The witness industry

Ian Mulgrew sez:

For the last decade, the B.C. legal community has been searching for an answer to the problem of what one judge labelled "an advocate thinly disguised in the cloak of an expert."

In other words, doctors or other specialists called as expert witnesses -- frequently for large amounts of money -- who tailor their evidence to support one side or the other of a lawsuit.

Working hard, getting a degree, and spending all your time in court making a mockery of the process: priceless.

Jack Layton, reformer

Jack Layton suggesting Senate reform?

Trippy.

Milk Wars

Evan Duggan writes:

In the last two years the health authority served Jongerden with two cease and desists and the courts eventually charged her with contempt of court for continuing to distribute milk to the depots. She resigned as manager of Home on the Range. But the courts still found her guilty of contempt on Dec. 2.

The raw milk movement did not succumb. Instead it accelerated, and last week, on Jan. 20, Jongerden raised the fight to a new level, filing a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court of B.C. that, were it to succeed, would change the public health act, and open the door to a legal raw milk industry.

How did British Columbia become ground zero in the battle over where the government belongs when it acts to get between what's raised on a farm, and what goes into people's bodies?

Check it out. A bit long, but well worth the read.

Political speech, political money

Two items:

• Item one: vote subsidies for Canadian political parties.
• Item two: the one-year anniversary, last month, of the Citizens United decision in the United States.

I've kind oftalked this issue to death on the Blog of Walker, but I think it all bears repeating every so often, since money and politics seem to come up again and again as an 'important' issue.

A few selections of what I've had to say over the months, and years, on political speech and political money.

May 8th, 2009. In the Cowichan Valley Citizen:

Now, Bill C-42 was a law put into place by the BC Liberals last May. It put a limit on the amount of money that unregistered third party advertisers -- companies, unions, what-have-you -- could spend on political advertising in the 88-day period before B.C. elections.

According to The Tyee and The Province, sections of Bill C-42 were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of British Columbia just this March, on the grounds of violating third-party advertisers' right to freedom of expression, and were struck down. The Liberals then requested that the B.C. Court of Appeal suspend this ruling, arguing that it wasn't fair to unfetter third-party advertising while actual party spending is still restricted. This request for suspension was denied in April.

Ouch.

The whole point is moot by now, as new limits came into effect on political advertising after the election writ was dropped on April 14. But personally, I'm all for Bill C-42 being struck down. I can understand the argument for its existence: if there are no limits on third party spending, then one or two big-time bank-rollers could potentially control B.C.'s political propaganda for close to three months -- and it's bad enough having to live through an election without having to face some union's hulked-up advertising campaign. Not to mention that one of the parties could get around their own spending limitations by outsourcing to their third-party friends. In the interests of fairness, Bill C-42 was really the inevitable conclusion.

But I think the argument against C-42 is even stronger. Yes, in the interests of fairness, we want to try and level off the third-party spending. But fairness isn't enough to counteract our freedom of expression, I'm sorry.

True, some advertising goes too far, or there's too much of it, but to just start limiting people's ability to speak their mind because you think they're talking a bit too loudly doesn't solve the problem.

December 7th, 2009. In this blog:

I held to that then, and I hold to that now. Fairness never had anything to do with a gag law, no matter how good the intentions behind that law may have been.

And for that matter, what are the BC Libs doing worrying about a gag law right now anyway? Don't they have better things to be concerned about? Pick one: forest fires, the Olympics, the harmonized sales tax, corruption scandals - any one of these things is more worthy of attention. An elections-spending gag law with no election in sight? Even those polygamists-who-got-away in Bountiful are more deserving of attention than Bill 42; why is the Ministry of the Attorney General wasting its time with things like this?

February 24th, 2010. In this blog:

I stand by my earlier statements. True 'fairness' and equality demands that we each be allowed to speak our piece, and to give our own damn money to whichever damned party we want to. It's not the government's job to decide those things for us - and when it takes on that task, the only equality is a forced equality of mediocrity.

November 8th, 2010. In the Libertas Post:

Do political ads have a negative impact on voter turn-out? Perhaps. But we should take that chance. Otherwise we risk losing a potentially valuable part of our political process, and another small part of a very precious freedom. It isn't worth it.

As Gerry notes: "In short, the Green Party call to ban TV ads is an idea that should be buried in the nearest composter."

January 10th, 2011. In this blog:

We can't starve our political parties of funding, and we can't have it both ways: either they get political subsidies, or they don't have to work around campaign finance limits ( which, if I remember correctly, are closer to $1100 a year than $1000 ). This would make it easier for larger groups to have an influence on political parties, true, but they already do, and this problem would probably be more easily solved by beefing up donation disclosures than by seeking to restrict said disclosures.

I'm coming up on two years of opposition to limits on political spending, political advertising, and third party political involvement. I see no reason to buck the trend.

*Yes, this is partially an excuse to go down memory lane. So sue me.

He makes it look so easy

John Geddes writes:

His tone was by then familiar. As with the Senate and the deficit, Harper was uneager, but also matter-of-fact. On each jarring about-face, he conveys a sense of inevitability. Naturally, reasonable folks will see that this was his only choice.

It’s an invaluable political skill to be able to shift course so frequently without ever conveying caprice. Here’s the strangest thing: like Trudeau and Chrétien before him, Harper never seems to me more in control, more himself, more above the fray, than when he’s changing his mind.

By George, I think he's got it.

Indie poli

Last year, with the resignation of Bob Simpson from the BC New Democratic Party, and his declared intentions to run as an independent in the next election, the future of independent politics in British Columbia began to look somewhat promising.

After all, once Bob Simpson registered as an independent in the legislature, the count of indie politicians in BC was upped to four: Delta South MLA Vicki Huntington; East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett ( who was booted from the BC Liberal caucus for not playing along with the Campbell-ites); Peace River South MLA Blair Lekstrom ( who resigned from the BC Liberal cabinet and caucus over the government's handling of the HST ); and, of course, Bob Simpson.

This increase in indie politicians has led, like these sorts of things always do, to some speculation. In November, Vaughn Palmer wrote:

The count of four matters because of the following passage in theprovincial constitution act: "Leader of a recognized political party means a member of the legislative assembly.....who is the leader in the legislative assembly of an affiliation of electors comprised in a political organization whose prime purpose is the fielding of candidates for election to the legislative assembly .that is represented in the legislative assembly by four or more members."

So if those four wished to do so , they could begin the moves to transform themselves into a recognized political party.

Which in turn would mean access to the resources (research funding, staffing) available to recognized political parties. Recognition in question period. Seats on all committees. And recognition where it counts, in the political arena.

There's a salary consideration too, though I don't think that would be the chief motivation.

Scott Payne at The Commons added to the thought experiment:

"[R]egionally specific parties that seek to offer alternatives to the mainstream options of political identity in the country are becoming more and more de rigueur in provincial politics, especially in Western Canada."

Last month, Vicki Huntington said about independent politicians that, “in the political culture today they can sure get elected." Meanwhile, Bill Bennett said that he was thinking of organizing a new political alternative to the BC Liberals if they didn't adopt their internal voting mechanisms to further include rural ridings.

But why bring this up now? After all, BC is already in the midst of two leadership races, recall campaigns, an upcoming referendum...the chaos never seems to be in short supply. Why add more fuel to the fire by throwing an independent voting bloc into the midst?

Well, first of all, I think it would be absolutely fascinating to watch something along those lines play out. For better or worse, the political nerd in me likes the idea.

Secondly, and more importantly, an independent bloc - not necessarily a party; just a loose alliance of independents - that is focused more on regional, local representation sits well with the small-government libertarian in me. And forging links and making policy based on common ground between MLAs, rather than playing things out based purely on party lines, appeals to the part of me that likes to play at policy wonk.

Basically, I think it would be good politics. It would shake things up; it would force BC's larger parties to consider something other than party solidarity; and it could formally introduce regional politics to the legislature - something which already lies underneath the surface of political reality in the province.

And so I think now is as good a time as any to renew the call: early election or no, our independents need to stick together. They need to present a united front and provide an alternative to the party system in British Columbia.

What's the worst that could happen, after all?

Somewhat chilling

This is what a dead interweb looks like:

Keep in mind: Joe Lieberman wants to bring this sort of thing to the US.

How could this go wrong?

The Times Colonist reports:

Victoria's police chief has to decide whether he is fit to be the disciplinary authority for an officer accused of misconduct in relation to a death in police cells.

Police investigating police. No conflicts there.

Homeschoolers, FTW

Vox Day notes:

Why would the police need to investigate students simply attempting to finish their homework at school instead of taking it home?

Meanwhile.

Look, it's not that I'm saying home-schoolers are better in every way. It's just that I'm tired of home-schoolers being portrayed as some freakish anomaly. Speaking as a former home-schooled student myself, we just wanna be loved.

Who does this Gerry Nicholls fellow think he is, anyway?

I'm not an unbiased observer, since Gerry Nicholls served as my editor for a brief period of time, but this is just crazy.

It doesn't look like Gerry is going to get the Blogging Tories boot anytime soon, but it's interesting to see Craig Smith and Stephen Taylor, the Blogging Tory godfathers, at odds over this one.

BC is running without a government

A week or two back, Les Leyne made the following point:

Truth be told, the government isn't doing much of anything. On the plus side, they're not making any new mistakes. On the down side, they're not fixing any old ones either. Like the ongoing mess in the Children and Families Ministry, or the half-baked makeover of the natural resources sector.

The upcoming throne speech and budget will make the point much more starkly. It's the annual launch of the agenda, but this year there is nothing to launch, because there is no agenda.

Like he says, "as a taxpayer, I've never felt safer." Still, one kind of has to wonder: how much longer can BC function without a functional government? I know that's heresy for a small-government libertarian like me, but I at least like what government I have to be keeping its collective head. This is just getting ridiculous.

Well, that's probably not good

According to iPolitics, the Liberals have been alleging that Stephen Harper has broken at least 145 promises since coming into power.

...yeah, I'll buy that.

The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear

A very, very interesting three-part series of approximately one-hour documentaries detailing the dual rise of both neo-conservatism and political Islamism over the past several decades, The Power of Nightmares makes a compelling case for why these two ideologies are, remarkably, quite similar in their respective origins and approaches to moral order.

Give it a watch. I, of course, make myself open to counter-arguments.

Update: Some thoughts after a few day's reflection. I still think that this series is well worth watching, but it's worth noting something that Smyke wrote in the comments:

It has given us common ground by pointing out those responsible for the rise of security theatre and the oppression of our personal freedoms as neither the left nor the right but as the twisted ideology which has highjacked both sides of the political spectrum and ruined public discourse.

I know enough people that would probably identify themselves as neoconservatives that I'm treading in dangerous waters, here. But I'm not suggesting that all neoconservatives are bent on the perpetuation of war for the sake of propping up a lie in a battle against individual freedom. Just as I would never suggest that all Muslims are bent on perpetuating Jihad.

In both cases, albeit in different ways, these movements suffer from a certain radicalization. Neoconservatism was founded - intellectually at least - by Leo Strauss and was pumped into the conservative and Republican movements by his followers - like Irving Kristol. The movement as a whole was based on the idea that a few Big Lies would be able to serve as pillars of society, something to unite the people so that they would not continue in their descent into moral relativism and into the excesses of personal freedom. War, being one of the best uniting factors of all, came up again and again as a way for these neoconservatives to make the United States the Bastion of Good in the world, uniting its people under the banner of freedom in the world.

Unfortunately, some neoconservatives started to believe their own lies and their own spin. They started to live the illusion that they thought they needed to sell. Bad things resulted. I would argue that since then, neoconservatism has liberalized somewhat: it's not a conspiracy, just a movement that has spread and grown since its formation on a lie. Arguably, many movements have roots that are just as undesirable - but it's important to acknowledge these roots if any kind of proper discussion is going to be had about topics such as war, or freedom, or Islam.

Jihadism, at least in its current form, can probably be traced back to Egypt, where a series of radicals - also reacting against the 'virus' of personal freedom run amok, moral relativism - started to fight against the political system, which they saw as being infected by this virus, in the hopes of sparking off some Great Revolution of the people, an uprising against their moral infection.

This never happened, and eventually the targets of Jihad spread from the politicians to the politicians and their supporters, and then to everybody else who, by simply living their lives, allowed this system to continue as it was. Jihadism became ( or was exposed as being ) psychotically violent, and the Jihad began to eat its own as various factions turned on one another as being morally inferior, justifiable targets in a holy war.

In this case, the Big Lie is really the idea of a Moral Revolution for the sake of cleansing the Muslim world from moral impurity. And Islam as a whole has been infected by the virus of Jihad, and radicalism. It is important that the roots of this radicalization are studied and recognized for what they are: not something systemic, but something internalized; not organized, but a loose collection of idealistic men and women who think that they are doing God's work.

In both cases, the modern believers of these respective movements - political or religious - have to suffer because of a decades-old Big Lie. If we're going to discuss this at all, these Big Lies have to be acknowledged. Otherwise, the whole point becomes moot.

The Fourth American Revolution

Read it.

Adventures in harm reduction

Allen Garr writes, in the Vancouver Courier:

Evan is now part of a very small harm-reduction program sponsored by the PHS and Vancouver Coastal Health that seems counterintuitive. To stabilize his life and help restore his health, he’s been given a comfortable place to live and regular amounts of “beverage quality” alcohol that is being prescribed by the same doctors that regularly monitor him.

It's an idea that has been floated before.

Private liquor stores = DEATH

Andrew MacLeod reports:

There were 12,000 alcohol-related deaths in B.C. during the six year period of the study and roughly 350 of them could be attributed to the growth in the number of private stores, said Stockwell.

So that's...58 deaths per year, or roughly 0.2 deaths per day - one death every five days. The population of British Columbia - in 2010 numbers - is 4,530,960. The percentage of people who drank themselves to death thanks to a growth in private liquor stores last year was, therefore, roughly 0.00001% of the population.

Hardly a looming threat.

Update: I suck at math.

BC sets the trend

Well...sort of. Kat Eschner at Public Eye Online reports:

British Columbia's online gambling record has reached the ears of American lawmakers - as a bad example. Over the summer, during a financial services committee hearing, Alabama Representative Spencer Bachus invoked a Vancouver Sun story in which then solicitor general Mike de Jong expressed concerns about the potential for misuse of online gambling sites by organized crime. Mr. Bachus used the article - which was published on July 20, 2010 and read into the congressional record a day later - to raise questions about whether American online casinos will actually be safe, as their supporters have claimed.

Read the rest.

Wait, you mean the police sometimes try to make themselves look good?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Lindsey Kines reports:

An RCMP investigation of the Nanaimo Daily News for allegedly breaching a publication ban is a "tempest in a teapot" likely designed to protect the force's image, a Nanaimo defence lawyer says.

Stephen Harper vs. fiscal conservatives

Guess who wins?

And people who see themselves on the centre-right, particularly on economic issues, are overwhelmingly - in fact, I bet a pollster would tell you they're 95 per cent, 100 per cent supportive of this government. Because they know that we're doing what is necessary in the economic circumstances while maintaining our long-term approach, which is to keep taxes down and make sure that future growth is in the private free enterprise sector. That's what this government is doing.

Meanwhile, Terence Corcoran: Tories’ fiscal promises unfulfilled.

Robert Darwin Crouse

RIP.

Your computer taken, records copied, all without a warrant

That is what the US Department of Homeland Security can do to you.

The West wants in

Kevin Libin explores the degree to which Alberta is taken for granted by the Harper Tories:

Nearly a half-decade later, as the fifth anniversary of Mr. Harper’s premiership approaches, those principled hopes remain just that. The Wheat Board monopoly? Intact. Gun registry? Still around. Even Alberta hasn’t bothered electing any Senate candidates in the last seven years. And the last judge Mr. Harper appointed to the nation’s highest bench sailed in with nary a peep from Parliament.

[...]

But Link Byfield, former publisher of the defunct Alberta Report and a candidate for Alberta’s Wildrose Alliance, says Westerners remain loyal to Mr. Harper not for what he’s done, but for what he hasn’t. “In any constitutional sense, he has not expanded the role of the federal government, which was the pattern of Liberal governments going back to the sixties,” he says. “Given the conflicting expectations of Canadians in all the different regions, I’m not surprised that’s as good as we’ve got.”

Meanwhile, via the Ottawa Citizen: Alberta biggest provincial spender on transfer payments.

And then, Hitler walked into the room

Yep, this happened.

What is it with politicians and comparisons to Goebbels?

Does an increase in inmates lead to less crime?

You decide.

BC holds up National Securities Regulator

John Geddes reports on what might possibly be the smartest thing that BC Finance Minister Colin Hansen has ever said:

It’s not just about supporting a national securities regulator. It’s also about ensuring provincial constitutional powers aren’t eroded by the decision.

Macleans.ca commenter 'Emily' makes an astute observation:

They don't want to be seen as setting what they view as a constitutional precedent.

Meanwhile, Terence Corcoran: Why are Ottawa and Ontario out to kill the OSC and a successful regulatory regime?

An 'Al Queda fanboy magazine'?

Say what you will, they've got a pretty good layout.

A Death Star trench in Minnesota

Crazy awesome:



H/t.

A ban on caffeinated alcoholic beverages?

Surely, sir, you must be joking, sir:

The Food and Drug Administration can ban caffeinated alcoholic beverages such as Four Loko, but it cannot stop bartenders from mixing Red Bull with vodka, coffee with Irish whiskey, or cola with rum. Fortunately, Iowa state Sen. Brian Schoenjahn (D-Arlington) has proposed a bill that would close this dangerous gap by making it a misdemeanor for any business with a liquor license to "manufacture for sale, sell, offer or keep for sale, import, distribute, transport, or possess any caffeinated alcoholic beverage." The bill defines "caffeinated alcoholic beverage" as "any beverage containing more than one-half of one percent of alcohol by volume, including alcoholic liquor, wine, and beer, to which caffeine is added." Hence it apparently applies not only to drinks with a noticeable caffeine kick but also to coffee-flavored liqueurs with detectable amounts of the stimulant, such as Kahlua or Tia Maria, and any cocktails made with them, such as a Black Russian or a Mudslide. In addition to jail time and fines, violators would face revocation (not just suspension) of their liquor licenses, and therefore loss of their livelihoods—a pretty harsh penalty for following the instructions in a Mr. Boston book.

Ken at Popehat offers some intemperate rhetoric. Meanwhile, Reason Magazine's Nick Gillespie discusses the Four Loko ban on Stossel.

Whoops

Kevin Krueger pulls a SNAFU:

A B.C. cabinet minister has apologized for suggesting an opposition critic should lower his profile or risk having his head shot off.

On the heels of the shooting of an Arizona Congresswoman and bystanders at a community event that left six people dead, Kevin Krueger, B.C.’s minister of social development, said in an interview Friday he regrets his choice of words.

More from Vaughn Palmer.

Speak out on copyright

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing: Canadians: 2 weeks left to tell Parliament how you feel about the Canadian DMCA!

How many senators does it take to screw a taxpayer?

Read it.

Those damned raw-milk dairy farmers strike again

Previous thoughts on the regulation of raw-milk foodies here and here.

Emma Jensen writes in The Dependent about an organized resistance, all for the sake of drinking unpasteurized milk:

In Canada, unpasteurized milk is illegal to distribute unless it is to be consumed by the owner of the cow. But Gordon Watson, along with a group of individuals dedicated to providing the Lower Mainland with an alternative to mass-produced dairy, has found a loophole through the development of an ingenious system known as the “Cow-Share”. Rather than buying milk, consumers of “Cleopatra’s Enzymatic Bath Lotion” purchase shares in the cows instead.

It’s an innovative system, but its development has not escaped the notice of health authorities.

Check it out. And if you live in Vancouver, and you're into that sort of thing, maybe think about buying a share in a cow some time. It's a worthy cause.

An urgent appeal for ZAKA

*Originally posted at The Propagandist.

Throwing yourself into the middle of a forest fire or humanitarian crisis might not be the first thing that comes mind when one thinks of charity. And the hands-on approach to aid abroad can become infinitely grittier, and more dangerous, than most people might like. Certainly enough so that only someone dedicated to their cause would be crazy enough to do that kind of work.

Just ask the ZAKA organization, who began thusly, in its own words:

"In 1989, while studying in a yeshiva, Yehuda Meshi Zahav, the founder and chairman of ZAKA, and his fellow students were startled into reality by a thunderous boom, 2 minutes of silence and then scores of bloodcurdling screams. The number 405 bus was steered over the mountainside by a terrorist. The bus exploded and 17 people died and scores were injured. Yehuda and his colleagues rushed to the scene and began to care for the wounded and dead. It was chilling and horrifying chaos, Yehuda relates. For six years after this incident Meshi Zahav and a dedicated group of volunteers continued this work of Chesed Shel Emet, the work that "makes God smile". The volunteers of ZAKA selflessly overcame the horror of terrorist attacks to recover human remains - fulfilling the biblical commandment to bury the dead "on the same day."

ZAKA became an official organisation in 1995. It began as an organisation that was responsible for the recovery and identification of body parts, Chesed Shel Emet. Since its inception, the organisation has grown to include its Motorcycle Unit for Rapid Rescue, the Search and Rescue Unit and departments handling public education and community services."

ZAKA was one of the first organizations on the ground during the earthquake crisis in Haiti, staying in the country for two months "until we were able to identify the remains of a Canadian Jewish businessman who was killed in the earthquake.” That is the sort of work that ZAKA does: grim is their only kind of business. And last month, when a massive forest fire started raging near Israel's Carmen mountain range - burning to death close to 40 prison cadets, who were trapped as they bussed their way to help evacuate Damon Prison - 170 volunteers from ZAKA's Northern Command joined emergency forces on the ground there too. Their work consisted of, essentially, finding, identifying, and removing charred bodies from the area, efforts which earned them the praise of Israeli Interior Minister Eli Yishai.

This ghastly work doesn't come without a cost, as ZAKA has found. As Lydia Weitzman of the Canada-based ZAKA International Rescue Unit group on Facebook explains: "Donations are urgently needed to replace the $75,000 worth of ZAKA's emergency equipment used or destroyed by the Carmel Forest Fire." Almost more so than dedication, it takes money to do what ZAKA does effectively.

So, as they continue with their work, why don't we help them defray some of the cost of buying new equipment? You can make a quick donation here if you like, or donate an item directly via the US Friends of ZAKA home page. It would undoubtedly be appreciated.

The latest from the Ministry of Children and Family Development

A few stories related to BC's Ministry of Children and Family Development that I thought were worth highlighting. Nothing too major - just the usual sort of hijinks that we've come to expect from Mary Polak's band of misfits.

Less disclosure

Mary Polak, the Minister for Children and Family Development, is apparently too busy to file her financial disclosures. As reported last month by Andrew MacLeod:

A cabinet minister who was three months late updating her financial disclosure filing said she missed the legal 30-day deadline because she was busy and forgot.

Oh, well then. She just forgot. That's understandable, right? It's not like the BC Liberals promised transparency anyway,s way back in their 2001 campai-

...oh, wait. They did. Well, whatever. It wasn't that big a deal - just a new condo - and BC Conflict of Interest Commissioner Paul Fraser doesn't seem too concerned. There are bigger fish to fry. Let's hope Mary Polak just remembers to disclose these kinds of things in future, shall we?

Ministry shake-ups

Maybe Mary's lapse in memory might have something to do with the recent shake-ups in the MCFD.

Last month, the Ministry's Chief Operating Officer, Mark Sieben, who had occupied his position for two years, departed to become the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Social Development. He has been replaced by Derek Sturko, who was previously the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Meanwhile, as Sean Holman at Public Eye Online reports, even the Ministry's own employees seem to be uncertain about the Ministry's strategy when it comes to protecting vulnerable children:

Confused about the government's five-year-old effort to transform the way the province's most vulnerable children are protected? Well, you're in good company because it appears the civil servants responsible for acting on those changes are too - so much so that their boss felt the need to address that confusion just before the holidays. In a 1,539 word missive sent on December 21 and obtained by Public Eye, children and family development deputy minister Lesley du Toit wished her underlings the "warmest season greetings" and then went on to to provide them with a list of 15 points meant to "clear up" some of the "uncertainty" surrounding that transformation effort.

Among those points: according to Ms. du Toit, her so-called practice change initiative won't "under any circumstances weaken our protection of children." But, she added, it is "unfair" for the ministry to "over emphasize the child protection component" of its work."

Make of that what you will.

Our old friends, the bidding wars

Last month, David E. Burns, who was the Greater Victoria Child and Family Counseling Association's executive director, noted the MCFD's new-found use for bidding wars on social service contracts with dismay:

I've been retired for the past two years and thought I'd seen the last of the bidding wars. But alas, the bad old days are back. All MCFD contracts with local service agencies were cancelled as of Nov. 30. Agencies have been told that to keep their doors open, they'd have to bid for a new contract.

The terms of these proposed contracts make it very clear that quality of service is definitely not going to be the focus of the bids. Among the many reductions to come: Offices that once had six counsellors will now have just one.

One counsellor to work with families and children at severe risk of alcohol and drug abuse, depression, violence, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation, homelessness and criminal behaviour. One counsellor to cope with the rising need we're seeing all over B.C.

I'm generally a pretty big fan of bidding wars, but in this case it doesn't seem like the way to go. Especially since the bottom line on this looks to be money, pure and simple: or rather, saving money. It's an understandable focus considering the times: but maybe we could start with Lesley du Toit's subsidized living expenses and go from there.

More on Alberta property rights

Before this, there was this:

CALGARY - Hours before the opposition Wildrose Alliance is set to release its property rights policy, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said Thursday his Progressive Conservative government will review two pieces of controversial land-use legislation.

I prefer the Wildrose approach.

A look into the Downtown Eastside drug trade, part 4

Matt Chambers at The Dependent wraps up his excellent series on the street-level Downtown Eastside drug trade:

But if the reasons behind a person’s entrance into addiction are varied and complicated, so too are the reasons for a person’s entrance into the drug trade. For every beast I encounter committing heinous acts of violence or exploitation, I hear a human tale, too.

How much of it to believe?

Check out parts one, two and three, if you haven't already.

Binks has done it again

Steynian 434. Check it out!

BC political bits and bytes, Jan. 15th

There are so many things that I want to talk about, sometimes all there is for it is to throw them all together into one big pile. Hopefully I'm not too late to the party on all of these stories - or all of them.

Let's get started on the pile, shall we?

Highball Olympic impact on the BC economy

I've noted it before, and I'll note it again here: the amount of money that the government said was going to be funneled into the province courtesy of the Olympic Games was wildly high-balled. In some cases, it was as if the BC Liberals weren't even bothering to lie effectively anymore.

Well, some more recent numbers back me up. Andrew MacLeod reports, via The Hook, as of last month:

The PricewaterhouseCoopers reports looked at the first three months of 2010, which included the games themselves, plus the years 2003 to 2009 when preparations were underway, including building venues.

“In the time periods studied, PwC found the Games generated between $2 billion and $2.5 billion in real gross domestic product (GDP) to British Columbia,” said the B.C. government's news release on the reports.

Those figures, however, are well shy of what the province promoted heading into the games.

"Well shy" is being generous. Bob Mackin, meanwhile, explains the financial troubles of the Vancouver Olympic Organizing Committee ( VANOC ) post-Games:

A July IOC report said VANOC sold 1.49 million tickets for $257 million; the forecast was 1.6 million for $260.4 million. Whistler Blackcomb reported it got $32.1 million for hosting skiing and sledding. In November, VANOC was still dickering with an insurer over $2 million lost when Latvian crooks used stolen credit card numbers to buy thousands of tickets online.

Indeed, Whistler Blackcomb kinda-sorta seems to be the only walking away from this thing with anything approaching a smile. I'd say that, considering the cost to our political decorum and civil liberties required to host the Olympics, the trade-off wasn't worth it.

No independence for coroners service; more dysfunction in the court system

Last month we saw this story by Rob Shaw and Lindsey Kines in the Times Colonist:

Solicitor General Rich Coleman has ruled out making the B.C. Coroners Service an independent office of the legislature.

That's fair enough, although one could see the obvious benefits of making the BC Coroners Service an independent body. But in a lot of ways, it seems, independence isn't the Service's biggest concern right now: budget constraints and a lack of proper resources are holding them back from doing their job properly. And that's not good for anybody who wants to investigate an unexplained death in the province - like Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, the child and families watchdog - independent - who uses the service for information on child deaths. It's an important part of the over-all system, and seeing it in disrepair is kind of disheartening.

More disheartening is that this seems to be part of a larger pattern. If one goes from the Solicitor General's territory all the way over to the Attorney General's territory, one finds that BC is having some serious problems in its courts because of a shortage in judges - there simply aren't enough to meet the demand. Louise Dickson in the Times Colonist reports:

Thousands of criminal cases in B.C. are at risk of being stayed for unreasonable delay due to a shortage of provincial court judges, according to a report released Thursday by the B.C. provincial court.

Justice Delayed: A Report of the Provincial Court of British Columbia Concerning Judicial Resources found that as of March 31, 16,000 adult criminal cases had been pending for more than six months.

Of those, 7,000 were more than one year old, while 2,000 were more than 18 months old.

This is something that can't be blamed on one person, really. Mike de Jong, who left his spot as Auditor General to run for the BC Liberal leadership, can't take all of the responsibility for this shortage. Nor can his current replacement - Barry Penner - or the man who held the office before him - Kash Heed - take the blame. Instead, they should all share in the blame: someone should have caught this at some point. Someone should have seen this coming, and done something to head off this shortage in judges. This can't go on, and neither can the dysfunction in the BC Coroners Service either.

Adventures in public corporate management

It seems that I may actually owe BC Hydro an apology. Maybe. Sort of. In a way.

A while back, I wrote that BC Hydro's plan to jack up its rates had less to do with a desire to invest in new infrastructure, and more to do with the company's fiscal mismanagement, due to BC Hydro's over-paying Independent Power Projects - IPPs - to supply it with electricity. I plugged this into a larger trend of economic management by the BC Liberal government - and not favorably.

Well, I might still be right about the fiscal mismanagement, but the IPPs don't seem to be draining off as much capital from BC Hydro as I had thought before. Jesse Ferreras reports, via The Hook:

Speaking on background, a BC Hydro spokesman said in an e-mail that the capital projects account for half of the rate increase, while energy costs from sources such as independent power producers account for less than one fifth of the increases.

So, maybe not as much of a factor as I originally thought. Sorry, BC Hydro. However, the way you rammed through your smart meter program, thanks to the BC Liberals, was not cool at all.

On a related note: are salaries for public sector CEOs on the way down?

Major record labels forced to actually pay artists for their work

Via Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing: Major record labels forced to pay CAD$45M to ripped-off musicians.

The Pro-Israel blog-off

Aussie Dave over at Israellycool is hosting a Pro-Israel blog-off, a fun, competitive ranking of pro-Israel blog-posts, as determined by a combination of reader votes and a panel of judges.

Aussie Dave explains:

Bloggers are invited to submit one ”pro-Israel” entry, whether it be a blog post, podcast, or video no older than 1 month. Then each week, I will pit submissions against each other. The winner, decided by a combination of reader votes and panel-determined score, moves to the next round, where they will submit a new entry to compete against another first round winner. The process continues until we get to two finalists competing for an Apple iPad.

I submitted my recent piece at The Propagandist on the Jewish ZAKA organization as my entry into the blog-off. Feel free to vote me up at the appropriate time over at Israellycool - I really want that iPad.

Gay in Uganda

While we worry about the satirical use of the word 'faggot' in classic rock, gay men and women in Uganda face harassment and, potentially, death:

On October 9th, 2010, photographs of 100 gay men and women were printed in a Ugandan newspaper called "Rolling Stone" under the headline, "100 Pictures of Uganda's Top Homos Leak" (Ugandan newspapers are nortoriously full of bad grammar) with an accompanying banner that said "Hang Them". The names and addresses of each of the individuals were also printed in the newspaper. Those in the photos were in immediate danger, and most went into hiding. However, at least four people whose photos were printed have been violently attacked to date, and one woman nearly killed.

Meanwhile, the UN turns a blind eye. Charming.

What happened, Steve? You used to be cool.

Dan Gardner makes the case that, rather than the Conservative Party making Canada more Tory blue, it's the Tories that have become transformed by their time in office:

Are the Harper Conservatives changing Canada or is Canada changing the Harper Conservatives? I tend to think the answer is closer to the latter. One big reason? I follow American politics closely and so I inevitably find myself comparing Conservatives and Republicans. And from that limited perspective our erstwhile Reformers look remarkably moderate — which is to say, sweetly Canadian — and are getting steadily more so.

Meanwhile, the godfather of Canadian Conservative dissidents, Gerry Nicholls, writes a lament for Canada's fiscal conservatives, the new political orphans:

Let's take some time to pity this country's political orphans.

I am talking about those Canadian voters who could be described as "economic conservatives," individuals who support lower taxes, smaller government, less regulation and prudent fiscal policies. These are voters without a home; without a voice.

We're a lonely lot, fiscal conservatives. Ornery too.

Smokin' and drinkin'

Cooked stats and prohibition policy. That, as always, seems to be the only approach to vice on the table.

Consider, for example, the latest round of scare-tactics health warnings about cigarette smoking, courtesy of the Canadian government. As Tasha Kheiriddin in the Post writes, in the wake of the New Year:

Could that explain the federal government’s timing in affixing new, gruesome images to cigarette packaging? Perhaps. Stories about the graphic labels peppered the airwaves for the past week, sandwiched between ads for Chantix and other smoking cessation aids. As 2011 kicks into gear, smokers thinking of quitting will be faced with one more reminder of the evils of their habit.

Hamish Marshall, in an op-ed for the Post, explains the cooked stats behind this latest game of how-big-should-the-warning-labels-be:

Opposition MPs and anti-smoking groups are demanding the federal government expand the size of health warnings on cigarette packages, citing the government’s own research as proof that bigger health warnings both reduce and stop smoking. The problem is the research is deeply flawed. Both the Health Minister and government MPs should think twice about making decisions based on highly questionable studies.

[...]

Health Canada commissioned two big (and expensive) studies to determine if increasing the warning label size from 50% to 75% on the front and back of cigarette packs would have an impact on reducing smoking and stopping teens from starting to smoke.

There are serious problems with how they went about figuring this out.

I won't quote the article at length, but you should really read it all to get the full effect.

Meanwhile, the godfather of Conservative political dissidents, Gerry Nicholls, writes:

So what’s next? Will we soon see government-imposed warning labels on Big Mac containers, on beer bottles and on candy wrappers?

What we really need is a warning label for politicians: “Voting for this political party could be hazardous to your freedoms.”

Down in the States, an anti-smoking hysteria of sorts is no less in evidence. And as Jacob Sullum at the Hit & Run blog notes, some anti-smoking activists seem to have little patience for accurate data:

Since 2003, when activists began claiming that workplace smoking bans immediately cut heart attacks by 40 percent or more, I've been saying that some jurisdictions will see such drops purely by chance, while others will see no change or increases of similar magnitude. Before you can say that smoking bans are associated with short-term declines in heart attacks (leaving aside the biological plausibility of such a link), you have to show that the first phenomenon is more common than the other two. Anti-smoking activists such as Stanton Glantz, preferring to cherry-pick examples that fit their theory, have never done that, and now we can plainly see why: It isn't true. Although heart attacks do decline in some places with smoking bans, there are just as many places where they rise. On average, the difference between jurisdictions with smoking bans and jurisdictions without smoking bans is essentially zero.

Sullum also notes the wide range of implausible claims being touted by some anti-smoking groups, as well as the possible unintended consequences of such claims.

Courtesy of the Montreal Gazette, the disdain for truth or statistical evidence to back up certain anti-smoking claims is laid even more bare:

Smoking in cars carrying children should be banned whether or not science can prove exactly how risky it is, according to an article penned by Ray Pawson of the University of Leeds and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

Look, I'm not a smoker, but it seems to me that if you want to actively prohibit people from a certain practice - like smoking - you should have to engage in something other than reefer madness tactics to achieve your goal. If you can't, then the practice shouldn't be banned until you can. Simple as that.

Meanwhile, on the alcohol front, Reason Magazine writer Radley Balko follows up on his argument against drunk driving laws - which I note here - in response to this piece of criticism at The Economist's Democracy in America blog. Balko writes:

I realize that "abolish drunk driving laws" sounds a bit like a parody of libertarianism, like arguing for heroin vending machines in elementary schools (E.G. calls it a "stunt argument"). But I'm not arguing in favor of a freedom to drive while obliterated, or that there's some right to drive drunk that outweighs the safety of other motorists and pedestrians. I'm arguing that public safety laws need to be clear, enforceable, and should actually achieve their intended purpose. I'm not sure our current DWI laws meet any of those criteria. (It's just a small sample from one city, but see this recent article from Nashville, where DWI arrests are down by a third due to budgetary woes—to no effect on actual DWI fatalities.)

Let the defense of sleaze and vice continue...

And thus was art reined in by bureaucracy

CTV News reports:

TORONTO — Music fans around the world were up in arms Thursday after a broadcast watchdog deemed the Dire Straits hit "Money for Nothing" unfit for Canadian radio because of a gay slur in the lyrics, while others applauded the decision and argued society has changed since the song came out in 1985.

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled Wednesday that the song violates the industry's code of ethics because the lyrics include the word "faggot" three times.

More from the Globe and Mail. You can read the complaints of the offended listener who kicked off this entire process, as well as the CBSC's decision, here ( h/t to Smyke ).

There's not much to say, except this kind of thing, as usual, will undoubtedly end up making music, culture, and art all the more mediocre in its presentation. Who does that help?

Petty tyranny in Saskatchewan

From the Times Colonist:

"I'm stunned," Sandra Finley said outside Saskatoon provincial court immediately after the verdict.

Finley, who is facing a penalty that could range from a $500 fine to three months in jail, said she will study the written decision as soon as she can and discuss with her lawyer whether to file an appeal.

She'll be back in court Jan. 20 for a sentencing hearing.Finley was found guilty of failing to fill out the long-form census in 2006.

She argued during her trial that she objected to the government's hiring of Lockheed Martin Canada Ltd. to provide computer hardware and software and the service of printing forms for the census.

Lockheed Martin Canada is a subsidiary of the huge U.S. defence contractor, aerospace manufacturer, information security and advanced technology company.

She also invoked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, saying it protects citizens from being forced to turn over "a biographical core of personal information" to the state.

In a written ruling, Judge Sheila Whelan said Finley "did not meet the burden" of showing her charter rights had been violated.

Obviously, this woman is a threat and must be punished. The sheer audacity of not revealing personal information! How dare she.

Freedom in Tunisia

From the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Demonstrations and protests over unemployment and poor living conditions have been ongoing in Tunisia since the beginning of December, but last week the Tunisian government turned up the heat on bloggers, activists, and dissidents by launching a JavaScript injection attack that siphoned off the usernames and passwords of Tunsians logging in to Google, Yahoo, and Facebook. The Tunisian government has used these stolen credentials to log in to Tunisians’ email and Facebook accounts, presumably downloading their messages, emails, and social graphs for further analysis, and then deleting the accounts entirely.

Among the compromised accounts are Facebook pages administered by a reporter with Al-Tariq ad-Jadid, Sofiene Chourabi, video journalist Haythem El Mekki, and activist Lina Ben Khenni. Unsatisfied with merely quelling online freedom of expression, the Tunisian government has used the information it obtained to locate bloggers and their networks of contacts. By late last week, the Tunisian government had started arresting and detaining bloggers, including blogger Hamadi Kaloutcha, and cyberactivist Slim Ammamou, who alerted the world to his whereabouts at the Tunisian Ministry of the Interior using Google Latitude. This weekend, Tunisian citizens began to report on Twitter and in blogs that troops were using live ammunition on unarmed citizens and started communicating with one another to establish the numbers of dead and injured.

Yikes.

Holding an inquiry into the commission for the consideration of...

Am I the only one who sees the irony in creating a commission whose sole purpose is...less bureaucracy?

Anyone else? From the inbox:

Delivering on the commitment announced in Budget 2010, the Harper Government has created the Red Tape Reduction Commission with the following mandate:

• To identify irritants to business stemming from federal regulatory requirements. The focus is on irritants that have a clear detrimental effect on growth, competitiveness and innovation.
• To recommend options that address the irritants on a long-term basis, while ensuring that the environment and the health and safety of Canadians are not compromised in the process.

While the initiative is led by the Honourable Stockwell Day, President of the Treasury Board and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway, the Commission is chaired by the Honourable Rob Moore, Minister of State (Small Business and Tourism).

I'm just sayin'

Wildrose property rights

There's nothing more libertarian than property rights, right? The Wildrose Alliance seems to have some interesting ideas:



It would be even more interesting if they followed up on those ideas if they were in government. I'd hold my breath on that one, but then, maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to right-of-center governments.

V for Vendetta - 2011

Check it out.

End political subsidies

Ezra Levant, take it away:

It’s been two years since the formal opposition coalition, the coalition whose only core value, whose only cause for existence, was free money for its politicians. The coalition was enormously unpopular in polls, with the Conservatives reaching the high 40% range in opinion polls as a reaction.

The Conservatives lost control of the issue last time. They should take control this time and make abolishing the handout a central plank of their looming 2011 election platform.

Not sure I agree with Ezra that the only reason for The Coalition's existence was to keep ahold of political subsidies - once again, I'd recommend reading Brian Topp's book to get the NDP's side of events; quite interesting - but I agree that political subsidies should come to an end.

Or, as the godfather of Conservative political dissidents, Gerry Nicholls, writes on his blog:

I fully concur with Gunter, Levant and Taylor that such subsidies are wrong, undemocratic and basically amount to welfare for politicians.

They should be scrapped and I hope the Tories will do so.

However, if the subsidies are scrapped, Prime Minister Harper should also scrap campaign finance limits, which make it illegal for individuals to contribute more than $1,000 per year to a political party or candidate.

It's a question of free speech.

Just as it's wrong to force a Canadian to subsidize a political party, it's equally wrong to deny a Canadian the right to use his or her own money to financially support a political party.

And if the subsidies are removed, political parties will need to rely all the more on the voluntary support of Canadians.

Exactly. We can't starve our political parties of funding, and we can't have it both ways: either they get political subsidies, or they don't have to work around campaign finance limits ( which, if I remember correctly, are closer to $1100 a year than $1000 ). This would make it easier for larger groups to have an influence on political parties, true, but they already do, and this problem would probably be more easily solved by beefing up donation disclosures than by seeking to restrict said disclosures.

Last word to Keith Beardsley in the Post:

For all those who see ending the taxpayer subsidy as the death of democracy in Canada, reduce the subsidy by a specific amount each year over a five year period. I find it hard to believe that a modern political party with all the fundraising tools available to it, couldn’t raise and extra 20% each year to replace the loss of the taxpayer subsidy. In the mean time they stand on the corner, cap in hand waiting for the taxpayer to give them a handout.

Indeed.

Well, this doesn't look good

Via iPolitics.ca: Canada ranks last on freedom of info.

That's hardly encouraging, is it?

John Ivison, FTW

In the Post:

Even Mr. Toews wouldn’t accuse Texas of being soft on crime, yet the Lone Star State has instituted reforms that have strengthened its probation system, reduced its prison population and freed up money to be redirected into community treatment for the mentally ill and low-level drug addicts. Since the reforms were launched in 2004, the crime rate has dropped 10% to its lowest level since 1973.

The Conservative tough on crime drive may be good politics but it’s tough on taxpayers and bad policy.

Hear, hear.

My latest for The Propagandist

Check it out: An Urgent Appeal For ZAKA.

On a related note, more updates at Defend Geert Wilders.

Press freedoms hauled into domestic legal disputes: what could go wrong?

The Times Colonist reports:

A judge has ordered Vancouver Province reporter Elaine O'Connor to reveal her confidential source for a story about former West Vancouver Liberal MP Blair Wilson.

[...]

The judge's order stemmed from an application by Wilson, who is being sued along with his wife, Kelly Wilson, by Wilson's stepfather, Bill Lougheed, acting as the executor of the estate of his late wife, Norma Lougheed. Lougheed claims Wilson and his wife owe substantial amounts of money to the estate. It is claimed that before Norma Lougheed's death, the Lougheeds loaned $1.9 million to the Wilsons to purchase six properties.

The Wilsons deny owing any money to the estate. Further, in a counterclaim, they say Blair Wilson has been defamed by Bill Lougheed and others. Wilson claims the defamation arose from a lengthy front page story printed by the Province on Oct. 28, 2007, headlined: "Family Exposes MP's Trail of Debt." At the time, Wilson was MP for the West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast electoral district.

After the story was published, the federal Liberal party announced Wilson would not be allowed to run as a Liberal, so Wilson sat as an independent and later joined the Green party, but was not re-elected. O'Connor has told the court her sources for the story included Bill Lougheed, a named veteran Liberal campaign manager, other named workers in Wilson's campaign and an unnamed source. O'Connor declined to identify the source. She said she received information from the source only after promising that his or her identity would remain confidential.

"I have never in my career revealed the identity of a person who was a confidential source," O'Connor was quoted by the judge as saying.

More at The Hook.

Good on O'Connor for sticking by her sources. It sounds like The Province is planning on appealing this decision to the Supreme Court, and I sincerely hope that they are successful in that venture.

At the same time, it should be said that this is the kind of stuff that happens when anonymous sources are used without there being an understanding of whether or not those sources are political operatives hoping to score points. Time and again, news sources get burned with this sort of stuff - you'd think they would learn their lesson at some point.

Still, I would say that the protection of sources is more important in the long run, regardless of the source in this case.

Guy Giorno's exploits on Twitter

Guy Giorno, former chief of staff for the Prime Minister's Office, has apparently found a new medium: bitchy comments on Twitter.

To wit:

• Getting into a back-and-forth with CBC journalist/blogger Kady O'Malley - start here, then read, respectively, here, here, here, here, and here - over the Economic Action Plan.
  
• A mocking, defensive comment on this Kelly McParland piece about Giorno's previous bitchy Tweets toward members of the press.
• Announcing the return of Kory Teneycke to the Sun TV News channel team.
• Hyping his return to the Fasken Martineau firm.
• Putting down Senator Larry Smith over his failure to make cabinet in the last shuffle. "Everybody knew that no Senator would make cabinet."
  
• Calling columnist L. Ian MacDonald a "pompous, little man," and berating him for not playing up the Economic Action Plan.
• Bugging Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson.
• Gloating about his complaint against the Toronto Star before the Ontario Press Council being upheld.
• Getting into Toronto Star public editor Kathy English's face over his complaint being upheld, and mocking her title.
• Complaining about how the "Left" is "already unhappy with my Tweeting," but feeling better about himself by saying how "Critics might have credibility if they knew how to spell ("jurk" not a word) and used real names."
  
• Heckling former Postmedia columnist - turned CTV host - Don Martin over his reporting on the Potash Corp. fiasco.
  

Quite a credit to the Conservative Party, that one.

Update: Meanwhile, some doubts about the new guy.

Westboro Baptist scum

Fred Phelps at his best.

Mark and Connie Fournier at libertarian event in Ottawa

Courtesy of Andrew Phillips, here is an abbreviated video of Mark and Connie's speaking appearance at a recent libertarian get-together in Ottawa:



They've spoken previously at these sorts of libertarian get-togethers - you can check out video of that - featuring a mention of yours truly - here.

Have the BC NDP jumped the shark?

As you, dear reader, may be aware, BC is in the midst of not one, but two leadership races. The reigning BC Liberal Party, following the resignation of premier Gordon Campbell, is seeing a race between insiders - such as George Abbott, Mike de Jong, Moira Stillwell, and Kevin Falcon - and outsiders - like Christy Clark and Ed Mayne. It's a battle of old guard versus new guard. Exciting stuff.

But the official opposition, the BC New Democratic Party, is also in the midst of a leadership race. Only this one kind of defies easy explanation. Party leader Carole James was turfed in the midst of party dissatisfaction with her performance, and after thirteen of her MLAs - nominally led by long-time MLA Jenny Kwan - threatened to jump ship if she didn't resign.

And in the wake of her departure? Well, the candidates that would probably receive a wider range of support - like John Horgan, Adrian Dix, or Mike Farnworth - have yet to declare their intention for the party's top spot. Nicholas Simons, the MLA for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, and Harry Lali, MLA for Fraser-Nicola, have both thrown their hats into the ring. Notably, both were among the thirteen dissident members characterized by ( NDP-sympathetic ) pundit David Schreck as "the anarchists in the NDP." Pot activist Dana Larsen has also made a bid for the leadership, although lord knows why.

And you know what? I have to say that given the current situation within the BC NDP, they've jumped the shark as a party.

Jeff Jedras highlights some of the absurdity, courtesy of Dana Larsen:

As Troy McClure would say, you may remember Dana Larsen from past scandals, being forced to resign as a federal candidate over video of himself driving a car while high on LSD, or being banned from the NDP convention in Halifax by Brad Lavigne.

We first came to know Larsen as the NDP candidate in West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Really Long Riding Name in the 2008 federal election. He was the first of three NDP candidates to drop out after YouTube video surfaced of Larsen “dropping hallucinogenic drugs and driving while smoking marijuana.”

He resurfaced the next year in the lead-up to the NDP’s 2009 federal convention in Halifax, when he offered financial assistance to potential delegates as part of his campaign to pass pro-legalization policy. NDP executive director Brad Lavigne viewed this as improper lobbying and had him banned from the convention hall on conference eve, creating something of a martyr.

That's bad enough - indeed, once Tommy Chong got involved I think one could detect certain elements of the absurd. But it's just one candidate, right? Can't paint the whole party with that brush.

This, though, is all NDP:

"I think it's time we get past that," said Ruth Fane, a veteran party member and president of the Kamloops-South Thompson riding. "It's quite ridiculous. A lot of our gender rules are."

The Daily News asked Fane to respond to decade-old provisions in the NDP constitution requiring both genders must be represented in the jobs of party leader, president and treasurer.

The current president is Moe Sihota and the treasurer is Bob Smits. Carole James steps down as leader later this month. She announced her resignation Dec. 6 after 13 of her 34 MLA caucus rallied against her.

Speculation is the next leader of the party will have to be a woman unless Sihota or Smits step down.

Fane said she wouldn't be surprised if some in the party demand gender equality at the top.

"With the NDP, you never know. There are certain elements within the party that will get up and say (Sihota and Smits) got to resign first or these guys can't even put their name forward," she said.

Fane believes the party needs to stop worrying about equality and concentrate on the leadership race. She said the goal should be electing the man or woman who can best lead the party.

If that leader ends up being a man and party members are upset it wasn't a woman then "they shouldn't have drummed out the perfectly good female leader we had," she said.

The last thing I want to get into is gender politics right now, but come on: this is just ridiculous. Couldn't somebody, you know, predict that this would happen by reading the NDP constitution? Is that too much to ask?

As Vaughn Palmer points out:

But with no women on the short list of those who are most likely to succeed James -- jokes about prospective male frontrunners reinventing themselves as Adrienne Dix, Joan Horgan and Michelle Farnworth notwithstanding -- Sihota or, more likely, Smits will probably be sacrificed on the altar of gender balance. None of this would be necessary had the party stuck with James, who defeated five men for the leadership in 2003 without any reliance on quotas and who was poised, according to most opinion polls taken over the past 18 months, to make history by becoming the first woman to be elected to a full term as premier of B.C.

For those New Democrats who never bought the baker's dozen strategy of renewal through revolt, this sorry turn of events must give rise to thoughts of "we told you so."

Exactly. The BC Liberal leadership campaign is - at least theoretically - all about change, evolution, revolution, and all that good stuff. It followed the removal of a truly unpopular premier and leader, brought to a head speculation about internal revolt and dissent within the party, and has brought new people into the leadership race who might just have a bright new perspective to the party.

Hell, the Liberal leadership race has led to speculation about early elections, merit-based pay for teachers, younger voting ages, and a small host of other issues. Whether or not these issues are particularly brilliant isn't the point. The point is: new people, new ideas, new party. The BC Liberal leadership race can be characterized as being old vs. new, as Campbell era vs. post-Campbell era.

How can the NDP leadership race be characterized? It can be characterized by confusion, ill-preparedness by the party leadership, wacky candidates, and a general lack of an answer to the question: why was this necessary to begin with? Carole James was not the most popular of leaders, but the instability in the party after her departure as leader is surely not a better alternative, especially if the NDP is faced with a renewed, re-energized BC Liberal Party.

It's a problem in direction that has plagued the BC NDP for quite some time now - perhaps it's Carole James' lasting legacy, in a way.

I'll leave the last word to David Schreck:

By the time Mike Farnworth, Adrian Dix and/or John Horgan get around to launching their leadership campaigns the prize may be worthless. On the BC Liberal side, polarizing candidates, infighting and a disengaged public may offer a glimmer of hope for the NDP, but there is also hope for any new party as the menagerie of Dana Larsen, Nicholas Simons and Harry Lali makes one ask why anyone would want to lead the New Democrats. It may be necessary to renew the party through a series of contested nomination fights before the next election.

If the NDP is going to turn itself into a serious, credible party in any kind of upcoming election, it needs to seriously step up its game. Otherwise, it risks being consigned to perpetual opposition territory, always fighting to one-up the Liberals, and constantly failing.

Hungarian censorship

Since Hungary passed a new law allowing the Hungarian government to regulate and fine the country's media entities, we now get to see the immediate impact that such laws have on said media entities. Via Doug Saunders at the Globe and Mail:

For radio listeners in Hungary, this has been the week of the disappearing personalities. Over and over, well-known on-air figures have suddenly gone silent, usually followed by a few minutes of official music and then their complete disappearance from the airwaves.

“They just tell us to get out of the studio and not come back,” says journalist Sandor Jaszberenyi. On Tuesday, he went on the air for an interview, asked for a moment’s silence in protest against Hungary’s new censorship law, then was banished from the airwaves, never to be mentioned again.

He was appearing on a generally pro-government talk show whose long-serving host had suddenly disappeared over the weekend in a nearly identical incident. Two other radio personalities have also been banished – officially suspended from their on-air jobs and removed from broadcast – in similar circumstances, all without mention in any of the national media.

H/t to Smyke for the article.

The wonderful thing about censorship laws is not their immediate effect, but their long-term impact on both media and citizens. The immediate effect might be intended for good ends - although this is also in question in Hungary, as some are questioning whether or not this new law is intended to benefit the current administration. But the long-term impact is that broadcasters and publishers become afraid to air more and more innocuous opinions, out of fear that they will be violating some vague restriction on content by doing so.

It's censorship chill. And it is the death of any kind of vibrant culture. As such, it should be viewed with the disgust that it deserves. Shame on Hungary.

Binks has done it again

Steynian 433st. You will read, you will like.

Well this doesn't look very good

From iPolitics.ca: Harper’s Economic Action Plan website got approval despite violating rules.

Note Guy Giorno's comments on this over-partisan display. Are you starting to get why I don't like him very much?

Heartwarming in Egypt

Hey, whaddaya know. Religions can co-exist peacefully. Who would've thunk it?

Thoughts on drinking

A few items of interest to the alcoholic among us.

1) Radley Balko at Reason Magazine provides a very good argument for why there should be no laws against drunk driving, with a focus on over-all impairment instead and not just alcohol:

Critics of the 0.08 standard predicted this would happen. The problem is that most people with a BAC between 0.08 and 0.10 don’t drive erratically enough to be noticed by police officers in patrol cars. So police began setting up roadblocks to catch them. But every cop manning a sobriety checkpoint aimed at catching motorists violating the new law is a cop not on the highways looking for more seriously impaired motorists. By 2004 alcohol-related fatalities went down again, but only because the decrease in states that don’t use roadblocks compensated for a slight but continuing increase in the states that use them.

From what I've seen of such drunk-driving policy here in British Columbia, I think Balko is absolutely correct. Beef up punishments for accidents related to impairment, by all means, but the ever-growing restrictions on what we can do before we get in front of the wheel ignore the real problem.

2) Patrick at Popehat considers the constitutional costs of the war on drunk driving in the United States:

We’ve eviscerated the Fourth Amendment (right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures)…

We’ve eviscerated the Fifth Amendment (“right to remain silent”)…

We’ve eviscerated science itself, in a fashion that would make a creationist blush.

And that’s just what we’d done five years ago, when Lawrence Taylor* wrote The DUI Exception To The Constitution.

Bang on.

3) Also at Reason Magazine ( hey, they've got good content ), John Stossel rails against the new it'll-kill-us-all! craze: caffeine and alcohol mixed together. To wit:

But recently some college kids started drinking pre-mixed combos of alcohol and caffeine with names like Four Loko and Moonshot '69. Moonshot '69 is a pilsner beer with less than a coffee cup's worth of caffeine. Until recently, Four Loko contained 12 percent alcohol—about the same as wine—and as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. A few students, after drinking Four Loko, landed in the hospital with alcohol poisoning. Naturally, hysterical news reports followed.

A new bogeyman was born: caffeinated alcoholic beverages.

All three pieces are well worth reading, if you feel like taking the time.

Update: In the comments, Johndoe124 draws our attention to this article by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. at Mises.org, which makes a case for legalizing drunk driving as well:

Now, the immediate response goes this way: drunk driving has to be illegal because the probability of causing an accident rises dramatically when you drink. The answer is just as simple: government in a free society should not deal in probabilities. The law should deal in actions and actions alone, and only insofar as they damage person or property. Probabilities are something for insurance companies to assess on a competitive and voluntary basis.

It's from 2006, but I'd say it still applies.

Porn, rape, and Craigslist

Steve Chapman in Reason Magazine debunks the myth that increased amounts of porn consumption lead to higher amounts of rape and sexual crimes courtesy of the perverted among us:

So in the past two decades, we have essentially conducted a vast experiment on the social consequences of such material. If the supporters of censorship were right, we should be seeing an unparalleled epidemic of sexual assault. But all the evidence indicates they were wrong. As raunch has waxed, rape has waned.

This is part of a broad decrease in criminal mayhem. Since 1993, violent crime in America has dropped by 58 percent. But the progress in this one realm has been especially dramatic. Rape is down 72 percent and other sexual assaults have fallen by 68 percent. Even in the past two years, when the FBI reported upticks in violent crime, the number of rapes continued to fall.

Meanwhile:Yet Another Reason to Legalize Prostitution.