Burn, Baby, Burn
Where we’re at now is that after the generally expressed dissatisfaction over what the BC Civil Liberties Association has described as “heavily, heavily redacted” documents released by the government, Tories like the inimitable Stockwell Day have called asking for more transparency “naive” and fallen back on a ” you want more? take us to court” line of response, claiming that failure to maintain requisite secrecy could, “put Canadian troops lives at risk. Incidentally, in a public letter law clerk and parliamentary counsel Robert Walsh, a legal expert in the laws affecting Parliament, dismissed that reason saying (emphasis mine),
It would appear that providing the documents sought by the Committee without redaction presents concerns for the Government in relation to nation security matters. While the Committee might try in some manner to address these concerns, at the end of the day the Government is obliged to supply the Committee whatever information it requests in the performance of its mandate from the House.
The Special Committee and all House committees act in support of the constitutional function of the House of Commons of holding the Government to account. In keeping with the principles of responsible government, no part of the Government’s responsibilities can by law be categorically excluded or removed from its constitutional accountability to the House and its committees, otherwise it would soon become only partial accountability and perhaps after some years no accountability at all.
December 23, 2009 3 Comments
Libertoryanism
“I have this crazy notion that there is a point where Red Toryism and the kind of libertarian ideas E.D. is promoting could work together.” ~ Chris Dierkes
I suppose I’m either hopelessly conflicted about my own political and social views and values (“beloved but somewhat confused” as Bob Cheeks would have it), or else I’m working slowly toward a sort of synthesis that I don’t think is properly represented in the modern American political spectrum. That is, I envision something that embraces limited government, free markets, and so forth, but without the unhealthy emphasis on individualism, corporatism, and consumerism so infused to our modern conservative and libertarian movements. I’m not saying we should demonize these things, but they should be cast in their proper roles – as byproducts of liberty and prosperity, rather than as the be-all-end-all of our lives and politics. Along with this, I’d like to see a politics that emphasizes limited, efficient government but does not demonize all government and all actions of the state (save military, of course) and works to govern, regulate, and so forth in the least intrusive, most effective way possible. This would almost certainly require a severing of ties between big government and big business – as well as big government and big labor, for that matter.
And of course, culturally, I’d like some sort of progressive traditionalism that at once embraced the need for progress (social, economic, technological, etc.) as well as the irreplacable value of tradition. Cultivating tradition and traditional values while at the same time embracing progress often seems a hopeless task, but I think that under the surface, it’s also the modus operandi of the ages. This give and take is always with us. I’m fairly traditional in many ways – with a strong belief in the nuclear family, in the importance of one parent staying home with the kids, and so forth, yet for those same reasons I support gay marriage, I support womens’ rights, etc. (A stay at home parent can almost as easily be a dad, after all). It’s why I believe in social equality and include the rights of the unborn as part of that social equality. Indeed, I think a pro-life movement that embraced cultural diversity, sexual equality, and homosexual gay rights would be a far more successful movement in the long run, though in the short term….
So Chris mentions this potential fusion of Red Toryism and Libertarianism, and I think that’s the right trajectory for a political movement to reshape America – a more “progressive” conservatism, to be sure, and one that places emphasis on the small, the local, the communal and decentralized, but also on economic freedom and human rights. I see a number of good ideas which could spawn from such a hybrid: [Read more →]
October 5, 2009 85 Comments
