Sunday, May 4, 2008

Is it just me?

Or does this sound awfully like the argument used to justify segregation in the US?

Parents and educators who support the creation of a Afrocentric school in Toronto say equity doesn't mean sameness, and sometimes requires special treatment.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty opposes the idea of a black-focused school, saying he'd rather talk about improving the curriculum for all students to make it more inclusive.

But Professor Grace-Edward Galabuzi of Ryerson University says a curriculum that assumes sameness, or colour blindness, does not necessarily lead to equality.

He says society sometimes has to do things differently for some groups to ensure equitable outcomes.


"Seperate, but equal."

Somehow

I haven't looked really carefully at this issue, but the idea of separate schools and curriculums doesn't sound like one that promotes equality in any way, shape or form.

The Afghan vote and our own election

While the battle for votes south of the border takes up a lot of press, we also seem to be moving towards a possible election on this side of the border. It's sometimes hard to tell given how the Conservatives have basically treated their entire time in power as one long election campaign, but a few things are coming to a head that may actually conspire to bring the government down.

For one, there's an inkling that the Liberals may have finally pulled their act together and may be willing to fight an election. At least Dion is talking about it, which is a leap forward from where they were a year ago. The other is that I suspect the Conservatives would like to get an election under way before one of the various scandals bubbling about in the background manages to break free of the intermittent coverage and lodge itself into the Canadian consciousness.

This brings me to the vote over the Afghan mission, which may be the one that brings down the government. I say may, because it appears the budget will come first, and that could also trigger an election.

The Liberal position on Afghanistan appears to be the same sort of wishy-washy commitment we've been bitching to the Germans and French about; carry on in Afghanistan doing reconstruction work and avoid combat missions. It's an ugly type of compromise position. Generally speaking, in a war, you should be all in or all out. On this, I basically find myself agreeing with Jack Layton, (shudder), we should just leave.

On the other hand, I understand the diplomatic dance of not abandoning out NATO allies. Hell, the Liberal position would see us matching our mission to what most of the rest are doing already. It's a brutal an ugly calculus that puts our soldiers in harm's way to maintain cordial relations with our allies in what is likely a lost cause.

Hardly a great position, but it beats the Conservative calculations of presumably greater costs in human and material terms just to suck up to the US.

The real question comes down to what form the vote actually takes. Do the Conservatives swing for the fences and ensure the mission ends if the vote fails? Or do they back off and put something vague on the table that might pass and that they hope they can twist into a combat extension rather than just an overall presence?

And ultimately, are the Liberals tired enough of the bullying tactics of the Harper set to throw this latest example back in their faces?

Bush's time in office is coming to an end. It would be nice if we could get rid of his poodle in the near future as well.



(Picture courtesy of TGB)