Leadership
It’s been a while since I associated that word with Mr. Ignatieff. In my view, it took some guts to say what he said, and where he said it. Meanwhile, have Messrs. Harper or Layton said anything, anywhere? Let the rest of us know in comments.
***
Ignatieff says kirpan is not a weapon and should be allowed in all legislatures (Kirpan-Denied-Que)
Source: The Canadian Press
Jan 20, 2011 14:26
MONTREAL – Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says the ceremonial dagger worn by devout Sikhs should not be considered a weapon.
Ignatieff’s position puts him at odds with the Quebec legislature, which earlier this week barred entry to a group of Sikhs who were wearing their kirpans.
It also clashes with a Bloc Quebecois proposal to have the kirpan banned from the House of Commons for security reasons.
Ignatieff says the kirpan should be allowed in all legislatures in Canada.
The Conservative government has yet to take a position on the issue, other than to refer it to Parliament’s security staff.
Ignatieff was in Montreal today as part of a cross-country tour of ridings the Liberals will target in the next election.
INDEX: NATIONAL RELIGION POLITICS
© 2011 The Canadian Press
Fifty years ago today
A great Conservative friend, no less, reminded me of this today at lunch – and he gave me ‘Ask Not’ to commemorate it. It is a wonderful gift.
Half a century! Can it be so long ago? (The second half is here.)
Sharp as blunt butterknives
That’s how sharp a kirpan is, as my old friend Ian Capstick pointed out on CBC last night. And, as I have queried, why is it somehow okay for steak knives to be wielded inside the National Assembly’s cafeterias and restaurants – but if a devout Sikh attempts to enter with a puny kirpan, as thir faith requires them to do, and as is permitted in the House of Commons and the Ontario Legislature and elsewhere – the separatists want to make it a crime? It’s as bizarre as it is shameful.
The issue is attracting international attention – and, I am happy to note, my party has vociferously condemned the Bloc Quebecois and their shameless appeal to xenophobia. Others, meanwhile, are fulfilling their expected roles: Maclean’s “all Quebec is corrupt” idiot sides with the bigots, as does the media-roundup idiot at the Post. Figures.
As I told an old friend from Kingston last night, this is precisely why I favour a big wall between Church and State, and going in both directions, too (ie., politicians shouldn’t stick their noses in matters of faith, and the faithful shouldn’t impose their views on the body politic).
The separatists, it seems, favour separating more than Quebec from Canada. They favour other kinds of separation, as well.
Jews, Muslims, devout Christians, Mennonites, et al., take note. If it can happen to one, it can happen to all, history suggests.
One from the Speechie Archives
I love it when the National Post editorial board lectures folks about free speech.
Among other things, it allows me to haul out gems like this from the archive. And it allows the rest of us to wonder if their unflagging enthusiasm for the concept is, well, rather selective:
Fw: Dream Team‏
From: Kay, Jonathan (National Post) (jkay@nationalpost.com)
Sent: December 20, 2006 12:05:35 PM
To: wkinsella@hotmail.com
Warren – we can’t run your column. We’re not in the business of praising the likes of Rick Salutin, tremonti, etc. I checked with doug and it’s a no-go. Sorry
In lieu, how about the topic below?
—–Original Message—–
From: McParland, Kelly (National Post)
To: Kay, Jonathan (National Post)
Sent: Wed Dec 20 09:46:04 2006
Subject: Dream Team
I’ve been trying to interest Don Martin in a column about the Liberal “Dream Team.”
So, party policy is now in the hands of Bob Rae and Scott Brison — an NDP premier and former Tory clearly having the inside track on what makes good Liberal policy. And Dion has Ignatieff as the party’s No. 2 — a guy who is clearly still practising for another leadership run and fundamentally disagrees with Dion on the Afghanistan mission, not to mention most other foreign policy positions.
This is the Dream Team? And Cdn voters are supposed to be excited by a bunch of retreads who bored them thru an interminable leadership campaign?
Unfortunately I haven’t succeeded — Don is going off to climb Mt Kilimanjaro and his brain isn’t in this country at the moment. I don’t suppose Coyne would be interested? Just seems like an opportunity that’s too good to ignore…
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah
Death, not taxes
Is it an election wedge issue? Is it a settled question in Canada?
What do you think? Comments are open.
The Hon. Keith Davey’s Obituary
THE HONOURABLE KEITH DAVEY, O.C.
Peacefully with family at his side, in Belmont House, on Monday, January 17, 2011. Douglas Keith Davey, in his 85th year. Beloved husband of Dorothy. Cherished father of Douglas (Elizabeth), Ian and Catherine. Dear stepfather of Bill (Kathleen) and Greg (Bridget). Loving grandfather to Keith, Jeffrey, Caelan, Kendra, Daniel, Bryanna, Laurenne and Madelaine. Son of Charles Minto ‘Scotty’ Davey and Grace Viola Curtis. A proud Torontonian, Keith was born April 21, 1926. He attended Allenby Public School and North Toronto Collegiate Institute before going to Victoria College at the University of Toronto, where he graduated in 1949.
Keith loved people. His sense of humour, warmth and generosity built friendships that lasted a lifetime. While Keith adored newspapers, the Blue Jays, breakfast at the Park Plaza, calling Toronto ‘a World Class City’ and recognizing someone as a ’10,’ his first passion was politics. Keith’s life was devoted to the Liberal Party of Canada. As National Director he played a central role in the re-building of the Party in the early 1960’s. Keith went on to lead many successful election campaigns for Prime Ministers Pearson and Trudeau. His efforts earned him the nickname ‘The Rainmaker,’ which became the title of his best-selling 1986 political memoir. Keith was named to the Senate in 1966 and became an Officer of the Order of Canada in 1999.
The family would like to thank the staff at Belmont House for their wonderful care. The family will receive friends at the HUMPHREY FUNERAL HOME — A.W. MILES CHAPEL, 1403 Bayview Avenue (south of Davisville Avenue) from 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 19th, and 2:00 — 4:00 p.m. and 7:00 — 9:00 p.m. Thursday, January 20th.
Funeral service will take place in TIMOTHY EATON MEMORIAL CHURCH, 230 St. Clair Avenue West on Friday, January 21st at 11:00 a.m. with a reception to follow. Interment will be held in Mount Pleasant Cemetery following the reception. In lieu of flowers, please make donations to the Alzheimer Society of Canada, 20 Eglinton Avenue West, Suite 1600, Toronto M4R 1K8 (www.alzheimer.ca), or Belmont House Foundation, 55 Belmont Street, Toronto M5R 1R1 (www.belmonthouse.com).
Condolences and memories may be forwarded through www.humphreymiles.com
And, will knives now be removed from the National Assembly’s chic cafeterias and cafés?
Quebec legislature denies access to Sikhs carrying ceremonial daggers (Kirpan-Denied-Que)
Source: The Canadian Press
Jan 18, 2011 15:39
QUEBEC – Several Sikhs were denied entry into the Quebec legislature Tuesday amid a heated debate over multiculturalism and just where to draw the line when it comes to tolerating cultural practices.
Security officials at Quebec’s assemblee nationale refused to let them in because they were wearing kirpans, small stylized daggers worn by some religious Sikhs.
Four representatives from the World Sikh Organization of Canada had planned to attend public hearings but were told by security to leave their daggers at the door if they wanted to enter. They refused.
The provincial government reacted with cautious language to the decision. The opposition Parti Quebecois, meanwhile, applauded heartily and said Canadian-style multiculturalism was unwelcome in Quebec.
The timing of the incident was laden with symbolism.
The visitors had planned to attend legislative hearings into a bill that would set some limits on religious practices _ namely, denying government services to Muslim women with covered faces.
The Sikhs said that, while their own religion forbids covering women’s faces, they planned to speak out against the bill anyway, in the name of religious tolerance.