Unwarranted Flak

Some in the media have made fun of the vest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper wore during the trilateral meeting in Cancun this week with President Bush and Mexico's President Fox. I don't see what the problem is. To me it looks like normal attire for a Canadian Prime Minister to wear on such a journey.




Can you spot the difference?

Arik beats Bibi with eyes closed

In Transparency International's most recent Corruption Perception Index, Canada slipped from 12th to 14th with a CPI index of 8.4 out of 10. It is hardly a terrible score, yet the stench of scandal in the wake of Judge Gomery's first report was enough to sink the Liberals on the January 23rd election.

Israel, which just held a general election yesterday, has a CPI score of 6.3. It has fallen to 28th in the rankings, and yet corruption did not end up becoming a major campaign issue. The stakes were higher than the cost of a few dollars in graft. Though social policies were indeed prominent, peace and security issues were the most pressing.

What made this election interesting was the upheaval of the political landscape that led up to the vote. First there was the controversial Gaza Disengagement Plan, pushed through by then-prime minister Ariel (Arik) Sharon. He did this despite objections from his own Likud party. His chief rival in the party, former prime minister Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, resigned from his position as finance minister in protest. By the end of November of last year, Sharon was convinced that he could not advance his agenda as a member of Likud, so he decided to redraw the political map by founding his own party, Kadima, which drew members from both of the traditional parties (Labour on the left and Likud on the right). Less than a month later, Sharon was suddenly and unexpectedly removed from the political scene after he suffered a massive stroke. The final bit of turmoil leading up to the Israeli election came in January with the victory of the terrorist group Hamas in the Palestinian legislative elections, essentially ending any hope for a negotiated settlement.

As such, the choice facing Israelis was essentially narrowed down to either unilateral withdrawals - as favoured by Sharon's brainchild, Kadima, and supported by Labour - or holding on to Greater Israel, at least temporarily - as favoured by Netanyahu's Likud, among others. When the dust settled, it became clear that Israelis chose the former. Even though Ariel Sharon is still lying in a coma, Kadima managed to win the election with 28 out of 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament), while Labour came in second with 20 seats. The Likud party was dealt a huge blow, winning only 11 seats, which makes it only the fifth largest party in the Knesset.

The people have spoken, but here is the bad news. With the decimation of the Likud, Netanyahu's Thatcherite economic reforms will be off of the government's agenda. If anything, the likely inclusion of Labour into the government coalition will probably mean a complete reversal of the governments economic policies. This is especially worrisome because of Labour's chairman, Amir Peretz, who showed during his time as head of the Histadrut (Israel trade union congress) by frequently calling general strikes on a whim that he is completely irresponsible. The new prime minister, Ehud Olmert of Kadima, will have to keep him on a leash.

Bonus random thought!
Israel is an excellent example of why Canada should not adopt a system of proportional representation. Kadima and Labour, the two biggest parties, do not have enough combined strength to form a stable coalition by themselves. Such is the norm for systems with proportional representation. There are always a mess of small, often one-issue parties who extract concessions from the major parties in exchange for their support in a coalition, thus insuring consistently bloated (and confused) budgets.

Bonus related news item! [Updated 6PM, March 29th, 2006]
Canada takes a stand! The Foreign Affairs Minister, Peter MacKay, announced today that Ottawa is cutting off aid and contacts with the Palestinian Authority, now that Hamas has officially taken power. This is presumably in keeping with Canadian laws against financing terror organizations (Hamas has been blacklisted since 2002). Humanitarian assistance will continue through third-party organizations.

No Turning Back

After a press leak delayed an earlier plan by Prime Minister Harper to make a surprise visit to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, today the PM finally made his first foreign trip, landing in a Hercules transport aircraft in the middle of a Kandahari sandstorm. Back home, NDP leader Jack Layton responded to the news by renewing his call for a parliamentary debate on Canada's role in Afghanistan. Harper would do well to ignore him. His trip demonstrates that that is exactly his plan.

In all likelihood, a parliamentary referendum on Canada's role would pass easily with the support of both the ruling Conservatives and opposition Liberals, who made the commitment while they were the government. But the time for debate has passed. It could be argued that a debate should have been held when the Liberals first made the decision, but that does not change two fundamental facts. First, Canada has made a firm commitment to the international community. Second, Canadian soldiers have already been placed in harm's way, so they deserve the full support of the Canadian people as they carry out their duties. As such, I applaud Mr. Harper for his visit to Afghanistan to support the troops. Upon his return, he should continue to ignore Mr. Layton, but should also remind Canadians what the rationale behind the mission is and why it is important to stay the course.

While I do think that Layton's position on this particular issue is completely amiss, he does have a point about how future military engagements should be handled. A parliamentary debate before deployments are set in stone would be beneficial in determining whether a mission has popular backing. Furthermore, if a mission is democratically decided upon, the debate will be over by the time the soldiers ship out, and they will be able to do so with full confidence.

But I do not go as far as Mr. Layton. Such parliamentary debates should only be held at the Prime Minister's discretion, not required by law. After all, the government may sometimes be called upon to react quickly to events. This was definitely the case after Jean-Bertrand Aristide was overthrown in Haiti. Had Canada and its allies dragged their feet for too long before deciding to intervene, Haiti may have descended into the dire straits of anarchy and it would have been too late. Afghanistan is not quite the same, as I am sure that the Taliban would continue to roam unabated (as per usual) in the Afghani countryside if Canada were to delay its mission to help the Afghani government extend its region of control.

Once Canada's current international commitment expires, Jack Layton and the other 307 MPs should be given the opportunity to debate a renewal. Until then, Layton should chew on his moustache and keep quiet.

Brokeback Charter

Remember that thing that Paul Martin was using as a security blanket for two consecutive elections? You know, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Martin kept on blathering on about "defending the Charter", often in the context of his support for gay marriage. Well, I was reading through the Charter while researching for my previous post and I noticed a pretty glaring omission.

Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

Notice, discrimination based on sexual orientation is not explicitly prohibited.

Umm... Paul, maybe you could have come up with a more useful proposal for a consititutional amendment than removing the notwithstanding clause...

Individual Rights in a Mulitcultural Society

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrines fundamental individual rights, like freedom of religion and freedom of expression, as the law of the land, but not before hedging its bets. According to Section 1,

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The question that follows is an obvious one. What exactly are the 'reasonable' limits?

The Supreme Court most recently dealt with this question in the Multani case, where it ruled that Orthodox Sikhs should be allowed to carry ceremonial daggers (kirpans) with them to school, in accordance with their religious beliefs. This overturned an earlier decision by the Quebec Court of Appeal which ruled that schools should be allowed to ban kirpans just as other "weapons and dangerous objects" are banned. The unanimous Supreme Court decision argued that banning kirpans at school would be a violation Section 2a of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of religion.

So where then is the limit of the right? If even the presence of daggers in schools can be justified by religious belief, does that imply that freedom of religion always trumps public safety concerns? Lest you draw the wrong conclusion, the Supreme Court's decision explains some of its reasoning.

The risk of G using his kirpan for violent purposes or of another student taking it away from him is very low, especially if the kirpan is worn under conditions such as were imposed by the Superior Court. It should be added that G has never claimed a right to wear his kirpan to school without restrictions. Furthermore, there are many objects in schools that could be used to commit violent acts and that are much more easily obtained by students, such as scissors, pencils and baseball bats. The evidence also reveals that not a single violent incident related to the presence of kirpans in schools has been reported. Although it is not necessary to wait for harm to be done before acting, the existence of concerns relating to safety must be unequivocally established for the infringement of a constitutional right to be justified.

Even now, the kirpan does not roam completely free. In the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in America, Transport Canada banned all "knives or knife-like objects" - including kirpans - from airplanes. If the question before the Supreme Court had been one of kirpans on airplanes instead of kirpans in schools, one could surmise how it would rule. In the case of aircraft, not only are weapons prohibited and thoroughly searched for, but even scissors have been confiscated during security checks, so it could not be argued that objects with potential use in a violent attack are easily obtainable. Moreover, the use of boxcutters by the 9/11 hijackers established unequivocally the danger of allowing any manner of sharp object onboard. Clearly, allowing kirpans on airplanes lies beyond the 'reasonable limit' of religious freedom.

But the debate over reasonable limits has been more prominent of late over the issue of freedom of expression. Murderous mobs have been marauding in the wake of the publication in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten of cartoons depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammed - no doubt egged on by some egregious forgeries. But the question being asked by cooler heads is whether or not Jyllands-Posten (and others that reprinted the cartoons afterwards) overstepped the bounds of free speech by publishing the cartoons.

Of the 12 cartoons, some indeed are offensive, like the one showing Mohammed wearing a turban with a bomb in it. Many of the others are completely innocuous to any non-Muslim observer - simple illustrations of Mohammed with no demeaning subtext. Yet even the latter type of cartoons have been at issue because they contravene the Muslim law preventing any depiction of Mohammed whatsoever, innocuous or otherwise.

Section 27 of the Charter instructs

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Indeed, in its ruling on kirpans in schools, the Supreme Court also mentioned religious tolerance and multiculturalism as Canadian values that weighed into its decision. One might then argue that the limit to freedom of expression can be found at the point where it offends religious sensitivities, just as the Supreme Court argued that prohibiting kirpans "...is also disrespectful to believers in the Sikh religion and does not take into account Canadian values based on multiculturalism."

But there is a difference. A individual Sikh student carrying around a kirpan in school exercises his right to religious freedom at no one else's expense. The court was convinced that the kirpan did not constitute a particular threat (under certain imposed conditions) to the other students' right to live in security. On the other hand, the claim that muslims as a collective body have the right not to be offended by depictions of their prophet contravenes every non-muslim individual's right to both freedom of speech and freedom of religion (that is, the freedom not to follow sharia law).

The bounds of freedom of expression cannot be defined in terms of collective rights of other groups, but rather the rights of other individuals. Newspapers should only censor themselves in regards to things like libel or hate speech, which puts the rights of members of the slandered minorities at risk by inciting discrimination.

While multiculturalism is one of the most important facets of our society, we should not forget that the framework of that society is built upon the rights of the individual. It is not a common definition of blasphemy that protects our multicultural heritage. Instead, it is a recognition that each individual has the right to live according to his or her beliefs - as long as it does not impede other individuals' rights to do the same. It appears then that the reasonable limit lies at the edge of your neighbour's lawn.