d_rawk

Binnie and Charron will be missed.

Of all the justices, the only two that I have had regular personal contact with were Abella and Fish .. both of whom I adored and respected (though Fish could be intimidating).

Of the nine justices who serve on the Supreme Court of Canada, three – Ian Binnie, Morris Fish and Louis LeBel – will hit the mandatory retirement age of 75 within the next four years. Another, Marshall Rothstein, will come very close to it. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin would be 71 by the end of a majority government’s mandate, and Rosie Abella would be 68.

In other words, Mr. Harper would have an excellent opportunity to shape the country’s top court. And given that court’s enormous role in shaping public policy, particularly since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into effect nearly three decades ago, that could be a very transformative power.

If one were looking for signs that the abortion debate is about to be reignited, this would be a better place to start than the musings of a backbench MP. Realistically, though, it seems unlikely that Mr. Harper would overload the judiciary with raging social conservatives. If his goal is to firmly establish the Conservatives as the country’s dominant national party, then returning the focus to hot-button social issues that helped derail its past campaigns would be a dubious strategy.

But if his goal is also to subtly shift the country’s laws and institutions and culture of governance toward something more in line with his party’s vision for the country – as opposed to the one held by the Liberals – there is much that the Supreme Court could help with. From property rights to issues of federal-provincial jurisdiction to law and order, not to mention the balance between national security and individual liberties, there’s all sorts of room to help turn Canada into a more small-C conservative country.

Here, some qualifiers are in order. Mr. Harper’s two Supreme Court appointments to date – the aforementioned Justice Rothstein, and Thomas Cromwell – have both been considered moderate and uncontroversial choices. He has committed to having future appointments be vetted by Parliament, which even with a majority would require them to withstand some level of scrutiny. And Canada’s judiciary is not divided along partisan and ideological lines nearly to the extent of the one south of the border.

But it also bears noting that, the first time he led the Conservatives into an election, Mr. Harper expressed some strong views about what he perceived to be an overly activist judiciary.

“The idea of adjudicated rights is an important development in our political system,†he said in 2004. “It's one that I support in principle. But to make it work, we've got to make sure that we have courts that apply the law, not courts that apply their own criteria.â€

Harper and his circle want this issue to just shut up and go away (possibly part of why I feel compelled to raise it). And he is well bent on ideological principle - one of which is a strong opposition to judiciary activism.

Even if they were to find a way - should a case ever get back up to that level of the courts (and I'm confused .. why or how would it?) - they'll have a pretty tricky time arguing against section 7 of the CoRaF and against the previous supreme court decisions (which themselves are based on there being no abortion law in this country, having been struck down by the senate) without betraying themselves as exactly 'activists' with no regard for Parliamentary law.

These marches on Ottawa must have given Harper a serious headache.

Yeah, I'm doing it. We've got four years of this coming up.

Pro-life makes no sense. Everybody but serial killers are pro-life. Plus the people who tend to identify strongest with the pro-life label tend to be the same people most in favour of capital punishment. It is about as interesting and novel as identifying as 'pro-food'.

Anti-abortion doesn't contribute much more meaningful .. nobody is 'pro-abortion', so there is no counterpart for contrast. Even among those who support legal access to such medical services. "Hi, I'm pro-abortion. I love abortions. Let's do this thing!"

Anti-choice seems to capture the one side well enough. It sounds unfair at first, but really, it gets to the heart of it. The argument is in favour of using legal means to restrict access, right?

Pro-choice seems to capture the other side well enough. It sounds generous at first, but really, it gets to the heart of it. The argument is in favour of maintaining legal means of access, where decided, right?

Wow. Years of this. Here we go. I guess yesterday's rally got my hairs up.

The Libs need a leader, the Greens have one.

The Greens need an organization, the Libs have one.

Fucking fantastic point. Hmmm.

I can't see the union happy NDP ever making the kinds of concessions the Greens would require.

It's no fun to always agree, but certainly agreed.

The NDP still in many oblique ways represents the interests of 'business,' just not the top heavy way the Libs and Cons have in the past.

Did you mean to type NDP here or Greens? For their part, the NDP has been proposing a substantial tax rollback - hike - for 'big business', and as you pointed out earlier, their sympathies tend to lie more with with worker .. that's the mud from which they emerged.

I don't understand them as representing the interests of business, at least not over and above the interests of the welfare of those beholden to it. I'm talking about the federal party here, of course .. the provincial incarnations are a subject in their own, and I don't feel qualified enough to give any meaningful comment on them other than as a historical afterthought (I could talk endlessly about the Ontario NDP's electoral success under Rae, if anybody would listen to me .. but nobody wants to)

I have to assume you meant the Greens - who genuinely do have the interests of 'business' at heart and make no qualms about it. They are gentler under May than they were under Harris, but it is still fundamental party strategy.

Hard-core, do or die, no reason but Reason, Liberals, will try to re-group, but in my opinion, there is no place for "Liberalism" in politics any more... it's washed up. Democracy means voice, Liberal means I get to decide what I mean by liberal and who gets free.

Bold! Hella bold. I like your moxy, even as it makes me squirm

I recall reading a collection of essays once titled "Searching for the New Liberalism" and it was .. well, you know when you are trying to pee in the dark without hitting either the floor or the seat?

Green may fuÇk sh!t up if there is any opportunity for voice now. They could easily sneak through the back next time and grab a ton of seats by coalescing the mid-right and centre with the radical left, and eco-centric. Which could be a juggernaut for ever. Or not. who knows.

It's going to be interesting for sure to see what kind of traction the Greens can get going forward. If the voting system ever does get an overhaul, we could be looking at the Big Green Machine somewhere in the future. Fiscally conservative, socially progressive, and eco-minded - not a bad formula for winning Canadians' sympathies in general, and the hearts of disaffected Liberals looking for a new home in particular.

Actually, the prospect of a Liberal-Green merger makes vastly more sense than does the prospect of a Liberal-NDP merger or a Green-NDP merger.

The Greens are small-l liberalism defined. But again, what makes them unique from the big-L Liberal party would likely just get swallowed up and eventually eroded under any such marriage.

All rallies at 2pm local time

Montreal - Berri Sq.

Ottawa - Parliament Hill

Vancouver - Vancouver Art Gallery

Toronto - Queen's Park

Calgary - Harry Hays Building

Halifax - Province House

Charlottetown - Province House

Kelowna - The Sails, Central Park

Whitehorse - Elijah Smith Building

National Day of Action

What type of electoral system would be better?

The point of the National Day of Action isn’t to suggest anything in particular, rather to provoke a national discussion.

(I'm personally on record as being a long time and vocal advocate for a MMP system, but I like the idea that the call to action itself is neutral on specific reform and rather about the need for reform)

Speaking of the abortion issue (gah) - was there a rally on the hill about that today?

There was.

[color:purple]Fun times.

Dang, conversation sure dropped off once the election results were processed.

Regarding whether or not the opposition can veer the Conservatives leftwards or not, I'm increasingly of the opinion that it is a non-issue. Harper's Conservatives aren't going to allow their neo-liberal (small l) economic agenda (his interest) to be thwarted by a social-conservative agenda from the base. But they will throw some crumbs. Religious exemption for same-sex marriage - already the case under the Charter, depending on whether you share my interpretation, and almost certainly already the case under the Civil Marriage Act - in that nobody may be forced to endorse a marriage that is contrary to their religious beliefs, but codify that as explicit law and pretend that you did something substantive - that sort of thing.

Abortion is going to creep up over and over, because the social-right sees it as an issue of the state condoning mass-murder. But it isn't going to be given serious attention by the party leadership, and it wouldn't survive the senate, just like the last time.

Harper will pursue his economic liberalism, the so-cons will push against him looking for scraps, the blue (L/l)iberals will continue their support, the red Tories (can we still legitimately call them Tories?) will continue to shake their heads, the Liberal party proper will be forced to re-group and get their sh*t together, the NDP will both gain legitimacy but also, from being on the radar, gain a number of new detractors - they are just that little bit too much to the left to spook people, and they have that whole .. well, there is something to make everyone uncomfortable in the NDP. Gays? Hell yeah, love 'em. Women? Hell yeah, more power to 'em. Diversity? Bring it! Religion? Strongly! Wait, what?

Although I suspect that they will begin to gradually occupy that mushy-middle area formerly occupied by the Liberals this next while. Somebody has got to do it.

Speaking of the abortion issue (gah) - was there a rally on the hill about that today?

MMJ Circuital torrent

Sorry Bouche if this is discouraged.

The link for the single in the OP is dead.

Ahhhh. Nicely played, sir.

Haha, dude - do you have heat with Low Roller or something? That's not helpful at all, it is just rubbing it in!

Just to be clear - when you "delete them off of my iPod and put them back on", they become playable (again)?

I've only used iTunes to rebuild the iPod OS and then deleted it from my computer.

Good man. iTunes makes me want to rip my skin off my body just to distract myself from the horribleness of it all.

Happy birthday!

I still can't access the webpage, though down for everyone or just me insists that it is just me *shrug*

For what it's worth, when I used it, it was cool in that I could set up a bunch of widgets, RSS feeds, links to frequently visited pages, that sort of thing.

In the end, though, when I launch my browser, I just want it to open up google.ca or Speed Dial I guess especially since moving to macbooks, it just seemed cumbersome. If I want stock quotes, the weather, my RSS feeds, etc, I just hit F4 and get my dashboard.

I'm curious though - why can't you homepage it? Do they block you from doing that intentionally or does it have to do with needing to sign-in, or ... ?

Try this

If all of that fails, then do this

Forgot about it. Gave it a whirl a lifetime ago and it was pretty cool, actually, but I guess not enough to stick.

I'm not clear on what you would need to 'install' though -- is there a client application now, or is it still browser based? Their website seems to be down at the moment .. for me, at least.

These guys are great. Mentioned them awhile back on the board after having caught them quite randomly at the Elmdale. Bought the CD, signed up to the mailing list, etc..

They played May 8 at the Rainbow in Ottawa - had it marked on the calendar, but couldn't make it out.

Highly recommended.

Just saw this and it brought this thread to mind.

John Oliver waxes funny on mandatory voting in Australia (about half-way through the clip)

He suggests that drinking has become such an issue on election day (because it is a day off - has to be, given the mandatory nature) that Australia has been considering mandating all bars/pubs be closed on an election day.

He also references a report that found that being drunk makes people more likely to vote towards the right-leaning parties.

I get that it is a stand-up bit (and pretty funny!), but I'd love to find that report. Maybe my Google-fu is weak at the moment.

Right on.

A couple of interesting things from the article you linked that were pointed out in either the article itself or in the comments ..

Of the top five in voter turnout percentage, not one of those ridings elected a Conservative.

Of the bottom five in voter turnout percentage, all of them re-elected the incumbent.

Top Five

Bottom Five

Some of these have already been mentioned, so just consider it a +1

- Dexter (new season begins Sept. 25 .. awesome show that I put off watching for too long because I found the premise off-putting. It is great.)

- The Big Bang Theory (funny and geeky shit)

- It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia (hysterical .. and I finally got over my dislike of Danny DeVito)

- Louie (Bouche mentioned Lucky Louie, which is totally a great one as well. This is his new series. It starts off weak, but gets hilarious about ep. 3 on)

- Weeds (new season begins June 27). Got a lot darker in the later seasons.

- Rescue Me (new season begins July 12). Easily one of my favourites.

- The Walking Dead (new season beings Oct. 31 - how is that for an appropriate date?)

- Modern Family

- Californication (I want to be Hank Moody)

A couple people mentioned the West Wing as possibly being the best show ever televised. It is certainly way, way up there.

I've heard good things about Justified. I loved Deadwood.

I think we are just talking about slightly different things.

While your hope seems to be that the NDP will be able to force the Conservatives to be more left-leaning in practice

I have no such illusions, and don't remember suggesting that I believed that to be the case.

I was talking about the suggestions of a unite-the-left (generously included the Liberals in 'left' here, because that seems to be the territory that they are currently occupying) party cannibalism, and why I think it is a bad idea and the wrong solution to the actual problem.

There is certainly room and need for a pragmatic party that goes where the votes are and governs without any over-arching philosophical stance. If it didn't exist, we would have to invent it. We have it in the LPC. But the internal structure, and the guiding ambition (have power, whatever that takes) are incompatible with the progressive, and stubborn, ideology - and it is that - of the NDP (do the right thing, even if unpopular). If we didn't have the NDP, we'd have to re-invent them too.

these analogies are making me uncomfortable ...

Just pretend that they are water guns :laugh:

Or do you think that now that there is a majority, Harper will have less control over his own people?

I do think that. He's had some trouble over the years maintaining control, both of Conservative MPs and the CPC supporters. But there has always been the carrot of a potential majority if supporters or MPs just hush up a bit so as not to scare anyone or rock the boat too much, at which point, maybe just maybe, they can be set loose under a majority environment.

Harper's speech last night gave me the impression that he understands what is about to happen, in terms of all of the pent up Reform-ism about to break loose, and is trying to pre-empt it.

Now Harper and his close circle have to face the fact that that time has come, and people are going to be looking for him to capitalize in the way that they have been hoping for since his first minority election. There are all sorts of people who have bitten their tongue and waited until just this opportunity to raise their pet issues.

Just recently, during the campaign, Harper's team had to do some major damage control over the abortion issue. I don't think that he is even remotely interested in pursuing that issue - but elected officials on his team are, as are the people who put them in office. They've waited. This is their last gasp. He won't be able to keep them under wraps forever.

There is a strong social conservative presence in this country that has been patiently (more or less) awaiting a majority win to push their agenda. They will see their time as now or never. Harper will want to distance himself from it, but the kettle will boil over. The lid was kept on too long and the water got too hot.

his values are very out of step with a majority of canadians

Yes, agreed, which is perfectly demonstrated by the fact that only a minority of Canadians voted for him or his party. No argument from me on that.

by and large there are only a handful of folks out there who follow his philosophy

Quite more than a handful, I'd gather, but certainly a small percentage in relative terms (and yes, there is an implied Strauss joke in that sentence).

So your problem with Harper is that he's going to stick to his guns, and your favorite thing about the NDP is that they have guns to stick to, but you don't like that the Liberals are willing to switch weapons? Ya'lost me.

I did lose you. My problem with Harper is that I don't like his targets. I like the NDP because I do like what they are aiming at, and want them to hit those targets. I don't have a problem with the Liberals per-se, it goes back and forth, as does where they are pointing their weapon at any given time (which, generally boils down to campaigning from the left, and governing from the right). It amounts to pointing at the bank robber, getting my nod of approval, but then moving the gun and pulling the trigger at my girlfriend's head. Nothing wrong with that, I guess. But it is certainly not my cup of tea.

and he makes decisons based purely on ideology. not on evidence.

I actually agree with this. I think that he confuses ideological principle for evidence. It is one of the things about Harper that has always made me nervous. There is a fair amount of footage out there of him as an (ideological) young man .. he has grown up, but he hasn't outgrown it all.

I think that he is a bad person

To each his own, but I don't believe this. I think that he has the best interests at heart, I just think that he has totally miscalculated. Worse, he miscalculated so early on that he feels the need to defend those positions that he made publicly, come hell or high water.

he will do all he can, fuÇk the consequences, to get what he wants. that's the scary part (well some of the scary part).

I am unfortunately on-board with you on this. We have different opinions about *why* he would do that (I think because he legitimately thinks it best, not because he is some cruel person out to destroy the country he has always lived in for some unknown reason other than being a deviant monster), but being finally handed his majority, I think that there will be a lot of 'do what he can, fuck the consequences'.

Shame, that.