Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Tuesday digest


- I don't want to get into a detailed discussion about the Liberal neutering of Canada's anti-terror laws tonight for the same reasons I never touch Maher Arar and anything to do with security certificates, and those who know me off-line can understand why I'm reluctant to comment, but I'll allow myself this.

Preventive arrest and investigative hearings, the essence of the law in question, were put in place to avoid another 9/11 by allowing for authorities to round up perpetrators and enablers of mass violence before that violence was to be committed. However, by throwing out these provisions, bringing terrorists to justice will have to wait until after politically-motivated murder is carried out. In other words, the Liberal party has decided that the burden of proof now lies in the smoldering ruins of Madrid, London and New York rather than in the twisted minds and warped fantasies of Islamists.

However, applying the same principle, they are not allowing Canada's security apparatus the same courtesy they demand for would-be terrorists. These laws have never been used, and so law enforcement, intelligence agencies and those who work tirelessly within them are being cast as being "guilty" of an act they've never carried out by Canada's opposition parties. And isn't that what the socialists, separatists and Trudeaupians were against?

Michael Ignatieff, you should be ashamed of yourself. And I wouldn't be surprised if deep down, you are.

- Jean Charest has stepped in it by suggesting that the ref in the Quebec soccer tournament who asked the 11-year old Ottawa girl to remove her hijab because it was a safety hazard was only enforcing the rules of soccer. Perhaps I'm giving the Premier too much credit, but I think he took a tougher line on this because in the wake of Herouxville, voters are increasingly looking at the competitive ADQ as the defender of traditional Quebec society. As for what he said, I'm totally in favour of promoting assimilation into the value structure of the larger culture, but those values include freedom of religion, including the right to express that religion within limits. It's not a safety hazard to wear a hijab, as, say, it would be to have a pocket knife at one's side on the soccer field if a young Sikh adolescent insisted on it. Standing up for the rules is important, but a little flexibility now and again is a good thing, too. Charest is wrong on this one, as was the referee.

- I'm a guy who believes in Jesus, the Christian faith, and is damn proud of it. That said, you won't see me rioting in the streets because some filmmaker has suggested that folks like me have been sold a bill of goods.

Now, if he had drawn a cartoon, that'd be another story.

Just kidding.

- Hey, how long till Bill Maher, Rosie O'Donnell, Al Franken or some other similar authority starts mouthing off and says that a) it's a damn shame Cheney didn't get blown to bits or b) the murder attempt was a failed Rovian conspiracy to both get him out of the #2 spot and also shore up sympathy for the GOP in advance of '08?

I give it till the weekend - Sunday to be exact.

- I'd like to congratulate all of the so-called conservative Kool-Aid drinkers tonight on a significant milestone: a federal government that now spends well in excess of $200 billion per year. I recall door-knocking for a certain political party that our esteemed Prime Minister was a key part of about ten years ago. At that time, federal spending was about $120 billion a year, and the party I was supporting wanted to bring that level down by less than 10%. Radical surgery, indeed. Now, only ten years later, that figure has almost doubled under Stephen Harper's watch.

Perhaps when Harper and Brian Mulroney are having their next father-son chat, the #1 rule of politics will come up over course of the discussion, and that's this: never alienate your base. However, that's a lesson that I think is lost on not only the teacher but increasingly, the student.

4 Comments:

At 9:18 AM, Blogger Danny Kaye said...

Sorry Roadie, but I have to disagree with you. I coach girls soccer, and the rules are the same everywhere.

No necklaces, no earrings, no hair clips, nothing that can get caught up in the heat of the battle and perhaps cause injury.

Kudos to the muslim referee for enforcing the rules. Obviously, the other two games the girl played in had refs that didn't have the balls to enforce the rules, likely due to the brouhaha they knew would erupt.

Rules are rules, and they shouldn't be altered or changed just because a hijab is involved.

 
At 9:33 AM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

I've never seen a piece of cotton cause injury, myself.

 
At 10:01 AM, Blogger Danny Kaye said...

I have never seen a hair clip cause injury, but they aren't allowed to wear those either.

Good for the soccer association for enforcing the rules, ones we all have to play by. No exceptions.

 
At 10:12 AM, Blogger Road Hammer said...

An example from when I was a kid - let's say a little guy was suffering from cancer, was going through chemotherapy, had no hair and was really self concious about it. What if the little guy wants to wear a ball cap while running around out there on the field with his buddies kicking around the soccer ball?

No exceptions?

 

Post a Comment

<< Home