What are we to think when a jurisdiction holds a democratic vote and elects a government that will not be satisfied with anything less than the total annihilation of its neighbour?
Such is the case in Palestine. I used the word ‘jurisdiction’ on purpose. Words like ‘nation’, ‘country’ and ‘civilization’ just seem inappropriate in this case.
Palestinian nationhood is a goal that seems even harder to achieve now that Hamas is to form a government. Or was it ever the goal?
So, why did Hamas win? Do Palestinians not want peace and prosperity for their children?
The culture of hate put forth by so many leaders including the candidate who ran for Hamas after having sent one of her teenaged boys to his death on a suicide attack is surely a factor.
Perhaps its my soft Western mind but I wonder how anyone can regard such an individual as anything but a terrorist.
It is right of all nations to condemn the new Palestinian ‘government’. Palestine does not belong in the company of sovereign nations. To recognize this ‘government’ is to condone terrorism.
The best that can come out of this is political pressure from the rest of the world who realize too late that Palestinian intransigence is the main stumbling block to peace. I don’t hold out a lot of hope on this front.
The irony is that the conditions that exist in Palestine, while not totally of their own design, are exacerbated by their own behaviour. There was a time not long ago that the two societies had a more symbiotic relationship. Thousands of Palestinians worked in Israel. Now, of course, those Palestinians are unemployed because Israel is exercising its right to protect itself. Now, the lack of opportunity and prosperity has turned Palestine into a terrorist hotbed.
While Israel may not have handled all situations perfectly during its existence (and what nation has?) we cannot fault its attempts to protect itself and we must applaud its willingness to negotiate in good faith and its desire to live in peace. We cannot expect Israel’s patience to be boundless.
If I seem one-sided its because I believe that Palestine and its leadership needs to bear the brunt of responsibility for the state it finds itself in.
Friday, January 27, 2006
Rosie O'Donnell Doesn't Like Conservatives
Rosie O’Donnell, at the Sundance Film Festival this week, was asked for her reaction to the results of our Federal Election here in Canada. I only caught a snippet on the news as the full content was to appear on ET Canada the following hour, but I got the gist of her reaction.
Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.
My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.
I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.
It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.
Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.
The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.
Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.
My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.
I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.
My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.
As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.
I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.
I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.
Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.
This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.
Rosie said that she was disappointed that we ousted the Liberals and then went on to lament the loss of some kind of gay haven where she could go and let her hair down.
My disappointment is in her comments multi-facetted.
I am Canadian. I voted Conservative. I voted Conservative for myriad reasons. And, I am not so daft as to focus on any one issue.
It seems her main concern, or perhaps only concern, regarding the election is the Conservative’s stand on gay marriage.
Like many liberals she seems to suffer from the tendency to over-simplify her thought process. If she knew anything about Canadian politics she might have known that the Liberals had long ago lost any moral authority to rule. Ottawa stinks with Liberal corruption. They were arrogant and lazy with power. They stole our money. They wasted our money on several projects. They spent $2B on registering long guns while (hand)gun crime rose alarmingly in our cities. They fostered the rise of the Separatists in Quebec through inaction and bungling. They soured relations with the US, our biggest ally and trading partner. They made the same old and tired promises in election campaigns in 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004 and 2006 and each time they won they failed to deliver. There are virtually no responsibilities they had that they didn’t entirely bungle.
The most disturbing is the implication that we did wrong by ousting the Liberals. Canada’s political landscape is complex. Its not all about how we treat gays and lesbians. Its not just about gay marriage.
Now, for the record, I oppose gay marriage. More specifically, I oppose the re-definition of ‘marriage’. I oppose it for two reasons. First, the laws we have in Canada provide the conditions whereby clergy will probably end up going to jail for refusing to marry gays and lesbians on the gounds of their religious beliefs. (For the sake of brevity I won’t get into the details of the failings and flaws of the “Charter of Rights and Freedoms”) Suffice it to say that a gay’s ‘right’ to get married will end up trumping another person’s right to practice their religion.
My second reason for opposing the re-definition has already reared its ugly head. The fact is, doing so has set a precedent. People who support the ideas of polygamy, bigamy, incest and bestiality, while clearly on the fringes of society, will be encouraged by the idea that ‘marriage’ can be changed at any time to fit their beliefs. Now, I DO NOT compare gay and lesbian relationships to polygamy, etc. and I am sure that gays and lesbians do not want to have to debate those matters any more than the rest of society. But when you are convinced to re-draw a line, you will likely be forced to re-draw it again and again. It’s a slippery slope and quite frankly I don’t want people around the world laughing at us when the Supreme Court has to hear some case and decide one’s right to marry his horse or his daughter, or have a harem.
I am a libertarian at heart. I am fine with allowing couples (two people) entering into a 'civil union' with all the same rights and privileges and responsibilities as marriage. But I want it in law that NO ONE will be forced to perform these unions. I want safe-guards such that my rights won’t get trampled by those of others. The Charter fails here.
My second cause for disappointment is the notion that before voting Conservative, I was to consider what kind of gay refuge for foreigners that I might be destroying.
As in most countries our politics is not about one single issue. I find that too many people are ‘single-issue’ people. Environmental zealots care only about a party’s stand on environmental issues and gays and lesbians are often single-issue people such that nothing (like fiscal policy, foreign policy, trade policy, tax policy, defence policy, etc.) seems to matter that doesn’t address or celebrate their sexuality. Other groups like union memberships and those who oppose all concepts of free trade suffer from the same kinds of self-centered myopia.
I find that conservatives tend to be big(ger) picture people.
I figured Rosie O’Donnell would be more broad-minded having traveled the world and having had the experience of hosting a talk show, but I see now that she is indeed a single-issue lesbian.
But its just like liberals, be they US Democrats or Canadian Liberal and NDP supporters, to disrespect the democratic will of the people for having the audacity to disagree with them.
Now, Canada is still going to be open. It will not become a Christian theocracy as some dim-witted people fear. Canada has a tradition of inclusion and freedom that dates back to when other nations employed slavery.
This is my country. I cast my informed vote based on my values in the way I thought was best for my country. I do not generally care if my vote offends the sensibilities of individuals who do not pay taxes here or care not to inform themselves. But I do care if they use their celebrity to tell me I’m wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)