Let's move on, shall we?

I was as shocked as most people were to hear about the tragedy in Montreal about a week ago. It was a tragedy and there's no denying that. Naturally, we want to know why these kinds of things happen so that we can try to prevent them from happening in the future. I wonder, though, if some of this discussion isn't getting a tad ridiculous.

Personally, I don't see what the big problem is with saying that our current gun laws don't work as well as they should. We have this registry and we spend millions upon millions of dollars on this very Canadian idea that we just don't have or need guns. This idea is right up there with the belief that our troops are not but humble peacekeepers and that 'Canadian' health care can never be private in any way, shape or form. But I digress.

I, for one, agree with the Prime Minister when he says that in some ways our current gun laws just don't go far enough. Is it really that much of a big deal to recognize that having the registry didn't stop the Dawson shooter from legally obtaining his weapons? Are we really so naive as a country that we honestly believe that having a registry is more than enough to keep us safe? If that's the case, and I think that too often it is, perhaps we shoulder some of the blame in these kinds of events, if only because we are collectively failing to get our hands dirty and make some real changes to the status quo.

Instead of arguing about what might have happened, why don't we all take a deep breath and accept that what's done is done. There's no going back. The only way to make amends is to start looking at what we need to do differently. If that involves scrapping the gun registry, fine. If there's another option out there, great, but let's start trying to figure out what that might be instead of dwelling on the past.

Playtime with Jack

Admittedly the topic of Afghanistan is becoming a bit of the proverbial dead horse, but it continues to weigh heavily on my mind. This is probably because the position of Taliban Jack and his band of merry persons bothers me so. In short, I think he's a fool but at least I can rest assured knowing that the NDP will never come to power in this country.

Without getting into too much detail, I will make one quick observation about the whole inconsistency of what the NDP is proposing. I'm sure most political observers can remember how uppety the Dippers got when Stephen Harper said that they would have another vote on the issue of same-sex marriage. To this we heard much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the way of "we can't have another vote because it's already been decided! You have to respect the will of parliament!"

Now Jack has done the ol' switcheroo. Now he is the one asking, nay demanding, yet another debate and/or vote on whether we should remove our troops from Afghanistan. How convenient for him to ignore the fact that parliament voted to extend the mission into 2009. He's become, although not surprisingly, just another political hypocrite, which has been the very thing he has prided himself and his party on not being.

Granted, I believe that more could be done to clarify a few of the details. But at the same time, can you really plan to the letter just how a military mission will play out? Last I checked, war was unpredictable. Nothing ever goes exactly according to plan in battle simply because people are random. Sure, we have rules and strategies to help bring a little order into chaos but long-term success will come not only from having clear objectives, but by adapting to the continual changes and pressing forward.

It's one thing to raise questions about what we're doing. That's one of the beauties of democracy. But it is becoming increasingly apparent that Jack is doing all this for Jack. No one can argue that the Conservatives are taking their particular stand for a few easy political points. The Tories have taken a stand that they believe is right, something hard to do in many modern democracies. I applaud them for having the guts to stand their ground despite an increasingly frantic and illogical opposition.

Update: Just when I thought he couldn't get any nuttier, comes this little nugget from Layton Land, which I guess is really the happiest place on earth. Hat tip to Daimnation.

In the belly of the Beast

Stephen Harper made a visit to a special Senate committee today: one that is examining recent Tory proposals to set term-limits for our noble Senators.

What impresses me most about this visit is that, for starters, he's actually addressing the issue outside of an election campaign, a point made by the PM. I've been following federal elections pretty closely since at least 1997 and it seems that the topic usually comes up in form or another only to be forgotten and put on the back-burner as the work of governing begins again and again. Stephen Harper kept his promise: he said he would begin to address Senate reform and he has, and more so than any leader in recent memory (I'm looking at you Jean and Paul).

I'll let the articles at CTV and CBC speak for itself. Enjoy!

Bill 208

I've read a few editorials lately about the issue of same-sex marriage in Alberta. For those unfamiliar, Ted Morton, rookie MLA and PC leadership contender, had tabled a private members bill which was essentially designed to protect those civil servants and other public figures who objected to the principles of same-sex marriage. Due primarily to stalling techniques by the opposition parties, the bill was quietly killed.

In response to a column by Graham Thomson with the Edmonton Journal, Mr. Morton offers this response which appears in today's edition of the paper. Normally I try to avoid making lengthy posts, but I found the response intriguing to say the least.

=====

Same-sex marriage: a human right?

Thomson would have us believe that same-sex marriage is "a human right upheld by every court that has listened to arguments." That would be every Canadian court.

The English High Court refused to recognize the "made-in-Canada" marriage of two British women because to do so would violate "long-standing definition and acceptance . . . and fail to recognize physical reality." The High Court of New Zealand and courts in New York and Washington also ruled that this was not a human-rights issue.

These decisions reflect the common sense that informed Tony Blair's Labour government to grant civil unions, not marriage, to gay couples. It explains why Australia's Liberal government enacted a Defense of Marriage Act in 2004, defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

If Thomson were to look outside of Canada, he would see that Bill 208 and the majority of Albertans who support it are not the "homophobic knuckle-draggers," but are in the mainstream of other English speaking democracies.

If same-sex marriage were a basic human right, might we not expect to find it mentioned in basic human rights documents? It's not in Canada's charter of rights, the U.S Bill of Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, nor the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

It's not in these documents because same-sex marriage is not a human right. It's a social experiment - one that only five countries have adopted. Surely Canadians have a right to discuss - and to disagree - about how far down the road of this social experiment we want to go. Bill 208 protects the freedom of speech, allowing that public debate.

Thomson claims Bill 208 is "unconstitutional." Indeed, the opposite is the case: a government's failure to accomodate religious conscience can be found to violate the religious freedom guarantee of the charter.

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a province chooses to have Sunday-closing laws, it must make an exception for non-Christians to accomodate their religious practices. Similarly, the RCMP has been told to change its dress codes to accomodate the religious beliefs of Sikhs and aboriginals with respect to beards, turbans and long hair. Surely Alberta marriage commisioners are entitled to a similar accomodation. Bill 208 would protect this right of conscience, while still ensuring that there are other commissioners who can and will perform same-sex marriages.

I don't give a damn about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes. What I do object is having this conduct taught to our children. If some parents want their children taught that the marriage of one man to another man is the same as the marriage of one man and one woman, that's their choice and I repsect it.

But other parents don't want thier children taught this, and they have an equal right to have their wishes respected.

Thomson ends by urging us to "move on to more important things." I, too, would like to move on to dealing with the pressing issues facing Alberta.

But the gay-rights activists refuse to "move on." Each new issue is the staging ground for the next. First we were assured that this was just about discrimination. Then it was about equal benefits for gay couples, but not marriage. Next, it was marriage. And now it's public education and state-enforced punsihment of any criticism.

Albertans are tolerant. We agree to disagree on many issues. Alberta is a live-and-let-live society, and Bill 208 is intended to keep it that way.

Ted Morton, MLA, Foothills-Rocky View

Those Crazy Dippers

I read some great posts on Wudrick Blog about good ol' Jack's claims for troop withdrawal and other gnashing of teeth from the left. He says it so well that I might as well just send y'all his way.

Go ahead and take a gander.