Do these Provocateurs know something we do not about peaceful vs violent protest?

I too read today the news as it unfolded about the police guarding the Montebello Summit arguably being caught red handed seeking to make peaceful protests into violent ones. Red Tory, who was all over this early in the day, posted this same link to live footage on You Tube of these alleged undercover cops. The video makes it seem they were planning to throw rocks and it shows them being "busted" by peaceful protesters.

Since hanging up my blogger activist shingle recently, I am preferring to consider mostly philosophical interpretations of certain situations rather than simply "as they appear" through conventional analysis. As such, my understanding of what is going on "above" and "below" the surface with respect to this situation differs from what I may have written previously about the police. You may recall that my emphasis would previously have been that the police represent one leg of the tripod called the "justice industry".... yada yada yada.

That is neither here nor there. I mention this really to demonstrate that I am still understanding and able to consider the conventional analysis within this broader philosophical framework. For example, it makes perfect sense that the police would need, possibly desire at many levels some justification to test their rubber bullets and tear gas. I also understand the long term macro interpretation that the police continuingly need to justify their existence by protecting against an "imminent threat" that rears its ugly head sometimes, possibly quite strategically. More specifically, I realise that violent protests justify the "big budgets" that have been spent on security in preparation for the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership. Furthermore, a riot would further justify the symbolic need for there to be a partnership in the first place, right? This is sound conventional analysis.

In considering this same situation and the respective motivations of the parties involved from a very different angle, one could elaborate on the subtleties that make activism (depending upon how it is executed) either a mechanism that can lead to fair change, or something that preserves the status quo. According to quantum science, protests as a part of activism need to be peaceful in order to be effective. Meanwhile protests that escalate to violence will by universal law undermine the very basis of the protest. Stated simply, those being protested against will always have a vested interest in a violent protest, since this is when universal laws make it so they are the least vulnerable to change.

How does this relate to protests staged at Montebello over the last few days in response to the North American Security and Prosperity partnership? Whether one is considering this situation from either conventional or philosophical perspectives, the protesters have a vested interest in being "peaceful", while the police, certain political players and our adversarial institutions have an interest in a protest situation that escalates and news coverage to distribute such images.

Both the footage of the event and the analysis that followed demonstrates that it is not implausible that proponents of enforcement and security would want to “stir it up” at such gathering in Montebello. This is perfectly straight forward and logical. What is less straight forward is the philosophical questions I leave you with here…

1. Are the benefits of a violent protest (ie. police testing toys, justifying their large budgets for security the need for a summit on a security) simply by-products resulting from the stimulation of certain universals laws that are far more precise than that of public opinion?

2. Did this alleged attempt by the police to manipulate the escalation of a peaceful protest into a violent protest backfire because of shifting public opinion or these universal laws?

I realise these questions are literally “the chicken versus the egg”. Nevertheless, where conventional analysis of these Montebello protests were represented by “the chicken”, and the philosophical analysis of this situation were represented “the egg“, any absence of a structured philosophical perspective and broader methodology would typically deny that “the egg“ ever existed.

Whether or not the conventional and philosophical interpretations of this situation express themselves via identical outputs (a backlash against process manipulation), we must weigh the order in which we consider those respective interpretations to be of primary or secondary importance (absolute or open to interpretation). Where some consider conventional analysis to be a matter of interpretation, proponents of the “philosophical lens” would consider their interpretation of this situation to be absolute, due mostly to the absoluteness of the methodology driving the interpretation.

My question in considering also the philosophical interpretation is this: were those behind the “provocateurs” (and with a desire to manipulate the protest) counting more on the possibility of swaying public opinion, or the precision of quantum theory to bring them victory in this situation? Conspiracy theorists want to know!

Mr. Dion please ask Mr. Harper: where is our political and corporate gender parity?

Has anyone else sought to understand why some very obvious inequities exist in our society? How come women collectively still make less money than men? Why are there so many fewer elected officials who are women than men? Why are the top corporate positions filled overwhelmingly with men more than women?

Quite rightly, measures have been taken at some levels to fix this. Legislation exists to preserve the principle of equal pay for equal work. Some political leaders, like Stephane Dion, are trying to undo this trend: Mr. Dion committed to running more Liberal women candidates in the next federal election (33% to be exact), to increase the percentage of women sitting in the House of Commons. The goal is to one day achieve gender parity.

What is Steven Harper doing to remove barriers for women who would like to serve and deserve to rise to senior political and corporate levels?

WHAT ABOUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR?

My observation about the private sector's role in all of this is also one that I gleaned long before I became one myself. As such, if the decision making attributes of the corporation were measured against the standards that are set for humans in our society, the corporation would be institutionalised because its decision making process is "anti-social". Compassion, empathy and forgiveness would never be tolerated at a board meeting if it took away from the 'sole' purpose of the corporation, which is profit. Charity and giving back to the community etc. (to be accepted by the corporate elite) would need to be ultimately about "marketing the goodwill" of the corporation for ultimate purpose of increased profits – otherwise it could never be justified). Tax write offs via charitable donations and/or the creation of foundations provide only "the illusion" that the corporation can behave in manner we would expect our most noble citizens to live up to.
With that being said, would anyone agree that the corporation has little incentive to on its own promote "gender parity" amongst its top executives, unless this objective could be shown to be either profitable or an effective manner to "market the illusion" of the one’s corporation having admirable human attributes compassion, sensitivity and fairness. Apart from that (or if it were quantifiably more profitable or legislated), is there any incentive for corporations to allow women to reach parity with men in the top corporate positions?

Are there any disincentives? Well, some men who already hold those jobs might feel threatened if access to their positions and closed business networks were made widely accessible to those who might currently considered "outsiders". What about those who feel women are less capable to perform in such positions because of their gender? What about those who believe the best place for women is in the home raising their children? What about those committed to preserving "patriarchy" in spite of the ever more powerful women's movement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms adopted in 1982.

For those most adamant about preserving patriarchy and the advantages that had been bestowed upon men (at the expense of women in business and politics) by those who founded our great nation, could there a way to institutionalise the preference by some that women are to be primarily in charge of the home and the children while men are in charge of everything else?

FEMINISM

When I was a graduate student I spent the better part of term reading and writing papers about feminism. I recall reading Rosemarie Tong's "Feminist Thought: a comprehensive introduction", which helped me to better understand the "big tent" called feminism and appreciate it for what it is worth.

In reading this I understood that most of feminism was about fairness, equality and other universal principles that are consistent with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Tong's premise is that only one branch of feminism, Radical Feminism" is either about blind advocacy, reverse discrimination or possibly "man hating".

The original feminist, recently deceased co-founder of the National Organisation of Women Betty Friedan, split with others in the feminism movement years ago because it was taken over by radicals / and or special interests. Ironically, some of these special interests are groups of both men and women whose objective is either about institutionalising patriarchy and/or giving women outright advantages with respect to their homes, children, marriages - all matters having to do with the family. Please consider that there are also women who are proponents of patriarchy (sometimes euphemised it as chivalry) and would take the key to unlock the door that gives them domestic power even if it means foregoing the key to unlock the door that would give them political or corporate power.

With that being said, the feminist movement is still on many pages when it comes to defining what is equality and which advantages in society the Collective would most like to pursue. This lack of unanimity and polarisation within the feminist movement has left the door open to some - who for the sake of simplicity I will describe as "old boys" - to determine which advantages shall be bestowed onto women and which will not.

THE JUSTICE INDUSTRY: THE MOST POWERFUL LOBBY OF ALL

To what extent the State should be involved in helping to sort out complex situations affecting lovers, married persons and of children is a topic where there could be much debate. Some persons, such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau, were adamant that the State has no role in the bedrooms of Canadians. This left the door open to modifications in our laws to allow same sex couples to find a legitimate place in our society.

However, the opposite is true with respect to when the State becomes involved matters of the family affecting Canadians who choose to separate or divorce. The State is arguably “way too involved”. Why? It is profitable for the police, the lawyers and the judges – collectively “the justice industry”.

When it comes to shaping our public policy, the “gun” and / or “pharmaceutical” lobbies have got nothing on the “justice lobby”. After all, the “justice lobby” has infiltrated our governance processes including how we formulate our public policy and what it is that we legislate and how. Given who it is who is involved, is it implausible to consider that public policy is sometimes made to also consider of the funding / profit and /or other benefits that would benefit the police, lawyers and judges?

Policing for profit: a gender based approach to domestic violence

We have seen recently corruption with the police at the level of the RCMP with misappropriation of its pension fund monies. We also saw last week a murder – suicide committed by Acting Inspector Kelly Johnson of the London Police, who was responsible for the domestic violence file at that institution, whose whole philosophy in policing is that “men are the aggressors” and “women are the victims”. This is in spite of the fact that these are patriarchal assumptions that are contradicted by a study of 177,000 cases domestic violence cases by Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach. Dr. Fiebert examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.

What is the truth? ... and why the spin?

Opportunism by lawyers...

We have seem an entire industry of lawyers change their areas of preferred practice to “ride waves of litigation”. Where insurance became less viable for many with no-fault insurance becoming the norm in parts of the country and changing rules around the laws of tort, family law has become more and more popular and more and more profitable. In the early 1980s, the movie Kramer versus Kramer with Dustin Hoffman and Merryl Streep highlighted the vulnerabilities persons undergoing divorce face personally, financially and with respect to their families. The result, find a good lawyers or else.

In Canada, the State and the adversary system (lawyers, judges and courts) rightly or wrongly become involved in complex family breakdowns where finances and children needed to be shared. Is this the best way for “families in transition” with or without children to resolve their differences? Perhaps such intervention should be restricted to cases where a husband or wife is not “being fair” with respect to finances and / or children and according to “objective criteria”. There are rules that could be applied via mediation of other dispute resolution mechanisms to standardise the outcomes without the need for persons who once loved one another to become entrenched, make decisions out of fear or an adversarial process.

But where would that leave the too many lawyers who compete for too little work?

The Judiciary: loyal to "blind justice" or to the lawyers they once were?

In a common law system, jurisprudence is where judges build upon and use the decisions of other judges to justify future decisions. Current Supreme Court Justice Rosalie Abella had a progressive career as both an Ontario Supreme Court judge and an Ontario Court of Appeal judge. Two decisions from time when Justice Abella was a rising star judge seem to have led to the justice industry having almost exclusive control over those families who choose to divorce:

1. if either one does not seek independent legal advice when settling a family matter, the Court can overturn that agreement at the request of the plaintiff or the defendant (so you had better get a lawyer).

2. If it can be shown that either party did not do “full financial disclosure” the court can re-open an agreement to re-distribute monies 10 or even 15 years later.

Such jurisprudence forces Canadians to use more the courts in matters of the family, making it expensive financially and emotionally. On the other hand, many persons argue the State has no legitimate role apart from levelling the playing field, especially if these two underlying assumptions are upheld: 1. that it is in the children’s best interest to have meaningful relationships with both parents; 2. that partners in a marriage both have roles and responsibilities with respect to the home, family and children, as well as the finances.

IS PATRIARCHY AT THE HEART OF OUR FAMILY LAW SYSTEM?

The Court and the adversary process can become inappropriate in matters of the family post charter when certain patriarchal principles drive it. Even though there was a time (way back when patriarchy was accepted and expected) when parents, typically bread-winning men, could leave their families in the lurch following a divorce. That is why laws were created to protect against persons who do not honour their family responsibilities. At that time, the tender year’s doctrine protected the special relationship between mothers and their children.

With the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, patriarchy was forced underground. At the same time, the appropriateness of "tender year’s doctrine" wore off with the entry of women at equal levels into the workforce, the frequency with which men care for their children while their wives work, the discovery that special relationships also exist between children and their fathers.

So, how can it be that, with all other things being equal, gender is the single most important factor in the determining of child custody in Canada in 2007?

Is it unreasonable to think the main reasons for this are:

1. profits for legal industry;
2. continued corporate and political power for “old boys” who believe the place for women is "in the home" and "with the children"?

WOULD FIXING FAMILY LAW ALLOW WOMEN TO BE EQUAL?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about removing race, religion, language, age, gender etc. from how our policies and laws treat the various issues facing Canadians. If justice is going to be blind, (a fundamental principle of our justice system) merit and need, not gender and/or entitlement needs to be the factor used by judges in determining who receives primary care of their children and who pays support to whom. As such, the role of women “in the home with the children”, as “caregivers not breadwinners” would no longer be forced upon (or taken advantage of) by men and women who choose to divorce by the State.

If the principles of the Charter were treated as a set of standards designed to filter out unacceptable or biased policy and practices, the “justice industry” would not be able to succeed in continuing to deliver a gender biased family law system under the auspices of “keeping justice blind”. Spin, such as the best interest of the child is to be with the mother apart from extra-ordinary situations, could then no longer be used successfully to bypass (veto) the Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it comes to matters of the family, which has been a common justification for a really unfair system.

Should 50% of Canadians who divorce be forced into traditional roles as defined by their gender?

Is the world considerably more patriarchal post divorce?

Is life after divorce (i.e. following when one has been trapped by and dealt with by justice industry) very different?

Does the State build in the obligation for men of divorce to support the family by forcing them to be proficient at the level of the corporation?

Does this mean there is less room for women at "corporate clubs", who may have no choice but to stay home or hang out with those who garner less influence?

Would breaking this trend liberate us from institutionalised patriarchy via the justice industry's approach to dealing with matters of the family?

CONCLUSION

Would such changes to remove “gender” from all decision-making as per the Charter really have an impact on the extent to which women have greater access to political and corporate power? It would certainly stop stereotypes around roles being reinforce by our institutions. It possibly could make "merit" and "need" the most important factors in determining who does what with their lives.

Are all issues women’s issues? What about men’s issues? These are polarizing terms. If all issues were people issues, would it not be more about who chooses to play what roles as they positively contribute to our society?

Proponents of patriarchy as well as those who ‘profit’ from patriarchy in our society may not like this type of thinking. However, if we are going to live in a fair and just society, we cannot pick and choose what to favour and what to reject depending upon how it affects us personally. The tendency some of us have to try to manipulate processes under the aupicies of a fair and equitable system is where it all breaks down

The methodology we have adopted, legislated and are collectively proud of as Canadians is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why don’t we apply it fairly and universally and trust it will be to our advantage collectively and individually as Canadians?

Brothers, Sisters and Children, Happy Father’s Day 2007.

Edgewater Views.

Harper’s Failed Agenda: Murder / Suicide by police exposes spin and deception.

By now, many of you have heard the terrible story about the two police officers from London (Ontario) who were found dead in a van this week. It turns out the deaths were the result of a murder / suicide between two police lovers who worked with one another at the London Police Department.

The alleged murderer was Acting Insp. (Mrs.) Kelly Johnson, 40, a passenger in a vehicle driven by her former superior and lover, superintendent (Mr.) David Lucio, 57. It appears that Mrs. Johnson shot Mr. Lucia dead via a single bullet to his temple before she turned the gun on to herself. The van Mr. Lucia was driving then crashed into Mrs. Johnson’s apartment. Both police officers were found dead inside the van.

Acting Insp. Johnson had attained the highest rank of any female officer in the force. She was set next week to assume the position of inspector. She served for several years as the detective sergeant in charge of the sexual assault and child abuse section and supervised the force's domestic violence co-ordinator.

How can this be?

Even though she had seemingly gained the respect of many in the “anti-violence” community, it appears that it was known within the force that Acting Insp. Johnson had some issues of her own. She had multiple previous sexual relationships with her male colleagues at the London Police Department. She married and later separated from fellow London police officer, Steve Pearson. One account following the incident suggested Mrs. Johnson had been known to be “controlling and abusive” in her intimate relationships. Another suggested that she had used her gender and “sex appeal” to rise through the ranks of the London Police Department.

I quote Alfred William Watson from New Brunswick who wrote the following letter to the editor to the London Free Press site on Friday June 9th 2007.

“A married female officer was having a sexual affair with a married male officer. The female officer had risen quickly through the ranks, obviously too quickly, and was about to replace her retiring husband as a senior officer. The same female officer was sexually involved with an even more senior, married officer. Sleeping her way to the top as it were. All the participants in this incestuous police charade were heavily armed and had unrestricted access to restricted firearms.”

What did the Police Chief and “anti violence community” say?

In spite of eye witness accounts and some very strong evidence suggesting that Mrs. Johnson was the murderer, London Police Chief Murray Faulkner has been reluctant this week to assign blame his domestic violence protégé for the incident. Is this all the police chief could say to avoid “eating crow” in front of his community? In 2006 Chief Faulkner was quoted as suggesting that domestic violence is a gender problem directly attributable to men.

"The problem here is gender. The problem here is men,” Faulkner told a crowd gathered at city hall. “What is it to be a man in our society? We need to approach this as a gender violence (and) a man’s issue. We need to have some frank conversations, man-on-man ..." "The vast majority of us, who are not involved in these violent acts, need to stand up to these other guys and say, "Listen' this isn't what a man's about. Don't remain silent. That's the worst thing to do." ~ London Ontario Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, at a news conference in 2006 to launch the Mayor's Task Force to End Women Abuse.

Assistant Inspector Johnson was also well known by Ms. Megan Walker, Head of the London women's abuse shelter; facilitating the lodging of victims at the shelter was a part Inspector Johnson's role as the Head of domestic violence at the London Police. Ms. Walker’s job exists as a result of the funding allocated to protect against domestic violence. Given that London has no comparable shelters for battered men (due to an absence of advocacy funding for men like there is for women), she benefits from the “men are the abusers” approach to domestic violence taken by the London Police Department. When asked about the murder / suicide she said this: "It's just a great personal tragedy for both families, friends and loved ones and anyone who worked with either one of them," Is it suprising she is very neutral in her comments about this particular incident?

Is domestic violence really a gender issue or simply a people issue?

Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about removing race, religion, age, gender etc. from how our policies and laws treat the various issues facing Canadians. Yet, some of our police, politicians, governments (led by advocacy lobbies) insist that men are the problem when it comes to domestic violence. What is the truth?

In January I wrote the following (check out the link to see for yourself, please):

“There is considerable proof that the generalisation that "men are aggressors and breadwinners" and "women are victims and caregivers" is simply incorrect. For example, Martin S. Fiebert from the Department of Psychology at California State University, Long Beach examined 196 scholarly investigations, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the studies reviewed by Dr. Fiebert in helping him to conclude this exceeds 177,100.”

Then, why is it there are shelters for women and not for men? Why is the common policy by the police seems often to be about automatically assuming that “men are the perpetrators of domestic violence”, even if unsupported allegations are the sole source of information leading to an arrest. Why is there not another measure to navigate through a “he-said, she-said” situation than assuming that men are the aggressors and women are the victims?

Is this not really about using a “cookie cutter” to sort out complex family situations? If one gender is given the benefit of the doubt in such situations, where is the accountability to ensure that false allegations are not used as a matter of control? What if persons use this bias to create an advantage in case of divorce? What if this enables an emotional and / or physical abuser to continue abusing because their gender makes it so they will not be held to account by the State?

Does gender bias serve “justice industry”: police, lawyers and the judges?

Is all about Stephen Harper's "law and order agenda"? Or, is it bigger than that?

For those of you who have read my articles in the past, I am a very big proponent of finding remedies to gender inequalities that have affected women over the course of history. My 94 year old grandmother was not considered a “person” when she was born, and her Canadian sisters could not vote. I also recognise that many of these same gender inequalities continue to affect women in 2007. Women are not yet equal to men when it comes to pay or the top corporate positions. Women also represent a strikingly low percentage of elected members to the House of Commons.

I consider these facts to be travesties of our society. Why do some still exist now? Many “old boys” would not want to give up the advantages that had been bestowed upon them by their forefathers when they were faced with the women’s movement and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, especially when it comes to corporate and political power. Would it still be possible post Charter to preserve the hierarchies and principles of patriarchy?

If I were an old boy, one plausible remedy would be to “throw the women’s movement a bone” when it comes to having an advantage when it comes to matters of the family, divorce and domestic violence. If executed correctly, this could delay in perpetuity the pressing need to give up both corporate and political power, since much publicity elsewhere would distract from where the real problems lie for women in our society … and all one would have to do would be to sacrifice those men in our society who are vulnerable to divorce. In so doing, the “justice industry”, meaning the police, lawyers and judges can all profit from shifting power structures. This institution could conceivably be largely supported financially by a gender biased system, while allowing patriarchy to live on in our institutions and in our society.

If accepted by the women's movement and society at large, there would be the political impetus and pressure to design and implement family policy around the assumption that "men are the aggressors and the breadwinners" and "women are the victims and the caregivers". Would such policy foundations that are taken advantage of by both men and women not insitutionalise patriarchy post Charter? For women, is accepting this seeming advantage in matter of the family not a deal with the devil for those who yearn for equality and true gender parity?

Is advocacy funding part of the problem?

One obvious question is whether those who use advocacy monies to lobby governments, politicians and policy makers and influence the public via publicity are intending to promote patriarchy? An even better question is whether those who administer the distribution of advocacy monies willfully use it as an instrument to promote patriarchy?

I have five more questions that raise for me a doubt about the motives behind the law and order and justice agenda when it comes to family policy and domestic violence:

1. does an advantage for women on matters of the family, including domestic violence, insitutionalise women to come second in maters involving corporate and political power?
2. Does advocacy funding indirectly preserve this hierarchy in perpetuity?
3. Are advocacy monies responsible for creating a disadvantage for women outside of the home?
4. Do women who are seeking promotion and prominent careers still have to resort to "sex appeal" like some are now saying Kelly Johnson chose to do? This is even though she was still the highest ranking police woman in London, did the old boys make it that way by institutionalising patriarchy (a glass ceiling) and distributing the "pork" to those who sell out?
5. What about merit for talented women who deserve promotion who would in a pure and "free market" system represent 50% of top corporate positions and 50% of top political posititons?

Or, I would hate to think that anyone would say that women are less capable to lead corporately and politically. Affirmative action created a similar backlash in the United States that has kept some persons assuming that minorities and women were promoted for the wrong reasons.

In December 2006 I wrote:

The bottom line is that advocacy funding is only legal under the Charter if it does not put the rights of one gender ahead of the other. Therefore, it is inappropriate for these funds to flow to organizations who seek to delay further changes to the federal Divorce Act. All funding should meet the gender neutral standard demanded by the application of Canada's Charter principles.Some funding by the Status of Women has been paid to lobbies who seek to delay changes to the Divorce Act, especially since 1998, when a federal report recommended changes that would ultimately make "access" as much of a priority as "child support" in Canadian law and would arguably stop the unilateral flow of child support from men to women. The current situation has been preserved in part via advocacy funding. This is simply inappropriate due to its patriarchy.

I also wrote at that time:

In Canada, where Harper's conservatives have reopened the debate, it is essential that Liberals encourage the government either restrict the flow of advocacy funds to those organisations promoting gender discrimination, or fund men's groups who seek to change the Divorce Act for the sake of children, men, women and second families. Perhaps western democracies who make advocacy funding available to organizations that seek to make gains at the expense of the other gender should listen less to highly organized pitches and politics by certain lobbies and focus instead on the objective criteria of gender equality. Fairness would suggest that either advocacy funding must be made available to those seeking to make access a priority in family policy or restrictions on inappropriate gender funding are needed.

Conclusion

I hate to have to piggy-back on an absolute tragedy to demonstrate the problems that exist in our society with respect to which gender has the current advantage when it comes to matters of the family and who ultimately benefits from gender biased approaches to interpreting domestic violence. All I want anyone to take from this article is this:

1. Violence is a people issue not a gender issue.
   
2. Decisions about who sees their children should be made on the basis of merit not gender.
3. Family policy is set and continues to benefit Canada’s police, lawyers and judiciary and continues to hurt men, women, children from both first and second families.
4. In the meantime, women lack the corporate, institutional and political power they deserve in a fair and just society because the old boy’s well guarded solution to finding remedies to historical gender inequities lies once again at the level of the family, which furthers the patriarchy.

In a truly just society with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, men would not be absent of power in their home and in relation to their children and women would not be absent of power when it comes to pay, promotion or political representation.

Brothers and sisters, we should all be on the same page here.

Self preservation or the right thing to do? Senators block term limitations.

In a move that could be viewed as self-preservation, certain senators postponed again the passing of a bill that would limit Senate terms to eight years.

Stephane Dion supports term limitations for Senators. However, his plan would limit such Senate term limits to 12 years. This position by the Liberal Leader distances the new Liberal Party from certain mostly Liberal Senators who could be seen to be most concerned with their own career security given another bill proposing an elected senate that is on the table. Nevertheless, Dion's Liberals continue to oppose a separate Conservative bill proposing the election of senators.

In a bizarre and kind of ironic move, Stephen Harper intends to appoint his first so-called elected senator, Bert Brown, a Conservative, to replace retiring Liberal Senator Dan Hayes.

So let me get this straight: this is still a partisan move by Harper and it is still an appointment. The only difference is that Brown, a farmer from Kathyrn, Alta., once ploughed the message "Triple-E Senate or Else" into a barley field and was "elected" in a unilateral and un-recognised electoral process that has been taking place in Alberta since 1989. The first elected senator was appointed in 1990 by then-Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney. Mulroney appointed Stan Waters, the first elected Senate nominee in Canada.

Is this Stephen Harper's latest move to institutionalise conservatism in Canada? By again demonstrating a preference for optics over substance, Harper's government continues to be mostly about tactics and process manipulation. Could anyone tell me where or how this continuing 'dodgy' manoeuvring demonstrates any leadership by the current Prime Minister?