Panglossian Notes

Coming fun on Thanksgiving weekend. Anyone for races, contests and stunts?

Last night, or more precisely early this morning, Ontario's newest amendments to its Highway Traffic Act came into effect.

The amendments to the Act, contained in Bill 203 and the accompanying Regulation 455/07: races, contests and stunts may put a crimp into some individuals usual driving habits.

Under the amendments anyone caught going 50/kph above the posted speed limit can/may/WILL have their vehicle impounded for a week, the driver's license will be suspended - i.e. seized - and get a minimum $2,000 CAD fine.

Also, the unfortunate speeder or stuntest is liable for the towing and storage charges, of course, for the weeks impoundment. There is no appeal only after the fact.

No appeal or hearing
(13) There is no appeal from, or right to be heard before, a vehicle detention, driver’s licence suspension or vehicle impoundment under subsection (5), (6) or (7), but this subsection does not affect the taking of any proceeding in court.
Lien for storage costs
(14) The costs incurred by the person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under this section are a lien on the motor vehicle that may be enforced under the Repair and Storage Liens Act.
Costs to be paid before release of vehicle
(15) The person who operates the impound facility where a motor vehicle is impounded under subsection (7) is not required to release the motor vehicle until the removal and impound costs for the vehicle have been paid.

Bill 203

__________________________________________

To translate the amendments into imperial & US units: anyone caught going 30/mph above the posted speed limit can/may/WILL have their vehicle impounded for a week, the driver's license will be suspended - i.e. seized and get a minimum $2,091.07 US (the CAD was slightly above par with the USD on Friday but financial institutions usually ding you with a fee for exchanging funds. I assumed a 4% fee -which maybe too high - thus for ordinary souls $1.0053 USD X 1.04 = $1.00 CAD)

__________________________________________

I had wondered about the "coming into force" date of the amendments, here in this part of North America Thanksgiving is next weekend - i.e. the harvest really is over, the leaves are 60 to 70 percent red and gold and we are hoping for a real Winter.

The long holiday weekend, less so the reason for it, will mean there is more than the usual number of drivers on the province's highways and particularly, as I recall, on the stretch of the MacDonald-Cartier (the 401) between Toronto and Montreal. It also means lots of speeding violations on this section as people race (no pun intended) back and forth between the two cities.

I'll bet the OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) have fun with the new amendments and I thought when I saw the effective date: "Are they using this part of the weekend before Canadian Thanksgiving to work out bugs in implementing the new law?"

In case they are, I have a few questions:

If you're pulled over in the middle-of-nowhere on the 401, the vehicle is impounded and the driver's licence is lifted how do you get home to Montreal or Toronto?

Are the OPP going to have a shuttle bus laid-on?

Will they phone you a taxi (yah in the middle-of-nowhere)?

Will you be allowed to break the existing Highway Traffic Act and hitch-hike?

Hey this could be a really expensive weekend coming up. I'm going to stay home.

Technorati Tags: Canada, Ontario, Speeding, Traffic law

Flotsam and jetsam over the while.

Ah yes, some flotsam and jetsam washed up from the last few days on my browser beach.

And come to think of it, here, in the mid-Southern part, of the Northern part, of North America, it certainly has been beach weather and actually still is today - 30 degrees celsius and friggin humid to boot.

Keep focused!

First a couple of Youtube clips following on the APEC snore fest fiasco meeting in Sydney AU. The Chaser:

Followed by the ABCs (Australian Broadcasting Corporation not the other one) competitors contribution to the Chaser incident, just to round things off, and to ensure the world that aussie-land has its share of humourless a-holes inflected on them like the rest of us, in the free Western other parts of the world.

Now, Mr. Fish on President Mahmud Ahmadinejad visit to the land of "hope and glory" oops that's a small real place called the UK - I'm showing my ancestry and Commonwealth ties - the land of the "free and the brave"[sic, ? could that phrase be right, now?] and the unfortunate reaction of an otherwise quite sensible man Shimon Perez.

The pot calling the kettle a lousy nigger

Best article I've read on the Ahmadinejad speech was by Pepe Escobar via the Asia Times. If, as lots in the US serious part of society know, the war, such a silly term I know, that is going on between the US and others is really a game of propaganda/message/spin then the US puppet-masters must be fit-to-be-tied by Bollinger the boorish baboon from Columbia [not the drug place in South America). What a gift. What a moron, contrary to Steven Clemons giving him an "A".

Now, my useless table, used to orient myself prior to great pronouncements of old and new politicians at the APEC meeting about global-warming.

Me, I like to know sort of when they, the politicians may be dead to kept me focused on their sense of urgency regarding the heating of the planet, do you say!

I labeled my spreadsheet "climate criminals" which could be a term that may become common as we move forward.

All the current "f ers" will be dead or senile or about to have face or ass or tummy lifts or tucks by 2050. Anyone want to trust this crew with your children's lives? Just a question.

Remember it is the end of September here in the bloody North and it feels like summer. The Rice person - Condi - is the pal in the table. She was Georgie Porgy's date after all in Aussie-land.

So as the table, above, indicates by 2050 all, or most of the current leaders [sic] will be, unless there is a stem-cell break-through old "f ing" fools" if they are alive.

Any of you young fools want to leave the lives of your child in their hands? Just a question.

Finally a piece of flotsam that washed up this morning re: the new budget in France via Arthur Goldhamme's French Politics blog just to keep everyone really focused on "real" things, as opposed, of course, to political statements?

So, just some tables from the budget showing cuts in various areas of the French public service. Does it look a bit like "defense" is the second hardest hit?

But, now, how to put this into context with the recent saber rattling?

Let's wait to see!

Look at the chart in the upper right quarter.

"Who wins - Qui y gagne, who loses - qui y perd ?

Technorati Tags: APEC, Asian Times, Australia, Britain, Confused, Hot Air, Huh, what?, Silly, Tax Policy, Useful idiots, wow

The CBC: Canada, Afghanistan, Da PLAN, da plan

This CBCs Sunday Edition broadcast a "town" forum this morning, September 23, 2007, dealing with the question: "Afghanistan: What Are We Doing There?". The forum was held here at UofOs Tabaret Hall.

Although I've been a regular listener to this program since it's inception 25 or 30 years ago, originally as Sunday Morning, I haven't listened lately.

But this Sunday I made an exception because I was interested to hear what the commentators might say about our Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.

I was also very interested to know what a group of potentially thoughtful Canadians, i.e. ones who had to make an effort to get down or into Tabaret Hall, might ask or say about us being there.

I began listening with trepidation, expecting first to be frustrated by the commentators who could spout the usual canned and politically packaged tripe handed to Canadian citizens by our current government and the military.

I was surprised, though. (The podcast of the program maybe be up at the CBC in a couple of days. The CBC never seems to put up the entire show. But here is where all CBC podcasts can be accessed in case you maybe interested just scroll for Sunday Edition.)

Other than the Afghanistan Ambassador to Canada, who with, I think, rare exceptions maintained the Karzai's public view of the world from Afghanistan, the other commentators were not pre-packaged cheerleaders.

The other commentators seemed like real observers and analysts. I could say that they seemed like serious people but using the adjective "serious" to modify the description of a human is now, it seems, de rigueur to actually dismissing them as serious, that is thoughtful, reflective ... .

I think the best way for me to phrase what I heard would be to say the commentators seemed as puzzled as most Canadians are about:

why we are there,
what we are doing,
what the PLAN maybe, and
why can't those in charge of our involvement tell us exactly what is happening.

The audience's response to the discussion, in the first half of the program, as well as their questions of the commentators were also interesting - meaning: thoughtful, probing, curious, reasonably knowledgeable, and non-partisan (so refreshing).

To me the forum seemed like a success because it was just that an exchange of both some information and opinion which was then probed and questioned. There were no general conclusions at the end other than, I think, that at least those who showed up at Tabaret Hall are sick of being handed the pre-packed tripe doled out by the federal government and military.

I know I'm fed up with the completely partisan nature down which our government seems to be directing Canadian concerns and debate about us being in Afghanistan. It is absolutely non-productive and just makes me angry.

There was also little hand wringing about our deaths in the place which allowed the forum to proceed in an emotionally uncharged manner. The guy from Esprit de Corps magazine, Scott Taylor, did however at some point say that Canada had a higher than average death rate than other countries involved. No one asked about his methodology for determining this which was good because it allowed the discussion to stay on track. [My quick calculations using deaths as a % of troops on the ground in Afghanistan ranks the US 1st, Canada 2nd and Spain 3rd. There are, of course other ways of calculating the death rates all so far are very very low relative to other declared wars in which we've been.]

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan, CBC, Chaos, Ottawa, Taliban, The Plan

General Richard Dannatt - the military/civilian cultural "gulf" plus who is really being engaged in Iraq & Afghanistan

At times, recently more so, I've wondered of myself why I seem to have more general respect for the UK senior army personnel than I do for the current, what I think of as almost cartoon like, Canadian senior officer types. I wonder if it could be that the UK senior types, or some that speak in public appear to have brains, that commodity which seems dearly short at our saintly Canadian Department of National Defense.

Whatever, eh, just my impressions of our our current military senior types. But they do look charming in their red shirts or strutting around with that other well know cartoon-like Canadian - Don Cherry - waving a replicate of yet another Canadian symbol which is now usually resident in the US, the Stanley Cup.

But I should keep on topic.

_________________________________

Yesterday, Friday, September 21, 2007, General Sir Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, gave a presentation at the International Institute For Strategic Studies as part of a Military Leaders Forum in London. Unlike our cartoon like senior officer types, the UK General seems articulate, appears to have a knowledge of recent history and of international affairs, wow.

The entire speech can be found, in wvm format or as a text transcript at the IISS site here.

Aspects of the General's speech relating to a "gulf between UK citizens and troops" were reported on the BBC last night, see the short clip below the excerpt from the BBC print story:

"Gen Sir Richard Dannatt said soldiers were sometimes greeted with indifference on returning from service.

He contrasted the attitude in Britain with support for soldiers among people in the United States.[**see footnote]

A "willingness to serve in such an atmosphere again" could be sapped, he said in a speech in London.

Army chief warns of social 'gulf'
BBC

Although the General indicates that this "gulf" is from his perspective a UK problem which may make it harder to get people into the military and keep them there, in the future, I think he is wrong.

I agree that some in the US seem to show what could be characteristed as strong "support for the troops" but frankly I suspect what the General sees is the usual passing fad of just a very few mixed with the perennial illusion about the grass being greener other places.

Since the General's concerns are the UK army, he didn't mention any of the downside in the US, for example, the fiasco at Walter Reed nor the fact that some US military depend on charitable hand-outs to make ends meet. Nor did he mention that one side of the US political elite in effect dismisses and belittles those who actually served in the military if they don't think the same as them and the sentimental, fair-weather, flag waving, "support the troops" crew accept this humiliation of yesterdays troops.

Interestingly enough the whole matter of "gulfs" between the military and civilians was just a topic on the ABCs (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) Late Night Live, with Phillip Adams:

The Civil-Military Divide

As a result of the drop in American public support for the war in Iraq, members of the military and their families are feeling increasingly isolated and misunderstood as they bear the brunt for simply carrying out orders. However, this also highlights a divide which has existed between members of America's civil and military establishments since Vietnam. In fact surveys reveal that elite members of civil and military institutions remain suspicious of one another, and continue to harbour strong negative stereotypes about the other. It turns out this has wide-reaching implications for government policy, particularly on the way wars are waged. On Late Night Live we explore the history of this divide and look at how a more coordinated approach to Iraq - one which included greater civilian and even humanitarian input - might have turned out.

Late Night Live
September 19, 2007
ABC

Kristin Henderson, one of the people on the LNL broadcast, writes fairly regularly about the "gulf" from a US perspective.

In one of her WaPo pieces this summer she began with a fact and then a question:

Less than 1 percent of the U.S. population serves in our military. In a time of war, what should that mean to the rest of us?

Their War
July 22, 2007
WaPo

Neither the clip nor the BBC print story report on a couple of the move interesting aspects of the General's speech i.e. the fact that he didn't demean the people the UK are engaging in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

For example, of those faced by the UK in Iraq, he says:

So, because as an Army we are enemy focussed, some words on our adversaries in southern Iraq.

The militants (and I use the word deliberately because not all are insurgents, or terrorists, or criminals; they are a mixture of them all) are well armed – certainly with outside help, and probably from Iran.

By motivation, essentially, and with the exception of the Al Qaeda in Iraq element who have endeavoured to exploit the situation for their own ends, our opponents are Iraqi Nationalists, and are most concerned with their own needs – jobs, money, security – and the majority are not bad people.

In amongst them, however, are a hard core of well trained, well motivated, ruthless individuals who have the capacity to organise and control a highly effective campaign, or perhaps better described as a matrix of campaigns, of violence and intimidation.

and of those in Afghanistan:

In Afghanistan, we fight a rather different campaign.

Again our adversaries are also quite complex and I would prefer to once more use the term militant and to be careful not to demonise the people we fight in Afghanistan.

There is a lazy tendency for them all to be lumped under the term “Taliban”, but it is not as simple as that.

Yes, there is a hard core of Islamist extremists of varied ethnic and national origin, but the great majority of the people we are engaged against are those who are fighting with the Taliban for financial, social and tribal reasons.

So we must beware of tarring them all with the same brush, as I am sure that one day we will need to deal with and eventually reconcile the elected Government with the majority of these people.

And the character of the people who oppose here is different to that of the people in Iraq.

Afghans are a hardy people, who respect force and the warrior ethos. They are generally more impressed by a company of infantry, fighting bravely with bayonets fixed than by high tech ISTAR and offensive support.

Their current choice is to fight in the cultivated areas where the visibility and fields of view can be measured in tens of metres, where basic skills, not technical prowess are most important. Indeed, it is a form of operation that our fathers would recognise from the Normandy bocage – indeed on their part it is clever, because we are denied the hi-tech advantages of stand off and range, but our training gives us the edge.

I contrast the General's view with the collective Canadian crew who believe following on our great general Hillier's view that Canadians only engage "scumbags". We also mimic US handling of detainees which some of our red shirt flag wavers associate with "supporting the troops".

I don't agree with everything the UK General said yesterday but I do appreciate what seems like a thoughtful speech and delivered articulately with none of the usual cute stupid meaningless caught phrases.

_________________________________

** The General also mentioned Canada, though not the red shirt "support the troops" bullshit, supported by the federal government, rather, he mentioned the Ontario provincial government's renaming a section of highway 401, between Trenton and TO, the route the hearses travel on their way to have the military corpses autopsied prior to handing them back to families.

Technorati Tags: Afganistan, BBC, Britain, Canada, Iraq, Military, warfare

I wonder ...new holes in the garden? The Northern Rock fiasco!

Reading and seeing the pictures of the Brits that are in a mad panic to get their hands on the pound sterling they may have socked away in the Northern Rock Bank gave me a morning chuckle.

Not nice, I know. I was feeling particularly self-righteous.

Reports are that Northern depositors' pulled out £1.5 billion - that's about $3 billion US or 3.1 CAD. Not exactly an non-significant sum, eh.

Why be a self-righteous prig and chuckle?

I couldn't help thinking things like:

Where did the £1.5 billion go once it was in everyones hot-little-hands?

Was there a rash of spade purchases at garden shops?

Do Pound Stores sell cheap shovels?

Are Brits planting the stuff in the garden plot?

Are mattresses enjoying a little more stuffing over the weekend?

Has there been a burst of consumer spending?

Have armed-robberies and break-ins increased?

Questions. Questions. Questions.

I hope everything calms down a bit tomorrow.

But to put the "panic" of British depositors into a bit of context, even though I think they need to get a grip on themselves, here's a chart comparing the deposit insurance schemes in place in the UK with the ones in place here in 3/4s of North America - i.e. Canada (CDIC) & the U.S. (FDIC). The UKs deposit insurance website is here: Financial Services Authority, for reference.

UK depositors are guaranteed only the first £2,000 they put in an insured institution, Northern Rock is an insured institution. After the £2,000 they are guaranteed 90% of the next £33,000. Then you are on your own so-to-speak. Here in Canada and the US depositors in all insured institutions are guaranteed 100% of eligible deposits up to about a £50,000 equivalent. The chart below , I think, shows, in an uncertain time, how maybe average depositors may view what they have lent to an intermediary. Having funds in North American financial institutions seems less risky.

UK depositors start losing at the £35,000 level (£2,000 100% guaranteed plus 90% of any funds up to a total of £35,000). We lucky North Americans don't start losing until we have more that $100,000.

Now to put everything on the same footing I've assumed that is costs someone from the states and Canada $2.00 to buy a £.

Thus the UK £ limit for deposit insurance is the same as up to $70,000 for North Americans but as the chart shows, because of the 2 tier approach used in the UK, we here get an 100% where as those in the UK would get only about 91% after the first £2,000 i.e. $4,000. After $70,000 we, the lucky North Americans, continue on getting a 100% guarantee while those in the UK begin to decline.

After $100,000 or about £50,000 the risk starts increasing for North American depositors.

Technorati Tags: Britain, Chaos, Risk

The Arctic: No Sea Ice and a Starving Polar Bear

If you may have been tracking ice conditions in Canada's arctic, as I do, an ex-Nunavummiut, you will have known, since the middle of summer in the South, that the sea ice in the high arctic has been rapidly disappearing.

In fact depending on which website you may use to check ice conditions, the Northwest Passage, the Northern deep water route, seems to have been ice free since middle to late August.

Though some may find this exciting because of the potential for increased faster transportation routes between Asia etc. and us in the West, I'm disturbed. Things, global warming, are moving much faster than I suspect any may have expected, and boy, we are not ready to deal with the potential changes a much faster warming climate will very likely hold for us humans.

The BBC, who seem to have consistently followed the progress or deterioration in the arctic, today is reporting on the opening of the Passage and the significant loss of arctic sea ice.

g

Our own Environment Canada, by way of the collaborative Canadian Cryoshere site said:

"As of September 1, Environment Canada analysis indicates a major collapse of the sea ice cover over the Northern Hemisphere extending from Eurasia into the central part of the Arctic Ocean. Sea ice extent in Canadian Arctic is also below normal . Sea ice cover has now reached the lowest level in more than 50 years and is still decreasing. This major decline in sea ice extent is consistent with the general consensus in the sea ice community that the loss of sea ice is accelerating and anthropogenic climate warming is one of the main causes.

For those that may not believe the computer graphics of the ice conditions in the Northwest Passage, shown above, there is always the satellite pictures of M'Clure Strait from the European Space Agency (ESA), one included below along side a graphic map, for reference.

In the ESA picture the island to the North of the Strait (the dark stuff) is Prince Patrick, the island to the North East is Melville (the small chunk of land between these two is, I think, unnamed), the island to the South West is Banks and directly to the South is Victoria Island.

For potential doubters:

See, no sea ice!

g

Ultimately, one of the more disturbing outcome of losing sea ice will, contrary to the views of Nunavut's polar biologist, be the loss of the polar bear.

A hint of what may be in store for this iconoclastic mammal can be see here

in this very disturbing photograph taken in Nunavik just last week. I don't know why the guys that took the picture didn't put the poor thing out of it's misery.

Christ it was hunting a porcupine! The fellow, Heiko Wittenborn, who took the picture said:

[he] has taken thousands of photos of Nunavik wildlife over the years, but .... can't shake the haunting image of the polar bear out of his head as he goes to sleep at night.

Emaciated polar bear spotted far from usual range
September 13, 2007
Nunatsiaq News

I don't blame him, nor can I.

Technorati Tags: Arctic, Canada, Climate Change, Global Warming Policy, Inuit, Nunavut

Veils, elections, hysteria, identity - Canada's sitting federal politicians, all of them, are ass-holes.

I know I'd indicated I was finished with the matter of veils, elections, and identity that stemmed from an Elections Canada clarification regarding the new Canadian federal rules about persons voting.

But .... !

The morons nitwits charming women & men, otherwise known as sitting Canadian federal politicians, all of them, from every party, except the Greens - none yet sitting -, are still at it.

The bloody veil and face issue, I mean, of course.

Today, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, a specific collection of Canadian federal politician numbskulls, dragged the federal Chief Electoral officer over the coals for applying the amendments to the Canada Elections Act these clowns. as Members of Parliament, had passed.

I know this collection of word and event splitters will say that they last saw the amending Bill - Bill C-31 - way back in February of 2007. How could all of Canada's elected federal representatives have expected that veils could become an issue in the Québec provincial elections on March 26, 2007. Their intent, they say now, was to have foreseen this particular provincial state of hysteria by sort of "planning forward backwards" as Comedy Central might say, eh.

After all the federal elected members of parliament only had from February 22nd to June 22nd to figure out that their slovenly (excessively causal) consideration of Bill C-31 was in question?

The history of Bill C-31 is available on the House's website. To summarize, eh:

In the nitwit place the House of Commons;

October 24, 2006, 1st reading;

February 20, 2007, passed the House; then

to the other place - the scary red chamber;

Senate Committee hearings in May( evidence here and here); then

Out of the Senate and; finally

June 22, 2007, Royal Assent.

We, ordinary voting age Canadians now, of course, know for certain, that everyone currently sitting as a federal MP is a fucking moron or an idiot or illiterate or someone who can't think or a complete fool or silly asshole or a liar ..... because during the time that Bill C-31 was before the Senate the matter, all the federal MPs now, saying is an issue, was discussed and reported on publicly.

Where were they?

And this was well before the GG, Michaëlle, gave her Assent on June 22, 2007.

The Senate hearings are interesting because the March 26th Québec provincial elections, as well as the provincial electoral officer's actions regarding veils before those elections, were on the minds of at least a couple of those people that our current Prime Minister seems to dislike - members of Canada's Senate.

So on May 10th last, Senator Baker, great Newfie that he is, asked (the Minister responsible for the legislation Bill C-31 had left the committee room):

I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. Going back to Senator Nolin's questions to the minister, I wonder whether this bill will affect in any way a problem that arose during the Quebec election, I believe, when someone was not permitted to vote because her face was veiled. Did that happen? I am not sure.

Does the bill make reference to that?

Matthew King, Assistant Secretary for Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office (PCO), an official who has since disappeared from the PCO but risen, from the stale and dead PCO halls, at Industry Canada since August 14, 2007, responded:

It does not specifically address the wearing of veils. It does have a new requirement that a voter show identification at the polls — either a photo ID with name and address or two pieces of ID, or the third option, which is to be vouched for.

It is the government's view that Elections Canada has managed this issue adequately over the last number of elections. It is anticipated that Bill C-31 gives Elections Canada and the Chief Electoral Officer the flexibility to continue in the same way.

I believe I read stories about Elections Canada having begun an outreach process with affected groups in our society and that the process continues. It is anticipated that Elections Canada will continue to manage this process.

What follows is interesting and seems to bear directly on what the "people" in the "other place" are now concerned about (and the Senate Chairman seems to be awake regarding officials responding to his committee members, hey).

The Chairman: Senator Baker's question was specific about veils, and you did not address that.

Mr. King: I am sorry, I thought I said there is no specific reference to veils in the bill. Perhaps I misunderstood the senator's question.

Senator Nolin: How will you manage photo IDs?

The Chairman: If someone arrives with photo ID but the face is veiled, how can the ID be verified?

Mr. King: It would seem obvious to me that someone who prefers to satisfy the identification requirements by use of a photo would reveal that person's face to match to the photo, I would think. On the other hand, there are other means to prove one's identity, such as two pieces of other identification.

The Chairman: — or be vouched for.

Mr. King: Yes, neither requires removal of a veil. As I say, I believe Elections Canada is in the process of consulting with affected groups.

Senator Baker: According to this bill, the two pieces of identification, not identified in the bill, would act as alternate identification to a government-issued photo ID. The specifics of the alternative identification will be left to the Chief Electoral Officer to determine. Those two pieces of identification might not contain a photo ID. Is that correct?

Mr. King: I have one quick addition to your comments, senator. Indeed, the Chief Electoral Officer has the flexibility to develop a list of acceptable ID. As the Government House Leader mentioned this morning, a preliminary list of acceptable identification has already been tabled, in my understanding, with the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee. I see this issue as more of a dialogue between the House Committee and the Chief Electoral Officer.

Senator Baker: Allow me to help a bit. In the case of the province of Quebec, the Chief Electoral Officer made a decision, which he reversed one day later. I do not know if officials have discussed this and, if not, that is fine. Would the Chief Electoral Officer have the same jurisdiction under Bill C-31 to do exactly the same thing as the Quebec Chief Electoral Officer did under Quebec legislation?

Mr. King: I do not want to speculate on how the Chief Electoral Officer would respond to this, in particular a new Chief Electoral Officer. It is to Elections Canada's advantage to consult now with communities. The government believes that the Chief Electoral Officer will find a way to make this work.

Now I know officials, here in Canada the term "official" means someone not connected to a Minister's office or any party - i.e. a government employee, an apolitical person -, can't and, jeezs, don't speak for government's, so I wonder why Mr. King, an official in the Canadian way, chose to speak the specific sentence, highlighted above, he did. Could his Minister at the time have instructed him to do so? Would a senior Canadian official ever presume to speak for the government without having been instructed to do so?

A question, likely trivial, I know.

So on to another interesting piece of Canadian Senate evidence, the hearings which occurred on May 16, 2007. These are most curious. Both the Federal and Québec chief electoral officers proved detailed statements regarding Bill C-31 and dealt specifically with the question of veils. Wow, eh and in the Senate, that unaccountable place unlike the accountable "nitwit haven" place the Commons.

I'll just pick a few sentences out of Monsieur Blanchet's statements to the Senate committee.

Marcel Blanchet, Chief Electoral Officer and President of the Commission de la représentation électorale, Chief Electoral Officer of Quebec:

Those of you who followed the recent general election in Quebec will remember the polemic surrounding the identification of veiled voters. It raised an important issue concerning voter identification. In the run up to the general elections, I sought legal opinions and it was confirmed that a veiled voter could follow the identification verification procedure at the polling station without having to uncover her face.

As I said earlier, the identity verification process allows voters to use their birth certificate or certificate of Canadian citizenship, along with a telephone or electricity bill, to prove their identity. We therefore thought there would be no problem; it was not even a matter of reasonable accommodation, as the act provided for such a scenario. A few days before the vote, the provision allowing a voter who could not be identified by the procedure used at the polling station to be referred to the identity verification panel to plead his or her case sparked a wave of controversy. The situation approached mass hysteria. A number of voters threatened to breach the peace on election day if women were allowed to vote with their faces veiled. In order to ensure that the vote ran smoothly, I decided to use the special powers granted to me pursuant to section 490 of the Elections Act to amend the act to clearly stipulate that all voters had to have their face uncovered at the polling station and at the identity verification panel. This measure was, of course, only valid for that particular election. It is up to the government to decide what measures will be implemented for future elections. I am going to make a recommendation in order to avoid a repetition of the awful situation in which we nearly found ourselves. I am worried that Election Day may end up being another Halloween. I had to respond very quickly as newspapers and radio broadcasters were encouraging people to go to vote wearing a disguise. I had to act that very afternoon to nip the situation in the bud. As soon as I had made the decision, everything calmed down and everything ran smoothly on Election Day.

It can be concluded that, in general, the current voter identification mechanisms work well, allow compliance with the Elections Act, and satisfy both voters and all elections officers. Furthermore, the requirement to show identification documents reassures voters that nobody will vote in their name and also instills confidence in the electoral process. The identification documents currently required are adequate and allow us to ensure the integrity of the system.

The Elections Act has to be amended in order to address the issue of Muslim women who want to vote without removing their veil. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

So, today the utterly disgraceful House of Commons, all parties agreeing, committee tried to force Monsieur Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada to use his similar authority under the Canada Elections Act to deal with an "emergency" similar to the perceived Québec hysteria last March. I understand the the Québec Chief Electoral Officer received various threats that individuals and groups would disturb the actual election process - i.e. an "emergency" for real.

My daily walk includes a stroll around the Center Block, I like the statues and mostly the strange stone configurations of the original West and East Blocks, but for awhile I'll spit as I pass the Commons section of the Center.

Technorati Tags: Canada, Politicians, Shmucks, Stupidity, what a sorry place

Sunni world

It, Sunni world, could be a new theme park headed up by that "ass-kissing little chickenshit***" know as General David Petraeus, but it isn't.

More than likely, it, is just the typical riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma, as Churchill might say.

Have a read of Marc Lynch's article at The American Prospect to get a little more understanding of what might be the real world in parts of Iraq:

"The cheerleaders for the surge have constructed a Disney-esque fantasy of Iraq which might as well be in Orlando for all it has to do with the grim reality on the ground. ... .

Marc Lynch
The American Prospect
September 13, 2007

The article is interesting particularly in light of the assassination of Shaykh Abd al-Sattar Abu Risha and the jump to the conclusions crew in D.C. and other areas that it is those scary guys in al-Qaeda who've just blown him up (some rumors insitu).

***Oh the colourful expressions for the General are courtesy Gareth Porter who reports this is what Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM) and the General's boss called him during the first meeting between the 2 of them.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Middle East, Military, Puzzles

Just to finish off my interest in Canada's stupid veil tempest ....

Unless something else really really really stupid comes-up related to Bill C-31 and Elections Canada's veil clarification I think I'll move along to watching the paint dry on my just painted patio deck.

But to finish off:

At the time Bill C-31 was being considered by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as is the custom, the sponsoring Minister is available for committee questions.

C-31 was sponsored by Minister Rob Nicholson then the Minister for Democratic Reform. The following is the Minister's opening statement to the committee from the evidence on November 23, 2006.

See any reference to "unimpeded faces"? Jeez, eh!

Hon. Rob Nicholson (Minister for Democratic Reform):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Natasha Kim, a policy analyst in legislation and House planning in the Privy Council Office; Raymond MacCallum, counsel in the human rights law section of the Department of Justice; and beside me is Dan McDougall, director of operations for legislation and House planning in the Privy Council Office.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for inviting me to speak on Bill C-31. But most importantly, and to begin with, I would like to thank you and all the members of your committee for the work you did on the 13th report.

I can tell you that the government has reviewed your report very carefully. We tabled a response on October 20, supporting in principle virtually all of the recommendations you made in that report.

But we did not stop there. Bill C-31 was introduced shortly thereafter, on October 24, and as you know, it is based on the recommendations from the 13th report, recommendations aimed at improving the integrity of the electoral process, recommendations originating from this committee that were developed in a non-partisan, collaborative way.

Mr. Chair, if you take the bill and the government's response together, I think they represent very clearly the intention of this committee, and indeed changes to Bill C-31 at this stage would probably mean revisiting the committee's original recommendations.

That being said, the government is, of course, open to listening to such changes, if it is the will of the committee members, but I would simply say that I agree with Monsieur Guimond, who, in his second reading remarks on November 7, said that Bill C-31 came from an “excellent collaboration among the political parties”.

This is an issue of common concern for all parties, and I would hope you will do everything within your power to expedite the passage of this bill.

I would like to turn to addressing some of the measures in the bill. Because the bill implements the committee's own report, I won't review every measure, of which there are many; rather, having reviewed the second reading debate, there are three in particular that I will address. I will quickly discuss these three issues: voter identification, date of birth on the voters' list, and the unique identifier. I will then take your questions.

First, I'd like to spend some time on the issue of voter identification. Bill C-31 implements the committee's recommendation on this point, and the recommendation had no dissenting opinions. It was formulated after the committee discussed the issue with the Chief Electoral Officer, the Privacy Commissioner, and representatives from the four major political parties. Concerns were raised at that time about ensuring that no voters were disadvantaged because of not having identification.

The result was the balanced approach recommended by the committee and reflected in this piece of legislation. It allows three options: a photo ID, with name and address; two pieces of other identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer; or, for those without identification, an oath or affirmation and a voucher.

This is very similar to the current process for registering at the polls, and I think it is important to spend a minute on this point. As you know, to register at the polls you need to have identification or to take an oath and have someone vouch for you.

The Canada Elections Act already forbids vouching for more than one person to get them registered. We have had these safeguards in place for polling day registration for many years. Bill C-31 simply extends the same safeguards from the registration stage to the voting stage, as the committee recommended.

I would emphasize that amendments were made to the Canada Elections Act in 2000 to allow a shelter to be considered a residence. This provision, subsection 8(6) of the act, will continue to apply to facilitate voting by those without a fixed address.

Mr. Chair, the voter identification process will bring the federal system in line with other jurisdictions that require identification, including the province of Quebec, a number of Canadian municipalities, and many other countries.

By providing three options for meeting the ID requirement, Bill C-31 will provide greater voting accessibility than some jurisdictions that do not provide any alternatives to photo ID. For example, some American states that do not provide alternatives to photo ID have encountered legal challenges; on the other hand, states that provide alternatives like those found in Bill C-31 have not.

Each jurisdiction must determine for itself what works best for its system and its electors, and I think we have found the right balance in Bill C-31 between maintaining voter accessibility and protecting the integrity of the Canadian electoral system. Indeed, without a system that functions with integrity, the right to vote would become meaningless.

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
1st Session, 39th Parliament
Evidence
November 26, 2006

If you review the evidence from any of the additional 4 committee meetings held regarding Bill C-31 you will also not find any reference to "unimpeded faces", "veils" "burkas", "niqabs", "paper-bags" or "Halloween masks". In others words the committee was not concerned with faces covered or not.

Given politicians' reaction to the Elections Canada clarification, I guess the committee members and MPs, in general, thought they were concerned about faces or took for granted they were concerned, or, or, or, or, something ..... . As I said in my previous post idiots.

The veil thing or its potential was not an issue. As you can see the list of witnesses heard by the committee didn't included anyone concerned with veils of the religious, cultural or social type.

There were concerns by citizens about how to identify homeless people or transient individuals and First Nations people living in isolated communities where street and house numbers are not used to specify a residence and where individuals may not have provincial or territorial drivers licenses or federal passports or any photo-ID.

So is this silly issue finished, I hope so. Oh, but we'll get more pontificating no doubt.

Technorati Tags: Canada, Chaos, Confused, Government oh, yeah?, Really stupid, Silly, Stupidity, wingnuttery

What is it about the face?

It seems that Elections Canada might have given the reform party, the alliance party the conservative party of Canada, a little gift when it issued it's clarification on the Statutory Requirements Regarding the Identification of Electors Wearing Face Coverings. The clarification seems to me to be quite sensible and fits in with the new requirements specified in Bill C-31 (see legislative summary for reference) amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Bill C-31 included amendments that require:

Before voting, electors must prove their identity and residential address by providing one piece of government-issued photo identification showing their name and residential address, or two pieces of identification authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, each of which establishes their name and at least one of which establishes their residential address. To vote, an elector may instead take an oath and be vouched for by another elector whose name is on the list of electors for the same polling division, and who has the necessary piece(s) of identification to establish his or her identity and residential address.

The clarification states that:

There are several ways that electors can choose to prove their identity and residential address, some of which do not entail having to remove face coverings. There are, however, situations where an elector will be required to show her face before being able to vote.

If the elector presents an original government-issued photo identification that contains her name and residential address, the following options apply:

The elector may choose to unveil, OR

The elector can produce a second original piece of identification from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada’s authorized list of identification as proof of the individual’s identity, OR

Another elector registered in the same polling division who is able to produce satisfactory identification establishing his or her own identity and residential address could vouch for the elector. Both the voucher and vouchee would be required to make a sworn statement under oath. An elector can vouch only for one elector.

These options seem to fit well within the general options that Elections Canada has specified would now be required under the amended Elections Act for all voters:

To rant and rage about strange things is certainly my general impression of all things now conservative partyish and having a woman vote wearing a veil is certainly a strange thing for the culturally insecure.

But maybe I'm being a bit hard on the Harper Party of Canada as all party leaders have been reported as making statements on the Elections Canada clarification, though I have only seen so far the Liberal party statement which seems quite measured and seems in effect, to me to be what Elections Canada has attempted to do.

We've had the pleasure of seeing Harper's, the prime minister, response reported in the MSM. True to form, from my perspective, Harper's comments seem to have his usual traces of authoritarianism, and indignation. "Gads, how could an independent agency thwart my law the amendments to the Canada Election Act contained in Bill C-31. Heavens, outrage, outrage, outrage."

A tempest in a teapot, yes of course, let's wait to see how long the crazed political types and the insecure wingnuts in my country get to running around in circles with this issue.

Now if Parliament were not such complete idiots ... . That likely should just be, if the idiot that drafted the amendments in C-31 to the Elections Act, in other words, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, Peter Van Loan, wanted faces unimpeded, why wouldn't the amendments have dealt with the veil issue specifically in the planned changes?

Why didn't C-31 include an amendment that specified:

A voter will [shall/must] present an unobstructed clearly visible human face of any colour or shape as well as meeting other identity and resident requirements in order to vote.

What's up down there on Wellington Street, eh?

Hey maybe the Harper government didn't want to be to specific with the changes, hoping to actually finally, thank god, get an issue they feel comfortable with. One they can roll around and wallow in.

Too cynical, maybe.

Technorati Tags: Bloc, Canada, Canadian, Confused, Conservatives, Democracy, Green Party, Liberals, NDP, Ottawa