Segacs's World I Know

Posts Tagged ‘paul martin’

In the Gazette, columnist L. Ian MacDonald claims Canada’s biggest problem in the softwood lumber dispute is getting the U.S.’s attention:

“I will be speaking to the president when the timing is appropriate,” Martin said in Regina. “It’s very important as far as I’m concerned that that phone call take place when it is right for Canada to have it take place, and that will be quite soon.”

Translation: the White House hasn’t returned the call from the Prime Minister’s Office.

In any event, it’s not the kind of problem that can be resolved with a phone call. It takes a relationship, and Martin has gone out of his way not to establish one with Bush.

The problem is, Martin wants it both ways. He wants to be seen as anti-American when it’s convenient, but when he wants the U.S. to respect Canada, he is unwilling to reap the consequences.

Like the CBC’s labour dispute, the biggest risk in Canada playing trade harball with the U.S. is that they’ll realize how easy it is to ignore us. Carolyn Parrish can go on stomping on Bush dolls if she wants; it’s pretty obvious that the real Bush doesn’t really care much.

Bono called Paul Martin “infuriating” for his refusal to make large commitments of increased foreign aid in the wake of Live 8:

“He’s very difficult to deal with because he won’t agree to things that he doesn’t believe he can deliver, although that is very frustrating and annoying and infuriating,” Bono told reporters while standing next to Martin.

Canada currently spends the equivalent of 0.26 percent of GDP on foreign aid. Martin says he would rather commit to small increases he knows he can afford than make long-term promises.

Bono, I love your music and the video for Where The Streets Have No Name kicks ass. So I mean this with all due respect: shut up!

Martin may be a weak political leader who waffles more than an Eggo, but at least he’s a political leader. Who elected Bono leader of anything?

This is just part of a larger rant that I have about celebrities and politics. We used to have economists talking about the economy, international relations experts discussing international relations, political analysts talking politics… Agree or disagree, the people leading the discourse usually actually knew something about their topic and had solid credentials in their field.

Since when did “#1 on the Billboard rock charts” become a credential for discussing world trade or poverty?

This is not a new phenomenon. It’s been going on for years, and has been encouraged by the fact that stars get publicity for their political action, and are under a large amount of pressure to pretend to care about causes bigger than themselves. Some actually do care. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is this notion that we’re supposed to listen to them because they’re celebrities. In a debate about world trade, if you put a Ph.D. in global economics at a table with Jeanine Garofalo, why should we assume that they’re on equal footing to discuss the issues? I won’t give much weight to Paul Martin’s opinion on rock music, so why should I care so much what Bono thinks about politics?

In last year’s American election, in which we had Springsteen singing for Kerry and Britney Spears cheering for Bush, I couldn’t help but wonder whether anyone was actually basing their vote on what celebrities were saying. And if so, what does that say about the electorate?

That’s my issue with Live 8 in general. International aid and third-world poverty are serious issues, and nobody elected Roger Waters or Dave Matthews to decide how best to spend our tax dollars to deal with them.

Celebrities are human beings – often with good hearts and fat bank accounts. If they want to do charity work or get involved in worthy causes, more power to them. But when they use their charity work as a publicity stunt, it cheapens them and their cause.

It also creates issues among fans who respect celebrities for their art but dislike their politics. Should I refuse to watch Sean Penn’s movies because I don’t like his soapbox political views? No, that’s mixing issues, isn’t it? But by suggesting that his celebrity status lends credence to his politics, the celebrities themselves have mixed those issues, leaving someone like me to either have to avoid art because of politics, or wonder if I’m implicitly supporting politics because of art. When I go to an Our Lady Peace concert and, in the midst of screaming and cheering, Raine Maida shouts that we should “send a message to Bush to stay out of Iraq”, it puts a sour taste in my mouth. Regardless of his message (I’d feel the same way if Raine said the opposite), suddenly I’m no longer at a rock concert, but at a political rally. It didn’t say that on my ticket. I didn’t pay for that. All it did was to make me feel manipulated and used.

The most reasonable point I’ve ever heard from a celebrity on the issue of celebs in politics comes from Alice Cooper:

“To me, that’s treason. I call it treason against rock-and-roll, because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics. If you’re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”

Cooper’s comments were made in the context of last year’s US election campaign, but they’re equally valid for issues like foreign aid and world trade.

So let Bono think that Paul Martin is “infuriating”. That’s fine. I don’t really care. I may disagree with Martin an awful lot, but here he is being eminently reasonable, refusing to make lavish promises he can’t keep and instead sticking to more immediate, gradual commitments. Foreign aid in itself won’t solve African poverty overnight. And, despite what he may think, Bob Geldof is not uniquely qualified to tell us how to think.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe – just maybe – if Bono were Canadian and had actually voted for Martin, then his criticism might be a bit more valid. In the meantime, please stick to rock music and let the politicians stick to politics.

Terrified by yesterday’s departure of Pat O’Brien from the Liberal fold, Paul Martin has agreed to amend bill C-38 on same-sex marriage before passing it, to appease some members of his party:

They include:

• Stronger guarantees that Charter rights will not override religious freedoms
• Justices of the Peace who do not want to perform civil marriages of same-sex couples will not have to do so
• Churches are not required to rent out their halls for same-sex weddings
• Religious educational institutions will still be allowed to preach that homosexuality is against God’s law, without being subject to hate crime laws

Except for the second point about justices of the peace not being required to carry out the law, these amendments seem reasonable and designed to simply guarantee religious freedom.

Still, you have to wonder whether Martin would have done this if his fragile grip on power hadn’t been threatened yesterday. I’m wondering if he’s even capable of taking a stand and stating clearly that bill C-38 will pass because it’s the right thing to do.

$12 million dollars was committed to the Palestinian Authority by Paul Martin today, after meeting with Mahmoud Abbas who’s on a fundraising tour for his government band of terrorists:

Martin said Friday the money was targeted towards helping the Palestinians build democratic institutions, such as an independent judiciary, and to improve housing.

[ . . . ]

“It is just a down payment,” Martin told a news conference in Ottawa.

“Canada and the international community must clearly do much more at this crucial moment in the Middle East,” he said, explaining that any additional money will be contingent on Abbas following through on promised reforms.

Yeah right, cause the Palestinians have had such a great track record on that front in the past.

Mind you, Canada’s money pales in comparison to the $150 million aid package that Bush offered Abbas earlier this week. I guess now we know how the next round of bombs will be funded.

…with Tina Fey. Okay, maybe not. But here are some of the tidbits from the weekend.

It looks like there might not be an election after all, as the Conservatives’ polling numbers slip and Harper looks increasingly like a vengeful opportunist each day. The Conservatives are going to have to come up with a better argument than “we’re not the Liberals” if they want a turn in power. In the meantime, Martin’s gamble seems to be paying off, and his shaky government might get its life support extended a little longer.

More idiocy on parade as the annual workers’ event of May Day results in “clashes with police”. That’s the media’s non-judgmental way of saying that a bunch of idiots smashed things and then reacted violently to police who tried to get them under control. Oh yeah, and they really really don’t like Jean Charest. Just in case we didn’t know that already.

North Korea’s getting bolder as the Dear Leader of Death Camps slowly realizes that the rest of the world can’t or won’t do anything to stop them. Canada won’t sign onto the US’s missile defense plan, but Japan certainly sees the value in it.

Violence is on the rise again in Egypt, as suicide attacks on tourists by Islamist terrorists sent a chill through the region. This pretty much rules out any hope that last month’s attacks at Taba were isolated incidents. One thing we can pretty much count on: if Egypt’s tourism industry suffers, they’ll find a way to blame Israel somehow.

And last but certainly not least, Passover is over and I’m back to eating real food again. It’s great to have a meal that doesn’t taste like cardboard!

Once again demonstrating his perpetual spinelessness and willingness to do anything to hang onto power, Paul Martin struck a deal with Jack Layton, making “concessions” in exchange for an NDP promise to vote for the budget.

What sort of “concessions”? The usual NDP mixed bag. Deferring corporate tax cuts in favour of $4.6 billion in additional social spending for things like Aboriginal housing, the environment, foreign aid and the like.

That’s all besides the point, though. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the changes, the main thing here is that we have the party who came in dead last among the four major parties in the last election essentially dictating the federal budget. What’s wrong with this picture?

Is it just me, or are our politicians holding a contest these days for “most spineless”?

Martin may succumb to Layton’s blackmail by agreeing to defer corporate tax cuts in the federal budget in exchange for a promise for the NDP to support the budget:

The apparent concession came just hours after Prime Minister Paul Martin appeared to shut the door to NDP Leader Jack Layton’s demand that the cuts be scrapped. “We are prepared to discuss the possible deferral of the corporate tax measures,” the source said.

Martin’s fighting for his political life, so it’s obvious why he’s doing this. But the NDP doesn’t hold enough seats to prop up the Liberals if everyone else votes against. Martin will probably learn the hard way that Layton’s life raft is made of lead.

Memo to Stephen: Remarks like these won’t help you get elected:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper’s director of communications apologized Friday for referring to Canada’s Prime Minister as “Osama bin Martin.”

Geoff Norquay, director of communications for the Leader of the Opposition, said he meant the reference to the international terrorist leader as a joke.

Some joke.

Perhaps the only politician in Canada with more woes than Charest, Prime Minister Paul Martin addressed the nation on prime time television, delivering a recorded speech designed to plead for his political life.

Watching him was a bit wince-worthy, but ultimately he got his message across. He apologized without admitting direct involvement or guilt, accepted responsibility as a leader, and vowed to prosecute the offenders. To be fair, he did what I would have done in a similar situation. The only surprise was a promise to hold an election within 30 days of the end of the Gomery inquiry – a stall tactic if I’ve ever heard one. But I think that this desperation move may pay off for him.

In contrast, the other three leaders looked like they were launching campaign speeches. Harper attacked Martin straight-on, but his speech may have the unintended effect of making Canadians wary of a mud-slinging campaign. Duceppe had me wishing – not for the first time – that he wasn’t on the wrong side, because as usual he stole the show with a fantastic opening line to his speech, something to the effect of “the last time a prime minister addressed the nation, it was 1995 and Chretien was fighting to save Canada; this time, Martin’s fighting to save the Liberals”. He picked up votes for sure.

As for Layton, his small smile bugged me even more than it did during last summer’s debates. But he implied that he’d be willing to make a deal with Martin to attempt to stave off a no-confidence vote in exchange for changes in the Federal Budget to give the NDP what they want. This is Layton’s chance to blackmail the Liberals for all they’re worth, and don’t think it hasn’t occurred to him.

I think that, though this mess is with the Liberals, most people are cynical enough to realize that corruption is rampant in all political parties, and there’s quite a bit of distaste for the perceived opportunism of Harper and the other opposition leaders in this situation. I think people are already tired of hearing about Gomery. Mostly, I think people are tired of elections and their options are severely limited when it comes to actually voting.

What will happen is anyone’s guess. But I wouldn’t write off the Liberals just yet.

When Paul Martin addresses the nation tonight, will his speech provide his sinking governemnt with a life raft? Or will he dig himself further into a hole?

More importantly, how many Canadians will tear themselves away from “Survivor” to watch the Canadian-politics version of the game: who gets voted out of office?

Update: I guess this occurred to Martin’s handlers too; they moved his speech earlier, to 7pm, presumably to avoid competing with prime time.