passed - I still hope, not), let me guess - he (or somebody else around) will have a revelation? It's fun to watch you skipping around an easy, clear question: why is it (the bill, special status) needed, in the first place? If their intentions are this innocent and clear, surely it shouldn't be such an impossible thing?

It's no secret that the Liberals of today are failing to play the role of consistently progressive, socially responsible alternative to the Harper's conservatives. And it's not simply a matter of leadership, serious as it is. Since their days of glory, in establishing national social programs, or national framework of human rights, much water has flown. Being progressive today requires the will and courage to define and put forward the vision of today, and for tomorrow, not that of 20 or 50 years back. I can't see them living up to that challenge; not in their current condition, in the least. They are, very simply put, not cool anymore. Yes we kept pushing their button for a while, out of habit, or for the lack of better options; but at some point you start wondering. So, there're two main possibilities: #1 they reform (reinvent, as the busness keyword goes); or #2 someone else takes the place of progressive alternative in the country. I'll start with the latter, because it's more interesting, not necessarily more likely, alternative. #2 New progressive socially responsible allegiance in Canada Of course, it cannot emerge out of nowhere; if anything were to happen, it must be already here, somewhere; and something is here: Green party has been rating up to 12% in the polls. Granted, that's not enough to earn them as much as one seat in the parliament; something has to happen; But what? As has been already pointed out by many, there's certain similarity in some parts of Greens' and NDP's platforms; to the extent that Jack Layton recently added a generous dollop of green onto his party's colours. But seriously: NDP rated in the upper teens, close to 20%. Take out the radical 5% who will never accept any compromise, and the democratic base (15%) combined with Green's 12% will be counting in the upper twenties. Enough for an opposition, but not there yet to seriously contend an election. They'll need to attract the progressive wing of the Liberals. Libs are rating in the low-to-mid 30%. Take half of that, and the Green-Orange core (27%), combined with the Liberal red (15%+), and we're talking about majority territory (wondering what the resulting colour of the mix would look like). Majority they'll need to put forward truly democratic agendas, like some form of proportional representation; like direct democracy for important decisions, such as entering a war; economic and social programs fit for the 21 century; Certainly, there're major obstacles and/or challenges: #1 is the will to move forward on both sides; #2, the leadership; #3, the timing (Liberal supporters won't start migrating en masse until the alternative is firmly established, out of fear of splitting the vote). What would be their chances? #1 Liberal reform. I'm not following party politics closely so much of this is a view from the bottom of the pond. And the doesn't seem to be very promising. The current wave of leadership (Dion, Ignatieff, Rae) are all mired in something; while not offering anything bold and clear to make a new start. Of the trio, I cheered for Dion (won't deny that), he appeared to be the most likely to offer new fresh ideas; of course there was no way for us to know how inadept he was (and is) to the leadership role. Of the new echelon (Kennedy, Hall Findlay) I can't say anything. They're nowhere in sight. Dunno what it is (a pecking order, guessing) but the personas of party's top ranks are nowhere in public sight, there they could expose, and discuss, their views, visions and ideas. Betting on them now would be like another blind shot. Hit and miss. Is there anybody else? Don't know - but if there's, they'll have to be found with a microscope. Chances of that scenario: ?? #3 Finally (I don't want to rate it, to keep positive outlook on life), the last possibility will be, no change. Nothing. Pure and eternal Status Quo. Jack Layon wallowing in the freedom to oppose anything to anybody; without a slightest effect; Greens continuing their uphill struggle under the blankets; and Dion trudging along waiting for the Godo's arrival. OK, I'm off for a coffee.

No I don't need to argue anything; that argument will be used by those seeking to sneak in restrictions on abortion, including those who voted for it in the Liberal caucus, in the next incarnation of this bill. Just watch them. You're so adept at asking questions... Here's my question to you (and sorry to remind, its' already been asked a few times in case you didn't notice): if we all, men and women, are already protected by the existing law, against harm to our bodies, what is the point of this bill? I.e. (please answer this clearly, because the question is as clear as it gets), why does the fetus, unlike any other organ, need a special protection in a law specially designed for that?

Funny; you don't understand; OK, one more time: Certainly, because there's already a law against any bodily harm, there'd be no need, no point, no reason, for special laws against harm to fingers, toes, arms, legs, and so on, fetuses included. Correct, so far? Or, maybe, it's a glaring missed opportunity, and such laws (heads and shoulders, knees and toes could become an appropriate legal term) should be made?? Sure, if you so think...Why start with fetuses though? Wouldn't some other organ merit higher priority? I wonder.... Now here, somebody is making a point that fetus does need special consideration; it isn't like any other "bodily part"; i.e, has a special status; still following me? Now we can start speculating... if a fetus has that special status, what kind of status it could be? Perhaps that of a human? a living human maybe? and what if life of that "human" is in danger? Still there? That Liberals, unlike other opposition parties, voted for this bill (many of them) is a shame; coinsided with the fact that the party can't come up with a clear statement on the issue sucks big deal. Try to convince us now that they're oh so different from the Harperites. After Afghanistan, and this, I got my binoculars out and still struggling to spot it, maybe you could help me?

Yes you're wrong. The law provides for special consideration when harm is inflicted on a pregnant woman; pregnant woman is a woman with a living fetus; therefore this law indeed provides for some special consideration of the case with fetus; this is just one of the lines of argument this "precedent" law can be attempted to be extended in the future.

You mean, we need a special law, to make it a separate offence, and a sentence, for causing harm to an arm? Leg? Foot? Shoulder? Finger? In your logic? Surely, there're already laws against causing any bodily harm? The only reason for making a special case for the fetus, is to give it, fetus, special status. And, if that is the reason, why do you think they'd stop here? Would it worth the trouble?

Because if a fetus is a living thing, a human, in the eventuality (of the social conservative thought) it'll be eligible for all rights and protections of such. When the rights of two "individuals" are in conflicts, to the extent of one's survival, whose right will trump whose? Correct, very slippery slope.

Yes it's been discussed and debated, and yes the idea is to pull through the notion that a fetus has some special independent status. A foot in the door. The laws to protect any individual against violent crime already exist, and making special allowance for pregnancy is nothing less than allowing that special status. Watch out for more, from CPC a la Harper. Even as much complicit in this are Dion's Liberals. As a matter of fact, I'm growing increasingly dissatisfied with the bunch; not for all the gaffes they (he?) made, make and will make in the future; but for a consistent ongoing failure to define their principles, and stand up for them. No, I'm not voting for them in the next election, due to an earlier commitment. And, if this dithering on the brink continues, I'll have to consider realigning my allegiances on a more permanent basis.

Hey, Dancer, should we appoint you as our local expert on nutbar topics? No? Then I recommend - no, insist, on your staying away from topics you've nothing of substance to contribute. Sounds fair?

Not disputing any of what you're saying below... most UN missions did not involve full blown invasion of a country; direct participation in an armed confrontation; forceful removal of the government; direct involvement in fighting insurgency; and so on. That is the part that's making me, and many others, uneasy. Not the fact that we have our people with arms there. What we're taking direct part in the country's internal conflict, on one side. I.e instead of maintaining a credible position of keepers of the peace settled by the people of the country, we're trying to tell them (make them) what the peace should be. This hasn't been our role before, and if we had to assume it now, we should at the very least hear (and understand), why. No, I can't recall any serious discussion of the matter; even e.g on the same level with eg. last budget's tax cuts. Yet we're talking about exporting democracy; way of life; putting our lives at risk, and spending uncounted billions. How does this happen, I just can't fathom. We have a process for everything, a pen can't be pushed without some prolong ongoing discussion, etc, and then someone comes around, says "we've to go" and lo, we're now in a war... The new (as often, forgotten old) is that going to a war is not a triffle. It shouldn't be done lightly, for little reason, like to please an old buddy; if there's a reason to do this war, we should, by now, know it very well; if we aren't sure, then it's best to stay away. And it's not a revelation; there's a bunch of other countries sitting in the safe provinces on non-combat roles; maybe we should be doing just the same; i.e. let the government set itself up in the unstable provinces first; make sure that it's well established and can provide security; then move in with assistance, training, etc. That way, there will be no question of legitimacy; less suspicion of intervention; less backlash against the foreigners. there's no such thing as "not changeable"; but all change begins with asking questions; ... while they are there, agreed. Or we may decide (ie. cause the government to decide) that they're (and indeed, we all are, in the long perspective) better off home, or at least in another place .... except that a wrong mission (i.e e.g impossible mission) cannot be completed; throwing more money and equipment into it won't make much difference, in the eventuality, only prolong suffering (recall US in Vietnam, Soviets in the same Afghan); and, without good, very good consideration, how can we be sure that the mission is well defined and has a reasonable chance of success?? the nature of the mission is defined by us, i.e our real goals in it; if we're genuinly looking to stop a crime against humanity from being perpetrated, we don't need to invade the country and redesign it top down; a few painful lessons to the top of the command chain will be enough; and can be achieved with very few resources (compared to a full blown invasion); won't result in insurgency because there's no occupation; and the objective will be actually achieved in very reasonable terms of time because nobody likes to suffer for long, least of all cream of pie, who only surmise these nasty things because they're sure they'll get away with it; the only downside is that we can't be assured that the place will wake up next morning into a bliss of eternal democracy; if that, the latter, is our true objective, then indeed we're bound to go in in force, fight fierce insurgency, bleed, and who knows, maybe find out about futility of the mission and retreat.

If it's a matter of terminology, apologies for my insensitivity. Nobody means to say that traditional peacekeeping missions are about planting the flowers and can be done by kids on a school project. Peace keeping missions can be as dangerous as any and will require every bit of expertise; skill; equipment; organization etc and not necessarily in the order of priority. The key difference: peace keeping missions do not attempt to interfere in the local politics. They observe and enforce agreements that were already in place. To avoid future misunderstanding, I propose to use this terminology, note that all missions are meant to be foreign with significant involvement of the army; therefore defence operations on our own soil, or assistance programs on the level of exchange/information sharing / training are outside of the scope of this discussion - peacekeeping mission: has for objective to enforce existing peace agreement(s); does not interfere with the local policies; - police mission: has for objective achievement or implementation of certain condition, such as: ceasefire; termination of crime against humanity in progress; neutralization of hostile activity, without general interference in the local policies; - and finally, in Manley's report words, peace enforcement mission: has for objective significant change of the local policies. If you're OK with these definitions for now, I'll add more comments at a later time.

Count me in. Unless that "mutually respectful relationship" means multi-billion payouts, forever. Here's the thing. You can sit in the desolated overcrowded government build nobody giving any darn about falling apart cabin, waiting for the manna to start raining from the sky, and blaming whole world around you for your misery; Or, you can find a job and take your life in your hands; You have all the rights to make the choice; and the outcome will be the result of it. Simple. Your choice; your life; nobody to blame; responsibility.

Sure, if only one could get all the independent voices muzzled (like Nuclear energy watchdog; Elections Canada), there'll be no limit to cleaneliness, and transparency of this government. It'll fly right into the sky. And now, that they nearly perfected the subtle art of policy changes, it's all within their grasp. Too bad someone called it this time around, but surely there's always next.

I hope it was very clear from the context (to preempt another long excurses into histories) that at question is not a survival combat mission, not even, unless by a big long stretch, a defense combat mission; no, we're talking about "peace enforcement" combat mission. When did any of these ever work? With what success rate? What did they achieve? Questions, questions; everything was so nice and easy when somebody pointed a finger and said: there, your enemy, go! Who cares that couple of generations later they'll regret, apologize, and (try to) clean up the mess, right?

NDP position on Afghanistan Could not find official statement of Green party, but many stories and blogs on the subject found in their website (greenparty.ca) seem to be bringing up the same questions: i.e why are we engaged in a combat mission, while our traditional position has been peacekeeping and peaceful assistance? When, by whom, and how was the change made? This question seems to be the key to Canadian's uneasiness with the current state of the mission. Many do not believe that "installing" or "building" progress in another, totally different society, by force, is possible, or practical. Or worth our money and lives. I only see two meaningful outcomes from this impasse: - one, a serious and open discussion of the "peace enforcement" aspect of the mission; which Manley report above is so obviously lacking; i.e: is it viable; what are the objectives it is intended to achieve; risk and negative effects; criteria of progress / failure; scenarios, etc. - two, if #1 isn't forthcoming (e.g because main political parties aren't interested in, a serious and open discussion), we should call for the termination of the military mission, and not necessarily after 2011. Given the critical nature of the matter - getting involved in a war, on other peoples's land, that we condemned so many times before - the risk of getting it wrong is just too great.

They might as well try to throw their billions into massive construction of amusement parks now .. who knows, what if it'll work?!

So, barbarism is, somehow, a remedy for insanity?

Manley report I reread the report following this discussion, and find it even less impressing than on the first reading. The important questions relating to 1) why are we there; and 2) what are we trying to achieve; aren't given anywhere enough analysis given the scale of our involvement or cost and risk for our troops and personnel. From a panel like this I'd expect an honest complete analysis which would not hop around critical questions with commonplace truisms or matter of fact statements. I'd like to see a clear picture of possible outcomes, with clear definition of criteria / probability / cost / risk analysis for each. Not a whitewash of the status quo with an occasional patch here and there. I find it utterly discouraging that a decision on this scale can be made behind the doors virtually with no public discussion. That's just too bad, for an advanced 21 century democracy; before we go educate other peoples abroad, we should fix it here first, so that next time we have to "go", we'll know there and then why, and how, and do we really have to. Not postfactum from a panel, instructed to explain and justify already accomplished fact. -------------------------- Some of my comments, for completeness: Page 10: Perl: “NATO coalition and Afghan forces were engaged in military action against Al Quaeda in Afghanistan. As a result of that action, the Taleban regime collapsed …” Page 12: background on Taleban does not give any estimate of Taleban’s popular support or fighting power. Page 20: objectives: logical leap from “countering the terrorism” to “help build a stable and developing country in which the rights of all citizens are respected”. For the first, a number of alternative strategies were available; the second, is it even possible? Page 21: what is this: “UN’s capacity to respond to threats to peace and security and to foster better futures in the world’s developing countries” Page 22: and this: “protection and promotion of human security in fragile states” Page 23: for whatever reason it happened: “In 2005 Canada chose, for whatever reason, to assume leadership of a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Kandahar City and the security obligations that went with it.” Page 24: reiteration “Afghans themselves must ultimately acquire the forces needed to defend their own security”. Yet no analysis of meaning of that statement, as well as reasons for insufficiency of the current forces is provided. Page 30: matter of factly: “training and mentoring Afghan forces sometimes means conducting combat operations with them.” Why should it, though? Page 31: options overlooked one obvious solution: Afghan forces provide security, while UN assists with development. If Afghan forces in their current numbers are unable to provide security, explanation / analysis of the reasons / future developments should be given. Page 32: important questions of viability and ultimately, legitimacy of the “peace-enforcement operation” are skipped matter-of-factly. Page 33: “the aim was not to create some fanciful model of prosperous democracy” compare with p.78 “Afghanistan compact” and its reality in the region around. Page 33: cons of “premature military withdrawal” aren’t clearly and logically explained, and in some instances questionnable or plain weak Page 35: “to repeat: a successful counter insurgency campaign requires more ISAF forces”. Repeating it doesn’t explain the reasons, or prove that more forces would change situation to the better in the long term. Page 78: Afghanistan Compact Benchmarks: one look is enough to show that compact is based purely on the Western model of society that is being imposed on Afghanistan because it’s occupied. No such conditions are imposed on any of the countries in the region, including presumed Western allies (e.g Egypt, Saudi Arabia).

Maybe, you're right, maybe I should write a petition, maybe I will... for whatever its worth. But remember, I didn't start this; nor did people of this country, at least in clear majority (and clear understanding of what, and why, we're doing there). What frightens and amazes me at the same time, is the ease with which a bunch of paranoido-megalomaniacs managed to dupe us into starting two totally unnecessary full blown wars that will send ripples over generations; after all the bloody experiences of the relatively recent past; countless "wars to end all wars"; colonizations; Vietnam; it only only took one tragic, extremely tragic incident, to send us into the warring spiral all over again. With nobody having any clue when and how it could end. Tony "ballistic missile" Blair and George "WMD" Bush, etc, will be long out, writing the memoirs, or devising new ways to enlighten this humankind, while somebody somewhere would still be paying with their health, property, or lives, for the mess they started. Out of the blue; for nothing; simply because they had/shared that wonderful idea... vision ... of global democracy, forever. At some time, in the past, we had this understanding that this country shouldn't be fighting in other peoples wars; we'll go and keep the agreements in place, we'll help to observe them but we won't be fighting on one side; not because we're the weaklings; but because we learned, from other's and ours past mistakes, that it's counter productive; ie costs a lot, and rarely achieves the objective. When and how did it change to the brave new "we have to go in" attitude? Combat missions? When did we, the public, have a chance to hear the arguments; pros vs cons; objectives, goals; strategies to achieve them?? It all happened behind closed doors; .. with average citizen only having the option to stand by and observe; and state their disappointment, when asked. When a cop holds a guy with a 15 gr of pot, we'll have pre-trials, lawyers, arguments, bails, trials and so on. When a top general says "I want a real mission", we'll simply send them in. But seriously. I'd like to propose a project, of a law. In this country, to make it illegal, and a criminal offense, to start a war; excluding, obviously, all cases when a country, or its allies, are under a life threatening attack. Will you support me?

Guys... for the umpteens, and the last time... how can't you get it, it's beyond me ... people do not elect governments there; even in our very friendly semi dictatorships, like Egypt or Saudi Arabia, they don't! Really! Perhaps you can try to grasp one simple fact: all places aren't the same as ours; they haven't been, since time immemorial; they don't have to be; if we want to make them all the same anyways, just call it it's proper name: colonization; expansion, etc and drop the songs of freedom and love, for heaven's sake. Nobody can be freed against their will; it's a nonsense, oxymoron. The government exists there because it can. The same way it was in many places in the West several generations back. It takes time, slow evolution for ideas to spead; ways of life to change; installing even most wonderful idea by force, when society isn't ready for it, will achieve nothing (and most likely, cause much pain in the process, for nothing). ... We've already addressed the rest; I don't see anything new there.