Once again, the Ref-Con led by Harper are talking Senate reform...term limits. The Canadian senate in its presebt form has outlive its usefulness. It has been and continues to be "an old- folk homes" for retired, spent ploiticians, party hacks and friends of the party in power. Recent appointments are cases in point.
     A federal system of government, by its very nature, requires a two-house system, one to represent the country-at large (the lower house ) and the other to represent the units/provinces ( the upper house). There have been various modifications of the lower house.... increase in pay and seats and redistribution to reflect population movement and growth. The Senate/upper house has been stuck in time...obselete and irrelevant, a waste of time and taxpayer's dollars. It has to be reformed to make it useful and not merely as a foil to the government in power. There are many models that can be looked at, elected, appointed, hereditary etc but each has limitations.....the elected American system has led to competition for power and stalemate/ gridlock. the hereditary/ appointed British system has led to inertia and political influencing- buying and the Canadian one is a dumping ground for friends, hacks and has-beens. The German system, which represents the various states and their rights has worked for the most part, and so has the French.  Canada needs to look at this model...an assembly of the provinces with specific powers relating to provincial rights but no veto power on other legislation. This is only possible, if the constitution is amended, but to do so require the consent of the provinces and that has been impossible to get so far.
     Medicare in Canada continues to be a "sacred trust", well supported by a great majority of Canadians. It has its problems e.g. wait time, but in a recent poll done by Health Canada, 44% rate it as good or excellent and a further 44% rate it as fair. Only one in ten rate it as poor. The health-care debate in the USA made apathetic and complacent  Canadians "stand up and take notice" of how lucky we are in comparison to the Americans. Universal coverage, run by the government, affordable, portable and easily accessible is indeed a boon to us. 
     It is time for Canada, (says long-time top diplomat and foreign policy adviser to three former Canadian prime ministers, and Canada's longest ambassador to the United Nations, Robert Fowler) to reclaim its "widely admired and long established , international reputation,  which has been wantonly squandered by politicians of all stripes who have descended to propagating a 'small-minded, mean-spirited,me-first, little-Canada, whatever-the-Ameaicans- want foreign policy". Canadian politicians are selling out our reputation for" fairness and justice in the Middle-east" and " disqualifying us from using our diplomatic skills, to forge a durable Israeli-Palestinian peace". because they have been using our foreign policy for domestic purposes, " scrambling to lock up the Jewish vote". He went on to say that anyone who acknowledge this is immediately branded as anti-Semitic, just as anyone who critize the "Afghan folly" is accused of being "disloyal to our troops".  He was addressing a Liberal sponsored conference in Montreal, where he accused his Liberal hosts of pandering to the special interests, that include "not only the Jewish vote, but also the Sri Lankan and Sikh extremists", and that they will "endorse anything and everything which might return to power". It was a scathing but very justified thrashing of the Liberals, who " do not stand for much in the way of principle".
     Canada must leave Afghanistan. It is too heavy a price to pay....146 dead and $11
Billion spent to support a corrupt and incompetent Karzai. Canada needs to re-think its role in the world. We must go back to peace-keeping and not peace-making and nation-building through war. Our expertise and our well-trained and well-equipped troops can be so much better used in our more traditional U.N. peace-keeping missions. We are, after all very good at this and there are many places where we can do  far better and productive work...from Haiti to the Congo.          

     The Republicans huffed and puffed, spluttered and failed. Their scare tactics and personal attacks were to no avail, and while none of them voted for the health-care reform bill, and some Democrats refused to support it, it finally passed. Obama tried to find a non-partisan bill, but the "Partry of No", refused to compromise and thus are going to be remembered as the Party that refused to help 32 million Americans, the most needy, get medical coverage.
     45 years after the passage of Medicare, (with about fifty per cent of Republicans supportind it), President Obama used all his skills and much of his political capital to get it done. It was a bruising and protracted fight, sprinkled with half-truths, outright lies, misinformation, amd personal attacks, aided and abetted by tens of millions of dollars by the insurance companies and the the private health-care  providers, but in the end there was enough votes to pass it and America has become a better place for its citizens, the rich as well as the poor.
     This legislation has brought in very significant changes to a system that keeps getting more and more expensive (almost $2.5 trillion) and yet left millions without insurance coverage. Now 32 million have been added to the list of those who will be covered. It imposes an "individual mandate", which requires Americans to buy health insurance or faced being fined. It makes insurance more affordable, with the offer of federal sudsidy for  the lower and middle class and expands funding to the states for Medicaid, for the poorest. It bars insurance companies from denying coverage to sick children, and by 2014, will make it illegal to withhold insurance from anyone with a pre-existing condition. It also includes provisions to prevent massive premium hikes ( in some states premiums have gone up by over 30%) and to eliminate the practice  of setting lifetime limits on coverage. As Michigan Democrat John Dingell ( who has introduced a universal health-care bill every year since 1956), said "Today is the day that is going to rank with the day we passed the civil rights bill in 1964". Speaker Nancy Pelosi, (who used the same gavel used 45 years ago), added that " the legislation will lead to  healthier lives, more liberty to pursue hopes and dreams and happiness for the American people". 
     It was an historic vote. It was an historic piece of legislation ( many, including Clinton, had failed) and it will make Americans healthier, because a most vulnerable group (32 million) are now going to get coverage and the poorest will get better Medicaid and the insurance companiews will no longer deny care or restrict care  or charge exorbitant premiums. It was not easy and it will not be easy to make all the elements work, but now there is going to be better care, especially for the neediest because finally America has a law, which can be used to protect people.
     It is a great day for America in general and a good victory for those who fought so long (sorry Kennedy was not there to see it). America has joined the civilised world iin protecting its citizens health. In the "give and take" of American politics, President Obama and the Democratic leadership must be congratulated. Now they have to improve on it.   

     In an earlier blog, I noted the lack of respect for President Obama by certain elements in and aroind Netanyahu's government. It verges on the racist and the recent statement by Netanyahu's brother-in law that " there an anti-Semitic president in America" and that " as a politician, who ran for presidency, he had to hide it, but from time to time. it bursts out from inside" ( I guess Emanuel and the other Jews in Obama's inner circle were all blind and dumb, not to even get a hint, but this loudmouth could see this from Israel!!!!).
     Historically, if anyone criticizes or even disagrees with the policies of the Israeli government, they are immediately branded as anti-Semite and anti- Israel.....Jews who do so are cursed as "self-hating". Israel can do as it pleases....refusing to abide by international law...various resolutions of the U.N. SUPPORTED BY ALL BUT A FEW STATES, keeping Gaza as "an open-air prison", stealing Palestinian land, denying basic rights to those Palestinian living in the West Bank, encroaching on Moslem Holy Sites, insulting the American vice-president, creating a new apartheid state (only Jews in Israel, Palestinians kept in little, closed off enclaves and denied equial access to rights, education, health and other services) and if anyone or any group or any state dare to point these things out, they are attacked as "anti-Israel and anti-Semite" America gives about  $2.5 Billion in direct aid to Israel and also billions in Military aid, as well as defending it in the U.N. and eleswhere and in return its President is disrespected and called an anti-Semite. Like the announcement of the 1,600 housing units, that Netanyahu ostensibly did not know about, this recent outburst by his bruther-in law is a little bit too convenient....let someone do say something, wait for the reaction and then if it is negative, apoligize, even though Netanyahu support the expansion of settlements and the building of new units and very importantly, he is displeased with President Obama cosying up to the Arabs and his emphasis on no more expansion/building and a two-state solution.  

     The Israeli government has shown its lack of respect for the Obama administration, by insulting Vice- President Biden on his trip to Israel and Palestine/ West Bank, by ungraciously announcing new building ON OCCUPIED TERRITORY. The decision was made by the Shas (closely connected to the "settlers") controlled Interior ministry, supposedly without the knowledge of Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is hard to believe as Netanyahu is on record as strongly supporting the building of additional settlements on Palestinian territory and because he wants to maintain his right-leaning government and as such has allied himself with the "settlers" and the religious parties who see the West Bank as part of Eretz Israel.
      Netanyahu is concerned about Obama's reaching out to the Arab/ Muslim world and also because he opposes any early establishment of a Palestinian state. This disrespect is typical of certain elements of the Israeli government, including Netanyahu and his "settlers" pals since Obama took office. Israel has always acted as if it is the senior partner in its relationship with the USA. This is because of its strong support in Congress, its powerful lobby...AIPAC, and the right-wing, fundamentalist, evangelicals. . This time, it has gone too far. Publicly and blatantly embarrassing the Vice-president and thus the Obama administration.    
     China has made it clear that it is willing to go tit-for-tat, with the USA. "It's feeling its oats". Owning a large part of America's debt, enjoying an increasing and steady growth,  reaping great returns on its bloated exports, angry at the meeting with the Dalai Lama and holding its "rubber stamp" Congress at this time, it has decided to "expose" America's hypocrisy, when it talks of China's human rights violation......" while advocating freedom of speech', 'freedom of press' and 'internet freedom', the US GOVERNMENT UNSCRUPULOUSLY MONITORS AND RESTRICTS THE CITIZEN'S RIGHTS TO FREEDOM WHEN IT COMES TO ITS OWN INTERESTS AND NEEDS" by using wiretaps, eavesdropping and hacking in the name of the War on Terror. It also slammed the US ON ITS ECONOMIC RECORD, JOBLESSNESS AND HOMELESSNESS........CAN'T GET NO RESPECT". Even Ahmadinejad is tweaking America's nose, going to Kabul and with Karzai at his side, lecturing America on its presence in Afghanistan .
     Greece is in turmoil because of the austerity measures adopted by the government. As noted in PIIGS, .....Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain are next in line. The Euro-zone is in trouble. The only safe haven is Germany.
     France has finally apoligized to Rwanda for its "involvement" in the genocide, where the Mitterand government sided with the Hutus and also spirited many of the ring-leaders out of the country.

      " Liberty consists not of doing what one pleases but in being able to do what one ought to do" ...Montesquieu.
     The American Constitution stipulates that "all men are created equal" and that they have "inalienable rights" and that Congress "shall make no laws limiting" these rights. Freedom of speech, religion etc. are enshrined in the constitution and are zealously protected....just look at he debate over the "rights to bear arms"etc. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of these rights and their interpretations have varied from the "liberal" to the "conservative".
     In Canada, we finally enshrined our "Rights and Freedoms" in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. It was made very clear in Section 1 , that these rights are "relative", i.e. "subject to such limitations prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". There is also the "non obstante" (notwithstanding) clause, which allows the legislatures to limit some rights (except Fundamental Freedoms, Legal Rights and Equality Rights). This flexibility allows for the expansion of rights as well as the removal of redundant and irrelevant ones. It allows governments to enact laws/rights as society change e.g. accommodating immigrants from diverse cultural backgrounds, while at the same time ensuring the core values of our society.
     Many have found refuge and comfort in Canada and have enjoyed the rights and freedoms that exist here. A Sikh can wear his "kirpan", a Jew his "yarmulke", a Christian his "cross" a Hindu his "om" and a Muslim his "crescent". Anyone can wear a "mohawk" or shave his hair or grow it long or whatever. They can wear their national dress whether they are Greek, Turk, Ukrainian, Indian, Arab, Chinese, Orthodox Jew Scottish, Irish or First Nation. So what is the problem of a "niqab"? According to press report a woman wearing it, was expelled from her French class after she made certain demands. She complained that male students were looking at her and must change their seat. She did a class presentation while standing at the back of the class and facing away from the class. No one complained about her outfit or her presence in the classroom. It was her "demands" that created an untenable situation and an environment of tension and unease. No study can successfully take place in such a situation ( I have taught for 45 years and have encountered many trying situations but none like this). She was intractable in her demands and something had to give. She had to go. She was making unconscionable demands. She was placing her "right/comfort" above the others in the class. She wanted to limit the  "rights/comforts" of the other students. It was her way and nothing else. She came from a society/religion that gave few, if any rights to women, and rather than show an appreciation for the "rights and freedoms", that she has here, she chose to deny others their "rights" and to create a hostile/tense classroom.    Perhaps she does not understand that equality, if it is to exist for all, means that rights have to be limited/relative. There are no absolute rights in democratic society. That only exist in the authoritarian society she left behind to come here.
     There is a lesson to be learned here....... For us to be free and enjoy our rights and freedoms, we have to recognize that we have to give up some of those those rights and freedoms so that we can collectively enjoy them. We cannot do as we please. That would be anarchy. We ought to do, what we ought to do and the laws will show us the way, .... all of us.