Canada’s worst MP

A few weeks ago, Canada’s best MP wrote a book. Today, our worst MP—I used to live in Nepean-Carleton, so my former MP—has been interviewed for Maclean’s.

There’s more to pick on here than I have the time or inclination to, but one lowlight strikes me:

Q. You don’t ever think that people are turned off by the bickering and the shouting back and forth, and you know the way question period is, and attack ads and constant disagreement—constant and loud disagreement.

A. I think that people are more concerned with the result, like when I go into my community, they want to know when is that bridge going to be finished, why are my hydro rates so expensive, what’s your plan to reduce my commute time. Those things matter to people in their lives. Frankly, they’re not so much captivated by whether or not politicians are friendly with each other.

What about politicians who understand constitutional jurisdiction? I’m concerned with that. Nepean-Carleton doesn’t border on Quebec, therefore no bridges within his riding fall within the purview of the federal government. Hydro? Let me refer you to §92A(1)(c) of the Constitution Act, you ignorant buffoon. Commute time? Are there any roads in Barrhaven that fall under federal jurisdiction? I thought not. (OC Transpo is partly subject to federal regulation because it goes into Quebec a bit, see §92(10)(a), but that’s not really relevant to Nepean-Carleton, now is it?).

This is politics as pure populism. Politics that completely, emphatically, defiantly disregards questions of good public policy for the crudest imaginable interpretation of “what the voters want”.

For a look inside the bubble at the way a psychotically partisan person thinks, read the whole thing. Or don’t. It’s a depressing, miserable slog.



Someone in Vanier ward is running for council on the slogan: “A titanium fist in a velvet glove” which is so transcendently ludicrous I hope he wins. Out of morbid curiosity, mostly.

Here in Somerset, all the candidates are promising some non-specific permutation of positive change that works. Yawn.

I hope she loses

I see some girl has complained to the BC human rights tribunal that she was discriminated against for being Christian and graduating from Trinity Western University.

I hope she gets smacked down hard and fast. By a real court, ideally, not some farcical quasi-judicial tribunal. And if the TWU people have any sense, so will they. For several reasons.

First, that anyone should be able to sue over not being hired is abhorrent. The state has no business scrutinizing the personnel decisions of private companies. Hiring is, in its essence, an act of discrimination. Letting the government review those decisions concedes to the state the right to judge the thoughts and motivations of private citizens engaged in an otherwise legal activity. Turning down an applicant for a job is obviously legal. Under no circumstances should it become illegal just because the hiring manager can’t justify his reasoning to the satisfaction of a panel of government apparatchiks.

Furthermore, if TWU is free to require its students to abide by a code of conduct in accordance with their goal of being a Christian school—a freedom which I fully support—Amruk is fully within its rights to operate as a vehemently pagan anti-Christian organization. That includes the right of its operators to reply to job applicants with unprofessional bitchiness if they so choose.

As an aside, it’s bewildering that the girl even bothered replying after the first rejection letter. Their response though does offer some window into the confused minds of people who simultaneously romanticize the pre-Christian Norse culture while stridently proclaiming their exquisite sensitivity to “human-rights”. “Hello, we’re the Vikings and we’d like to sign a trade pact with you that will mutually benefit both of our diverse cultures while enhancing respect for tolerance and diversity…” But, back to the original point, nasty, bigoted emails aren’t and shouldn’t be illegal.

Finally, this isn’t the same situation as the run-ins the University has had with various teachers’ associations and law societies. There,the government had granted a certain body the ability to grant or withold accreditation necessary to practice a particular profession. Going beyond judging competence and ethics to using that power to enforce compliance with a particular position on contentious social and political issues should be grounds for the courts to tell them to knock it off.

Monday reading

For whatever reason, I lost interest in National Review a while back, but Kevin Williamson alone is worth the price of a digital subscription:

The lowest forms of literature are, in descending order: pornography, the staff recommendations at the Tribeca Barnes & Noble, diet/fitness books, celebrity cookbooks, books of poetry written by pop stars, and, at the bottom of this unsavory slag heap, political memoirs, which have all of the narrative sophistication of pornography with none of the enjoyable bits.

And it gets better from there.

The Charles Cooke stuff is good too, as is their joint podcast.