As the Canadian results were coming in I was watching CBC, and saw Martin, then Layton, then Harper speak. The new PM, Stephen Harper, will have a tough time in Ottawa, if only because the only practical party for him to work with is the secessionist Bloc Québécois. It is easy to see the BQ and CPC agreeing for a few months on devolution and more provincial authority, but hard to see agreement on any more substantial issues.
The CPC victory was in large part made possible by the refound ability of the Conservatives to win votes in Quebec. As late as six weeks ago I felt it might be a good idea for the CPC to have an "affiliate party" in Quebec and thought the CPC might never win votes there. Now we have a CPC which won 10 seats and a solid 25% of the vote in Quebec.
Meanwhile, this election is a big loss for the Bloc, which fell only to 51 seats, but took only 42% of the vote and was outvoted by the two big federalist parties (Lib + Con), who combined took 45%. Gilles Duceppe began the campaign hoping to convince the general public that a majority vote for the Bloc--much of which would have been a protest vote against the Liberals--would mean some sort of implied majority for secession. By the end, the Bloc had lost seats, as Québécois finally have another national option, and they realize that continually sitting in Opposition is not particularly productive for Quebec or Canada.
Ironically, the long-term best option for the Bloc might be to endorse a change to proportional representation. This would allow the Bloc to possibly hold the balance of power in coalition governments. On the other hand, if the current FPP system is maintained, the likelihood is that the Bloc will be squeezed out by the two big national parties, although they admittedly will have to make some concessions to public opinion in Quebec.
It seems likely the Harper government won't last two years; there is too much working against it. The Liberals will have no reason to cooperate with Harper and will instead constitute a revitalized opposition. The NDP does not hold the balance of power, unless Bloc deputies defect to the Conservatives (or Stronach crosses in reverse), and anyway is ideologically millions of miles from the Tories. The Bloc is not a stable partner for the CPC. Therefore, Harper's government will last until the point when Parliament breaks down and everyone feels the public will accept another early election without too much grumbling. Maybe another 18 months?
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Anders Fogh has it right...
It's not common practice for me to defend the actions of a figure of the center-right, but this is a situation where I will go out and do so. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is absolutely right to refuse to make any sort of apology for the cartoons appearing in Jyllands-Posten that have, apparently, offended Muslims worldwide.
Of course this is entirely a political issue, with Islamic governments playing the "pity card." I say Islamic governments because I certainly don't blame all Muslims for this issue... it's part of governments' search for backing among the religious citizenry. So Libya and the Saudis will withdraw their ambassadors from Copenhagen... fine. So what? It's not the job of the Danish government to apologize. What happens when "offensive" caricatures appear in Saudi or other Arab or Muslim-world newspapers? I certainly don't see a lot of apologies from Arab/Muslim governments... check out Alhamedi's Religious Policeman blog for some examples of wonderful drawings from KSA.
Social democracy includes the value of freedom of speech. If you're offended by it, tough... showing Mohammed depicted as a terrorist is not a threat to anyone, and there's no reason why any rational person should get anything more than momentarily upset. Of course it's against the tenets of Islam. But there are plenty of things that occur everywhere, every day, that violate the tenets of something, and if everyone got angry about them, then where would we be? (probably in a strict Islamic country, or possibly in Israel/Palestine, or in a PETA meeting, or the Republican National Convention).
Finally, the actions of al-Aqsa Brigades in storming the EU mission to Gaza are totally uncalled for. The EU has been nothing but helpful to the Palestinian cause of late, and while the Europeans certainly could be more assertive, armed threats don't seem to be the proper response. It's a good illustration of the total lack of control in the Territories that, just maybe, Hamas will start to do something about now.
The worthless apology
I think it's briefly worth mentioning that the antithesis of the Danish approach is taken by Pat Robertson, who goes out of his way to offend pretty much anyone and get in the news with statements such as: we deserved Hurricane Katrina; Ariel Sharon got his stroke for leaving Gaza; the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez; and so forth. And then he apologizes. And then he makes another comment.
Does this help anyone? Maybe Pat Robertson, who stays in the news a bit longer due to his apology...
But it certainly is not Anders Fogh's job to apologize for having a free press, and he deserves credit for, so far at least, standing at its defense.
Of course this is entirely a political issue, with Islamic governments playing the "pity card." I say Islamic governments because I certainly don't blame all Muslims for this issue... it's part of governments' search for backing among the religious citizenry. So Libya and the Saudis will withdraw their ambassadors from Copenhagen... fine. So what? It's not the job of the Danish government to apologize. What happens when "offensive" caricatures appear in Saudi or other Arab or Muslim-world newspapers? I certainly don't see a lot of apologies from Arab/Muslim governments... check out Alhamedi's Religious Policeman blog for some examples of wonderful drawings from KSA.
Social democracy includes the value of freedom of speech. If you're offended by it, tough... showing Mohammed depicted as a terrorist is not a threat to anyone, and there's no reason why any rational person should get anything more than momentarily upset. Of course it's against the tenets of Islam. But there are plenty of things that occur everywhere, every day, that violate the tenets of something, and if everyone got angry about them, then where would we be? (probably in a strict Islamic country, or possibly in Israel/Palestine, or in a PETA meeting, or the Republican National Convention).
Finally, the actions of al-Aqsa Brigades in storming the EU mission to Gaza are totally uncalled for. The EU has been nothing but helpful to the Palestinian cause of late, and while the Europeans certainly could be more assertive, armed threats don't seem to be the proper response. It's a good illustration of the total lack of control in the Territories that, just maybe, Hamas will start to do something about now.
The worthless apology
I think it's briefly worth mentioning that the antithesis of the Danish approach is taken by Pat Robertson, who goes out of his way to offend pretty much anyone and get in the news with statements such as: we deserved Hurricane Katrina; Ariel Sharon got his stroke for leaving Gaza; the U.S. should assassinate Hugo Chavez; and so forth. And then he apologizes. And then he makes another comment.
Does this help anyone? Maybe Pat Robertson, who stays in the news a bit longer due to his apology...
But it certainly is not Anders Fogh's job to apologize for having a free press, and he deserves credit for, so far at least, standing at its defense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
