| |
Blog of Adam Daifallah -- author, journalist, law student. Lover of politics, writing, golf, curling, fitness, fashion, bacon and maple products -- not necessarily (but probably) in that order. Partisan of the Anglosphere. Contact me via email at adam@daifallah.com. This summer I am joined by Keir Wilmut and Omar Soliman.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Reflections on Quebec's "Fête Nationale" -- follow up
Thanks to all who responded to the post below both here and via email. Opinion was mixed, with one good friend taking me task for demonstrating an apparent lack of respect for Québec. All I can say is that I wrote what I saw, and it differed little from the conclusions of others -- even québécois francophones.
I am told that the celebrations are tamer and more family-oriented in the smaller cities, and even in Montreal. I look forward to seeing those celebrations in future years.
Des commentaires en français de ceux et celles qui étaient là cette année, ou dans des années antérieures, sont bienvenus.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 9:33 AM
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Not a good sign
The liberal media is writing positive stories about Stephen Harper.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 9:59 AM
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Praise Canada?
As a former employee of The New York Sun, I can attest to the fact that heaping plaudits on Canada is not on the paper's list of top priorities. So this op-ed today by Eli Lake should be seen as a very positive sign.
Eli is right, of course. Peter MacKay's handling of the Iran file has been pretty impressive.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 9:45 AM
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Reflections on Québec's "Fête Nationale"
Last weekend was St. Jean Baptiste, or Québec's "National Holiday." (The word nation has a slightly different meaning in French.) This is supposed to be a holiday for all Québecers, not just the struggling separatists, but it is a day nonetheless filled with nationalistic fervor. It can be a bit startling for the uninitiated, but my sense after what I saw is that the cause of Québec independence is in very poor shape.
I took a certain amount of pleasure today in ripping off a "Oui au Québec Libre!" sticker that had been stuck on the statue of General de Gaulle near my apartment while jogging this morning. The stickers are made by the Parti Québécois' youth wing, and they were handing them out Friday night at the "Fête Nationale" concert on the Plains of Abraham.
Contrary to what I had expected, this concert was not filled with Québécois revolutionaries ready to take up arms. Yes, 200,000 people were present. And yes, they were all dressed in blue and waving fleurs-de-lis. But for the most part, they were just a bunch of drunken teenagers celebrating the end of the school year. One concert-goer, Daniel Dufort, sums up the situation nicely:
Each and every year, it seems that someone will somehow come and question me as to why I am celebrating Québec, while being a federalist. I take this as a reminder of a lot of people’s ignorance for the intricacies of Canada’s politics.
Throughout the crowd I saw at les Plaines d’Abraham, a crowd that was constituted of a lot of drunken teenagers, and even of some neo-felquists nutjobs, I didn’t see much of love for Québec. No, what I saw was a pretext for libations, nothing else. Either that or they were drunk on their love for Québec…
Couldn't agree more. The vast majority of those I witnessed "celebrating" were between the ages of 15 and 18, drunk out of their minds and making a huge mess of public property. The Plains were absolutely litterred with garbage. And I've never seen so many people peeing on public buildings.
The big St. Jean concert was just an excuse for the youth of Québec City to let out steam and have a fun time. If the state of Québec nationalism is that concert, a gay cokehead at the head of the PQ and Gilles Duceppe lashing out in righteous indignation because Harper will not call Québec "une nation," federalist Québécers and Canadians can take a deep breath and relax.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 11:05 PM
Lawrence Martin, John Ibbitson and Canada's phony "shift to the right"
I'm a little late getting to this, but I cannot let Lawrence Martin's claptrap from last week's Globe and Mail go unchallenged. Martin penned one of his typically weird columns about conservatism, reiterating his nutty theory that the conservative movement is quietly taking over Canada:
But he (Harper) is a core conservative, a founder of the Reform movement. In the old Canada, their kind was barely welcome in the Tory tent. Now they run the country.
The media, historically centre-left in Canada, is now centre-right. The conservatives have made enormous gains. They control the country's two largest newspaper chains, CanWest Global Communications and Sun Media. They have their own national newspaper and the run of the national magazine, Maclean's. In English Canada, it is hard to find one major centre-left newspaper apart from the Toronto Star. The conservatives dominate the columnist ranks and AM radio talk shows and are strong in private television. The CBC is a declining force.
Well, at least he's admitting that the Toronto Star and the CBC are liberal. That's a step in the right direction. But to cite the other examples as proof of a rightward shift is just silly. Many of his claims are contestible (CanWest media properties are not all controlled by conservatives; the CBC is not declining any more now than it was before) and some of his other examples are not recent developments at all (the National Post, for example, which Martin used to write for, was launched with a conservative editorial page bent in 1998 and has grown less conservative in the eight years since its founding.) Aside from Harper being elected in January, none of what Martin cited is really connected or new.
The next day, John Ibbitson, demonstrating once again that he's the only political analyst at the Globe worthy of the name, panned Martin. Ibbitson says what's really happening is that everyone's converging in the centre, because liberal parties moved rightward and basically joined the conservatives. This is a far more plausible thesis, although I don't agree with everything he said in his column (registration required, I couldn't get the Google cheat to work.)
I have seen no evidence of a recent Canadian shift to the right. Granted, if Harper continues what he's doing, there very well could be one soon.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 10:22 PM
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Stephen Harper on the media, unplugged
Prime Minister Stephen Harper rarely gives interviews where he lets his guard down, but he appears to have done so in a recent chat with Western Standard editor Kevin Libin, published in the magazine's next-to-last edition. (Free online registration required.)
On the topic of the recent controversy with the parliamentary press gallery, Harper lets loose. Among the choice zingers:
Harper on the new rules for the gallery: "When we first started doing this and were doing this, the majority of journalists loved it," he says. "But of course, the problem was that we were getting our message out and a small number of ideologues didn't like that. So they've now basically forbidden all of their colleagues to ask questions, which I think is a fascinating use of press freedom when a small number of journalists can tell others they can't ask questions at a press conference. But that's the position of the left-wing ideologues who are apparently running the show."
On the effect the protest has had: "I'm free to pick my interviews when and where I want to have them," he says. "The great irony is, the result is precisely the opposite of what those doing it claim to be seeking. They say if I don't do it their way, I'll somehow gain more control over my media relations. Well, I've got more control now."
Toward the end:
"The real long-term effect of this may be to break up the gallery," he says, noting that the diversity of media, including online blogs, has made it possible for Conservatives to get their message out with fewer restrictions than when he began his political career working in the Mulroney government. Besides, while he believes most journalists are "left of centre," Harper says they're also largely free thinkers. The gallery, he believes, has become too institutionalized, and too convinced that it can control the news. "I think if we can break that up in any way," he says. "That is helpful for democracy."
It is so refreshing to hear a Prime Minister call it like it is like this. It should be noted that Harper is referring specifically to the leadership of the Parliamentary Press Gallery when he uses the term "left-wing ideologues."
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 8:23 AM
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
This isn't intended to be a defense of Ann Coulter, but ...
I've been following the (no doubt intentionally-planned) controversy surrounding Ann Coulter and her new book, Godless. I wasn't going to write about it, because I know even the mention of Coulter tends to provoke irrational, wild-eyed responses and name-calling. But then I realized that's the point. Throughout all this controversy I have not heard a single cogent argument put forward to counter the Coulter claim that the Democrats stifle debate by throwing victims out to speak for their causes -- the 9/11 widows (or so-called "Jersey Girls") to speak out against Bush, Cindy Sheehan and amputated war vet Max Cleland to criticize the Iraq war, etc... The result is the other side is unable to criticize these people. This is true!
Coulter may not have the most finessed way of making a point, but she is making a point nonetheless and it stands up to scrutiny.
Mark Steyn weighs in on the matter in his books column in this week's Macleans.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 9:12 AM
Monday, June 19, 2006
"Architectural acne"
Paul Tuns' blog, always a great source for British political news, links to an absolutely hilarious story about the British Tory leader, David Cameron and his efforts to promote his "green" credentials. Apparently Mr. Cameron's neighbours are none too happy about his plans to put a wind turbine on his roof to produce the electricity for his house:
Ms Want, 43, claims that the turbine, which will rise more than six feet from the chimney stack and will have a diameter of three-feet, will be an "eyesore" and a blight on the Edwardian-era area. "The generator will be in everyone's eyeline and will be out of sync with the character of the area," she said. Mr Cameron and his wife, Samantha, are moving to the property from a house nearby because they want more room for their disabled son, Ivan, and their third child, Arthur, who was born in February. In an application in Mrs Cameron's name, the family has asked permission from Kensington and Chelsea council to install the turbine and three solar panels on the roof. But from the beginning the plan has been dogged by criticism, with some accusing Mr Cameron of blighting the area with "architectural acne". Ms Want added: "These turbines cost £2,000. It's irritating that it costs so much to show your green credentials. I've young twins and a husband with cancer. Do you think I've got time to be green?" Two thoughts. One: this is really bad for Cameron. Any story such as this, ie. involving some kind of personal embarassment of a political figure, can be disastrous because the media loves it and it gets everyday people talking at the water cooler. But secondly, and more importantly, it highlights the huge practical problems associated with green energy production, specifically wind turbines. It seems everybody is in favour of windmills -- until they have to have one in their neighbourhood. They are ugly and noisy. Just ask the people who live in the vicinity of that monstrosity beside the Gardiner heading to Etobicoke in Toronto. They are great on paper, but practically it's a different story.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 7:17 PM
Response to NRO article and site update
I've finally gotten around to updating the articles page; there you can find an archive of all the print articles I've published lately.
The National Review Online piece on Rep. Hostettler elicited quite a bit of response. On the NRO blog, Jonah Golberg wrote he had no problem with my article -- except for the fact that he was included. Well, perhaps. If, when he wrote, that Canada is "profoundly deluded" he meant some segments of the Canadian populatoin, he is correct. But if he meant the government of Canada, decision-makers or law enforcement agencies, he is incorrect. Seems to me they are on top of things. There seems to be a bit of a gap between the elites/political class and the population at large on terrorism issues.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 11:04 AM
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Don't think Canada is playing a productive role in Afghanistan?
Maybe the drafters of that NDP resolution and McClelland should read this.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 12:07 AM
Thursday, June 15, 2006
The NDP is coming! The NDP is coming!
Robert McClelland isn't totally useless after all: via his blog comes word that the NDP is coming to Québec City in September for their national convention. And with resolutions like this one coming down the chute, looks like it will be a real scream:
WHEREAS, the Invasion of Afghanistan was illegal.
AND WHEREAS, the Government has defined no end-point to mark success,
AND WHEREAS, General Hillier has stated that the Canadian Armed Forces will have to stay there at least ten years,
AND WHEREAS, Canadians were sent there originally to stabilize and help with reconstruction,
AND WHEREAS, Canadian Forces are now caught up in aggressive operations as part of the US “Operation Enduring Freedom” in what is essentially one side of a civil war,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the NDP caucus press the government to request the United Nations to enter into negotiations between the various factions leading to a cease-fire, thus allowing Canada to revert to its traditional role as Peacekeeper.
Illegal war? A cease-fire with the Taliban?
Where can I get my observer pass?
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 8:09 PM
Where's Michaelle?
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
On Adler
For anyone out there who cares (hi mom) I'll be on the Charles Adler radio show today at about 2:15pm ET to talk about the Hostettler/American misconception of Canada's anti-terrorism efforts issue. Listen live here.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 1:02 PM
La fin du mouvement souverainiste?
(Excuse this long introduction to an important news story...)
I have never bought into the argument that the Québec separatist movement is dying and I never will. Every few years someone puts forward the thesis -- and they are always proven wrong. People said it would die after the 2000 federal election, when the Chrétien Liberals increased their Québec seat count and Bloc went down. People are saying it again with the Harper Tories poised to make gains in the province at the expense of the Bloc.
In my view, the French-Canadian drive for independent statehood will always be with us in some form. The popularity of the idea ebbs and flows, but this debate is too ingrained in the Québec consciousness to ever totally disappear.
That said, there's no reason separatism cannot be reduced to a fringe movement that isn't taken seriously by a vast majority of the population. The push for Québec "sovereignty" has become all about ideology and economics, one that seeks to create a European-style socialist state in the heart of North America.
Ideologies can be discredited over time. Communism, fascism, Nazism, etc... are all frowned upon today and are not taken seriously by anyone. (And before someone posts it in comments -- NO, I am not comparing Quebec separatism to those movements. I am simply saying ideologies can fall out of favour.)
So, what's the point of this? It is to say that I have never seen such clear-cut evidence of the decline of Québec separatism as I have today, with the announcement by Parti Québécois stalwart Jean-Pierre Charbonneau and others of a new group which seeks to have a province-wide consultation with Québécers about the province's future:
Mr. Charbonneau and two other PQ MNAs, Daniel Turp and Jonathan Valois, are among a group of individuals who say that the PQ alone does not hold the answer to Quebec's political future.
The discussion group, which calls itself Québec-Plus Démocratie, includes the founding leader of the Action Démocratique du Québec party, Jean Allaire, members of the Green Party, the newly formed, left-wing Québec-Solidaire Party, a union leader and even ultra-federalist, human-rights lawyer Julius Grey.
The PQ members deny they are breaking with the party line that calls for a referendum "as soon as possible" if the PQ forms the next government. Mr. Charbonneau said a "vast and profound exercise of participatory democracy" was part of the party platform, and that PQ Leader André Boisclair was consulted and supported the idea.
Now, the money quote from Charbonneau:
"If a consensus emerges that shows that we would lose a referendum on sovereignty, then the party will have to draw its conclusions," Mr. Charbonneau said. "André Boisclair, as well as the leaders before him, has said that holding another losing referendum is out of the question. We must follow public opinion and follow what people will tell us during this vast public debate."
The launch of this group is stunning, and I'm surprised it isn't creating more of a buzz. It is essentially a tacit avowal by die-hard separatists of the impossibility of winning a referendum anytime soon. Coming from people as deeply-rooted in the independentist cause as J-P Charbonneau, Daniel Turp and Jonathan Valois, that is quite something. (One could cricitize the fundamental premise of the group --that Québec is presently at an impasse within Canada -- given the strides being made under the Harper Conservatives, but that's another discussion.)
So, do these people still want to make a country of Québec? The PQers in the group do, of course. But is it also true they have realized it would be better to take anything they can get rather than continuing to fight a losing battle for full-blown nationhood? Looks to me like yes.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 12:36 AM
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Quite a difference between two Indiana Republicans
Rep. Hostettler: Bad.
Rep. Burton: Good.
(Side note: This blogger has long been a fan of Congressman Dan Burton. Nice to see him doing the right thing -- again.)
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 11:45 PM
Monday, June 12, 2006
Hostettler's hot air
I have an article today on National Review Online concerning the recent hyperbole coming from the U.S. about Canada and terrorism, specifically the remarks made by Rep. John Hostettler. I have been critical of Canada and Canadians' lack of vigilence in the war on terror. But Hostettler's remark that Canada hosts an "abundance" of terrorists is in no way based in fact. We can criticize the way we have handled the terrorism issue, but let's be fair: Canada is no more a hotbed for terrorists than anywhere else, and the new Harper government is moving us more and more in the right direction.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 4:55 PM
Quelle surprise!
Ce week-end passé, les militants du parti québécois se sont réunis en congrès national à Sainte-Hyacinthe.
Bravo au député péquiste de Richelieu, Sylvain Simard, qui a eu le courage de proposer le dégel des frais de scolarité. M. Simard a été rebuté avec force par les gauchistes de l'aile jeunesse du parti, qui ont réussi à convaincre André Boisclair de garder le statu quo. Pas étonnant.
Ça paraît aussi que Boisclair et ses conseillers ont décidé de mettre l'emphase sur l'éducation lors des prochaines élections : plus de financement pour les écoles dans les quartiers pauvres, une limite sur le nombre d'étudiants dans chaque classe, plus d'investissement dans les universités, etc. (Personne peut expliquer comment le PQ payera pour toute ces promesses.) Après un débat assez intense, les militants ont aussi décidé de garder le financement public des écoles privées.
La seule chose qui manquait? Oui, vous l'avez deviné: la discussion d'un référendum.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 9:42 AM
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Shaken but not stirred
Here's an article I had published last week in The New York Sun about the terror plot, in which I say Canada must ramp up efforts to weed out the teaching of hate in mosques:
The way forward for Canada is clear. The vast majority of the suspects were Canadian citizens. They were educated in Canadian public schools. It appears many were young Muslims who fell under the influence of superiors who indoctrinated them into the extremist Wahhabi ideology at a Toronto Islamic center.
Just as America has done, Canada must redouble its efforts to find out what is going on in these mosques. We know hatred is being preached. But those who are doing so must be identified, as must those who are funding them. They must be stopped.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 1:51 PM
Was in Ottawa
Sorry for the lack of stuff here, but I went to Ottawa last week for a break, to visit friends and attend a few functions. Ottawa is a fun place to be in the summer.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 1:48 PM
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
A Liberal makes sense
And he's the brother of the Ontario premier, no less.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 11:38 AM
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Who's funding the Liberal leadership?
They're still the party of Big Business, according to a review by Greg Weston of the money being received by the candidates (most of it loans, not donations) so far:
A review of financial filings for the other Liberal leadership candidates shows many of the campaigns getting around donation restrictions through a loophole that allows them to accept hefty loans, even from execs in big business. Stephane Dion: A single $200,000 loan from a Montreal businessman. Scott Brison: Four loans of $50,000 apiece from Nova Scotia business titans. Gerard Kennedy: Three loans from relatives (all adults) totaling $100,000. Michael Ignatieff: Two loans totalling $125,000 from supporter Ian Davey. Bob Rae: A single $100,000 loan from his brother John Rae, a senior executive of the giant Power Corporation. Martha Hall Findlay: A $50,000 loan from herself -- at 6.5%. Ken Dryden: Another self-loaner at $100,000. While the loans are legal, Canadians might be excused for wondering whatever happened to the Liberals' own election financing reforms that were supposed limit contributions, cleansing our political system of even the appearance of undue influence being bought with big contributions?
Great question.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 12:33 PM
Saturday, June 03, 2006
The terrorists hate us
A friend called and said what happened today is "unbelievable." I politely disagreed. This is something many of imagined was coming sooner rather than later. Thank God this was stopped, and our heartfelt thanks -- our endless thanks -- must go out to CSIS, the RCMP and all others in law enforcement involved in foiling this planned attack, which no doubt would have been an unbelievable disaster. Great job, and thank you thank you thank you!!!!!
A reporter on TV today called this event a "watershed" moment for Canada. For the sake of us all, we had better hope he's right.
UPDATE: We should also thank God that these terrorists appear to be dumb, such as posting poems like this on the Internet for all to see. (HT: Stephen Taylor.)
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 3:26 PM
Friday, June 02, 2006
Only in Joe Volpe's world
I try not to rehash stuff on other blogs, but Paul Wells' catch here is too just too precious not to note. Although Volpe gave back the 11-year-old kids' $10,800 in donations, he is actually defending them, claiming the children were inspired by a speech he gave!
Volpe, the former immigration minister, said the kids heard him speak during the last election at Bialik Hebrew Day School in Toronto and found him compelling. "Apparently these kids just connected with me; they loved what I did," he said. "When they heard I was running for the leadership, they said 'What can we do?' " Volpe said it wasn't so far-fetched that young people could care about politics. "There are families where kids actually talk about these things," he said. This is one for the ages. Volpe is now starting to experience one of politics' worst nightmares: when the media starts treating you as a joke.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 11:17 AM
The latest Garth Turner dust-up
It seems Garth Turner has ignited yet another controversy. It started with this post on his now-famous blog, entitled "Agenda of Hate," in which he accuses Charles McVety of the Canada Family Action Coalition and Defend Marriage Canada, of being a "sanctimonious blowhard" after appearing with him on a Hamilton, Ont. TV show.
Since then the standoff has escalated, with the Institute for Canadian Values now calling Turner "bigoted" and asking PM Harper to rein him in:
The Institute for Canadian Values is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to discipline Conservative MP Garth Turner for what it calls "bigoted comments" he made on television and on his online blog. "Last week Garth Turner attacked so-called 'ethnics' on television, complaining about their impact on nomination meetings for political parties," said Joseph Ben-Ami, Executive Director of the Institute for Canadian Values. "Now he is targeting people of faith on his blog, especially those who support the traditional definition of marriage, calling them Taliban and accusing them of an agenda of hate." "Grossly ignorant and bigoted comments such as these are unacceptable in any civilized society, especially a multicultural one like Canada, and Turner should be held accountable for them."
Turner is not backing down, but has called for a truce after being called personally by McVety and having a civilized discussion. (Turner also learned that McVety worked for another candidate against him in the Halton Conservative nomination race last year.)
Turner's tribulations are really inconsequential, but aren't they fun?
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 8:02 AM
Thursday, June 01, 2006
The Iranian a-bomb
The media is reporting the recent comments by Secretary of State Rice as a "major policy shift" on the Iran question. The U.S. is now claiming to want to enter negotiations with the Islamic Republic if they agree to halt their nuclear program.
Good luck!
I understand the point of the offer -- that is, to paint the Iranians as unwilling to compromise and to call their bluff -- but the time for these games has past. Iran, which sits atop the world's second largest oil reserves, is still claiming they are only enriching uranium for energy-production purposes.
Their goal all along has been to get the bomb first and then claim they want to negotiate. Sadly, I think we'll have reached that point quite soon. Then what?
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 8:00 AM
The Volpe Apotex story...
... is not going away. And we now have a major liberal columnist calling on him to drop out of the leadership race. What Apotex did is perfectly legal. But in politics, as we know, perception is reality. And the perception here is awfully bad.
UPDATE: Since it was becoming quite evident that this story wasn't going away, Volpe has returned five of the "kid" donations.
# posted by Adam Daifallah : 7:57 AM
|
