Remembering the priorities

For all the recent talk about crystal meth, a little perspective is in order.

(Saskatoon's) public believes alcohol, followed by marijuana and crystal meth are the most abused substance in the province. Talwin/Ritalin, cocaine and solvent abuse, respectively, were considered less widespread. Regina respondents ranked the substances in the same order.
Regina Police Chief Cal Johnston said while alcohol abuse is certainly the biggest problem they face on a day-to-day basis, cocaine is probably next on that list and is, for now, a bigger problem than crystal meth...

And:

Brian Checkley, an addictions counsellor at the Metis Addictions Council of Saskatchewan Inc., said he hasn't dealt with a lot of crystal meth addicts in Regina and sees more cocaine and Talwin/Ritalin addicts than anything else. That, however, doesn't mean the problem isn't growing.

As important as it is to confront new issues, the poll shows the danger in giving complete attention to a new problem when past ones haven't been solved. We should be dealing with drugs and associated issues as a whole, not crystal meth to the exclusion of similar issues.

Shutting down hearings

It doesn't only happen in Canada:

The Republican chairman walked off with the gavel, leaving Democrats shouting into turned-off microphones at a raucous hearing Friday on the Patriot Act.
Democrats asked for the hearing, the 11th the committee has held on the act since April, saying past hearings had been too slanted toward witnesses who supported the law. The four witnesses were from groups, including Amnesty International USA and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, that have questioned the constitutionality of some aspects of the act, which allows law enforcement greater authority to investigate suspected terrorists.

Fortunately, on most committees our obstructionist Cons can't do more than raise irrelevant points of order. And with any luck, as well as Harper's plummeting position, maybe another election will reduce their ability to do even that.

Force of international law

Not much new information, but The Economist has a good discussion of the divide between the U.S.' willingness to apply international law to others, and its refusal to accept foreign law itself:

Some, such as John Bolton, set to become Mr Bush's ambassador to the United Nations, believe that treaties that constrain American sovereignty in any way are “not legally binding”; but Mr Bush cited Iraq's transgressions of international law as part of the reason to go to war. Mr Bush has pulled America out of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto agreement on the environment, ignored international laws of war and sent terrorist suspects into legal limbo in Guantánamo; yet America is among the strongest backers of global rules on trade, finance and international investment.

Want more direct double standards?

Under a treaty that came into force last year, extradition rules have been eased between Britain and the United States. America no longer has to present supporting evidence against someone it wants to extradite from Britain. It simply has to claim that an “extraditable” offence—one carrying a prison sentence of at least a year—has been committed. But because the Senate has so far declined to ratify the treaty, the new rules do not apply the other way round. If Britain wants to extradite a suspect from America, it still has to make out a prima facie case against him.

And, of course, the definitive example:

Foreign companies are getting worried, too, about the use of America's Alien Tort Claims Act, passed in 1789, which grants jurisdiction to American federal courts over “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. This is increasingly being invoked by foreigners in America to sue international companies for alleged wrongs suffered outside the United States. One can imagine the rumpus if such a law were invoked, abroad, against an American company.

And even the Economist's relatively thorough discussion manages to avoid mentioning that the U.S. also happily flaunts trade rules where it sees fit: see e.g. the Byrd amendment and the ensuing legal proceedings.

Granting that states should always make all available efforts to cooperate in their mutual interest, I wonder why the rest of the world bothers trying to negotiate otherwise-binding treaties involving the U.S. What precisely is the point in another state's limiting its freedom of action through a contract, where the U.S. makes it clear that it plans to disregard the contract at will without penalty? The most commitment another state can count on from the U.S. is essentially a statement of intent - why offer to be legally bound in return?

The deal is done

The G7 reaches agreement on an African debt relief package:

Eighteen of the world's poorest countries will have their debts to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund wiped out as part of a $55bn (£30.4bn) package agreed today by the G7 leading economies.
After weeks of intense negotiations, a deal brokered by the chancellor, Gordon Brown, will save countries such as Mozambique and Ethiopia a total of $15bn in debt payments over the next 10 years.

Kudos to all parties for getting the deal done, and particularly to Brown for putting the process together.

On a less positive note, a large "what the hell?" to the IMF:

Sources said last night that the logjam had been broken when it was found that the IMF had several billion dollars available from gold sales in the late 1990s that it could use to cover the losses it would make from writing off debts.

The agency that's done so much to dictate Third World policy can't even keep track of several billion dollars of its own money? I suppose it could be worse - at least the money was put to good use, and hopefully the debt relief will allow more states to stay out from under the IMF's thumb in the future.

Free ideas for the taking

A site I'll be watching closely: the Canadian Cynic and Robert McClelland ridicule Media Bias.

While this is a great step to make sure that the right doesn't get too much of an advantage out of working the refs, I'd love to see two additions to Canada's media-watching landscape: first a Canadian equivalent to Media Matters, and second a genuinely neutral site/study (I've mooted the name "equalparties.ca") to impartially examine the amount, tone and placement of coverage given to Canada's federal political parties. My suspicion is that the latter would show that the Lib/Con false dichotomy gets an inordinate amount of attention, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong if the data says so.

It's not principle, but at least it's something

Remember U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns? He's back in the news:

Johanns said re-opening the border was vital for the domestic cattle business. He said beef prices in the United States have risen too high since May 2003, when the border was closed after Canada's first case of mad cow disease.
If beef supplies don't increase and drive down prices, "American consumers will start choosing other sources of protein," he told reporters after the meeting.

This may be the worst reason I've heard for opening the border - but sadly it's also the most likely to make R-CALF listen.

Interestingly enough, R-CALF's CEO shot back criticizing the USDA's risk mitigation. Could the U.S. stumble toward an open border and reasonable consumer protection all at once?

Housing of a sort

The Conservatives don't want to hear about Canada's lack of social housing:

The Parliamentary Finance Committee had set aside a full hour on Thursday, June 9, to hear from three groups on housing. It would have allowed for ample questions and debate on how the NDP-revised budget would have affected affordable housing. But it was not to be. The Conservatives intervened time and time again with points of order that prevented the presentations from taking place.

Maybe this is more in keeping with their housing strategy:

The ripe stench of human excrement is getting stronger in downtown lanes, curling the stomachs of workers who no longer want to relax by the back door for smoke breaks...
Vancouver is set to commission a study to map the size of the problem and is considering spending more money on maintaining public toilets in the downtown entertainment and business districts.
More funding is needed for permanent public washrooms in the Downtown Eastside slum where thousands of homeless drug users have long used alleys as toilets.

The gall (unfortunately backed by the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association) is impressive: let's not try to genuinely help people, but merely find a way to push them further out of mind.

Of course, that's not to say that the associated public health concerns shouldn't get some attention. But there's a bigger issue which won't be solved by putting $5,000 a month into Porta-Potties.

Notwithstanding Watch

Campbell says it's Ottawa's problem.
Klein? Not bloody likely.
Calvert says maybe.
Doer appears to avoid the subject.
McGuinty says not yet.
Charest says maybe.
Lord likes private care. (I think he just un-recruited himself from the next Con leadership race.)
Hamm is waiting on legal advice.
And I didn't see any government comments from PEI, Newfoundland/Labrador or any of the Territories.

We may find out more about these positions soon.

Media monitoring itself

CanWest's cover pages today. Funny how there seems to be an inverse relationship between the distribution of a given CanWest paper and the attention paid to the "improve the public system" option implied by the concurring judgment.

As bad jokes go, this is one of them

The U.S. border continues to be closed to live Canadian cattle, notwithstanding that back in 1997 Canada banned ruminant feed, the most likely means of transmission. Right now the reason for the ban is that a Montana judge decided that opening the border could cause irreparable harm to the American cattle industry.

Is it possible to cause irreparable harm to an industry that's actively mutilating itself?

(M)uch of the commercially produced calf feed available today contains the very stuff that could spread mad cow disease throughout our food chain.
What is the Department of Agriculture doing about this? Nothing. As I said, the Department of Agriculture refuses to even consider stronger regulations that would put an end to this disgusting practice.

And in classic Bushian style:

Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns will, as his press release says, “hold a roundtable discussion regarding the safety of North American beef...” Those invited to participate include USDA officials, producers, packers, and others.
Who are the others? Groups that don’t want more testing and don’t want the government passing regulations that would make calf feed cleaner and thus slightly more expensive. In fact, consumer groups, organic livestock companies, and beef producers who oppose allowing cows to eat cow blood and slaughterhouse waste will not be allowed to participate.

I suppose there is some good news in all this: the full hearing is set to take place July 27, and surely this information will have to have some effect. Right?

Buried amidst the health-care talk...

...is this piece by Scott Piatkowski:

The NDP should be saying: “The alternative to a Conservative government is not yet another Liberal government, but an NDP government. The alternative to a corrupt Liberal government is not a Conservative government, but an NDP government. It's time to elect an NDP government.” The party's main spokespeople won't say that because they're not convinced that such an election result is even possible. But, until they start saying it, it never will be possible.

The most frustrating moment of the last election campaign for me, and the one time I've doubted Jack Layton as party leader, was when Layton was interviewed by Peter Mansbridge and answered "can you win this election?" with something to the effect of "we can have a significant role in Parliament".

The only correct answer to that question is "yes". If it has to be explained, then fine: make it "yes, if people vote for what they want rather than against what they fear"; "yes, because both other national parties have proven they don't deserve to govern"; even "yes, despite what the critics say". But any national party going into an election shooting for less than government is doomed to a miserable result. I very much hope Jack has learned this lesson going into the next campaign.

What elephant in the corner?

Obviously, this is the big story of the day. Since it's also by far the most-discussed story of the day, I'm not sure how much I can add, other than to seemingly agree with the assumption that the NDP's best tactic is to emphasize para. 158 from the concurring judgment:

In sum, the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services...(I)f the government chooses to act, it must do so properly.

As for the Notwithstanding Clause option, the problem with Warren Kinsella's position cited by Scott is that I don't see it working on a federal level - the federal government simply doesn't have jurisdiction to dictate provincial policy to that degree. It controls pursestrings, but not delivery of services. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised to see Lorne Calvert bring up s. 33 in a hurry, and put it to use if even a lower-court decision in another province reaches the same result on Charter grounds.

New Liberal strategy?

From the Star, it's anonymous sourcing at its worst:

But a high-ranking minister agreed the government is considering suspending Parliament in the fall while the government writes a new throne speech.
Several sources said the speech would focus heavily on boosting economic productivity, namely by funding post-secondary education, research and development, and introducing targeted income-tax cuts.

The intent here is apparently to cut down the Cons in advance of an election. I'm liking it on all counts - a platform that's not without its plus side, but which seems much more open to attack from the NDP than from the Cons.

We can drive it home with one headlight

A few posts later, it appears I'm not as far away from The Wonderdog's point of view as one would suspect from the back-and-forth. That said, there are still a few ideas worth pointing out here.

First, I'm not sure where the idea came from that I'm advocating a base-only strategy. I reproduce from my comment last night:

Yes, the NDP needs to court leftish centrists (one very important group of swing voters), and part of the way to do that is to emphasize fiscal responsibility and sound, practical policies...
There are other groups of swing voters too, and the NDP should be trying to court all of them with a realistic chance of switching.
Another key group that I'd focus on would be populist and protest votes which went to the PCs last time, and which probably lost us several Western seats. Those votes will be better won with a mix of reason and genuine emotion (i.e. necessary outrage where people's voices aren't now getting heard).
In addition, this is the most likely time for there to be an opening in Quebec, and part of any strategy to sway both disenchanted Liberals and Bloc voters concerned by a new future leader has to include a central vision stronger than "relatively efficient management".

Some have questioned the viability of any attention paid to Quebec, and that's a fair question (if one where I'd still tend to disagree). But the point isn't to reach out only to the NDP's base, but rather to reach out to multiple groups. We can probably move up slightly from 20% by reaching out to left-Liberals; I think we can move up higher by looking for more opportunities.

As for the "not disturbing the apple cart" principle, I'd again think there's room for some subtlety here: we can be in favour of some change without being in favour of radical change, particularly if we explain the reasons for the change in a context of what works best.

Does this mean I agree entirely with the Wonderdog? Not exactly. The example I'll give is the Maher Arar situation, which has been pushed fairly extensively both by the NDP and in the Progressive Bloggers group. On my reading of the Wonderdog, there's no apparent reason to question the government's actions: we don't want to upset the apple cart of relations with the U.S., our government probably didn't violate international law merely by not keeping other countries from possibly doing so, and the economic value of one professional obviously isn't much of an argument for taking action.

That said, I'll argue that the NDP was right to highlight the emotional side of Arar's case. The helplessness and the fear involved in being rendered help point out where a wrong was committed, and our knowing the facts should offer a guide to better action in the future.

As for the Wonderdog's examples, I don't see for a second why we can't make use of all our arguments in favour of these policies. To blatantly plagiarize:

Subsidized daycare should be about giving children a better opportunity and about allowing parents to get to work. Staying out of Iraq, and similar future adventures, is about both keeping civilian limbs attached to civilian bodies where they belong, and about international law and multilateralism. A new deal for cities is about the economic engine of the country, and about ensuring that homeless people don't die in Toronto. And so on.

The proportions of which argument we want to use will vary; I suspect fear for our soldiers will always be a huge factor on war issues, while emotion cuts both ways on daycare when the Cons start up about "giving parents the right to stay home". There's room for debate on the best proportions for each isue, but I don't see cutting emotion out entirely as desirable on any of them.

As for the previous focus on unions, I'll agree that there's been a demographic shift, and that too much of a focus on union leaders results in both bad politics and bad policy. That's not a question of emotion vs. reason, but rather one of different forms of pragmatism.

I suspect the one irresolvable issue is the question of whether emotions are included within pragmatism. My take is that emotions themselves inform rationality, and to try to cut them out is to make reason less than it can be. I strongly suspect that the Wonderdog would disagree, and I don't see that as a huge problem - particularly for someone who's obviously a strong advocate for the NDP even if we disagree somewhat on tactics.

Five seconds to air

In the recent discussion about the NDP's best possible message now, I'm reminded of a passage from the movie Airheads:

"All I'm saying is, We want to be heard!"
"OK, you're on the air. What do you want to say?"
"I dunno. We just want to be heard!"

(Sadly, IMDB doesn't have the exact quote. If you can correct this, please do.)

We're on the air. We're being heard. We need to have something to say.

I agree with the concept that we do need to demonstrate that the NDP is fiscally responsible. However, that doesn't mean we can afford to limit ourselves to trying to emphasize that point, for a few reasons.

First, by doing so we'd open ourselves up to the "methinks thou doth protest too much" criticism. The more we try to bring up as a point of debate whether or not the NDP is a practical party, the more we invite commentators to say otherwise. My preferred framework is, "We all agree with the importance of a balanced budget. Given that, here's what we would do with it." Make fiscal responsibility a premise, not a conclusion.

Second, we're simply not in a position to show what we can do as a federal government: there's no way to back up the claim, making it easy for other parties and for the media to dismiss such talk as sheer rhetoric.

Third, it doesn't make for a good story. Right now we're getting lots of positive attention. If our message changes to something that isn't newsworthy (and let's face it, "NDP Continues to Claim Fiscal Responsibility" isn't going to be a fixture in the headlines), that attention goes to waste.

The Wonderdog wonders whether it'll be possible to form a federal government without first governing successfully in Ontario. My take is that it probably can be done - but an essential first step is a successful period as the Official Opposition nationally, and we're not going to get there by reinventing ourselves as the Technocrats. Nor will we get there by running away from protest votes, nor by trying to avoid discussing policy until the start of a campaign.

There are good issues receiving plenty of attention at the moment: health care, prescription drugs, global and national poverty, the environment, EI and education. Our best chance in Ontario and elsewhere is to show why we're right on these issues, and how good policy can fit within a balanced budget.

Brief follow-up on Rorschach

From Alexa McDonough, precisely the kind of statement I want to see from the NDP at this point:

Canada has the fiscal capacity to meet our international obligations. What is lacking is the political will. Canada must also address our failure to eradicate child poverty here at home, a commitment adopted unanimously by Parliament in 1989. Yet one million Canadian children still live in poverty.Today we congratulate the Make Poverty History campaign dedicated to ending poverty around the world and here at home in Canada. Let us sign on as full partners.

The key elements:
- It points out Liberal failures, both nationally and internationally.
- It presents both a concrete plan (signing on to an international movement) and an aspiration for future improvement.
- It discusses Canada's fiscal capacity to carry out the plan. (Granted, I'd like to see this part played up even more. But there's only so much one can say in one statement.)
More to come.

Try this exciting new test!

That's right, it's a Rorschach test for Dippers:

The Decima survey showed the Liberals with 37 per cent support and the Tories with 23 per cent, in a virtual dead heat with the NDP at 21 per cent...
The survey, released to The Canadian Press, indicated the New Democrats held small leads over the Tories in Ontario, among women, among single people and with voters under age 34. The results are less reliable for these smaller samples...
The Ontario results suggested the Liberals held a 26-percentage-point advantage over the Tories in the province. The Grits were at 48 per cent, the NDP was at 24 and the Conservatives held 22 per cent in Canada's largest province.

The reactions so far:

Well-deserved schadenfreude.

More well-deserved schadenfreude.

Well-deserved schadenfreude, part III.

A combination of hope and frustration.

From this corner, I tend to side with the Wonderdog, though with a bit of a different spin. The poll reflects an opportunity, but nothing approaching a win. While it's important to keep kicking the Cons while they're down to make sure they stay there, it's more important to get our message out and start convincing all those voters who list the NDP as their second choice.

There's now no basis for any self-respecting media outlet to give the Cons substantially more air time than the NDP. This is the party's time to make good use of that extra exposure.

That said, I disagree with the Wonderdog's take on this point:

Appeals to emotion have to be banned. The party has to present an unrelentingly practical image.

On the contrary. Now that we have a bit more of the limelight, it's time to make sure people remember what the NDP has to say. While the party's caucus should keep pushing practical issues within Parliament, this is also our best opportunity in a long time to highlight progressive issues in the media and push the public discourse to the left. And the NDP's signature issue is getting media attention.

Let's not waste this chance by going out of our way to be Liberal-lite.

Sunlight in action

Who knew? A damning Amnesty International report, a comment or two from Jimmy Carter, and now the White House starts paying attention:

President Bush left the door open to an eventual closing of the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay on Wednesday amid mounting complaints and calls for it to be shut down, including a broadside from former president and human rights champion Jimmy Carter.

Naturally, he's paying more attention to the symbol than to the actual problem, apparently wanting somewhere else to hold people without charges just in case. Even so, this is an impressive demonstration of what good information can do.

Anonymous sources

Ira Basen on the type of anonymous sources which reporters actually should avoid:

The fact is that too many times when you see a quote attributed to a "source" who wishes to remain anonymous, what you are reading is political spin dressed up as news. And the person hiding behind that cloak of anonymity is no civic-minded deep throat, but a government communications flack who has decided to use a selective leak to further his or her department's strategic communications plan.

And the grand finale...

(B)eating the other guy to the story only matters if it is an actual story being reporting. Yes, anonymous sources should be used when they expose bad behaviour, but not when all they're providing is government sponsored spin.

Sources tell me: "amen to that".

Frames of reference

A great post from Cathie fron Canada on Amnesty International's genius. All I can add is that the effectiveness of the tactic is only partly in framing the debate. More importantly, it's in ensuring that the debate received any attention at all - does anybody think this story would have had the same shelf-life without every key administration official trying to counter it? All the better that with the administration on its heels, trying to explain how the U.S. wasn't quite as bad as the Soviet Union, suddenly the truth once again became the middle ground.