I think we would all agree, however, that CUPE’s support for a “a ban on Israeli academics doing speaking, teaching or research work at Ontario universities as a protest against the Dec. 29 bombing of the Islamic University in Gaza”, is absolutley absurd. Simply put, Sid Ryan, CUPE president, wants to see Israeli academics condemn Israel’s current military operations in Gaza, or banned from teaching in Ontario universities.

Obviously I do not need to go into why this ‘ban’ is out to lunch; but I will anyways.

Firstly, but not necessarily most importantly, the very foundation of post secondary education is, or at least should be, about promoting free academic inquiry. This of course, has the ability to create debate, discourse, and dialouge. To simply say that there is but one ‘right’ academic view on the military situation in Gaza is a slap in the face to academic freedom.

Secondly, why Israel? Why not go futeher; banning all academics that do not denounce the military action in Gaza. Interestingly enough, I heard no calls to ban Chinese academics over China’s role in Tibet, or Russian academics for Russia’s role in Goergia. “As Bernie Farber, Canadian Jewish Congress CEO, pointed out last week, CUPE has not called for Palestinian academics to be banned over Hamas rocket attacks.”

Thirdly, this ‘ban’ does not target those who have made the decisions in Gaza. Instead, they target members of the academic community who happened to be born in the Jewish state. Most probably, these men and women had no role in creating or enacting the government policies that resulted in the military invasion into Gaza (and they certainly are not the ones firing rockets from Gaza into Israel). Yet, it is still these men and women that CUPE has decided to target.

I could go on and on. Simply though, the problem with such a ban is that is is contrary to the freedom of expression, it undermines academic freedom, and is hypocritical.

Most importantly, however, it is simply anti-Semitic. As Steyn concludes, this is just a form of the ‘oldest’ kind of hatred. “Once upon a time on the Continent, Jews were hated as rootless cosmopolitan figures who owed no national allegiance. So they became a conventional nation state, and now they’re hated for that. And, if Hamas get their way and destroy the Jewish state, the few who survive will be hated for something else. So it goes.”

As a Professor of mine recently argued, political junkies, political science students, and the like are outside of the realm of ordinary Canadians when it comes to political issues. That is to say, we are out of touch with the views and rationalizations of average Canadians in terms of the political process and political developments.

Take, for example, the recent idea of a coalition govenrment replacing the Conservatives in the event that the Harper government loses the confidence of the House. Most of us who are politically aware were excited about the developments taking place over the past month. Though the idea of a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition may have made us uneasy, we none the less accepted that such a development was well within the convention of our parliamentary democracy and our constitution. Ordinary Canadians on the other hand, seemed outraged and even disgusted by the possibility.

A recent Nanos public opinion poll appears to confirm this, to an extent:

In Quebec, 62 per cent wanted the opposition parties to have a chance to govern, while 30 per cent wanted an election called. Those numbers were reversed in western Canada, where 65 per cent wanted an election and only 29 per cent favoured an opposition coalition. Ontario and Atlantic respondents were more closely split, with 46 per cent and 49 per cent respectively favouring an election. Forty per cent in both regions favoured a coalition government

These numbers are hardly surprising. It is not unreasonable that Quebecers would welcome the opportunity for the Bloc to have a role in government, and the perks that would inevitablky bring to the Province . It is, however, somewhat of a paradox: a seperatist party propping up and activley participating in Her Majesty’s Government.

 For those outside of Quebec, the public opinion can be explained by two factors. Firstly, while the coalition would not be undemocratic (as Harper has suggested), but it would be unCanadian. The lack of precedent is single handedly the most important reason for the coalitions lack of support. Secondly, is the prestiege, power, and influence that the Bloc would be given if granted an active role in the government. Indeed, this prospect does not resonate with the rest of Canada, especially those in the West.

A Toronto man is responsible to for continued child support payments after a DNA test has shown he is not the biological father of two 16 year old twins. If this were the end of the story, it would be somewhat reasonable and not un precendented. This man raised two girls for 16 years as their father, and as such, should continue to be so. The story, however, is not over: the man did not know he was not the father. The mother had affair which resulted in her pregnancy, and ‘bamoolzed” the husband into believing they were his children.

The man, who has already paid child support for some 10 years, is claiming that he is a victim of fraud. This claim, however, was not sufficient for the court. The Judge concluded that:

“While the failure of Anciolina Cornelio to disclose to her husband the fact that she had an extramarital affair – and that the twins might not be his biological children – may have been a moral wrong against Mr. Cornelio, it is a wrong that does not afford him a legal remedy to recover child support he has already paid, and that does not permit him to stop paying child support”.

The judge went on to argue that child support is ” the right of a child even if a parent behaves poorly”. These are indeed strong words from the judge: possibly too strong. I would have been much more comfortable with the judge arguing that the father had a legal obligation to pay, but to say that the children have the right  to child support, that may be going overboard.

Like it or not, this is the age we live in: the age of rights.

Here are some of the more surprising findings:

The telephone poll of 1,500 Canadians, conducted in October for the Montreal-based Association for Canadian Studies, showed seven per cent of all respondents had never heard of the Holocaust.

However, 13 per cent of those between the ages of 18 and 24 said they didn’t know what the Holocaust was, and nearly one-quarter of respondents with only elementary-level education – 23 per cent – had never heard of it.

Meanwhile, about 12 per cent of francophones reported no knowledge of the Holocaust compared with about four per cent of English-speaking respondents.

Despite the validity of some of the explanations (Quebec’s opposition to conscription caused less emphasis to be put on the “traditional historical narratives”), the results are still both concerning and saddening.

In Flanders fields the poppies grow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved, and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

The classroom discussion begins with Harris asking the class who they support for president. When two students say McCain, she responds with “Oh Lord” and “Oh Jesus.”

When one girl says that she will support McCain because her parents do as well, Harris moves on to another girl who says that she will support Obama becuase he will end the war in Iraq, a “senseless” war according to their teacher. Harris then targets the McCain supporter again and asks her what she know about Iraq. When the little girl cannot answer, Harris has this to say:

And by the way the person that you’re picking for president said that our troops could stay in Iraq for another hundred years if they need to. So that means that your daddy could stay in the military for another hundred years.

After the exchange, the little girl is so embarassed that she doesn’t respond. The little girl was totally intimidated and essentially bullied by her teacher, a person of trust, infront of her entire class.

Conveniently enough, the exchange was captured by a Swedish television documentary crew. You can catch the video here:

It appears as though this session of parliament will have a much different tone. With a renewed mandate, the Conservatives are moving beyond the defensive, everything is a vote of confidence, mindset that plauged the previous session of Parliament, and moving towards something more collaborative.

Even admist the tough rhetoric of Liberal Leader Stephane Dion, claiming that the Conservatives would no longer have a “free ride” (referring to the string of Liberal abstentions during the last session), the Prime Minister has extended an olive branch. On Friday the two leaders met to discuss the economy, and to develop ways to cut government spending during this time of financial uncertainty.

The political rivals met yesterday and agreed to collaborate on ways to help the slumping economy during the upcoming session of Parliament. Described by one senior government official as “cordial and business-like,” the two leaders will seek common ground on government spending cuts, accelerating infrastructure investment, strengthening the ban on bulk water exports and keeping corporate taxes intact.

Further evidence of this new tone can be seen in the First Minister’s meeting scheduled to occur before the new session opens on November 18th. Again, promoting a collaborative tone, the Prime Minister “wants to see political leaders working together through the financial crisis instead of quarrelling over jurisdiction or critiquing the past.”

I for one am excited to see what can be accomplished this time around. Stay tuned!

————————————————————————————————————————————————

EDIT : How WRONG was I on this one?

————————————————————————————————————————————————

On Friday the Globe and Mail reported that in the wake of a looming deficit, Ottawa would be limmiting the growth of the equalization program. Since the economy has only grown by 1% instead of the predicted 2.9%, the government is arguing that it cannot afford to let the program to grow.

Speaking to reporters after the first meeting of Stephen Harper’s new cabinet yesterday, Mr. Flaherty said the equalization program, which redistributed $13.6-billion in the current fiscal year, is growing at an unsustainable pace of about 15 per cent a year.

However, today’s Globe and Mail is reporing that for the first time in its 51 year history, Ontario will be receiving equalization payments. More importantly, Flaherty said that it will be more than what Ontario is expecting and that “Ontario will be very happy with the figure I give them.”

Is this development really becuase Ontario is facing poor economic times?

The economy of Canada’s largest province is being battered by the global financial crisis and a recession in the United States, events that have destroyed demand for Ontario’s factory exports.

Ontario has faced tough times before and has never, in 51 years, been on the receiving end of the equalization program.

I wonder though. Perhaps this has more to do with the recent election results than actual financial need. For its role in enhancing the Conservatibe minority Ontario has already been given thanks. This took the form of numerous strong Cabinet positions. Is this simply a continuation of rewarding Ontario for its help? As Ontario has shown that it is willing to vote conservative I wonder if we will we see a move to put less emphasis on Quebec and more on Ontario?

Over the past two weeks I have heard ordinary Canadians and journalists alike claiming that the recent election was a waste of time. More importantly they argue, it was a waste of $300 million dollars. I wonder… if it had been a Liberal minority would these same people be calling the election a waste? Is a successful election really dependent on electing a new government? Regardless of who won the election, I want to argue that it was important. More importantly, regardless of party affiliation, every Canadian benefited from it.

Obviously, with all of my conservative bias, the election was a good thing. The CPC watched its seat count and popular vote go up in every single region. We also saw impressive gains in key battlegrounds such as Ontario and British Columbia. I argue that Canada benefited from the election for reasons beyond these purely partisan reasons.

(1)Before the election it was clear that the House was not working. Of course things go slower in a minority situation, but near the end the House was unmanagable. A meeting of all of the Party Leaders illustrated this fact. It was essential that a new House be made. Regardless of who formed the government, the makeup had to change so that work could be done.

(2)The election provided the opportunity for something that is quite rare in this country of ours. That is for national issues to be debated and discussed (the environment, Afghanistan etc.). Most important was the economy. During a time of a financial crisis, I for one found it very beneficial to have all of the leaders debating the issues and articulating their point of view.

(3)The electorate, the small percentage that turned out, was given the opportunity to exercise a fundamental right. This right, the right to vote, is not something that should be taken lightly. Instead of complaining about the third election in 4 years, instead of complaining about the $300 million, instead of complaining about having to get off of the couch to vote, the Canadian people should be celebrating the fact that they are blessed with the opportunity to change governments peacefully, a luxury we have become too complacent about.

The once-mighty Liberal party has raised less money from fewer donors so far this year than the NDP, traditionally the poor sister of Canadian politics.

Here is the current breakdown according toquarterly financial returns posted by Elections Canada:

Liberals- 35,000 donors resulting in $3.6 million

NDP- 44,000 donors resulting in $3.7 million

Conservatives- 125,000 donors resulting in $15 million

These numbers are the result of financial reforms taken in 2004 (Liberal government) and 2007 (Conservative government). As a result of the outright ban on corporate donations, it has been the Liberal party that has struggled the most. Traditionally relying on large corporate donations the party has yet to be able to adapt to the new regime. This is made worse by the fact that the Conservatives have mastered the art of collecting small donations from countless individuals.

The poor news comes at a time where the Liberals are rallying from their worst showing since Confederation (only 26.2% of the popular vote). And the bad news keeps coming. This poor electoral showing didn’t simply translate into a loss of seats but also into a loss of money. The results of the reduced vote share  translate to a loss of about $1.6 million in public subsidies.

Interesting times ahead no doubt.