Calgary Herald Column - My Friendly Advice to the Alberta Liberals

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly looks at the difficulty the Alberta Liberals are having in convincing Albertans that they are indeed a moderate centrist party, and offers some helpful suggestions to that end: 

...The Alberta Liberals need to present themselves as a centrist alternative, but merely calling yourself one does not a transformation make.

It would certainly appear that almost a year and a half into the David Swann experiment that he is not the leader the party needed.

How are the Liberals any further ahead than they were with Kevin Taft at the helm?

There has been some progress. In December of 2008, Swann called for a moratorium on oilsands developments and a tripling of the carbon levy. Although, given the battering the industry sustained, a stick-it-to-the-energy-sector approach was hardly tenable.

But even now, as celebrities like James Cameron take pot shots at the oilsands, the Liberals seem unwilling to stand up for Alberta's energy sector.

Rather than calling out Cameron, Swann took aim at the government. Rather than question the scientific basis of Cameron's argument, Swann complimented him by saying he has "significant authority with some people."

I would have expected a true "centrist party" to be a little more blunt in telling the Hollywood big-shots to butt out or to at least educate themselves before speaking out.

That doesn't prevent the Opposition from criticizing the government's handling of environmental issues, but once in a while a united front to a sustained and organized attack could go a long way.

Well, if David Swann fumbled the opportunity to make political headway with James Cameron's outburst, perhaps he'll be wise enough to take advantage of the opportunity his federal cousins are presenting him.

Clearly, the Liberal brand in Alberta remains an albatross for the provincial party, but that burden is exacerbated by the close relationship between the parties.

Every time the Alberta Liberals tell us how different and separate they are, we watch as former provincial leaders become Liberal senators or federal Liberal candidates.

With federal Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff now firmly embracing two policy initiatives that would seem squarely at odds with the majority of Albertans, it would be bold indeed for Dr. Swann to speak out strongly against them.

Specifically, that would be the national gun registry and a bill requiring Supreme Court justices to be fully bilingual. Michael Ignatieff has clearly stated his emphatic support for both.

If the Alberta Liberals really wish to position themselves as centrist, really wish to make Albertans stand up and take notice, and really wish to distance themselves from their federal cousins, what better an opportunity?

While there may be many small-l liberals in Alberta who agree with Ignatieff, one would think that a centrist party by definition would occasionally take positions that a small-l liberal would disagree with.

If the federal Liberals want to run hard against the "cranky old men in Alberta," provincial Liberals would certainly do well to demonstrate they are not complicit allies in such a crusade.

Whether David Swann would be believable in taking such a stance is another question, but a golden political opportunity now lays before him. Let's see if he's smart enough to see it and capable enough to run with it.

It's time for Swann to stop telling us he's a centrist and start acting as though he is. If he cannot, then his political fate is likely sealed.

 

Particular Peter Prefers Parliamentary Privilege

Whether or not you agree with the ruling itself, it was a significant declaration from Speaker of the House Peter Milliken: 

“It is no exaggeration to say that it is a rare event for the Speaker to be seized of a matter as complex and as heavy with consequence as the matter before us now,” Mr. Milliken observed.

To state it simply, be that possible, the matter before us had only to do with the power and precedence of the House of Commons, the primary legislative body of our democracy, filled, as it is, with our duly elected representatives. A majority of members of the House have demanded that the government produce, wholly and unredacted, various documents related to the country’s handling of detainees seized in the process of conducting our mission in Afghanistan. The government has so far refused on a claim of national security authority and responsibility.

It is, of course, not even that simple—complicated by doubt, accusation, inconsistency and war—but ultimately there is this question of power.

(...)

 

“It seems to me,” he said, “that the issue before us is this: is it possible to put into place a mechanism by which these documents could be made available to the House without compromising the security and confidentiality of the information they contain?”

(...)

“Accordingly,” Mr. Milliken said, “on analysing the evidence before it and the precedents, the chair cannot but conclude that the government’s failure to comply with the order of December 10, 2009 constitutes prima facie a question of privilege.”

 

 

Milliken has left the door open for a compromise on this, as he asked Parliamentarians for “common ground” and “collaboration” on this. MPs now have two weeks to try and come up with something.

 

In response, Federal Justice Minister Rob Nicholson offered this statement:

 

“We’ve just had the Speaker’s ruling ... We’ll be reviewing it very carefully and we welcome the possibility of a compromise while respecting our legal obligations as acknowledged by the Speaker. The government will not knowingly break the laws that were written and passed by Parliament. Our government will not compromise Canada’s national security nor will it jeopardize the lives of our men and women in uniform. That being said, we welcome the possibility of a compromise while respecting our legal obligations as acknowledged by the Speaker.”

One can read a lot into that statement - on the surface, there appears to be a willingness to compromise, but only to a point. The government seems to be hinting that it's still prepared to draw a line in the sand if it feels it needs to.

 

If the government is going to go that route, it needs to do a far better job than it's done to this point in explaining that to Canadians. More often than not, the government's actions make it appear as though they have something to hide.

 

To that end, it would do the government well to make an honest attempt to reach a compromise over this. One major concern Conservatives should have is what precedents they might be setting for a future Liberal minority government.

 

The opposition parties meanwhile, need to do a much better job of showing sincerity on this - that their desire to view these documents is based on a legitimate reasons, and not merely a fishing expedition in the hopes of turning up something embarrassing to the government.

 

The opposition's conduct on this file has frequently verged on the shameful with their loose rhetoric and eager pouncing on rumours and hearsay. The Liberals, specifically, often seem to forget that they were the ones who signed the original detainee transfer agreement with the Afghans in the first place.

 

Meanwhile, one wrinkle in the document-sharing plan: 

Records of Afghan detainee transfer orders showing whether Canadian military commanders took the risk of torture into account are buried in sea shipping containers and "may take years" to locate, the Military Police Complaints Commission was told Tuesday.

 

 

Further background here.

 

UPDATE: Election? Bring it on, says Ezra Levant. Not sure I'd agree - I'm not sure that being held in contempt of Parliament would be the best election springboard for the Conservatives.

 

On the other hand, if the opposition parties appear intransigent on this, or now make extravagant demands about who gets to see these documents and what they can say publicly, the Conservatives would be in a much stronger position to go to Canadians and make the case that the other parties are playing politics with sensitive national security matters.

 

Meanwhile, Tasha Kheiriddin speculates on other reasons why MPs may be eager to compromise on this and avoid an election.

 

UPDATE #2: Contrary to Ezra's advise, Andrew Coyne believes it would be foolish for the Tories to push this one too far: 

It is impossible to believe the government could be so reckless. The means of addressing its national security concerns have always been available to it. That it has refused to engage the opposition on these raises two distinct scenarios. Either it is simply too bloody-minded to give an inch to its political foes, on whatever matter, or the documents contain something truly awful, so scalding to the national conscience that it would be prepared to go to almost any length to suppress them. Either, that is, it is behaving completely irrationally, in a way that can only be harmful to its own best interests. Or it is behaving all too rationally. 

The (New) Cartoon Controversy

Further to this post we now have a glaring discrepency between the courage of Matt Stone and Trey Parker and the cowardice of Comedy Central:

For those who missed the drama, [South Park's] 200th episode last week mocked the one "celebrity" that the series has been largely unable to depict, the Prophet Muhammad, who was hidden from view in a bear costume. A U.S.-based website RevolutionMuslim.com then warned Parker and Stone they could end up like Theo Van Gogh (the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered by Muslim extremists after depicting Muhammad on his show) and even posted the address of the show's production office. The site has since been shut down.

Last night, "South Park" continued the controversial Muhammad storyline, but with a key difference: every instance of the words "Prophet Muhammad" was bleeped out, making the episode practically incomprehensible, especially to anybody who missed the previous week.

The character of Muhammad was once again also hidden from view, covered by a large block labeled "censored."

Here's the statement from Matt Stone and Trey Parker:  

In the 14 years we've been doing South Park we have never done a show that we couldn't stand behind. We delivered our version of the show to Comedy Central and they made a determination to alter the episode. It wasn't some meta-joke on our part. Comedy Central added the bleeps. In fact, Kyle's customary final speech was about intimidation and fear. It didn't mention Muhammad at all but it got bleeped too. We'll be back next week with a whole new show about something completely different and we'll see what happens to it.

Here's the interview Matt and Trey did before the episodes aired:

 

 

On Criticizing (Or Mocking) Religion

 

That is a snippet from the latest episode of South Park. As you can tell, the episode is mocking several religions - in fact, South Park in general pretty much makes fun of everyone.

 

Alas, it is one target in particular that has led to trouble: 

The radical Islamic Web site Revolutionmuslim.com is going after the creators of the TV cartoon series "South Park" after an episode last week included an image of the Prophet Mohammed in disguise.

(...)
On Sunday, Revolutionmuslim.com posted an entry that included a warning to South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone that they risk violent retribution – after the 200th episode last week included a satirical discussion about whether an image of the prophet could be shown. In the end, he is portrayed disguised in a bear suit.

The posting on Revolutionmuslim.com says: “We have to warn Matt and Trey that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show. This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”

(Via Daily Dish - more here) One might argue that the South Park boys are being too provocative, but these threats just prove their point. It doesn't matter if its provocative, gratuitous, or disrespectful - there's no reason why they should be prohibited from addressing this in the manner they so choose.

 

By contrast, take the latest work from author Philip Pullman: 

What if Jesus had a twin brother named Christ who played the role of central chronicler of the Gospels, tempter and betrayer to the Messiah and a corrupted founder of the Christian church? That's the hypothesis of Philip Pullman's provocative and intriguing new book, "The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ."

For fans of the English author, of which there are millions, the controversial premise of the book comes as no surprise.

Along with biologist Richard Dawkins and author Christopher Hitchens, Pullman is considered one of the most ferocious critics of organized religion in modern times. The author's beloved best-selling His Dark Materials trilogy featured a thinly-veiled Catholic Church as its main villain and a senile and impotent God.

Read the entire profile - notably absent are any details about any threats directed at Mr. Pullman or any imminent threat to his life.

 

That's not to say Christians will like his book - I'm quite sure that he'll receive some ugly and nasty hate mail, and not doubt some Christian fundamentalists somewhere will try and ban his book.

 

But like Trey Parker and Matt Stone, Mr. Pullman is under no obligation to "respect" Christianity or avoid being too provocative.

 

If you don't like those who mock or criticize your religion - or religion in general - don't watch their show and don't buy their books.

Disgraceful Thuggery & Petulance at University of Ottawa

We noted yesterday the strong desire by many at the University of Ottawa to prevent controversial American pundit Ann Coulter from speaking on campus.

 

Well, thanks to an ugly and toxic brew of intimidation, belligerence, and pettiness that speech never happened:  

...Coulter was scheduled to speak before an audience gathered at the University of Ottawa’s Marion Hall Tuesday evening.

Instead, security concerns raised by the university kept the Republican firebrand from speaking.

Organizers pulled the plug on the speaking engagement because there were just too many people — too many of whom were just too rowdy.

(...)

Hundreds of people pooled into the lobby in an attempt to get into the auditorium. Organizers, who turned away those who didn’t register ahead of time, had allowed about 200 people into the auditorium when the fire alarm was pulled minutes before the talk was set to start.

Reporter Brian Lilley has a detailed account on what transpired:

Of course, free speech did not carry the night at Marion Hall at the U of O.

As usual there were also thugs in the group, one young man must have felt particularly tough surrounded by his friends with placards and bullhorns, he started to pick on an old man. The man, who must have 50 or more years older than the student, gave as good as he got and eventually one of the thugs friends told him that picking on people over 70 was not a wise idea.

(...)
But to the students, Coulter threatened their “safe space” so they ensured that the campus of one of Canada’s older universities was not a safe space for her. Shame. Shame on them, shame on the university for letting things get so out of control.

 

Indeed. How shameful and embarrassing it is that in this country in this day and age a speech at a major public university would be cancelled out of concern for the speaker's safety.

 

Keep in mind, of course, these are the same campus radicals who eagerly support and embrace the odious Israeli Apartheid Week each year at the University of Ottawa. They are enthusiastic boosters of free speech when it comes to the parade of Israel bashers on campus each year - people like Omar Barghouti (more on him here, here, and here).

 

However, when it comes to someone they disagree with, well.. we've seen what happens then.

 

Colby Cosh makes an excellent point: 

...what about the students’ right to hear Ann Coulter, or any other obnoxious political performance artist whose views they might like to entertain? Did they win too? Did they get exactly what they wanted? If we rebranded freedom to speech as the freedom to hear, as Robin Hanson has proposed, would the real nature of the harm be clearer?

When conservative students connect the dots and figure out that they too can assemble mobs and pull fire alarms—heaven forbid that there should ever be two sides to such undignified situationist power contests; the worst people are guaranteed to win no matter what—will we all greet that development with a dismissive sigh?

 

 

Probably not. Colby also files this fascinating dispatch on the chat he had with Ms. Coulter.

 

More here, here, and here.

 

UPDATE: Tarek Fatah puts it well: 

I share none of her views, but she has the right to speak. This is a serious setback to Free Speech and a victory for thugs and goons.

 

Calgary Herald Column: On Believing Weird Things

This week's Herald column from yours truly examines the belief some have in the paranormal and pseudoscientific and why it can be cause for concern: 

...Last week in Calgary, 1,400 people turned out for an evening with Sylvia Browne. While the self-proclaimed psychic/clairvoyant is not exactly filling arenas, it was more than turned out to hear, for example, Ann Coulter a few weeks ago.

 

While Browne is not "controversial" in the sense that Coulter is, it's far more disconcerting that people would pay to see the former than the latter.

 

It is curious that so little is asked of those who claim to possess such remarkable abilities. If someone can communicate with the dead and/or see into the future, then not only is that an amazing gift, but it would offer untold insight into our world and whether there is a world beyond.

 

However, if Browne's claims are phoney nonsense, then we should be asking why someone would make -- and profit from -- such claims.

 

As if that weren't enough to frustrate the skeptical, we are also in the midst of World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW), which, surprisingly, is not the work of those who wish to call attention to the bizarre and unproven claims of homeopathy.

 

The media coverage of WHAW has somewhat mirrored that of Sylvia Browne's tour. Scant coverage, but one does encounter some healthy skepticism in the reporting on WHAW or homeopathy itself.

 

Again, given the stakes, more media interest might seem appropriate. Either homeopathy is a major scientific breakthrough or it's pseudo-scientific nonsense.

 

The evidence indicates that it's the latter. As a committee of British MPs recently concluded, "the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos."

 

There may be nothing inherently wrong in taking homeopathic remedies in the hopes of triggering a placebo effect. However, there is a greater danger when it becomes a replacement for conventional, science-based medicine.

 

Similarly, the potential for harm exists in believing the claims of psychics or clairvoyants. It's one thing to take some comfort in a psychic's warm and fuzzy prediction of a new job or love interest, but it's much more concerning when psychics are brought into help in missing persons cases.

 

Last year, the mother of missing Ontario girl Tori Stafford sought out the assistance of a clairvoyant, who told the mother that Tori was still alive. As we later learned, Tori was killed shortly after being abducted.

 

If police give credence to such predictions, there's a real danger that precious resources could be wasted.

 

In 2002, Sylvia Browne told the parents of a missing 11-year old Missouri boy that their son was dead, and that his body would be found in a wooded area near some large boulders. In response, police did indeed refocus their search efforts. Ultimately, the boy was found alive in 2007 in an apartment building in a nearby city.

 

Again, it would be truly wondrous if people possessed psychic and clairvoyant abilities, and if water really did possess memory, as homeopaths claim.

 

The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing $1-million offer for anyone who can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, either of those two claims. That this award has not been claimed is as telling as any scientific research.

 

As was famously said by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts."

 

You are free to believe what you want, but others are free -- and in some cases obligated -- to expose that which you hold to be true.

 

David's Swann Song?

Back in December of 2008 I wrote the following: 

The new Liberal leader is attempting to woo Albertans with a myriad of new and higher taxes including a provincial sales tax, and a "progressive" rate system to replace the current flat tax.

Swann has also targeted the energy sector with a promise of a moratorium on oilsands development, a tripling of the carbon levy and a carbon tax to boot.

Either he really believes this is how to reclaim the political centre or he thinks Albertans will be fooled into thinking such an agenda is centrist --I'm not sure which is worse.

It may be good strategy in winning over NDP voters--in fact a quick perusal around the NDP website finds many of the same policy positions, with the exception of the sales tax idea.

I suggested last week that the Tories would be most welcoming of this new Liberal leader, and I don't doubt that many a Tory strategist was salivating over the policy ruminations of this new opponent.

I suppose it will be easier to blame me for all of this. --Chase accused me of trying to "undermine" David Swann, suggesting any criticism of the new leader disguises a fear on my part that Swann "threatens the status quo."

My motivation is precisely the opposite -- if I perceived Swann to be a threat to the Tories, I'd have never written the column in the first place (nor this one, obviously). The status quo ought to be threatened, but it's more likely that its defenders are sufficiently placated at the moment.

For if the Stelmach government is indeed entering rough waters, I'm sure they'd rather face an opposition advocating the above.

With the possibility looming of a "technical deficit" next year--the first in 16 years --the Tory government may suddenly find itself on the political outs with Albertans. The only saving grace for the Tories is the fact that their chief rivals are now suggesting new and higher taxes as a way to deal with it.

In the meantime, the Liberal government of New Brunswick plans on taking Alberta's claim of having the lowest corporate tax rates in Canada--any chance this "centrist" opposition might borrow a page from a successful centrist party and press the government on that? I'm not holding my breath

Where this government is most vulnerable is precisely where its opposition refuses to aim. This "new" and "centrist" leader seems intent on demonstrating that he is neither.

Now, in fairness, the Liberals have softened some of their positions on the energy sector, but would I be vindicated in my belief that the Alberta Liberals needed a centrist leader and that they did not get one in David Swann?

 

Well, that's the position of now Independent MLA Dave Taylor: 

In resigning from the Alberta Liberal caucus today to sit as an independent, Calgary-Currie MLA Dave Taylor criticized David Swann’s Grit leadership and called on him to resign.

“The trouble with today’s Alberta’s Liberals is that nobody is leading, nobody is following and nobody will get out of the way,” Taylor said at a media conference in Calgary, adding he’s lost confidence in Swann’s ability to head the party.

(...)

Taylor, however, accused the Liberals of drifting and lacking a coherent vision at a time when Albertans are looking for alternatives.

You can read David Swann's statement here. The Liberal leader has dismissed Taylor's concerns as merely sour grapes from a failed leadership candidate.

 

I don't know if Taylor's loss in that leadership race had any bearing on his decision today, but even if it did, it wouldn't mean that his critiques are wrong. In fact, they seem pretty bang on.

 

The Alberta Liberals have failed completely to capitalize on the political misfortunes of the governing Tories. The Wildrose Alliance has soared past the Liberals in the polls, and for the moment seem to be the de facto opposition party.

 

Even many on the centre-left, via movements like Reboot Alberta, Renew Alberta, and even the new Alberta Party, seem to be thinking about a pos-Liberal political landscape. Unless the Liberals are prepared to evolve, they may find themselves irrelevant.

 

Dave Cournoyer assesses Swann's challenges: 

The Liberals continue to have difficulty gaining traction on issues raised in the Legislature and appear completely irrelevant in the political narratives that have evolved around the PCs and the Danielle Smith-led Wildrose Alliance.

No matter how you put it, this resignation is a major blow to Dr. Swann’s leadership and to the Liberal Party. The loss of Mr. Taylor leaves the Liberals with only 8 MLAs and without the public persona that Mr. Taylor perfected during his many years as a radio host on QR77.

Dr. Swann faces a tough and perhaps impossible challenge: as Alberta’s political sands continue to shift, he needs to prove to the Liberal Party membership and his fellow MLAs that he can grow his party’s political support and create a strong presence that can compete with the insurgent Wildrose Alliance in the next election, otherwise his leadership face more serious internal dissent.

You can listen to our interview with Dave Cournoyer via our podcast page.

World Homeopathy Awareness Week

Yesterday marked the beginning of World Homeopathy Awareness Week (WHAW), in which the practitioners of and believers in homeopathy curiously wish to draw our attention to that in which they believe.

 

On Friday night's show, we interviewed Michael Kruse from the Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism about WHAW - you can access that interview via our podcast page.

 

But if it's awareness the homeopathic community wants, then by all means, let's raise some awareness. Here's part of an excellent presentation from the amazing James Randi on the basics of homeopathy:

 

 

More from Richard Dawkins:

 

 

In the interests of awareness, perhaps it should be pointed out what a committee of British MPs recently concluded: 

Today the Science and Technology Select Committee delivered its verdict on homeopathy and it was devastating. The committee has called for the complete withdrawal of NHS funding and official licensing of homeopathy.

 

(...) ...much of the evidence presented by homeopaths simply does not stand up to scrutiny, and the committee agrees, concurring with the government, the scientific community and independent experts in concluding that: "the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that homeopathic products perform no better than placebos."

 

Even the claims that more research is needed have been rebutted. Plenty of evidence has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of homeopathy, and a verdict has been reached. It is useless. As the report states: "It is ... unethical to enter patients into trials to answer questions that have been settled already."

As Michael Kruse pointed out to us, while it might seem harmless to allow people to take what amount to nothing more than a sugar pill if only to enjoy some placebo effect, the real harm is in people seeking homoepathic treatment in place of proven, science-based medical treatment.

 

Dr. Stephen Murgatroyd surveys the Canadian landscape: 

Yet the British Columbia the Green Party has argued that it should be funded, despite the decision of the BC Government not to do so. Jane Sterk, leader of the Greens, has bought into the idea that if people want it they should be able to get it as part of a provincial health plan, whether or not the treatments work.

 

We also have a Federal initiative which seems to take homeopathy seriously. The Natural Health Products Research Program (NHPRP) of the Natural Health Products Directorate within Health Canada has been consulting with homeopathic practitioners and developing a research agenda, as if this branch of pseudo-science was to be taken as seriously as, for example, a pharmaceutical product or new medical practice.

 

Homeopathic products, sold over the counter in drug stores, are regulated by this Federal body. In 2008 the federal government proposed Bill C-51, which contained the potential of restricting the availability of certain natural health products – including homeopathic medicines – except by prescription through practitioners who are authorized by their provincial governments. The reality is that many of the “medicines” labeled homeopathic contain no detectable amount of active ingredient, so it is impossible to test whether they contain what their label says. Unlike most potent drugs, they have not been proven effective against disease by double-blind clinical testing. In fact, the vast majority of homeopathic products have never even been tested; proponents simply rely on “provings” to tell them what should work. It’s time for a bill to ban their sale.

More here, here, here, here, and here

 

I'll leave you with one more video: