during the occupy moment, a number of activists got together to put together a "food not bombs" in downtown ottawa. during the winter months, it was cold out, so the idea of "serving" in city hall came up. i'll be blunt about my motives for looking into this: i was under the strong impression that there were undercover intelligence people involved in scoping out the remains of the occupy gathering, and i wanted to check the actual legality about gathering in such a space. i suspected we were being tricked into something with naive language about "reclaiming public space".

it turns out that ontario law actually explicitly specifies that the charter rights do not apply on city property or around provincial infrastructure, which includes things like electricity generating plants and some rail lines. for example, the right to not be searched is not recognized. one can be arrested without probable cause. this is actually under provincial anti-terror legislation that dates back to the bill davis era.

now, these laws are obviously unconstitutional. i suppose they've simply never been applied, because i couldn't imagine them withstanding a court challenge in the charter era - they're written as almost a direct refutation of the applicable charter rights. but, they're not as unheard of as mulcair is suggesting. they just harken back to an era before the charter. in some sense, i might actually like to see this bill passed and struck down to remove the looming spectre from the horizon.

personally, i tend to lean traditionally liberal on these issues. one would expect a liberal to react to legitimate short-term threats with a system of judicial review and a sunrise clause set forward. now, whether these specific threats are enough to justify legislative action is not something i can really comment on; despite my tendency to reject statist control, i have to recognize that there's not really a decentralized alternative at this point, and that even if we have our own foreign policy to blame for aggression against us then that doesn't in any way justify the death of civilians at a mall. it's less extreme than spanish anarchists supporting the republicans, but it's the same basic idea - if there's a legitimate threat of people blowing things up, there's no alternative but to work together. again: i'm not sure that's clear. but, if we allow it is true, then what's really important is that there's an endpoint - that these are temporary powers, subject to review and termination, rather than a carte blanche for a police state.

one would expect the conservatives to reject this argument, under the argument that threats are perpetual. in some sense, that's no doubt true, but this is where the subtlety of liberalism asserts itself - it necessitates the existence of a clear and present danger, not some abstraction that can't be pinned down.

on one hand, trudeau has said what he's supposed to say. on the other hand, he voted for it anyways. this has been the great problem with the liberals for many years. they say the right things, but their voting record is atrocious.

mulcair is doing something important here - he's presenting himself as the heir to the liberal tradition. and, in truth, the man is a liberal - in an actual, ideological sense, rather than having been born into something he's maybe a little unclear on. canadian liberalism is a purer breed of liberalism than exists anywhere else in the world. and, whether most of us are able to really formulate it when challenged or not, it's pretty culturally rooted - enough that we get it, intuitively. it's what we were raised into and what we want, whether we really realize it or not.

a lot of people are pointing this particular issue out as a vote changer. it might be. but if it is, it's people pining for a return to liberalism that the younger trudeau might not have the self-awareness to provide.

this power of positive thinking thing is truly strange to hear from a trudeau. it's almost like it's a ptsd reaction to his father's absolute assholery. pet didn't win elections with smiley faces and happy thoughts, he won them by bloodying the opposition. kind of more like harper, actually. and, this high road stuff is....well...

for years, i argued that the liberals were focusing too hard on winning the right, at the expense of the ndp's growing dominance on the left. i think what's happened is that the barrier has broken, and the ndp are reaching right across. that is to say that i think that mulcair is actually appealing more to right-wing liberals (both in style and substance) than trudeau is at this point, and trudeau is being pushed into second place across the board. from the bay street executive right across to the street protest anarchist willing to vote, mulcair is preferable.

an explanation for this is that he wasn't really appealing to the center-right in the first place, he was appealing to a combination of industry and what he imagined the center-right ought to think. right-wing liberals are going to be older, wealthy and focused on responsibility; mulcair's a far better fit, as these are the types that understand government's role in social policy as a means of pacification - a way to keep peace in society.

we haven't seen anybody command that kind of consensus (from the soft right to the moderate left) since chretien.

i was initially expecting harper to split them yet again, but it relied on trudeau holding the center.  i'm starting to lean towards a mulcair sweep, and the liberals coming out of the election with a small and very left-leaning rump.

also, he should have never cut his hair.

i mean, let's take a look at these people, and what they did before running for prime minister.

pearson - un envoy, amongst other things.
trudeau - cabinet minister, amongst other things
chretien - is there a portfolio he didn't have?
martin - finance minister
dion - many cabinet positions

now, let's look at these two:
ignatieff - read cue cards on tv
trudeau v 2.0 - umm...

now, look at mulcair:
- multiple cabinet portfolios in quebec, considered for leadership of quebec liberal party.

if you're a liberal that likes people like pearson & trudeau & chretien, who is more in their image - justin or mulcair? who are you honestly going to be more likely to support?

if that coalesces, if it gets into people's heads, if it sinks in, if it actualizes...

mulcair could win 200+ seats.

so, justin is against rage & slice control.

he is right on the terrorism legislation, though. the liberals are very subtle on this stuff - subtle enough that most people don't understand the clauses and rights logic. it's ideological liberalism of a sort that just doesn't exist anywhere else, but would be appealing to most if they could find a way to explain it.
empiricism? reason before passion, huh. hrmmn.

it's gotta happen, though.

you have to keep in mind that israel interprets gaza as a province of egypt because it's not a part of historical israel (it's where the "philistines", who were probably greek settlers, lived). their ideal solution is to convince egypt to annex the region. but, egypt just sees an expensive problem.

this insistence of israel to negotiate with egypt is more than an anti-hamas thing, or a convenient way to generate pretexts.

also, vijay, i think you want to look into israeli arms sales to china. the americans don't like this, of course. but it happens. and the russians help keep it a little under the radar.

on top of that, bringing israel into the syrian conflict would be a headache for everybody - including israel.