Liberal backbenchers mad at the cabinet's same sex legislation

The attempted rescue of Ingrid Bettancourt

Les manifs montr?alais contre l'OMC: la cirque se poursuit

J'ai ?cout? les nouvelles de RDI qu'il avait eu un proc?s pour d?terminer si Jaggi Singh aurait bris? ses engagements lors des manif en 2001 contre le Sommet des Am?riques. Vers le fin, un gars qui a ?t? assez exc?d? ? crier Shame! (Honte!) Et tout le monde dans la salle reprenait cette mot comme un refrain.

Le juge a d?cid? d'arr?ter les proc?dures pour calmer les espirits et donner sa d?cision vers 18:30. Tout le monde a quitt? et le gars qui a cri?, continuait son discours et sans conna?tre le d?tails, une poubelle a ?t? renvers?e.

Les constables sp?ciaux de la cour ont arr?t? le gars. Je ne sais pas si le juge rapportera sa d?cision de mettre en libert? ou non Signh (une nuit?e de plus en prison nous fera du bien).

En tout cas, plusieurs journalistes ont signal? que Pettigrew avait commis une erreur d'avoir choisi Montr?al comme lieu du rencontre de l'OMC. Pas moi. Je pense que les gens, surtout les Montr?alais, ont pu voir de quoi s'agissait-il ces manifestant anti-OMC. En plus ceux-ci ont commis une erreur strat?gique avec leur cirque manifestations anti-OMC. Montr?al est une ville portuaire qui a grandement b?n?fici? du libre-commerce pendant tout la longue de son histoire et d'?couter ces anti-modialistes avec leurs pr?position anti-commerce international, les gent ordinaires ne railleront pas ? leur point de vue. Ceux-ci questionneront de comment briser de vitre ou peindre des autos aideraient les pays en d?veloppement ouvrir les marches de pays industralises ? moins que le but des anti-mondialistes c'est de fermer la libre-?change mondiale pour une protectionnisme de ann?es 30s. On conna?t le grand succ?s que telle politique avait report?e.

Au futur, les gens ignoreront les manifs anti-OMC comme un autre son du fond typique de grandes ville. Le monde n'?couteront plus les anti-mondalistes

References and law: responses to Geitner

Over at Geitner'sblog posted this article about the reference procedure that's been incorporated into Canada's Supreme Court law. I wrote to Geitner and you can read my citations on the subject. I understand Geitner's 'chauvinism' but I'd simply remind him that separation of powers takes many guises and these should be studied. Comparative politics is a fascinating subject.

My own view is that the reference procedure is a stop gap measure for the absence of a constitutional court. If there's one flaw in our public common law, common law as understood as the British law system that migrated to Canada and developed since then, is that it doesn't distinguish very well between political law and legal law. Constitutional law is as much political as a question of laws and having a purely law court deal with thorny political issues is asking for everyone to be dissatisfied with the final decision (the 1976 Wage and price control reference question is a case in point) or the boneheaded decision between Quebec and Newfoundland over the hydro-electric contracts in 1984 whereby the Supreme court ruled that the theory of impr?vision in the old Quebec civil code doesn't exist (which the Quebec legislator did nothing to refute during the elaboration of the new civil code)

As much as I admire the Anglosphere judicial system, I believe that Canada would benefit with a Constitutional court. Quebec has created the Tribunal Administratif du Qu?bec (TAQ ). It hears the administrative law cases that arises over disputes between the provincial government and citizens. There's still judicial overview but it's more limited. So far I haven't heard of any serious complaints about the court or its procedures. So in Canada's case a hybrid judicial system that combines some elements from the European judicature with the British.

With respect to Dave Swanson's critique of my position on the American full faith and credit and homosexual coupling, I find it quite reasonable and reasoned. Nonetheless, I wonder how the equal protection clause of the14th Amendment and its attendant jurisprudence will conflict with the federalist provisions? How will the present and future American Supreme court adjudge these competing obligations?

Geitner's post and comments by his readers is very stimulating. I look forward to future debates.

Some comments on the Western alphabet: the letter W

I point out to my students that with the exception of guitar- which I presume to be an Arabic pronunciation of the Sanskrit/Pankrit word sitar- the gu/g(u) words found in the Romance languages are from the Germanic w. French is particularly clear in this respect: g?epe Old French <-guespe <-Germanic wespe; guerre->werra (Anglo-Saxon also used the same word but due to the neutral vowel where the a and e sounds are indistinguishable the e shifted to an A hence war in English)

The WH words are cognates to the Romance Qu words (like when, where, why and how). Of course my students sardonically remind me that all this background is great but it still doesn't help them master the W/WH sounds. I sympathize with them and then have them practice via tongue twisters

Les manifs aniti-OMC: comment briser les fen?tres en finira avec le commerce international?

Hier, j'ai eu le d?go?t de voir des manifestants anti-OMC, anti-commerce libre international commettent des actes vandalisme. Dites-moi connards, comme fracasser les vitres du gap ou peindre quelques autos avec le symbole de l'Anarchie solutionnerait les probl?mes du commerce international tels que les subvention agricoles?

Le probl?me c'est que vous vous opposez ? L'OMC sans vraiment que vous proposiez des vraies alternatives outre qu'une protectionnisme d?pass? ou un commerce international bien trop moralisateur qu'aucuns pourront satisfaire. Personnellement vous ?tes plus motiv?s par attitude condescende qui pr?sume que les gens du pays en voie de d?veloppement sont incapable de comp?tionner contre les pays industrialis?s et sont tellement faibles dans la mise en oeuvre d'un syst?me ?conomique plus ax? aux march?s que vous devez les prot?ger. Ce n'est pas les en choyant que les paysans du Tiers-Monde am?lioraient leurs sorts. Au contraire, on doit ouvrir nos march?s tout en se basant ? des r?gles que dont tout le monde en b?n?ficient. Et si jamais un diff?rend se surgirait, les parties en litiges peuvent le r?soudre sous l'empire de l'OMC ou toute autre r?gle compatible avec le droit international commercial.

The WTO's agricultural mini-summit in Montreal

Over the weekend, the WTO agricultural ministers have gathered together to discuss world trade on foodstuffs. The meeting was supposed to be held at the Queen Elizabeth hotel but was moved to the Sheraton when protesters threatened to disrupt the proceedings.

In any case, yesterday the protests began in earnest. I'm bemused at how there are so many divergent groups protesting that it's hard to know exactly what bugs them.

It's not just the anti-globalists that protest, the Union des producteurs agricole (UPA) wants the agricultural tariffs maintained. Ostensibly, the president of the UPA claims that maintaining the tariffs is important because of rigorous quality control that Quebec farmers implement. Yeah right. Basically, the UPA wants me to perpetually subsidize them; considering that in the region where I live, the provincial Agricultural minister had to impose a moratorium on licencing any more piggeries. Part of the problem is environmental: the bio-gas is atrocious in some areas; the other is economic, there are so many pig farmers that too many piggeries are simply unprofitable..

My hope- which is wishful thinking- is that the WTO agricultural ministers from the First world have enough guts to kill off the subsidies to their domestic farmers and let the market determine price and products. I'd like to see our farmers compete instead of coddling them from more efficient competitors from the Third world.

La Tour de France: une tour de force!

Administrative notes