Security and Rights in Canada

If Maher Arar's exoneration wasn't enough, the past couple weeks have seen more good news from Canada regarding the war on terror (youngest accused in 'terror sweep' has charges stayed and 'security certificates' squashed by Supreme Court).

Now, news that Parliament has voted against the government's efforts to extend 'terror law' by three years:

Opposition parties joined forces Tuesday to vote down the extension of two contentious anti-terrorism measures, ending an acrimonious political battle rife with accusations of dirty politics.

But the debate over national security versus civil liberties is sure to continue into the next election campaign.

Indeed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper predicted that the Liberals will be defeated in the next election because of their refusal to back a government motion seeking to extend the security measures for three years.

“This issue is not going to go away. It’s going to haunt the Liberal party from now until the election campaign,” Harper said after the motion was defeated by a vote of 159 to 124.

“Any party that doesn’t take the national security of Canadians seriously will never be chosen by Canadians to form the government of Canada.”

[x] Political Thought

Jodi posted an ad for a job in her department looking for candidates able to teach "American Politics/American Political Thought." The idea of "American Political Thought" (the ad gives the example of the Federalists/Anti-Federalists) and wondered what it means to have a national tradition in "political thought." Regarding "American political thought," wouldn't the two main texts be the Federalist Papers and Democracy in America? Tocqueville, of course, was French, an aristocrat and not a fan of democracy - is that "American" or "French" political thought? My copy of Tocqueville's book, the Mansfield edition, says that it is the most important book on America. (Does Martineau's Society in America count as English or American? Does anyone actually read it?) But, does "French" political thought even describe Tocqueville's book? Is there a "French" tradition in political theory? The most famous book of "French" political theory was written by a Genevan, not a Frenchman. This, of course, lead me to thinking, "What would a course in Canadian political thought look like?" Certainly, Canada has produced some fine political thinkers - but there is nothing essentially "Canadian" about them that would characterize their thought as "Canadian." James Tully, Will Kymlicka, Charles Taylor, G.A. Cohen, Michael Ignatieff, Shumalith Firestone, George Grant, H.S. Harris, Thomas Pangle, (Alan Bloom, IIRC) ... they're all either "Canadian" or spent time at Canadian universities. Does that make their thought "Canadian"? George Grant is likely the only "Canadian political thinker" we've ever produced - but I'm not sure there's anyone who could sit through a twelve week lecture course on his thought.

the worst book you ever read

Here's material for a meme, no doubt: what was the worst book you ever read, and why?

A quick search around the web, however, turns up several lists of notoriously bad films (e.g. Wikipedia's "Films considered the worst ever"), and indeed there's an annual award for bad films, the Razzies, but I can't immediately find anything similar for fiction.

There is the Bad Sex in Fiction Award; and also the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction contest, "wretched writers welcome." But nothing for entire books, so far as I can see.

Continue reading “the worst book you ever read”

Canada's Nuttiest Professors

Idealistic and optimistic often look to Canada when the going gets tough - recall all those false promises of moving to Canada should Bush be-elected and the popularity of sites such as Marry an American - might think twice. It's likely the case that everything is bigger in Texas and we, to the north, suffer under its ghostly shadow. Were it not enough that we had a shallow replica of "The Weekly Standard" in Canada called "The Western Standard," who, like "The Weekly Standard," views itself as the vanguard publication of "neo-conservatism" and western alienation, but they've also seen fit to erect a pale, ghostly shadow of none other than David Horowitz's The Professors in their recent "Back to School Guide" on "Canada's Nuttiest Professors" [pdf]. But, unlike Horowitz, they were only about to find twelve professors. (Readers will note that the Canadian Association of University Teachers claims to represent fifty-thousand academics.) But, unlike Horowitz (I assume; I haven't read his book), they also conveniently provided caricatures of those nutty professors.

Continue reading “Canada's Nuttiest Professors”

Wanted: Citizens to Practice Torture On

While the courts in Canada have struck down two essential parts of our "anti-terror" law as unconstitutional, the Department of Defense continues to act as though nothing has changed - perhaps anticipating the rise to power of Michael "Torture Lite" Ignatieff to power. Today I received a "call for participants" for men between the ages of eighteen and thirty (note: men only; women -- oops! GIRLS -- are encouraged to pass it along to their male friends), who live a "sedentary" lifestyle (but don't smoke) and who do less than two hours of exercise a week. These men will engage in a series of tests (building upon, unfortunately, a previous set of tests) to determine if there are culmulative effects to sensory deprivation, exposure to extremes of heat (including "rectal probe"!?), water, and pressure, and so on. The entire project is justified in terms of "helping our troops operate in extreme conditions." Of course, no front line troop is fat, lazy, out of shape, etc. What are, however, living sedantary lifestyles with less than two hours of exercise per week are indefinitely detained terrorists undergoing "torture lite."

Measure twice, cut once, as it were.

The "research protocol" is available here in pdf. The cover email is posted below.

Continue reading “Wanted: Citizens to Practice Torture On”

Intellectuals and Power

Long Sunday has seen recent speculations on the relationship between intellectuals (cold, narrow, and resenting!) and political power.  It is, of course, a hot topic, with that Straussian conspiracy in full swing in significant sections of the American administration and the rise to power of the Conservation Party (formerly the Conservative-Reform Alliance Party -- no shit: their accronym was CRAP) in Canada with its ties to the Fraser Institute and, thus, the so-called "Calgary School" of Strausso-libertarian policy wonks.  Not to be outdone, the social democratic party, the NDP, has Jack Layton, a former professor, as its leader.  Really not wanting to be outdone after suffering increasingly embarassing defeats, the Liberal Party, also informally known as the Natural Ruling Party, is in search of a new leader.  That is, in their minds, the next Prime Minister of Canada.

Among the contestants for this most honoured of offices are Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion, both former professors.  According to the Toronto Star, the Liberal Party needs candidates with more than just "big brains", they also -- aiming at the rookie MP Ignatieff -- need candidates who are experienced at "simultaneously playing for themselves and the team".  As far as I can tell, Ignatieff, as a successful (note: not necessarily good!) academic, is no doubt well versed in the art of promoting the self through promoting the department's interest.  Afterall, this narrow conception of politics is precisely what we practice in the academy.

After being strong opponents of Ignatieff's candidacy in the riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore, the Toronto Star has taken up the cause of attacking Ignatieff on the basis of his 'pro-torture-lite' stance.  And excerpt from an essay, "Torture: Does it make us safer? Is it ever OK?", appears in today's Toronto Star under the title, "Ignatieff's Tortured Logic". 

Why Not Vote?

Pro-democratic, anti-vote posts on the recent Canadian election:

Archive "Canada Elect"
Leiter Reports "Thoughts from Canadian Readers on the Election Results?"
Long Sunday "Why I'm Not Voting Today"
Out of the Driver's Seat "Why I Hate Elections", "Canadian Election Results"
Posthegemony "Election"
Theoria "January 23, 2006"

If you're the sort of person who likes to vote:

Tilting At Windmills "A Brief and Brutal Voting Guide", "Our Election Endorsement"

And the stakes in the election:

Conservative Party "Stand Up for Canada" [pdf]
Green Party "Platform 2006" [pdf]
Liberal Party "Red Book" [pdf]
New Democratic Party "Getting Results for People " [pdf]

Finally, our new Prime Minister:

Blogging of the President "The Conservative Platform"
Christian Coalition International (Canada) "Rediscovering the Right Agenda"
rense.com "God Bless Canada?"

Please reply with any other links.

Why I'm not voting today

  election 
  Originally uploaded by Sohrab Kabuli.

I’m not going to vote today.  If I did, I’d feel better.  I’d feel like I was part of some kind of democratic nation, like I was voicing my opinion.  But the candidates have never been worse, and though I’d still vote for the social democratic party here as the least evil, a lot of other people who will want to vote this way won’t for fear of the Conservatives getting in.  They’ll vote strategically for the Liberals, even when they really wanted to vote NDP (the social democratic party).  Without proportional representation we are disenfranchised.

I don’t want to feel better.  I’m really upset by the state of this so-called democracy, and I think I should keep feeling that way.  If I go to vote, I can step back from this pathos and think that I’ve done my duty (no need to worry for the next 4 years).  We all agree we hate this system as it now stands, and then we go to vote.  I think people that vote are really quite dumb.  If you hate the whole system, why reproduce it as such?

Go spoil your ballot, then, you might say.  A very good suggestion, but the problem is that the media still include that in their reports of how many people came out to vote, so that they are included in the percentage of the electorate who came out to vote.  And so, they add to the number of people who take part in the system, when the point would be to see less than half of eligible voters actually vote (or, of course, for everyone to spoil their ballots – it’s easy to see how even if half of the electorate spoiled their ballots, the consequences of this would be under-reported, and/or blamed on some technical difficulty with the voting procedure itself).

One’s duty is not absolved by stroking a pencil once every 4 years.  I’m getting very aggressive with people who say or infer they’re disappointed with me for not voting.  “You can’t complain if you don’t vote”.  Oh I see, you’re only voting to maintain your Beautiful Soul position. 

If you step back from voting, then you suddenly want to actually do something for the transformation of the system – and you acknowledge your own place within it.  This is the precise opposite of “voter apathy”; it is precisely because I feel so much pathos that I won’t just make myself feel a bit better by voting.  I’m willing to suffer this hell for the sake of something Other.

The fascinating neutralization of Canadian politics

  Paul Martin 
  Originally uploaded by The Rappaz Horror Picture Show.

At present in Canada we have a truly fascinating political (hyper)reality.  Our Liberal minority parliamentary government is impotent, dead in the water, just waiting for an opposition party to put forward a motion to bring it down.  But no opposition party wants to be the one to actually do it, in fear of electoral repercussions in sending people to the polls when they should, apparently, be only thinking of Christmas shopping.  So, we have an elaborate danceathon, a tedious political poker game.  Everyone's bluffing, but no one is holding on to any cards.  Maybe everyone holds a joker, and nothing else.

Partly it's what might happen if there was an election now.  Polls show either a Liberal minority or a Conservative minority would form the government.  A Liberal minority would only result in what we have right now, so there's no point to that.  The Liberals could form a decent alliance with our Leftist (though effectively Third Way) NDP, but they consistently refuse given that there are more votes for them in appearing to refuse the Left's demands.  But a Conservative minority would be even more inept at accomplishing anything, since no one would ever vote on their side (not the Liberals, not the NDP, and not the seperatist Bloc Quebecois).

So nothing can or will happen with the government we have now.  But nothing will happen with any foreseable change.  All they can do is dance this most perfect and total neutralization of the space of the Political.