reasonoverpassion

Ok lets try to steer this back to the topic... I was shocked to hear to hear Sid Ryan's comments. Banning academics from a particular country with a particular set of beliefs strikes me a un-Canadian. We have freedom of expression within this country and academics from all countries should be welcomed here to defend their position within the free and democratic society we know and love. Some of the criticism of Mr Ryan's comments were also disturbing, however. No country's actions are beyond criticism. There also needs to be freedom to condemn actions and decisions made by countries especially when military force is used. Might does not make right. Israel has the right to defend itself, it does not have the right to conduct military operations in a way which goes beyond the norms of accepted conduct, if this is indeed happening. Israelis will not have the peace and security they crave without providing justice for the Palestinians. As for the digressions to the topic... I am Christian myself. Christ did not tolerate self righteous attitudes very well. He also didn't like people who condemned others without examining their own lives. Clearly his message was to help others, especially the downtrodden. This idea that "my interpretation of the word is the only one" or "you must believe what I beleive or you are going to suffer eternal damnation" runs contrary to the basic Christian message, in my opinion.

The Tories didn't think up the idea of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A bill passed by parliament affirming rights is not the same as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Affirming rights "in principle" within a legislation is meaningless. It can just overturned by another piece of legistlation. What the Charter did was enshrine individual rights in a truly Canadian Constitution (not the British North America Act) This was Trudeau's genius and cannot be taken away from him. Now individual rights are protected, and judges not politicans, are the interpreters of the rights outlined in the document.

I can't believe that I am commenting on the abortion debate. This is an issue I normally wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole but here it goes. . . Since R. v. Morgentaler in 1988, which struck down any law restricting abortion in 1988, now 20 years ago, has this topic ever been able to capture the attention of any significant portion of the Canadian public? There was outrage from some quarters, when the law was struck down, then nothing. In those polls that ask Canadians: What is the most important issue to you in this election, in all the elections that have happened since 1988, has this issue even cracked the top 10 or the top 100? This is only an issue for a small vocal minority of Canadians. Leave the law as it is-- non existant. There are far more pressing issues for Canadians to be debating than this one. Personal choice rules for me one this one. Individual rights trump collective ones. The "collective" Canadian public obviously doesn't care about this issue because it hasn't been made an issue. A small vocal minority of people will not succeed in making this non-issue into an issue the Canadian people will care about.

Within the CPC sadly there are tendencies toward the type of divide and conquer politics that were first started in the USA by Lee Atwater and later perfected by Karl Rove. If you want to to watch a facinating documentary on Atwater watch "Boogie Man: The Lee Atwater Story" if you can. Its a part of PBS Frontline series, and is a facinating look into Realpolitik practiced by a master of the art. It is also a fasicnating biography. The CPC has unquestionably borrowed some of these tactics from Republicans as well as the Australian Liberals

Going back to the point of thread... I think we need more civility in politics in general and scoiety in particular. The idea of inclusion needs to become a part of discourse in in order to move forward. A couple of non Canadian examples I think will suffice. (1) Nicholas Sarkozy Part of his success was to move away from the politics of ideology. He appointed a well known socialist as foreign minister Bernard Kouchner, the left-wing founder of Médecins Sans Frontières, who has proven to be very capable. Two other cabinet members are prominent socialists. Building coalition which transcend ideology and partisanship has been responsible for his success. (2) Barrack Obama "Not Red States, Not Blue States, but the United States of America" Obama's coaltion building skills have yet to be proven, but he is talking the talk. Look at who he has chosen to lead his inaugural invocation (a small but symbolic position)-- Rick Warren, one of the most prominent evangelicals in the USA. Many liberals in the USA disapprove because Rev. Warren has been a very vocal supporter of "upholding the traditional definition of marriage" This is a sign that there will be much pressure from liberals on Obama to "do to them what they did to us for the past 8 years". We'll see how this plays out. What needs to end is the idea that some people just don't matter. For those on this forum, people who live in downtown Toronto matter, people who live in Melrose SK matter, 90 year old and 19 year olds matter. We need to have politicans who want to represent the whole country and not just parts of it. The idea that if we just get 154 seats, or a majority of the seats in parliament, or a majority of the popular vote and we can do whatever we want, needs to go the way of the dodo.

Outcomes can't be guananteed, but the potential for success should at least be there. Governments find it difficult to "sell" nation building because they know what will happen if they are truthful with their people. The fear is that if the magnitude of commitment becomes known, it will greatly diminish the amount of support any of these missions would have. This fear is probably legitimate. The reality is in order to mobilize the amount of people required to do the job in Iraq it is necessary to bring back the draft in the USA. What politican on any side of the political spectrum is willing to propose this? The reality is in Afghanistan that the Canadians and Dutch cannot do it alone. This mission requires full NATO commitment from all member states. Anythiing less is almost doomed to failure.

I agree...with most of what you say. What kind of "historical record" in nation building are we talking about here? The only nation truly reformed by American intervention was post war Japan. Germany already had democratic experience, so as far as winning the "hearts and minds" not much effort was required. In countries with no traditions of liberal democracy, nation building has been a disaster. As a Canadian, I'm not looking for a guarantee, but from my government and governments we choose to ally ourselves with, I'm looking for a plan with meaningful objectives. Yes our responsibility to protect requires much more than shadowing US foreign policy. Canadians need to stop talking and start doing. We need to reclaim our rightful place as a responsible nation (the legacy of Pearson) who is a middle power willing to be an honest broker resolving conflict where we can, throughout the world. This requires commitment and living up to our flowery promises.

Yeah I remember that pretty well. The real question is what is the point of all the interventionism? Do any of the Western powers have the ability to stay in any country that is "liberated" long enough to make a difference? Look at Afghanistan. America used the Muhahadeen, gave them arms and aid to poke the Soviet bear and what was the result of that intervention? As soon as the war was over, American aid pulled out and left the friendly Muhahadeen to their newly liberated country Afghanistan. Then what happened? The friendly Mughahadeen turned into the unfriendly Taliban. Did America really care they were conducting public beheadings and blowing up old Buddhist statues? Not really. Meanwhile all the Islamist extremists from everywhere flocked to Afghanistan Then along came bin Laden and 911. Suddenly America felt threatened. Terrorism was always an unfortunate occurance somewhere else (Europe, Asia, Africa) now it was possible for them to hit at America. Then America realized that the Taliban were providing a "safe house" to bin Laden so they invade and install Karzai. After that America gets distracted, decide they need to take out their old friend Saddam, so they invade Iraq and abandon Afghanistan to their NATO partners. Now it seems the war for the liberation of Iraq is won. The peace is another story, but America's never been any good at peacekeeping--time to go back to Afghanistan because it seems the Taliban are back and the Canadians and Dutch need some help to push the Taliban back into Pakistan. Sure sounds like a mess. How long is going to be before America becomes distracted again? How long will Afghanistan and Iraq be occupied? One of the main problems with American foreign policy is the belief that Americans are welcomed as liberators and loved where ever they go. The other faulty assumption is that people everywhere in the world want to just live like Americans. It's just not that easy to transplant liberal democracy in 2 places that have never had either system. Most Iraqis and Afghans don't even identify with their countries--they are more likely to identify with their ethnic or religious group. Intervention without undertanding the places we are just walking into is a recipe for failure. "Nation building" is hard work which requires massive amounts of money, time and resources. If we don't have the commitment, my question is : should we be doing it? This is a question both Canadian and Americans need to ask themselves.

OK How do they define "Depression"?

The problem is "Depression" is not an economic term like Recession. Recession has a very clear meaning: the reduction of a country's GDP for two succesive quarters in a year. No one agrees on what a "Depression" is-- except maybe a severe recession that is not a part of the business cycle. Its really wierd that Harper, who only a few months wouldn't use the term "recession" is now using the term "Depression"?? For me, no world leader should use such an emotionally charged word with such an imprecise meaning.

Yeah that also goes for the left as well. On this board, I've hear Liberals called socialists which they aren't and socialists (democratic socialists in Canada, the NDP) called Communists, which they aren't. I've also heard Canada called a socialist county which it isn't. Last time I checked, the means of production haven't been nationalized, through the NDP is probably still proposing this to some limited degree. Nationalization of selected industries isn't something that most social democrats are anxious to talk about these days. Guess we should all be more careful about the terms we use and their percieved meanings. Myself included.

Neo conservatives In the Canadian context these are the the "new conservatives" (Preston Manning, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Jim Flaherty) as opposed to the "old conservatives" (Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Bob Stanfield, Peter McKay?) The "old conservatives" really dominated the old PC Party. Sometimes now called "red Tories" although there was a mix of red and blue tories in the old PC party. The "new conservatives" really represent the dominance of blue Tories with the social conservativism of the Alliance/Reformers. When the PC party was supplanted by a coalition of PC/Reform the CPC was born. Red Tories practically do not exist in CPC or are very quiet about their views.

Well I think I understand more than you might think about US politics. My point is that left leaning parties traditionally do better in bad economic times. The fact the US is more right-wing than Canada doesn't make my point any less valid. It may be untrue that the US does not have Liberal and NDP parties as a part of political mainstream, but that doesn't mean they dont exist. It might surprise to know that Bernie Sanders, the Junior Senator from Vermont actually describes himself as a "democratic socialist". He sits as an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. It is not really true to describe the Democratic Party as on par with the Conservatives in Canada. The Democrats are "a big tent" and most of them wouldn't feel comfortable with the kind of neo-con ideas as expressed in the "economic statement" by Harper and Company

Just untrue. Typically bad economic time favor left of centre parties. People want the focus on social programs and building of infastructure. Look at Obama. Most people know that sitting on your hands and waiting for the market to correct itself it not an economic strategy. Liberals have also blown the "we can't manage money" image out of water. It was Martin who balanced the budget after all.

Yes, Topaz, you are correct, 14 seats for the Liberals and 10 for the CPC. I still say Mr. Canada-- that if Harper can't win against Dion, possibly the weakest Liberal leader ever, what chance is he going to have against Mr. Ignatieff? Also he cannot play the game of muzzling the neo-con and social conservative elements within his party any longer. Over the course of the last parliament and during the last election, he was still playing this game. He cannot sell himself as a "compassionate conservative" any longer. No one is buying this after the economic statement. Canadians have a clear choice now. Neo con ideologues and their discredited ideas (we only need to look to the USA to see the results of having them in power) and a new way forward.