Evening Star

I mean, that's more or less the explicit point of multiculturalism, isn't it? Has anyone pretended otherwise?

None whatsoever.

You know, even as ulterior motives, neither of these sounds horrible to me.

By the way, it was Don Drummond (chief economist for a major bank) who noted that the Tories left McGuinty with a $5B deficit in the article I linked, not anyone connected to the Liberal party.

Do you not believe that Trudeau left Mulroney with a deficit?? I didn't even think that Trudeau denied that.

I mean, a raging ideologue who promises massive cuts and delivers massive cuts is not cynical at all. I just don't want him running the province. (Mind you, making huge cuts and still leaving a deficit could suggest cynicism.) Someone who attempts to make modest improvements, with concern for pragmatism and balance, could be seen as comparatively cynical, I suppose.

I never pretended otherwise!

I dunno, in practical terms, do you really think most people can afford the time to not only keep track of every single issue but also study them well enough to form informed opinions? It makes sense to me to elect people whose full-time job is to do those things. Who would propose new legislation under this system?

He was left with a $5.6 billion hidden deficit by the outgoing PC government. (As far as I can tell, this seems to be the present-day conservative strategy: Cripple future governments' abilities to effect progress by leaving huge deficits, whether through stupid tax cuts, stupid spending choices, or both.) Despite this, he has managed to make some steady if modest social progress without driving business away. In fact, the TD Bank's chief economist, who I have to assume is not a left-wing ideologue, stated in 2008 that McGuinty has improved the business climate:

I suspect that I'm the most pro-McGuinty person on this board but even I'm really considering voting NDP next time, especially after the province's handling of G20 security. Hudak terrifies me though. I don't have warm memories of the Harris days. And I just don't agree that McGuinty has stuck with Harris' agenda. Despite governing in rough economic times, they have doubled the number of community health centres (which are great), made some progress on wait times, implemented ambitious reforestation and green energy plans, restricted chemical lawn pesticides, and at least started addressing some of the problems in education, not to mention bringing some needed infrastructure to Windsor. Harris would have never even feigned interest in doing these things.

How do you defend things like this? Those activists who committed acts of vandalism (as opposed to violence) were not leading or dominating the rallies. Why should all protesters need to assume that they can be tarred with the same brush? By the same reasoning, outspoken separatists in 1970 should have 'known what they signed up for'.

Well, he's right that he doesn't have a politician's instincts. (He doesn't seem to have that many ideas either, and this ad doesn't do much to change that perception.)

Yeah, a university choosing not to invite particular speakers or cancelling a talk by a well-known speaker who has spoken at many other Canadian universities is not a restriction on free speech to the same extent as actually taking disciplinary actions against students who have protested peacefullly.

No. As the article clearly spells out, it was pro-Palestinian protesters (who should have been 'sacrosanct' according to you) who were the main target of York's restrictions. Anti-Bush protesters were also targeted.

The second article I linked elaborates on what guyser mentioned, on York's role in leading the trend towards universities seeing themselves as private institutions.

I certainly don't think the 'left' is most guilty of restricting freedom of speech btw. Every protest or demonstration I attended had to operate within quite restricted boundaries and was supervised by police officers. No one seemed to think this was unreasonable and I definitely never heard conservatives complain about this. For an example of something that was truly restrictive, witness the use of 'free speech zones' under Bush in the US. (Or the treatment of G20 protesters in Toronto.) Related to this issue: http://educationlawblog.ca/tag/public-vs-private-property/ http://canadiandimension.com/articles/1901 Note that the protesters who were targeted at York, as described in the second article, were pro-Palestinian or anti-Bush protesters, not right-wingers.

And bloodyminded is right. It's hard to see the bitching about the 'War on Christmas' as anything other than the petulance of Christians who resent that their particular faith no longer has the same hegemonic dominance it used to.

"Pro-choice", sorry.

I tend to lean towards civil libertarianism when it comes to freedom of expression but I do think this matter can be a bit more complex than you might be recognizing, Oleg. First, if universities are in fact private property, which seems to be the case, the university is within its rights to make rules about how its spaces can be used. Also, as I alluded to earlier, how far can freedom of expression extend, even on public property? Do we want to e.g. give corporations the freedom to express themselves by covering public space (say, the walls of schools and universities if we declare them to be public property) with advertising, even if as a result there is little space for anyone else to put up a poster? It's not hard for me to imagine that happening. And if that happened, would I be within my rights to freely express myself by covering up part of a giant Pepsi billboard with my poster? Or would I be infringing on Pepsi's freedom of expression? If GAP can freely express themselves with massive graphic posters on campus space, can a pro-life group freely express themselves by e.g. surrounding the GAP display and shouting through megaphones to the point where no one can hear the GAP representatives?

I think you're right, actually.

It's funny: I can't really call him "Iggy" because that always makes me think of Iggy Pop, who is so much cooler than Michael Ignatieff.

Yeah, I'm certainly not denying that Houle handled the situation pretty dumbly.

While it might have not have seemed like it for a while now, the federal govt is supposed to play a role in funding as well as setting national goals and standards for education and health care and has for a long time.

Coulter's speech at University of Ottawa (not Carleton) was cancelled. She has spoken at many other Canadian universities though. I can't see how a university cancelling a person's scheduled talk is an infringement on free speech. The right to free speech does not mean that that every institution is required to give you a platform to speak on.

I guess I was specifically replying to Wild Bill there. As for this instance, I feel, like Smallc, that a just decision would have to be based on precise knowledge of the details involved. I can see why there might be good reason to arrest the shopkeeper.