I’d like to weigh in on the issue of budget cuts and library closures in the City of Toronto. The Ford brothers appear to have forgotten that they promised no service cuts but now act as though implementing service cuts, including closing libraries, was what they were elected on. It may was well be repeated yet again that in fact Rob Ford was elected to cut the gravy, not actual services and not to close libraries. I also believe it folly to claim like the Fords do that every single person objecting to cuts is affiliated with a union. Some people really don’t want their libraries closed. Some people really don’t want cuts to programs such as daycare. And they may not be in a union. It is not only labour unions that object to hard-right policies and the hard-right should admit that. But for them, unions are a type of scapegoat through which they can claim that all objection to hard-right polices come from unions and that regular folk just love those hard-right policies. This claim is not true. Polls consistently show that even most Conservative voters support some social spending. Ford was elected largely by Liberal and NDP voters. Conservative voters alone could not have put him over the top. I estimate Ford got around 25-30% of Liberal voters and about 20% of NDP voters. Now admittedly, some of those then-Liberal voters became Conservative voters in the federal election held a few months later. This appeared true in ridings the Conservatives won in Toronto federally where some then-Liberal voters who likely voted for Ford also moved to the federal Conservatives. But this was still a minority of Liberal voters who did the switching to the federal Conservatives. It just happened to be enough to pick up a large number of seats in the city, especially with increased votes splitting due to that “Orange Crush”. Notably in Etobicoke North, where Rob Ford got the highest percentage of the vote, a large number of Rob Ford voters voted Liberal and NDP which allowed the Liberals to retain the riding. As I also say, most Conservative voters in Toronto are not hard right-wingers anyway. Therefore when Torontonians strongly object to the type of cuts the Fords have been proposing, it should not come as a surprise. Voters do want low taxes, but this desire is tempered quite a lot when they see the type of services that would have to be cut to give them really low taxes.
Note: This is being posted in the midnight hours of September 7, right before the provincial election is officially called. In the coming days I will be giving commentary on the provincial election.
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
UK election outcome
The United Kingdom recently saw a change in government. It has seen an unprecedented formal coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. It is quite amazing they have been able to form this coalition considering that the two parties disagree ideologically on many different issues. One of the early government policies has been a civil liberties policy, including the scrapping of Labour's plans for a national ID card. I agree with the general thrust of this new government’s civil libertarian policies. One Conservative policy I do not agree with that the Liberal Democrats were reluctantly forced to agree to as part of the coalition agreement is the redrawing of every House of Commons seat in the whole country. The Tories want the Commons shrunk to under 600 members. I do not agree with this shrinkage when in fact the Commons has had over 600 members since at least 1950. This policy may be a ploy by the Tories to redraw constituencies to favour the Tories more than the current boundaries, which are said to favour Labour. Hence how Labour got 35% of the votes in 2005 and 55% of the seats and how in 2005 Labour had fewer votes in England than the Tories but way more seats in England than the Tories. A purported reason to reduce the number of constituencies is to save money. But given that the Tories and Liberal Democrats have agreed to a fix term five year parliament, any such saving of money would not kick in until 2015. Nevertheless, hopefully with the Liberal Democrats as part of the government they will keep a check on the Tories so that they do not gerrymander the constituencies in the Tories favour too much. Furthermore, hopefully the Liberal Democrats will keep a check on the Tories more ideological agenda, if and where such ideological agenda exists.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Afghan detainees
I certainly want to get to the bottom of this Afghan detainee mystery. But even if the Sergeant-at-Arms forcefully seized all documents uncensored and made them public we may not have an answer about what government official knew what when in regards to prisoners being tortured. Conversely because the documents date all the way back to 2001, although very unlikely it could be for all we know that un-redacted documents show that the Liberals were somehow complicit in the torture of Afghan prisoners when they were in government. Although the Liberals must realize that that is a risk, to get to the bottom of this they certainly want the documents released. I am of the opinion that it is not reasonable for parliament to force the release of all the documents to the public uncensored due to national security concerns. Unfortunately the wording of the motion that passed in December was such that it had the effect of demanding the government release the uncensored documents to the public without restriction. Since then opposition parties have been backing off that demand by conceding that there are legitimate national security reasons not to release some of the documents and are instead asking that select MPs be shown the uncensored documents in strict camera under secrecy. If this occurred, it is not clear to me whether the MPs who saw the uncensored documents would be able to then publicly say that they discovered that the Conservative government and/or the previous Liberal government had complicity in the torture of Afghan prisoners and thus would not be able to embarrass the Conservatives on this matter as opposition parties had been hoping. So in the end the opposition may not be able to embarrass the government as they had hoped.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Federal election results
It goes without saying that I am incredibly unhappy about this month’s election results. They really were quite horrendous. That being said, Harper’s brazen attempt to get a majority government by gutting the fixed election date law failed. But the Liberals did so poorly that Harper could have gotten a majority if he had not turned off Quebec voters by insulting Quebec artists. I am an Ontario voter but I couldn’t disagree more with Harper’s assertion that ordinary Canadians don’t care for the arts. I am very pro-art. I like Shakespearean plays, paintings, other plays, musical concerts, and whatever kind of art you can think of. I like certain mainstream television shows and some Hollywood movies, but with the exception of the few TV shows and movies I like, I prefer the “refined art” of the kind that the other parties defended against Conservative attacks during the election.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Now Jean Charest plans to pull a Stephen Harper and call an early election in his province in an attempt to get a majority. I have mixed feelings about this. Although I want Charest to get a majority, I hate early elections. I prefer how things are done in Ontario, when early elections occur very rarely. Ontario has not had an early provincial election since 1990. That’s the way I prefer it and I disagree with politicians of all stripes playing politics with election dates. Charest unfortunately is playing politics with election dates so I cannot on balance agree with his decision to call an election.
This leads to another interesting question. Elizabeth May failed to win a seat in the election. May has since vowed to win Central Nova in the next election and in the meantime promised to run in the first available by-election. But what if the first available by-election is Laurier-Sainte-Marie, Gilles Duceppe’s riding. What if Charest calls the Quebec election and then the PQ does incredibly badly. What if then Pauline Marois resigns the leadership. At that point I see no way Duceppe could resist for a third time going for the PQ leadership. At which point Laurier-Sainte-Marie would be vacant and there would be a by-election. Considering how poorly the Greens did in Quebec, would Laurier-Sainte-Marie really be an appropriate riding for May to run in?
I want to comment on what happened in Outremont in the federal election. This time New Democrat Thomas Mulcair won by 6 percentage points, a much smaller margin than in his by-election win. I even hear that the race sea-sawed back and forth between Mulcair and the Liberal candidate. While I’m glad to see the Liberals do better in Outremont than in the by-election, unfortunately the 33% the Liberals got is still less than the 35% the Liberals won the riding with in the 2006 election. It was also heartbreaking to see Eleni Bakopanos fail to regain Ahuntsic for the Liberals after leading for much of the night. However, the Liberals managed to retake Brossard-La Prairie with a new candidate after a recount. That puts the Liberals at 14 seats in Quebec, which is higher than the 13 won in 2006 under Paul Martin. No doubt this improvement of Liberal fortunes in Quebec is largely due to Stephane Dion’s stellar performance in the French leaders’ debate. It was also good to see Justin Trudeau elected in Papineau. However due to the narrow margin in Papineau, I think it likely that Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance helped put Trudeau over the top.
By contrast however, the Liberals were sadly wiped out in English speaking New Brunswick. The Liberals did much better in French speaking New Brunswick and Dion’s French debate performance probably helped there. What was particularly amazing was that in Madawaska-Restigouche Liberal incumbent Jean-Claude D’Amours increased his margin of victory to several thousand votes over the 800 vote margin he had last time. In part this was due to a slight decline in the Conservative vote, but it was largely due to a substantial increase in the Liberal vote largely at the expense of the NDP. No doubt that some of this was due to strategic voting as a result of the near-Tory win last time. Also the fact that there was a new NDP candidate probably decreased the NDP vote as well. But part of it I am sure is Dion’s excellent French leaders’ debate performance. In addition, I have no doubt that Harper’s poor French leader’s debate performance hurt the Tories in Madawaska-Restigouche.
Sadly I fear Elizabeth May may never win a seat in Parliament. Her chances in a by-election are iffy and her chances in Central Nova are even more iffy. In addition, next time I’d expect May to have a Liberal opponent in Central Nova in addition to the Conservative incumbent. The whole deal about not running a Liberal candidate against May in Central Nova was entirely a Stephane Dion thing and I expect the next leader of the Liberal Party to run a candidate in every single riding as the Liberal Party traditionally does. The Green Party may not even get into the leaders’ debate in the next election because the Green Party no longer has a single MP in the House of Commons and having Blair Wilson was one of the main reasons that May was included in the election’s leaders’ debate.
I was glad to see the Tories wiped out in Newfoundland and Labrador. The NDP won St. John's East with about 75% of the vote and almost won St. John's South-Mount Pearl over the Liberals with the Tories at only 12.6%! In St. John’s East the Tories got a mere 9.3%! I, like all Liberals, wish the rest of Canada could have voted like Newfoundland and Labrador. I’m glad that at least some parts of the country agree that the Tories shouldn’t be in office. I would like to thank Danny Williams for single-handedly wiping out the federal Tories in Newfoundland and Labrador. The strange part is that Williams is a Progressive Conservative, himself a Tory! How strange that a provincial Tory was one of the Liberals best allies in the election.
To be honest, while I’m obviously disappointed in the New Brunswick Liberal results, they do not surprise me too much. English speaking rural New Brunswick is Atlantic Canada’s only Bible Belt so it is not surprising that the Tories do well here. Even English-speaking cities in New Brunswick are somewhat socially conservative so it is not too big a surprise that the Tories won Saint John and Fredericton and almost won Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (it was probably the francophone minority in Moncton that saved the Liberals here). On a related note, Dominic LeBlanc from Beauséjour, New Brunswick has been the first to announce his bid for the Liberal leadership and I may support him. We need a new leader who can win back government, defeat Stephen Harper, and implement a centrist vision for Canada.
Monday, August 4, 2008
Barrie examiner letter to the editor
I’ve found a good letter to the editor in the Barrie Examiner. It is entitled “Harper's bluff yet to be called”. I like this part. “Since Canadians want another federal election like they want snow in September, there also needs to be an overwhelming issue to send voters to the polls.” I certainly agree with that. There needs to be an overwhelming issue over which to pull the plug otherwise to me doing so seems inadvisable. There is also a Toronto Star article entitled “Bring on fall election, Liberals say”. It quotes Bob Rae and appears to be implying that Rae is saying “bring on a fall election.” Of course I don’t want the Star to put words in Rae’s mouth. What Rae did say is that it is only a matter of time until an election and that the Liberals are increasingly ready for one. The problem with the Liberal Green Shift is that although it is credible and doable, it is polarizing. People either support it or strongly oppose it. There is a sizeable, although minority, population that opposes the Green Shift. Opposition to the Green Shift is heavily concentrated out west, especially in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There is strong opposition in those provinces due to the oil revenue that those two provinces generate due to oil drilling. Of course the Green Shift does not put a tax on petroleum itself. Conservatives still contend that the Green Shift would cause the prices of gasoline to increase. There are genuine fears out west that the Green Shift would devastate the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. I would like to reassure those who feel that way. I am thoroughly convinced that the Green Shift would either have no effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan or the Green Shift would have a positive effect on the economies of Alberta and Saskatchewan. By no means is the Green Shift another National Energy Program as I have seen some contend. The Green Shift is completely different. There is also opposition to the Green Shift in British Columbia where the provincial Liberal government has already implemented a carbon tax. There is strong opposition to the BC government’s carbon tax and as a result there is opposition to the federal Liberal Green Shift. Sadly the Liberals are therefore, I fear, risking the seats they have in British Columbia by promoting a policy that is similar to the provincial carbon tax that British Columbians have already rejected. Thus for all these reasons I am not convinced that the Liberal Green Shift ought to be the overwhelming issue over which the federal Liberals force an election.
The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!
The Green Shift will be an integral part of our platform but I firmly believe the Liberals should campaign on other things as well. During an election the Green Shift by no means should be the only thing discussed by the Liberals. There are plenty other issues to promote and plenty of other issues to attack the Conservatives on. Of course we cannot really consider our options on when to force an election until after the by-elections on September 8. If the Liberals, God forbid, get wiped out in the by-elections I am doubtful there would be eagerness on the part of the Liberals to force a quick election. Even if the Liberals lost one of the two seats it held I am doubtful the Liberals would be clamoring to bring down the House. If the Liberals win both, the Liberals can consider their options, part of which should involve weighing the percentage of the vote the Liberals get in each of the three ridings. That being said, I am cautioning against rushing into an election. We need the exact right issue at the exact right time, and I am not convinced we have found those two things yet nor I am I convinced we’d find those two things in the fall. Stephen Harper has talked about making confidence motions in the autumn out of government measures on the economy, crime, and other Conservative policies. It is my guess that the Liberals would look at each of those measures separately and decide individually whether to support or oppose each measure. If an economic proposal put before parliament is not overly radical or nutty, I don’t see why the Liberals wound not support it. Similarly, the Liberals have mostly supported the Conservative crime-fighting agenda. I don’t see this stopping in the fall unless the Conservatives propose something really radical. I do not personally agree with Stephane Dion that Canadians are “hungry for an election”, as one article put it. My party will do what it thinks best on every issue and every vote in the fall. But even when we support certain Conservative measures we will not stop criticizing the government over it’s numerous failures. This is not incompatible. This is what is needed to make a minority parliament work. When the Bloc Quebecois was supporting the Conservatives in confidence votes, the Bloc did not refrain from criticizing the Conservatives at the time. The situation is no different for the Liberals. We will support individual Conservatives proposals as we see fit but we remain the Official Opposition and the role of the Official Opposition is to hold the government to account. We do that by criticizing the many things that this government has done wrong. Anyway, good luck to Frank Valeriote in Guelph, Marc Garneau in Westmount—Ville-Marie, and Roxane Stanners in Saint-Lambert!
Sunday, March 23, 2008
By-election results
I have mixed feelings about this week’s by-election results. The Liberals did incredibly well in the Toronto by-elections and increased the Liberal vote percentage in both ridings by several percentage points. The Conservative went down several points in Toronto Centre and went up only .76% in Willowdale. I personally do not consider such a marginal increase in the Tory vote to be very significant. My feelings are mixed however because the by-election results outside Toronto were far worse news for the Liberals. The Liberals lost the Northern Saskatchewan riding badly but I was not surprised by that. I was expecting the Liberals to lose that riding. We badly messed up our chances in that riding by appointing Joan Beatty over the wishes of the powerful and influential David Orchard supporters in the riding. Orchard wanted to run for the Liberals in the by-election and was miffed at being denied a chance to do so. Had Orchard been the candidate it would have still been a tough by-election for the Liberals but the Liberals would have had a fighting chance. Causing so much controversy by appointing Beatty removed any chance the Liberals had in the riding. Now Beatty has no political office and I don’t think she would be allowed run in a by-election for her old Cumberland provincial seat after having already defected from the NDP.
Vancouver Quadra was also bad news for the Liberals. The Liberals held the riding by a mere 151 votes. The Liberal vote in the riding dropped significantly and the Tory vote surged. The Green vote surged as well from low single digits to 13% of the vote. On election night I was shocked when the final two polls came in to see that the Liberal lead had shrunk to 151 votes. Those final two polls must have been won by a landslide by the Tories. Now the Tory central party wants a recount of the results. I highly doubt that a recount would change the outcome but it could delay Liberal Joyce Murray’s ability to take her seat in parliament. From what I read, Tory candidate Deborah Meredith was not consulted on this recount ahead of time and the central party announced the desire for a recount without talking to Meredith first.
So my feelings are very mixed considering the incredibly strong showing for the Tories in the two Western Canadian by-elections. Now there is unfortunately a whole new set of by-elections that the Liberals could always lose. These by-elections would occur if the government does not fall. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is already vacant. It was held by the Liberals and astronaut Mark Garneau is the Liberal candidate. Saint Lambert (south of Montreal) is also already vacant as former Bloc MP Maka Kotto recently resigned his seat to run for the PQ in a provincial by-election. Two more ridings, both held by the Liberals, will become vacant in the near future. Guelph Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has announced that she will resign her seat on April 7. Don Valley West Liberal MP John Godfrey has announced that he will resign his seat on July 1 to accept a position as headmaster of a Toronto French school. Guelph is very iffy for the Liberals because the Liberals only won the seat last time with 38% of the vote and only 8% over the Tories. The NDP and Greens had a strong showing in the riding as well. In the recent provincial election, the Greens received a whopping 19.5% of the vote. That means that in a by-election even the Greens could win the riding. The NDP has a star candidate – Thomas King. King is a prominent Metis writer and commentator who talks extensively about Metis and aboriginal issues. The Conservatives have a well known candidate – Guelph City councilor Gloria Kovach. Her ability to be elected to Guelph council could propel her to parliament. The Liberals have a much lesser known lawyer. In a by-election the riding could go to any of the four major parties including the Greens. The Greens are a particularly distinct possibility due to the 19.5% they got in Guelph in the provincial election.
Don Valley West was won by 20% over the Tories with 53% of the vote. Local gay United Church minister Rob Oliphant has been nominated for the Liberals. The Tories have nominated the 2006 candidate John Carmichael. This riding is not as safe for the Liberals as Willowdale and in a by-election it could sadly conceivably go Conservative. The Liberals are very likely to again lose Saint Lambert which they lost in the 2004 election so a Liberal loss there would be no surprise. Sadly none of the upcoming by-elections look like a sure bet for the Liberals.
However, I am still delighted at the wonderful Toronto by-election results. Another bright note is that the Liberals easily won the popular vote of the 4 by-elections put together.
Vancouver Quadra was also bad news for the Liberals. The Liberals held the riding by a mere 151 votes. The Liberal vote in the riding dropped significantly and the Tory vote surged. The Green vote surged as well from low single digits to 13% of the vote. On election night I was shocked when the final two polls came in to see that the Liberal lead had shrunk to 151 votes. Those final two polls must have been won by a landslide by the Tories. Now the Tory central party wants a recount of the results. I highly doubt that a recount would change the outcome but it could delay Liberal Joyce Murray’s ability to take her seat in parliament. From what I read, Tory candidate Deborah Meredith was not consulted on this recount ahead of time and the central party announced the desire for a recount without talking to Meredith first.
So my feelings are very mixed considering the incredibly strong showing for the Tories in the two Western Canadian by-elections. Now there is unfortunately a whole new set of by-elections that the Liberals could always lose. These by-elections would occur if the government does not fall. The riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie is already vacant. It was held by the Liberals and astronaut Mark Garneau is the Liberal candidate. Saint Lambert (south of Montreal) is also already vacant as former Bloc MP Maka Kotto recently resigned his seat to run for the PQ in a provincial by-election. Two more ridings, both held by the Liberals, will become vacant in the near future. Guelph Liberal MP Brenda Chamberlain has announced that she will resign her seat on April 7. Don Valley West Liberal MP John Godfrey has announced that he will resign his seat on July 1 to accept a position as headmaster of a Toronto French school. Guelph is very iffy for the Liberals because the Liberals only won the seat last time with 38% of the vote and only 8% over the Tories. The NDP and Greens had a strong showing in the riding as well. In the recent provincial election, the Greens received a whopping 19.5% of the vote. That means that in a by-election even the Greens could win the riding. The NDP has a star candidate – Thomas King. King is a prominent Metis writer and commentator who talks extensively about Metis and aboriginal issues. The Conservatives have a well known candidate – Guelph City councilor Gloria Kovach. Her ability to be elected to Guelph council could propel her to parliament. The Liberals have a much lesser known lawyer. In a by-election the riding could go to any of the four major parties including the Greens. The Greens are a particularly distinct possibility due to the 19.5% they got in Guelph in the provincial election.
Don Valley West was won by 20% over the Tories with 53% of the vote. Local gay United Church minister Rob Oliphant has been nominated for the Liberals. The Tories have nominated the 2006 candidate John Carmichael. This riding is not as safe for the Liberals as Willowdale and in a by-election it could sadly conceivably go Conservative. The Liberals are very likely to again lose Saint Lambert which they lost in the 2004 election so a Liberal loss there would be no surprise. Sadly none of the upcoming by-elections look like a sure bet for the Liberals.
However, I am still delighted at the wonderful Toronto by-election results. Another bright note is that the Liberals easily won the popular vote of the 4 by-elections put together.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Prohibative organ donation restrictions
I would like to express my concern over this new Health Canada policy that seeks to exclude sexually active gay men from donating organs. It opens the Harper government up to accusations of being homophobic. Unfortunately it zeroes in on a single group and reinforces stereotypes. STDs spread in the gay community but this is not inherently due to being gay. There are historical and sociological factors to do with promiscuity. In the articles I read about this I was seeing a lot about families being questioned on these things after a donor is dead. This seems to discount the numerous existences of live donors. This new policy is a blanket ban that doctors can only override in exceptional circumstances. Unfortunately this blanket ban endangers the lives of those in need of a donated organ. Here is a hypothetical example. A gay man marries a woman and has a daughter. They then divorce because the man realizes he is gay. The man enters into a monogamous sexual relationship with another man that carries as little risk of HIV as a monogamous heterosexual relationship. The gay man’s daughter suffers kidney failure in both kidneys. After some time of treatment she is in serious need of a transplant. A test is done on the father and there is a requisite DNA match. The doctors set aside this match and look elsewhere because they have much higher preference for a donor who is straight. It is difficult to find a matching donor elsewhere. This girl’s life is being endangered because of a blanket policy that does not apply to the circumstances and is clearly discriminatory. This is the fault of the Harper government through failure to exercise their responsibility. I also wonder whether this regulation is an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court might actually use its precedence criteria to strike down this regulation when I think about it. Thumbs down again to the Harper government.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Shook hands with Ed, Hugh, and Kate
On Thursday I got to shake the hands of Ed Broadbent, Hugh Segal, and Kate Holloway. York University hosted a two-hour forum on electoral reform. I only got to see the last 3 minutes. I had class for almost all of it, and then I needed to look up its location and that is how much time was left. As a result I only got to hear Broadbent speak. Interestingly, York didn’t invite a representative of the Green Party to the debate. Broadbent represented the NDP, Segal is a Conservative Senator and so he represented the federal/provincial Tories. Kate Holloway represented the Liberals. In some way, you CAN say the Greens had representation – in Kate Holloway. Holloway was formerly a prominent member of the federal Green Party. Kate was, however, the only representation the Greens got. All 3 of the speakers are in favour of MMP. I enjoyed the part of Broadbent’s speech I heard, but I strongly disagreed with one part of it in particular. Broadbent referred to the 2006 federal election and said that in the City of Toronto the Conservatives received “thousands” of votes but got no seats in the City of Toronto. Broadbent said the votes the Conservatives received in Toronto should have gotten them seats. I disagree with this. The Conservatives only got about 20% of the vote in the City of Toronto. I don’t think this warrants any seats when it is quite clear that Torontonians overwhelmingly rejected the Conservatives. Broadbent argues that under proportional representation the Conservatives would get seats in Toronto. But frankly I don’t see why we should give the Conservatives an opportunity to win seats in Toronto. I just don’t think 20% of the vote should warrant representation when it was quite obvious the vast majority of Torontonians did not agree with Conservative policies. Broadbent said the same thing about Montreal and Vancouver. He said that there too the Conservatives received votes but got no seats and that this was unfair. Well, we all know what happened in Vancouver. But in Montreal it stands – there are no Conservative seats on the Island of Montreal. And why should there be? The Conservatives got only around 15% or so of the vote in Montreal. I don’t believe that should entitle the Conservatives to seats. This whole thing is another reason I don’t like proportional representation (PR). It looks as though under PR, even when you overwhelmingly reject the Tories, Tory MPs still get elected. For me that is just plain unappealing.
I wonder if people like Ed Broadbent would make the same argument about Markham. Would they argue that the federal Tories deserve representation in the Town of Markham because of the 30-35% of the voters voted Tory in Markham? Markham spans 3 different federal ridings: Markham—Unionville (my riding and where the majority of Markham residents live), Thornhill (this has the far Western part of Markham and the rest of the riding consists of part of the City of Vaughan), and Oak Ridges—Markham (this has the Eastern and Northern parts of Markham). The Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham is the strongest Liberal part of the riding where the Liberals rack up large majorities. Markham—Unionville voted strongly Liberal in the last federal election, as I am certain did the Markham portion of Thornhill. In Markham—Unionville, the Conservatives got just under 27%. In Thornhill, the Conservatives got 33% (this number incorporates the Vaughan portion of Thornhill). In Oak Ridges—Markham, the Conservatives got 38.5%. That 38.5% is the result riding-wide. The Tories received far less than this in the Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham. When you do the estimation math in your head, you come to the conclusion that if the whole Town of Markham were its own riding (as it once was provincially), the Tories would have 30-35% and the Liberals would have somewhere above 50%. I am 90% certain that the whole Town of Markham voted over 50% Liberal in the last federal election. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t buy any MMP argument about Conservatives deserving representation in the Town of Markham. For the record, to contrast those Conservative numbers, here are the riding-wide Liberal numbers for each of the 3 ridings I just discussed. Markham—Unionville: 61.9%. Thornhill: 53%. Oak Ridges—Markham: 47%.
I wonder if people like Ed Broadbent would make the same argument about Markham. Would they argue that the federal Tories deserve representation in the Town of Markham because of the 30-35% of the voters voted Tory in Markham? Markham spans 3 different federal ridings: Markham—Unionville (my riding and where the majority of Markham residents live), Thornhill (this has the far Western part of Markham and the rest of the riding consists of part of the City of Vaughan), and Oak Ridges—Markham (this has the Eastern and Northern parts of Markham). The Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham is the strongest Liberal part of the riding where the Liberals rack up large majorities. Markham—Unionville voted strongly Liberal in the last federal election, as I am certain did the Markham portion of Thornhill. In Markham—Unionville, the Conservatives got just under 27%. In Thornhill, the Conservatives got 33% (this number incorporates the Vaughan portion of Thornhill). In Oak Ridges—Markham, the Conservatives got 38.5%. That 38.5% is the result riding-wide. The Tories received far less than this in the Markham portion of Oak Ridges—Markham. When you do the estimation math in your head, you come to the conclusion that if the whole Town of Markham were its own riding (as it once was provincially), the Tories would have 30-35% and the Liberals would have somewhere above 50%. I am 90% certain that the whole Town of Markham voted over 50% Liberal in the last federal election. It is for this reason that I wouldn’t buy any MMP argument about Conservatives deserving representation in the Town of Markham. For the record, to contrast those Conservative numbers, here are the riding-wide Liberal numbers for each of the 3 ridings I just discussed. Markham—Unionville: 61.9%. Thornhill: 53%. Oak Ridges—Markham: 47%.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Pauline Marois
PQ leader Pauline Marois will run in a Quebec provincial by-election in Charlevoix. While the Liberals have already said they will not run a candidate against her, the ADQ is considering running a candidate against her. One reason she probably chose this seat is due to the Quebec political tradition of other major parties not opposing party leaders in by-elections. Otherwise it would not make sense because Charlevoix is not a safe PQ seat. The resigning PQ member won by only 6.88%. The ADQ had about 30% of the vote. A race with Marois against an ADQ candidate with no Liberal candidate would be strange. It could give the ADQ candidate a chance to win. This could in turn force Marois to resgin as leader and could bring Gilles Duceppe to Quebec City after all. I don’t know how a straight PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate would look like. If all the federalist vote were to unite behind the ADQ, the ADQ could easily beat Marois. If it is more of a left-right thing, then Marois would stand a good chance if the centre/left vote united behind her. I think if the ADQ insists on running a candidate, the Liberals would be doing Marois a favour to run a candidate as well. The Liberals want to let Marois into the legislature. A PQ-ADQ race with no Liberal candidate has the significant danger of Marois being defeated and therefore in this circumstance running a Liberal candidate may be the right thing to do. Maybe ADQ leader Mario Dumont will in the end choose not run a candidate. If they do run a candidate they will receive a lot of criticism for such cruelty and it could cost them the by-election race. I say either both other parties run candidates or neither party runs candidates. The Liberals bowing out if the ADQ won’t does not exactly make sense.
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
The tradition of not opposing party leaders in by-elections exists federally as well but is less hard and fast. Unlike in Quebec, at the federal level the tradition does not extend to other opposition parties. What I mean by that is that at the federal level it is the tradition for the GOVERNING PARTY to not run a candidate against a leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. Other major opposition parties do run candidates against leaders trying to enter parliament and there is no tradition against this. On the other hand, if it’s a Prime Minister trying to enter Parliament (it can theoretically happen), I also know of no tradition that says opposition parties are not to run candidates in the by-election.
I do not consider the Conservatives to be strong followers of the tradition of the governing party not running a candidate against a party leader attempting to enter parliament in a by-election. I say this because when Green Party leader Elizabeth May ran in the London North Centre by-election last year, the Conservatives ran a candidate against her. I also strongly suspect that if someone had won the Liberal leadership race who did not have a seat in parliament, the Conservatives would have run a candidate against them in the by-election that would have occurred to get the new leader in Parliament. Of course knowing the Conservatives, they probably would not have even called that by-election until just recently, leaving this hypothetical Liberal leader unable to lead his/her party from the House of Commons.
This political tradition I have been discussing does not exist at all in Ontario at the provincial level, at least not anymore. The Liberals ran a candidate against John Tory when Tory ran in the 2005 by-election. The governing party in Ontario has also always run a candidate against Ontario Green Party leader Frank De Jong the numerous times De Jong has run in an Ontario by-election. On a side note, De Jong seems to really like hopping from riding to riding. He has run in the following places:
1988 Federal: Rosedale, Winner: David MacDonald (PC)
1990 Provincial: Ottawa East, Winner: Bernard Grandmaître (Lib)
1991 Municipal: Ottawa’s Capital Ward, Winner: Jim Watson (now Lib cabinet minister)
1993 Federal: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Jean-Robert Gauthier (Lib)
1995 Federal by-election: Ottawa—Vanier, Winner: Mauril Bélanger (Lib)
1995 Provincial: Nepean, Winner: John Baird (PC)
1997 Federal: Ottawa Centre, Winner: Mac Harb (Lib)
1999 Provincial: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Gerard Kennedy (Lib)
2003 Provincial: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: Ernie Eves (PC)
2005 Provincial by-election: Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey, Winner: John Tory (PC)
2006 Provincial by-election: Parkdale—High Park, Winner: Cheri Di Novo (NDP)
2007 Proincial by-election: Burlington, Winner: Joyce Savoline (PC)
De Jong is relatively economically conservative and has even called for the abolition of Catholic schools. As with the federal Greens, it is for reasons like this that it is hard to tell sometimes who the Greens are splitting votes with.
The political tradition I have talked about has once actually helped a political party defeat the leader attempting to enter Parliament at the federal level. Arthur Meighen became leader of the Conservatives (again) in the early 1940s. The York South riding was supposed to be a safe Conservative seat. So the MP resigned to allow Meighen to contest the riding. The Liberals followed the political tradition and did not run a candidate against Meighen. The CCF however did run a candidate. It was a two-candidate only race. Because the Liberals ran no candidate, there was no vote splitting on the left. The result of this lack of vote splitting was that the CCF candidate was able to easily defeat Arthur Meighen in the February 1942 by-election by a large margin. This forced Meighen out of the Conservative leadership. I wonder how close the 1942 York South riding boundaries resemble the modern York South—Weston boundaries where in 2007 there was also a by-election upset won by a social democratic party (the NDP) at the provincial level. This 2007 by-election upset also took place in February. Maybe in another 65 years they can have another by-election in York South in February, but a with a Liberal winning it!
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Equality, Equality, Equality
I was watching A Channel news and they ran a story on the fact that it is Pride Week in Simcoe County. I was happy to see that the new Mayor of Barrie, Dave Aspden, gave a speech that “emphasized the importance of equality for all community members.” (http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=648542&catname=Local+News). It is my hope that equality for Mr. Aspden includes same-sex marriage. If the previous mayor of Barrie, Rob Hamilton, had been re-elected last November, I’m not sure whether he would have given such a gay-positive speech. I say this because in the 2000 federal election, Hamilton ran for the notoriously anti-gay Canadian Alliance in Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford. Regardless, the news story featured a male same-sex couple living in Simcoe who next week will be legally married. Sadly for them and other gay people living in Simcoe County, the support of Simcoe County’s gay community by the county’s federal MPs is severely lacking. All Simcoe MPs are Conservative. All Simcoe MPs are against same-sex marriage. I say this based on their 2005 and 2006 parliamentary voting records. This is despite Simcoe’s gay community which as we can see is becoming more and more active. Thus it is shameful the lack of support local MPs are offering the gay community. It’s sad that former Simcoe North Liberal MP Paul DeVillers chose not to run again in the last election. In his absence, Simcoe North only went Conservative by 2% because of a vote split with the NDP. Had DeVillers run, his incumbency may have been enough to win again. DeVillers supported same-sex marriage way back in 1999 despite representing a conservative rural riding. If he’d run again, Simcoe County might still have one pro-gay MP. This whole thing is a shame. After all, prior to the 2004 election, two of the 3 Simcoe MPs (Paul Bonwick and Paul DeVillers) were solidly in favour of same-sex marriage, and a third (Aileen Carroll) would have come around to support it as she eventually did. It’s facts like this that make me think we never should have had the 2004 election – Paul Martin could have delayed until 2005.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
All of Simcoe’s MPPs are Tory. Despite Tory leader John Tory’s pro-gay marriage position, all Simcoe MPPs have stated publicly that they are anti-gay marriage and so they are no help to Simcoe’s gay community either. This all leads to another related question. Why is Barrie still so socially and economically conservative now that it is a city of over 100,000 people?
Speaking of equality I want to discuss another equality issue. I am unhappy about the plight of Nine-year-old Lydia Houck. Here is the lowdown from the Toronto Star of August 9:
“Nine-year-old Lydia Houck was looking forward to a day of fishing, hiking and golfing when she browsed through a list of summer day camps offered near her Nova Scotia home.
But the only option that fit her interests was just for boys.
In contrast, the only all-girl camp, dubbed Glamorous Girls, offers jewelry-making and a trip to the spa for manicures and pedicures for girls aged five to 12.
Lydia says she'd rather be fishing….
"My brother and I go fishing a lot and I enjoy going outside a lot, and this camp seemed to fit that description and it was pretty much the only day camp that did."”
Government officials deny there is discrimination but listen to what Jacqueline Warwick, the co-ordinator of gender and women's studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax had to say (from the same Toronto Star article):
“Jacqueline Warwick … said there is nothing innovative about splitting boys and girls into activities that are traditionally masculine and feminine.
She said she was "astonished" that a municipal government would be behind such blatant gender stereotyping, adding that the idea of a spa day for young girls is part of a larger cultural phenomenon that ensures girls and boys fit into specific gender roles.
"I do think that there is a widespread movement to restore these very repressive, old-fashioned gender roles," said Warwick.
"This emphasis on frivolity . . . can be understood as a way of occupying girls' and women's time. They spend all their time and money on these activities. It's a way of containing women and girls into these safe stereotypes where they're not going to disrupt society."”
I agree with what Lydia and Ms. Warwick say. For Lydia, fishing is more fun than a spa. I happen to agree with her on that. Thus I think for the sake of equality Lydia should be allowed to go fishing with the boys’ camp. Other girls probably want to go fishing too.
One more thing about equality to discuss. We do need more women in politics. What we also need is to put an end to the pattern of American celebrities being arrested for drugs and drunk driving. Look what happened to Lindsay Lohan. Now she is the butt of the joke for every late-night comedian. She is but one example. How is this tied to politics? Well, I want young child actress Miley Cyrus to avoid the fate of Lindsay Lohan. Miley’s grandfather Ron Cyrus was a Democrat Kentucky politician who served 11 terms (two decades) as a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Miley has lived a wonderful, glamorous and privileged life, but even that life has not come without pain. Her grandpa Ron Cyrus died recently. And according to one of Miley’s song, she misses him. My condolences on the loss of Miley’s grandfather. Actors in the past have entered politics. Sadly the Hollywood actors who enter politics tend to be Republican and male. We don’t seem to get female Hollywood actors entering politics. So I think Miley Cyrus should consider a future career in politics like her grandpa. Her future career opportunities are her choice, but she would be an excellent addition to politics because she would be a much needed female addition to the actors-turned-politicians club. Her trademark show Hannah Montana is popular in Canada, so here’s a pipe dream: theoretically she could become a Canadian citizen and eventually run for the Liberals. I assume that if she were in politics she would have a similar political persuasion as her grandfather. But all of this speculation of a future political career is a little far off for now. For the time being I just want Miley to stay away from alcohol and drugs and avoid brush-ins with the law. Sadly Miley will not be able to vote in a federal election, until 2012. She will turn 18 in November 2010 but only after the midterm elections. Miley’s career decisions are hers, but the world would be a better place if Miley can give it all she’s got.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)