Northman's Fury

I was already under the impression that this whole "veiled voting" thing was being blown way out of proportion, but it's nice to have a mainstream columnist show just how ridiculous the situation really is.

The other problem legislators have recognized is there really isn't much of a problem.

More than 80,000 Canadians voted in the last election by mail-in ballot, no facial recognition required.

As numerous Muslim groups have been quick to point out in the past few days of controversy, there are maybe 50 women in all of Quebec who wear the eyes-only niqab.

And all of them, we are told, are used to showing their faces at banks and other places that require official identification.

Lift the veil on this issue and the problem is entirely in the eyes of beholders.

Oh, and to add a little context about Harper's ranting against Elections Canada,

"I profoundly disagree with the decision," Harper reportedly said at the end of his recent meetings with Pacific Rim leaders in Australia.

"I have to say that it concerns me greatly because the role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws, it's to put in place the laws that Parliament has passed. So I hope they'll reconsider this decision."

Otherwise, the PM warned, "Parliament will have to consider what actions it's going to take to make sure that it's intentions are put into place."

. . .

One of the reasons ordinary folk might be confused is that most of the aforementioned commentary from Harper et al is at best misinformed.

Elections Canada didn't "decide" anything new.

In response to inquiries from reporters covering the federal byelections, the agency simply reiterated the government's "statutory requirements regarding the identification of electors wearing face coverings."

Far from the federal electoral office "making its own laws," as the PM claims, it is simply enforcing changes to the Elections Act passed by Harper's own government last year.

. . .

If the prime minister "profoundly" disagreed with that decision, as he now says, he forgot to mention it at the time his government was passing the legislation.

Of course, back then, the Conservatives weren't being investigated by the Elections commissioner for their campaign spending. Harper now has some motivation to make the organization look bad.

I was in Ottawa over the weekend, and a friend I was visiting told me about the situation going on around Sharbot Lake. Ultimately a battle between a uranium mining company and the local residents who depend on the lake for their livelihood, significantly including at least two Native tribes. It was the first I'd heard of it, and I've been trying to find more information since. So far the best I've found is a couple of posts by 900ft Jesus, (Part I, and Part II), which explains the situation pretty well.

It is something I'll be keeping an eye on, but I'm rather surprised that as near as I can tell, none of the national news organizations are bothering to cover the stand-off.

Federal government documents obtained by Sun Media detail a proposed four-pronged "framework for action" that boosts environmental protection, builds a legal case on territorial boundaries and gives Northerners more control over their economic and political destiny.

. . .

As other polar countries line up to stake territorial claim to the resource-rich region, the report warns that diplomatic persuasion and solid scientific backing are also required to work out jurisdictional spats.

It’s nice to see that the Feds are at least aware of the fact that just sending up a few patrol boats and “showing the flag” won’t be enough to ensure that Canada’s claims to the Arctic region will be respected.

Of course, I’m not particularly confident that anything will come of this, partly due to the fact that the “major reference” is to take place during the Throne Speech which appears designed to kick off an election campaign. In other words, more campaign promises, which always seem to work out into something far less than originally promised.

This little nugget doesn’t encourage me much either:

The report builds on a May discussion of the Harper cabinet's powerful priorities and planning group, and lists two sets of options to advance the "Northern Agenda."

The first would consolidate and implement initiatives in stages, while the second approach contains "signature federal initiatives," including unspecified "symbolic demonstrations of Canada's sovereignty."

Given that so far on the “Northern Agenda”, what the Harper government has done is make grandiose announcements of “signature federal initiatives” , and make a few “symbolic demonstrations of Canada’s sovereignty”, I expect the second approach will be the one they go with. In the meantime, substantive demonstrations of Canada’s sovereignty will continue to fall by the wayside.

I have to hand it to Peter Worthington. Even when I agree with his point I find his articles really annoying. The current example is this column regarding the awarding of a medal for being wounded patterned after the US Purple Heart. I also don't like the idea, but Worthington all but ruins his argument by throwing in this line:

Canada already dishes out more service medals than in WWI, WWII and Korea combined. Our soldiers have always tried not to get wounded, and kept casualties low. If a medal is authorized for being wounded, that tradition may be about to end, with some individuals seeking light wounds in order to get a medal.

Never mind that anyone looking at our casualty figures from past wars should be using the term "low" to describe them, that last sentence is monumental in its stupidity. While there have been cases of soldiers deliberating wounding themselves to avoid front-line duty, I honestly can’t think of anything more idiotic than believing soldiers are going to go out looking for the enemy to shoot them “lightly” just so they can get a medal.

Anyway

To award a medal to the wounded of Afghanistan could be interpreted as a slight to those thousands who were casualties in WWII, Korea and on UN peacekeeping missions.

Come on, why stop there?  You certainly wouldn’t want to forget those who were wounded in WWI, and then there’s the Boer War.  How about the War of 1812?    Awards change.  There wasn’t a Victoria Cross before 1856.  Does that mean all those brave souls who got themselves killed heroically before that were slighted by its creation?

Still, if the award is being created specifically for the Afghan campaign when it is already six years old, then it does make a troublesome distinction. But if it will be awarded only to those who are wounded after the award is created, then it is no different than most other awards.

Mainly though, while nowhere near as bad as the US military, our own military has begun to vastly increase the number of service medals it passes out.  When such things become too commonplace, they cheapen the medal’s worth, and that does do disservice to those who have served before.

Giving awards for service is a time-honoured method for promoting loyalty and more good service, but the awards have to be rare to be appreciated.  The Purple Heart this supposed award is fashioned upon has apparently been cheapened enough that the Republicans thought nothing of mocking it by flashing their little band-aids at their National Convention in 2004.  I’d rather not see a Canadian version of something that crass.

The initiative, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, proposes that nuclear energy-using countries and uranium-exporting countries band together in a new nuclear club to promote and safeguard the industry.

Central to the plan is a proposal that all used nuclear fuel be repatriated to the original uranium exporting country for disposal.

That should be big news in Canada, the world's largest uranium producer.

But to date, the Canadian government's response is a closely guarded secret. In fact, there's been virtually no public debate at all.

. . .

In Australia, where Harper shares an ideological soul-mate in Howard, the debate over the GNEP has raged for more than a year. Ausralia and Canada are the world's biggest uranium exporters and the GNEP threatens to become an election issue this fall as opposition parties charge the country is in danger of becoming a "radioactive dump."

Yet Harper's minority Conservative government clearly does not want to engage the Canadian public in any discussion about the initiative.

And I can't imagine why. I can certainly understand the US interest in this. After all, it mean they don't have to deal with the expensive and dangerous cleanup and storage of radioactive waste from their power plants, but we are the country supplying that uranium, and I sincerely doubt the price of that clean-up and storage will be added to the purchase price.

As a side note, there are large uranium deposits in Iran. Do you think the US will want them getting spent fuel rods from nuclear reactors for processing? I'm betting this partnership will be a highly limited club of countries that sell uranium to the US and who they can convince to have the clean-up dumped on.

The Canadian government has hired a controversial international academic to argue that Canada's military has no obligation to accord Afghan detainees Canadian-style legal rights.

Christopher Greenwood, a professor of international law at the London School of Economics, submitted an opinion in mid-August to the Federal Court, which is hearing an application by Amnesty International to halt prisoner transfers by Canadian soldiers to Afghan authorities.

Greenwood was the author of a 2002 legal opinion commissioned by the British government entitled The Legality of Using Force Against Iraq. He concluded an invasion was justified by a 1990 UN Security Council resolution and by self-defence if Britain could show the threat of an imminent Iraqi attack.

His opinion was reported to be at odds with lawyers in Britain's own Foreign Office and many other international law experts.

So Canada's New Government is going to pay this guy $50 grand to come up with some sort of justification for allowing prisoners captured by Canadian soldiers to be turned over for possible torture and abuse. I guess they couldn't find anyone in Canada to shill for them. You have to love their respect for international law.