Thursday, November 26, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Mark Steyn’s Column, Maclean’s Nov.30th.
Though I have no issue with the gist of Mr. Steyn’s position regarding “political correctness”, I do have a point to make regarding the issue of “honour killings” –surely an oxymoron if there ever was one.
While Muslim “honour killings” have been in the news lately, as mentioned by Mr. Steyn; such killings have also been perpetrated by non-Muslim immigrants in the past; in particular new Canadians from the more traditional cultures of southern Europe. Their cause was also the problem of their daughter wanting to dress as and emulate the native Canadian women in their social circles and schools. The parents try to shield and “protect” their children from unwanted (by them) intrusion on their old world habits, culture and beliefs, but feel they are losing a degree of control over their children as they grow older and mill with the general population, as they inevitably must.
From the point of view of Canadian society, this integration process is a good thing; but a stressful one for the “old country” generation with “old country” mores; particularly where the cultural gap is wide, such as between southern and northern Europe; or South Asian or Middle Eastern cultures; regardless of religion. Disobedient children combined with the lack of identity and control they feel in a foreign land, lends itself to friction and stress within the family unit, and in the extreme, to violence and mayhem, even murder.
There should be a requirement for better preparation of immigrants from such cultures, before they are encouraged to immigrate here. They should understand that in accepting our economic and social benefits, they must also be ready to make some adjustments for Canadian culture and social mores; lest the cultural divide become an unbridgeable schism.
While Muslim “honour killings” have been in the news lately, as mentioned by Mr. Steyn; such killings have also been perpetrated by non-Muslim immigrants in the past; in particular new Canadians from the more traditional cultures of southern Europe. Their cause was also the problem of their daughter wanting to dress as and emulate the native Canadian women in their social circles and schools. The parents try to shield and “protect” their children from unwanted (by them) intrusion on their old world habits, culture and beliefs, but feel they are losing a degree of control over their children as they grow older and mill with the general population, as they inevitably must.
From the point of view of Canadian society, this integration process is a good thing; but a stressful one for the “old country” generation with “old country” mores; particularly where the cultural gap is wide, such as between southern and northern Europe; or South Asian or Middle Eastern cultures; regardless of religion. Disobedient children combined with the lack of identity and control they feel in a foreign land, lends itself to friction and stress within the family unit, and in the extreme, to violence and mayhem, even murder.
There should be a requirement for better preparation of immigrants from such cultures, before they are encouraged to immigrate here. They should understand that in accepting our economic and social benefits, they must also be ready to make some adjustments for Canadian culture and social mores; lest the cultural divide become an unbridgeable schism.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
STOP THE LAMA LOVE-IN – Andy Lamey in Maclean’s Nov.30th
While your Mr. Lamey makes some valid points regarding the Dalai Lama, I must take issue with a few of his comments, viz comparing the Dalai Lama to Mandalea and South Africa. Mandalea was fighting apartheid within his own country, and while generally peaceful, his ANC Youth League, after the Sharpsville Massacre in 1960, was outlawed, and Mandalea was put on trial for treason; but the trial collapsed in 1961and Mandalea was set free.
Later, he joined with other leaders in an organization called Umkhoto we Zizwe, which advocated armed struggle. Put on trial for his life in Rivonia for illegal exit and for sabotage (his organization blew up some power lines), he made the famous defensive speech partly quoted by Mr. Lamey. While Mandalea was not a terrorist, neither was he a peacenik, and the comparison of him to the Dalai Lama is rather fanciful. A better comparison would be Mahatma Gandhi who did fully embrace non-violent resistance. Yet, also he was operating from within his country, and though he faced a colonial empire, it was a liberal-democratic one, tired of war and ready to compromise. Hardly today’s China.
To imply that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans should take up armed resistance towards China is just foolish. With its 2,300,000 population and less than 500,000 square miles of territory, it stands zero chance in armed conflict with a ruthless and totalitarian regime of 1.4 billion Chinese. To do anything but sending his regards and prayers for a successful Olympics would have given the Chinese leaders great ammunition against the Tibetans. Even with his good will towards their Olympics, he was accused of interference and anti-Chinese agitation. Mr. Lamey’s comment about the equivalent moral case of armed resistance of France against Nazi Germany in WWII is just as naive. France was assisted by the Allies, with the Free French army in England; hardly the situation with Tibet and China.
The comment about Dalai Lama’s epicurean tastes and selective vegetarianism is not really relevant to his cause, and is, if I may say so, a punch below his belt. Accusing him of relativist tendencies because he vacillates on same-sex union is also rather lame(y).
I don’t remember reading anything by Andy Lamey in you magazine before, but if this is the kind of rationale and logic he brings to the table, I’d rather go somewhere else.
Later, he joined with other leaders in an organization called Umkhoto we Zizwe, which advocated armed struggle. Put on trial for his life in Rivonia for illegal exit and for sabotage (his organization blew up some power lines), he made the famous defensive speech partly quoted by Mr. Lamey. While Mandalea was not a terrorist, neither was he a peacenik, and the comparison of him to the Dalai Lama is rather fanciful. A better comparison would be Mahatma Gandhi who did fully embrace non-violent resistance. Yet, also he was operating from within his country, and though he faced a colonial empire, it was a liberal-democratic one, tired of war and ready to compromise. Hardly today’s China.
To imply that the Dalai Lama and the Tibetans should take up armed resistance towards China is just foolish. With its 2,300,000 population and less than 500,000 square miles of territory, it stands zero chance in armed conflict with a ruthless and totalitarian regime of 1.4 billion Chinese. To do anything but sending his regards and prayers for a successful Olympics would have given the Chinese leaders great ammunition against the Tibetans. Even with his good will towards their Olympics, he was accused of interference and anti-Chinese agitation. Mr. Lamey’s comment about the equivalent moral case of armed resistance of France against Nazi Germany in WWII is just as naive. France was assisted by the Allies, with the Free French army in England; hardly the situation with Tibet and China.
The comment about Dalai Lama’s epicurean tastes and selective vegetarianism is not really relevant to his cause, and is, if I may say so, a punch below his belt. Accusing him of relativist tendencies because he vacillates on same-sex union is also rather lame(y).
I don’t remember reading anything by Andy Lamey in you magazine before, but if this is the kind of rationale and logic he brings to the table, I’d rather go somewhere else.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
“Police dragnet oversteps” –Star Editorial Monday Nov.16th
This conundrum could be called a Hobson’s choice: do I let the police in, or do I stand on my Charter rights and refuse. If I do refuse, surely I will give the police no choice but to get a warrant, since my refusal could indicate that I have something to hide. I don’t envy the police who have to make such individual decisions.
I empathise with the police force faced with this dilemma, but I do question the efficacy of going through everyone’s garbage. If anything were to be found, it would surely be gone after all the publicity. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is theatre: the appearance of “leaving no stone unturned”. Why else would you turn police into expensive garbage collectors?
We should not abridge citizens rights unless in the most dire circumstances. Once done, we are on a slippery slope –it will become routine, and eventually substitute for real detective work.
I empathise with the police force faced with this dilemma, but I do question the efficacy of going through everyone’s garbage. If anything were to be found, it would surely be gone after all the publicity. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is theatre: the appearance of “leaving no stone unturned”. Why else would you turn police into expensive garbage collectors?
We should not abridge citizens rights unless in the most dire circumstances. Once done, we are on a slippery slope –it will become routine, and eventually substitute for real detective work.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
DEFENDING THE ROYALS –Andrew Coyne, Maclean`s Nov 23rd
The current Royal visit has been a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
Andrew Coyne makes a fair argument about why we should have a Canadian Royal. It would accomplish two things: keeping our present true and tried political system, and having our own Royal family. His suggestion about offering the Crown to Prince Harry is a good one. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. We would have a domestic sovereign and could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
A textbook for Canada –Maclean`s editorial Nov. 23rd issue
You are right that `Ottawa should give every Canadian a copy of its new citizenship booklet`.
What the Ottawa and all the provinces should also do (since education is a provincial responsibility) is make Canadian History a compulsory subject right through high school. I have often been astonished to hear what little the Canadian-born citizens know about their own history. I recommend reading `Who killed Canadian history` by J.L. Granatstein for a start.
What the Ottawa and all the provinces should also do (since education is a provincial responsibility) is make Canadian History a compulsory subject right through high school. I have often been astonished to hear what little the Canadian-born citizens know about their own history. I recommend reading `Who killed Canadian history` by J.L. Granatstein for a start.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What is Canada becoming? Is Canada's tolerance misplaced?
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College
By Mahfooz Kanwar, For The Calgary Herald, March 30, 2009 -Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting flak from the usual
suspects, but he deserves praise instead.
Recently, Kenney pointed out that while at a meeting in Toronto, members of
Canada's Pakistani community called on him to make Punjabi one of Canada's
official languages. It makes me angry that such an idea would enter the minds
of my fellow and former countrymen, let alone express them to a Minister of
the Crown.
A few months ago, I was dismayed to learn that Erik Millett, the principal of
Belleisle School in Springfield, N.B., limited playing our national anthem
because the families of a couple of his students objected to it.
As a social scientist, I oppose this kind of political correctness, lack of
assimilation of new immigrants to mainstream Canada, hyphenated-Canadian
identity, and the lack of patriotism in our great nation.
Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest
we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of
causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are
scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that
the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly
question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit
into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to
adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind
them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.
In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust
to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to totally amalgamate
with the majority. They can practice some of their cultural traditions within
their homes -- their backstage behavior. However, when outside of their homes,
their front stage behavior should resemble mainstream Canadian behavior.
Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill
our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear
hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur'an anyway. We do not
kill our daughters if they date the "wrong" men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl
should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was
caught dating a Caucasian man.
We do not practice the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides
because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are
aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed
by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned
to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a
marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their
brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.
In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or
religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we
should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes,
especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring
their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I
was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practiced
in St. Catharines , Ont. A few years ago.
I have said it on radio and television, have written in my columns in the
Calgary Herald, and I have written in my latest book, Journey to Success, that
I do not agree with the hyphenated identity in Canada because it divides our
loyalties. My argument is that people are not forced to come to Canada and
they are not forced to stay here. Those who come here of their own volition
and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.
I am a first-generation Canadian from Pakistan. I left Pakistan 45 years ago.
I cannot ignore Pakistan, because it is the homeland of my folks, but my first
loyalty should be and is to Canada. I am, therefore, a proud Canadian, no
longer a Pakistani-Canadian. I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian.
I do not agree with those Canadians who engage in their fight against the
system in their original countries on Canadian soil. They should go back and
fight from within. For example, some of the Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Armenians and
others have disturbed the peace in Canada because of their problems back home.
Recently, a low-level leader of MQM, the
Mafia of Pakistan, came to Canada as a refugee and started to organize public
rallies to collect funds for their cause in Pakistan. On July 18, 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled that MQM is a terrorist group led by
London-based Altaf Hussain, their godfather. As a member in the coalition
government of Pakistan, this terrorist group is currently collaborating with
the Taliban in Pakistan. That refugee was deported back to Pakistan.
Similarly, I disagree with newcomers who bring their religious baggage here.
For example, Muslims are less than two per cent of the Canadian population,
yet in 2004 and 2005, a fraction of them, the fundamentalists, wanted to bring
Sharia law to Canada. If they really want to live under Shara, they should go
to the prison-like countries where Sharia is practiced.
I once supported multiculturalism in Canada because I believed it gave us a
sense of pluralism and diversity. However, I have observed and experienced
that official multiculturalism has encouraged convolution of the values that
make Canada the kind of place people want to immigrate to in the first place.
Here, we stand on guard for Canada, not for countries we came from. Like it or
not, take it or leave it, standing on guard only for Canada is our national
maxim. Remember, O Canada is our national anthem which must not be disregarded
by anybody, including the teacher in Springfield, N. B.
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College.
By Mahfooz Kanwar, For The Calgary Herald, March 30, 2009 -Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is getting flak from the usual
suspects, but he deserves praise instead.
Recently, Kenney pointed out that while at a meeting in Toronto, members of
Canada's Pakistani community called on him to make Punjabi one of Canada's
official languages. It makes me angry that such an idea would enter the minds
of my fellow and former countrymen, let alone express them to a Minister of
the Crown.
A few months ago, I was dismayed to learn that Erik Millett, the principal of
Belleisle School in Springfield, N.B., limited playing our national anthem
because the families of a couple of his students objected to it.
As a social scientist, I oppose this kind of political correctness, lack of
assimilation of new immigrants to mainstream Canada, hyphenated-Canadian
identity, and the lack of patriotism in our great nation.
Increasingly, Canadians feel restricted in doing things the Canadian way lest
we offend minorities. We cannot even say Merry Christmas without fear of
causing offence. It is amazing that 77 per cent of the Canadian majority are
scared of offending 23 per cent of minorities. We have become so timid that
the majority cannot assert its own freedom of expression. We cannot publicly
question certain foreign social customs, traditions and values that do not fit
into the Canadian ethos of equality. Rather than encouraging new immigrants to
adjust to Canada, we tolerate peculiar ways of doing things. We do not remind
them that they are in Canada, not in their original homelands.
In a multicultural society, it is the responsibility of minorities to adjust
to the majority. It does not mean that minorities have to totally amalgamate
with the majority. They can practice some of their cultural traditions within
their homes -- their backstage behavior. However, when outside of their homes,
their front stage behavior should resemble mainstream Canadian behavior.
Whoever comes to Canada must learn the limits of our system. We do not kill
our daughters or other female members of our families who refuse to wear
hijab, niqab or burka which are not mandated by the Qur'an anyway. We do not
kill our daughters if they date the "wrong" men. A 17-year-old Sikh girl
should not have been killed in British Columbia by her father because she was
caught dating a Caucasian man.
We do not practice the dowry system in Canada, and do not kill our brides
because they did not bring enough dowry. Millions of female fetuses are
aborted every year in India, and millions of female infants have been killed
by their parents in India and China. Thousands of brides in India are burned
to death in their kitchens because they did not bring enough dowry into a
marriage. Some 30,000 Sikhs living abroad took the dowries but abandoned their
brides in India in 2005. This is not accepted in Canada.
In some countries, thousands of women are murdered every year for family or
religious honour. We should not hide behind political correctness and we
should expose the cultural and religious background of these heinous crimes,
especially if it happens in Canada. We should also expose those who bring
their cultural baggage containing the social custom of female circumcision. I
was shocked when I learned about two cases of this barbaric custom practiced
in St. Catharines , Ont. A few years ago.
I have said it on radio and television, have written in my columns in the
Calgary Herald, and I have written in my latest book, Journey to Success, that
I do not agree with the hyphenated identity in Canada because it divides our
loyalties. My argument is that people are not forced to come to Canada and
they are not forced to stay here. Those who come here of their own volition
and stay here must be truly patriotic Canadians or go back.
I am a first-generation Canadian from Pakistan. I left Pakistan 45 years ago.
I cannot ignore Pakistan, because it is the homeland of my folks, but my first
loyalty should be and is to Canada. I am, therefore, a proud Canadian, no
longer a Pakistani-Canadian. I am a Canadian Muslim, not a Muslim Canadian.
I do not agree with those Canadians who engage in their fight against the
system in their original countries on Canadian soil. They should go back and
fight from within. For example, some of the Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Armenians and
others have disturbed the peace in Canada because of their problems back home.
Recently, a low-level leader of MQM, the
Mafia of Pakistan, came to Canada as a refugee and started to organize public
rallies to collect funds for their cause in Pakistan. On July 18, 2007, the
Federal Court of Canada ruled that MQM is a terrorist group led by
London-based Altaf Hussain, their godfather. As a member in the coalition
government of Pakistan, this terrorist group is currently collaborating with
the Taliban in Pakistan. That refugee was deported back to Pakistan.
Similarly, I disagree with newcomers who bring their religious baggage here.
For example, Muslims are less than two per cent of the Canadian population,
yet in 2004 and 2005, a fraction of them, the fundamentalists, wanted to bring
Sharia law to Canada. If they really want to live under Shara, they should go
to the prison-like countries where Sharia is practiced.
I once supported multiculturalism in Canada because I believed it gave us a
sense of pluralism and diversity. However, I have observed and experienced
that official multiculturalism has encouraged convolution of the values that
make Canada the kind of place people want to immigrate to in the first place.
Here, we stand on guard for Canada, not for countries we came from. Like it or
not, take it or leave it, standing on guard only for Canada is our national
maxim. Remember, O Canada is our national anthem which must not be disregarded
by anybody, including the teacher in Springfield, N. B.
Mahfooz Kanwar, PHD, Is A Sociologist And An Instructor Emeritus at Mount Royal College.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
“What a waste” –Maclean’s Nov.16th issue.
What a waste indeed! As long as our farms can produce an abundance of foods at low cost, there is not much that can be done about it –save a real change in attitude of consumers, or legal restraints on production and/or consumption. I don’t see either as a realistic option.
Marketing boards can underpin prices –which benefit farmers –by either buying up surpluses and destroying it, as you describe, or restrict production, which is probably the lesser of two evils, because at least the food is not wasted and produced with its concomitant energy usage. Either way it reduces price variability and supports the farmer. However, the supply-controlling quotas also create inefficiencies and must be complemented by import restrictions on the same farm products.
In a more philosophical way, it is a shame that we in the western, developed world, gorge on foods to where it damages our health; while many in the developing world are living on starvation rations. I don’t pretend to have an easy the answer to that conundrum.
As a child in Europe during the war and after, I experienced food shortages, though not starvation. If we did not clean our plates, mother would have a standard statement: “think of the poor starving children in Africa”. Not much has changed in parts of Africa, but it certainly has in my birth country. Food waste and excess consumption is just as rampant as in Canada and the US. So soon we forget.
Thank you for bringing this subject to the fore. Perhaps it will help bring attention to the horrendous waste in modern society; whether it is food, energy or other resources.
Marketing boards can underpin prices –which benefit farmers –by either buying up surpluses and destroying it, as you describe, or restrict production, which is probably the lesser of two evils, because at least the food is not wasted and produced with its concomitant energy usage. Either way it reduces price variability and supports the farmer. However, the supply-controlling quotas also create inefficiencies and must be complemented by import restrictions on the same farm products.
In a more philosophical way, it is a shame that we in the western, developed world, gorge on foods to where it damages our health; while many in the developing world are living on starvation rations. I don’t pretend to have an easy the answer to that conundrum.
As a child in Europe during the war and after, I experienced food shortages, though not starvation. If we did not clean our plates, mother would have a standard statement: “think of the poor starving children in Africa”. Not much has changed in parts of Africa, but it certainly has in my birth country. Food waste and excess consumption is just as rampant as in Canada and the US. So soon we forget.
Thank you for bringing this subject to the fore. Perhaps it will help bring attention to the horrendous waste in modern society; whether it is food, energy or other resources.
DARTS AND LAURELS –Twenty Liberal and NDP MP’S -The Star, Nov 7th
I must take issue with your comment criticizing the MP’s who voted to abolish the (long) gun registry. The Star, and other media, has criticized Steven Harper for controlling his MP’s; here we have criticisms against Michael Ignatieff for not doing so. Which is it? “You cannot have your cake and also eat it”.
MP’s owe their allegiances to their constituents, first and foremost. MP’s are ultimately responsible to those who voted them in. Liberal MP’s from the Prairie Provinces would respond to their local voters who are mostly against registration of their long guns. Rural westerners are used to keeping rifles and shotguns around, and resent the bureaucratic intrusion on their way of life. MP’S do well to listen to the will of their home base. That’s what we call democracy.
MP’s owe their allegiances to their constituents, first and foremost. MP’s are ultimately responsible to those who voted them in. Liberal MP’s from the Prairie Provinces would respond to their local voters who are mostly against registration of their long guns. Rural westerners are used to keeping rifles and shotguns around, and resent the bureaucratic intrusion on their way of life. MP’S do well to listen to the will of their home base. That’s what we call democracy.
Friday, November 6, 2009
“‘No regrets’ about days that bear his name, Rae says” –Star Nov.6th
Deep down, there must be some feeling of righteous glee in Bob Rae’s hearth. When as NDP Premier he faced a 12-billion deficit from the previous Liberal government in 1992, he tried to save public-sectors jobs by having them “share the work”; taking 12unpaid days off a year. The unions showed their appreciation by stabbing him in the back for the effort.
I remember being hospitalized for a few days during that time, and spent a night in a room just outside the nurse’s station. The nurses, in unison, were busy complaining about “Rae days”, and how terrible it was for the Premier to expect them to share the burden. If they would only have known, that after getting rid of the terrible Rae, they would face a new Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, who had no sympathy for their “plight”, and rather than sharing work, many of them would be sharing unemployment. Egoistic behaviour often leads to perdition.
Now they are facing “Dalton days” –same bird, different name. And a bigger deficit. Perhaps the sheltered public servants have learned their lesson and will discover the virtue of sharing this time –but don’t hold your breath.
I remember being hospitalized for a few days during that time, and spent a night in a room just outside the nurse’s station. The nurses, in unison, were busy complaining about “Rae days”, and how terrible it was for the Premier to expect them to share the burden. If they would only have known, that after getting rid of the terrible Rae, they would face a new Premier, Conservative Mike Harris, who had no sympathy for their “plight”, and rather than sharing work, many of them would be sharing unemployment. Egoistic behaviour often leads to perdition.
Now they are facing “Dalton days” –same bird, different name. And a bigger deficit. Perhaps the sheltered public servants have learned their lesson and will discover the virtue of sharing this time –but don’t hold your breath.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Raitt accused of expense abuse –Star Nov 5th
There seems to be growing problems with public servants abusing their position and their expense accounts. Lisa Raitt has continued to be controversial in her function as a cabinet minister, showing carelessness with official documents (though she has not equaled Maxime Bernier there) and public utterances; yet, she is still holding on to her cabinet post, unlike poor Mr. Bernier. I guess Prime Minister Harper cannot afford to remove another minister.
I wonder if these instances of abuse of public trust is something that has always been the norm in public service, or is it that public morals, in general, has declined?
There might be another reason: abuse of public trust has always been the same, but the media – the Star, in particular – is more focused on such behaviour.
I wonder if these instances of abuse of public trust is something that has always been the norm in public service, or is it that public morals, in general, has declined?
There might be another reason: abuse of public trust has always been the same, but the media – the Star, in particular – is more focused on such behaviour.
Elena’s scraps of love –Star, Nov 5th
Kudos to you for publishing the sad but beautiful story of Elena Desserich and her family. This kind of reporting is a welcome break from the proliferation of murder and mayhem it seems we read about daily.
Having finished reading about an angelic child and loving parents, I get to ``Murder mimicked favourite lyrics, trial told``; about the 14-year old boy – inspired by the rapper Eminem –killing his mother by shooting her eight times in the head and burying her in her own back yard.
I guess the latter is also our world, but we could use more of the former.
Having finished reading about an angelic child and loving parents, I get to ``Murder mimicked favourite lyrics, trial told``; about the 14-year old boy – inspired by the rapper Eminem –killing his mother by shooting her eight times in the head and burying her in her own back yard.
I guess the latter is also our world, but we could use more of the former.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Royal visit or royal pain?
The current Royal visit is a non-event here. Canadian apathy and perceived difficulty of changing the constitution militate against a change in the status quo anytime soon. Canadians are largely indifferent to the monarchy, except perhaps when they try to envision Charles and Camilla as their king and queen.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
There is, however, a third way. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. Why not offer the crown to Prince Charles oldest son, William? We would have a domestic sovereign and we could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
We also tend to look south of the border and find the American system wanting –certainly not worth the upheaval that would ensue if we chose the American type politics.
There is, however, a third way. We could do as Norway did in 1905, when they chose a Danish prince for their king. Why not offer the crown to Prince Charles oldest son, William? We would have a domestic sovereign and we could then dispense with the vacuous office of the Governor General.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)