Segacs’s World I Know

Lisa posts her thoughts following a fascinating interview with five refugees from Darfur currently staying on an Israeli kibbutz. An absolute must-read.

No, not a merger, just some limited cooperation.

The deal between the Liberals and the Green Party that will see the Libs step back so that Elizabeth May can compete seriously for a seat, is, on the surface, a smart move for both parties. The Liberals have made it clear that, under Dion’s leadership, the environment is their #1 issue. The Greens have always made the environment their #1 issue. So they’re competing for the same pool of voters, and that pool is getting bigger every day as climate change has gradually shifted from being a “polls well but irrelevant on voting day” issue to an issue that can actually affect election results.

But will it backfire? If the Libs move left, will that just open up more space for the Conservatives to make gains in the middle? Conversely, it was arguably the Green Party that – despite a lack of elected MPs – elevated the environment to such a key voting issue in the first place.

The Liberal Party can’t afford to become a one-issue party, even if it is tempting for them to spend the entire next election campaign attacking the Harper government on its environmental record. (The ads are already in the can, I hear). That’s what fringe parties are useful for; bringing single issues to the forefront. But both parties that can govern – the Libs and the Tories – need to campaign on a range of issues representing the broad spectrum of governmental responsibilities. Anything less simply isn’t fair to Canadians.

Two suspects have been arrested for a string of hate crimes against the Montreal Jewish community, including the foiled firebombing of the Ben Weider Centre two weeks ago:

Omar Bulphred, 21, and Azim Ibragimov, 23, appeared briefly in Quebec Court on Friday to be arraigned on charges stemming from incidents that began last fall. Both were denied bail.

[ . . . ]

Each man is charged with conspiracy to commit armed robbery, conspiracy to kidnap and conspiracy to forcibly confine someone. Those crimes are alleged to have taken place between March 30 and April 8.

They also face charges of possession of an explosive in connection with the Sept. 2 firebombing of Skver-Toldos Orthodox Jewish Boys School in Outremont.

Each faces one count of damage to property by fire or explosion after a car parked on de l’Authion Ave. in the city’s Mercier district was firebombed Sept. 12.

As well, the two are alleged to have uttered death threats against a member of the Jewish community, and to have threatened to burn, destroy or damage property belonging to the Jewish community.

The most recent attack occurred on April 3, the first day of Passover, when a firebomb exploded at the YM-YWHA Ben Weider Jewish Community Centre, also known as the Snowdon Y. Employees called police at 11:15 p.m. after they heard an explosion at the facility’s main entrance on Westbury Ave. No one was injured and there was no damage to the building.

Not a lot of details are emerging just yet, but the ones that have been published are just plain bizarre – especially the kidnapping conspiracy charges. The two are being brought up on hate charges, and more information is sure to emerge if and when they go to trial.

Bastards. (Or, on advice of my imaginary lawyer, alleged bastards).

Some big changes taking place in my life right now. That’s one of the reasons for the light blogging, lately. No more details at the moment, but stay tuned.

Supposedly, change is good for you. Time will tell.

What is there left to say?

If only the reffing had been more fair… if only Huet hadn’t let in that soft goal in the first period… if only Steve Begin hadn’t taken the world’s worst double-minor for the world’s dumbest slash… if only…

Ah well, there’s always next season.

Well, maybe that’s overstating things a little. But they couldn’t have scripted it much better than this: Last game of the season, the two biggest NHL rivals in the two biggest hockey cities in the world facing off against one another, winner goes to the playoffs, loser goes to the golf course.

Well, more or less.

If the Habs walk away with 2 points tonight, we head to Buffalo. If the Leafs win, they have to hope that the Islanders lose to New Jersey tomorrow. And the potentially complicating factor is that if the Habs lose in overtime, we still head to the post-season… unless the Isles win tomorrow.

None of that will matter if we win tonight, though. So as grocery stores across the city are full of people lining up to pay for beer and potato chips, and bars get the big screens out and tuned to CBC or RDS, the eyes of the nation will turn to the Air Canada Centre tonight.

Go Habs Go! (And Lose Leafs Lose!)

Just a note to say I’m having some temporary problems with the comments. They may not be working for you right now, and your antivirus software might be giving you a message about a malicious script. Rest assured that this is a glitch, not a real virus attack, and I’m working to get things resolved soon.

While much is being made of Nancy Pelosi’s comments on the relative lack of women in Saudi politics (see below), here at home, under very different circumstances, we’re hearing some of the same issues – and criticisms.

Stephane Dion is actively seeking female candidates to run for the federal Libs – he’s even stated that he’s willing to use a quota system to ensure “adequate representation”, and to kick out male candidates to make room for female ones.

Here in Quebec, criticism abounded after last week’s election reduced the number of female MNAs from 39 to 32.

Arguments like this have always annoyed me. As a woman, I believe that I ought to have every right and opportunity to do anything a man can do. And I also believe that, unlike in Saudi Arabia, here in Canada (and Quebec), that’s pretty much true.

Women in Saudi Arabia can’t drive, can’t vote, can’t walk out on the street unaccompanied by a male relative, have to hide behind veils and robes, can’t participate in society as free and equal members. Saudi Arabia’s problems run far deeper than simply ensuring adequate representation among elected officials. (For starters, the elections themselves are a sham… But that’s a whole different rant.)

In contrast, here, women are free, full and equal members of society. If barriers still exist – and I acknowledge that they do – they are no longer legal and we are working hard to deinstitutionalize them.

But politicians who rant about not having enough women candidates are not saying so because they truly believe that women are barred from politics or lack opportunities; they’re doing it for reasons that are – no pun intended – purely cosmetic.

And finally, a refreshing perspective on the subject from Brigitte Pellerin in the Ottawa Citizen:

According to something called the Inter-Parliamentary Union (ipu.org), Rwanda ranks first in the world with 48.8 per cent women representation in the national legislature, whereas Canada is 48th with 20.8 per cent. The United States, where we all know women are routinely persecuted by a political class bent on systemic gender inequality, is 68th with 16.3 per cent. So, is the theory that we’d be better off if we were governed more like Rwanda?

[ . . . ]

And if we’re legislating quotas for perspective, then we should also make the proportion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, etc. representatives match their share of the general population, assuming we even know it. And once we get there, shouldn’t we also worry about religious representation? What about race?

Oooh, dear.

To me equality means not caring whether my elected representative is male or female or black or gay or Methodist or whatever. And democracy means letting people elect whomever they think represents their views. I believe enforcing equal representation of women in politics would be wrong, undemocratic, and possibly even counterproductive. I suspect I am not alone.

Nope, not alone at all. I agree completely. And I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Equality by quota is counter-productive in the long run. It doesn’t eradicate barriers, it merely sets up new ones. Equality really ought to mean equality of opportunity, and that will only happen when we stop electing, hiring people based on their gender or skin colour or language or religion, and start judging them based on ideas, accomplishments, and – what’s that old-fashioned outdated thing again? – oh yeah, merit.

(But that just wouldn’t be, y’know, politically correct).

That’s my impression of Nancy Pelosi and her trip to the Middle East, in open opposition to the White House’s policies in the region. More of political stunt than anything, she’s waded headfirst into the tumultuous waters of mideast politics, and something tells me she forgot her life raft.

She started in Syria, where she carried made-up messages from Israel. Now she’s in Saudi Arabia, where she’s apparently upset that there aren’t enough women in politics (as opposed to, say, driving cars, walking on the streets, in the classrooms, in the business world…). She also praised King Abdullah for the Saudi “peace initiative” – in other words, the Arab world’s way of scoring some world press brownie points while attempting to “negotiate” with Israel at gunpoint. (Tellingly, Olmert’s counter-suggestion for a Mideast Peace Summit was met with the typical rejections and excuses – because, of course, nobody in the Arab world really wants to talk peace, they just want to be able to say they do).

Dialogue can be a good thing, but I have to question Pelosi’s intentions with this trip, designed seemingly solely to be able to thumb her nose at Bush. Pelosi is coming across as naive, vindictive, and one of those people who does something just to be able to say “So there!. When the biggest cheerleader for her trip is Jimmy Carter, that’s not saying very much.

I’m not suggesting I agree with how the Bush government has dealt with mideast politics. But the Democrats have a real chance to take back the White House next year and set the foreign policy agenda. Pelosi’s ill-advised foray into an area of politics she obviously knows little about might be very costly for that bid.