THE BURKA

I have been meaning for some time now to deal with the Burka and now that it is back in the news of late, it is probably timely to do just that.

As a Libertarian, you can no doubt imagine that basically I have no difficulty with a mature woman wearing a Burka, if that is what she wishes to do. It is her decision and in most cases she is not hurting anyone but herself by so wearing one. Ergo - let her go to it.

I can hear your comments as I write - i.e. 'but it isn't her decision - rather it is her husband's or father's decision and she is simply knuckling under to male authority'.

Perhaps.

But I think it is dangerous to assume the motives behind one's actions. Moreover, even if it is the case that she is being forced to wear such archaic garb, it is up to the woman herself and women generally in similar circumstance to rise up against this supposed religious custom.

Indeed, there are more and more instances reported where Muslim women are doing just that - both here in the modern word and more importantly, in their old countries.

It took the Suffragettes to secure the right to vote for women and it will take the muslim women to caste off their cloaks of submission and male domination.

That is not to say I believe the Burka can be used to hide behind in every instance. The following are some of the times when the veil must be lifted:

• Photo Id for drivers' licences, health cards, and proof of citizenship for voting.

In addition, French President Sarkozy was correct when he banned the Burka from French schools. There is no way our teachers should be expected to teach a child when all they see is two eyes peering out at them.

In fact, I would outlaw Burkas for children generally since they are not of age to give consent. An adult woman is quite another matter, as I have noted above.

Should an adult woman though decide the Burka is not for her, our society must come to her aid and protect her from retribution.

I truly believe, if we as a society stick to the above approach, the days of the Burka are numbered, both here and around the world.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

Her Majesty the Governor General

I have received some e-mails wondering if I was on holidays - I was not, but did take a little break over Thanksgiving. Now back to Blogging - there are so many topics to deal with.

Today, our GG.

When first appointed, I was dumbfounded that our then Prime Minister would appoint someone with so little ties to this country. Plus the one tie she did have, was to Separatism. Perhaps this was not so surprising given that he is the leading candidate for the worst PM in modern Canadian history. (More on this later)

It is not that I am down on immigrants since indeed we are all products of immigration, including our Aboriginals.

The reason I was so opposed the appointment was due to the fact that Madame Jean was not steeped in our Democratic Monarchy. To me, it was like appointing an orderly to do brain surgery.

Her first major test took place when Harper came to her for permission to prorogue Parliament. She erred in allowing him to do so. It was blatantly apparent to everyone that he had lost the confidence of the House and was using Prorogation solely to avoid losing a Non-Confidence Vote. He should not have been allowed to do so.

It is a testament to the public's high esteem for the Office of the Governor General that it could survive such a blunder. Ironically, it also reinforced the continued need for this Office.

This was followed by numerous trips here in Canada and around the world. The domestic trips were in order and in fact, well received. As the Queen's representative, here in Canada, the need for her to fly around on foreign junkets though was lacking. It culminated when she tried to upstage the Queen at the D-Day ceremonies in France. She should have known better but given her lack of background perhaps it was not surprising.

More recently, she has proclaimed herself to be Canada's Head of State despite the fact that even a cursory knowledge of our Constitution would dispell that belief. Plus hopefully the lady would have advisors who, unlike herself, would know better.

There is therefore nothing innocent in her attempt to accede this status unto herself.

We are governed by symbols and tradition as much as we are by Acts and Regulations. Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that the former trumps the latter - especially in times of crisis. To have a novice, albeit a very pretty one, hold such a critical and sensitive position has negative ramifications for us all.

As I see it..

"Galagher"

P.S. More test results in - they favour the Libertarian approach.

Speaking of Smoking...

Did you hear on the news last eve that a trucker, here in Ontario, has been fined $150 for smoking in his own truck? What nonsense.

The rationale put forward by big government (add intrusive) is that the truck is his "work place" and hence, he is forbidden to smoke in it. From what I know about big trucks is that they are also the trucker's home when on the road.

This is just one example, among countless, of governments invading the privacy of individuals when those governments get too big for their britches.

The other day I was walking past the local Legion when I noticed 4 - 5 older legionaires sitting on the main steps smoking. I took a moment and went up to them to commisserate on the fact that as veterans they are not even entitled to smoke in their own private club.

They agreed with me but voiced the opinion that there really isn't anything that they could do to change it. I didn't disagree, but told them that in my opinion the Royal Canadian Legion had let them down by not negotiating an exemption for Canada's veterans. They nodded their agreement and went on puffing away.

In the case of our veterans you have a history of our government handing our free cigarettes to our troops during war time and then making them available at very favourable prices throughtout their military service generally. Then when they are older and good and hooked on the weed, they make it illegal for them to enjoy a smoke in the comfort of their own premises. How low can one go?

And it is not due to the deleterious affect of second- hand smoke. Smoking rooms can now easily be equipped with proper ventilation. Rather it is once again due to Big Brother Government believing it knows best for its children - I mean citizens.

I remember at the start of the government's campaign to target smokers telling my wife Anne that the day will come when Big Macs will also come within their sights. I really thought to myself, it quite unlikely - but the day did come.

In my mind, it all started with seat belts and it has been down hill from that time forward.

More lately, government is looking to regulate the amount of salt in our diets. We'll soon have the Salt Police. Here in Ottawa, we are prohibited from cutting trees on our own property without a permit - a permit that requires an arborist's report. Herbicides to control weeds on our own lands are forbidden. Vasts tracts of property can be rendered worthless by various environmental designations with the land owner receiving no compensation but still expected to pay realty taxes on the useless property. The list goes on and on.

What will they target next? Alcohol? Probably. But when that's accomplished, there will be something else and then something else again.

This is all being done in the guise of Big Government protecting you, the helpless individual.

We have all heard of the 'bubble child" - the child who has so many allergies that he or she cannot leave their homes without being wrapped in some protective bubble. If we do not start to push back soon, the day will come when we all will be placed in bubbles by our government for our own protection of course.

A novel thought to leave you with - who is better placed to protect you, than you yourself.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

What are the Provinces Smoking?

Four of our Provinces have come out with law suits against the Tobacco Companies totalling billions of dollars for alleged costs to their health care systems due to cigarette smoking.

Ontario alone is seeking some $55 billion for smoking related illnesses dating back to the mid 1950s.

What hypocrites.

Not only have they known for several decades - and indeed we've all known - that cigarette smoking affects one's health, the Provinces have partnered in the tobacco trade by way of their horrendous tax levies. Ontario today is collecting over a billion dollars annually in tobacco taxes.

Plus the trade in tobacco is legal and it is the politicians who have allowed it to be so. Maybe they should be included in their own law suit writs.

Many I know have said they support the government in its efforts to squeeze money out of tobacco because smokers are a drain on the health care system. But are they?

A chap I used to work with - Del - was and probably to this day is a heavy smoker. He used to say to me that he, as a smoker, was deserving of a medal. First because of all the taxes he was paying for the privelege of smoking (i.e. he was overly supporting the tax regime) and Second, because of the nature of smokers' diseases, they died more quickly than most and thereby spared the system countless millions in lingering care.

He might be right. If you ask health care experts where the bulk of health care dollars are spent they readily admit it is on the elderly and their chronic conditions that can linger for years. By then, the smokers are long gone.

So maybe the Dels of this country do deserve a medal for their patriotic smoking.

But the Provinces do not deserve one penny in the efforts to extort money from their Tobacco partnership buddies.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

Results so far re the Libertarian Test

Approximate %:

40% Libertarian

40% Centrist

10% Liberal

10% Conservative

0% Statist (NDP)

If these per centages change signifcantly in the days ahead - I will let you know.

In the meantime, there are 2 questions under the Economic Section of the Test that I would like to comment on.

The First is the question that asks if government's role in welfare should be replaced by the private sector?

It is easy to see here that the Libertarians would hope for a 'yes' answer to this question - but they would be wrong. As I said in the very beginning of my Blog - what I am putting forward is the concept of 'Humane Libertarianism'. In other words, making help available for those truly in need. This is a responsibility of government and not the private sector. Indeed, all citizens are entitled to some very basics, things such as food, clothing, proper shelter and health care and this is the sole responsibility of a nation's government.

So my answer to that question was 'No'.

And, if Libertarianism is to take hold, here in Canada or the United States, the movement must get a firm handle on that very important issue.

The Second Question I would like to highlight is the one which asks if you support the concept of a 50% reduction in taxes and government spending. I answered in the affirmative.

From my 25 years in government I have come to the conclusion that upwards of 20 - 25% of the bureaucracy could disappear tomorrow and no one would notice. But that is not the main reason I believe a massive reduction in the size of government / amount of taxes is doable.

The main reason is twofold: first, government is trying to do way too much. For example - bailouts to business. Here I agree with former NDP Leaders David Lewis and Ed Broadbent when they stood against corporate welfare. It not only offends the principle of capitalism (i.e. propping up failures), it is unfair to those taxpaying competitor companies which do not share in the largesse.

Another example is government financial assistance for the Arts. If the private sector should not be involved in welfare - they should be involved in the arts. Government should not be.

Second, at least 50% of what Government does, can and should be done by the Private Sector. And, rather than look at what those areas are, let's consider the smaller list - the one that includes those areas government should concern itself with, including:

• defence
• external affairs
• immigration
• police / fire
• welfare
• regulatory oversight of the private sector

I think if Libertarians can articulate these two positions to the public there may be hope for us yet. The alternative is one of bigger and bigger government and that is in no one's interest other than the bureaucracy it serves.

As I see it.

"Galagher"

A Very Short 'Libertarian' Test

I would encourage each of you to take the f0llowing test to determine whether or not you fit within the Libertarian spectrum.

My own score was 90% libertarian personally and 70% libertarian economically.

If you are agreeable, I would be interested in receiving your respective scores. Just use the e-mail reply function at the top of the Blog page.

"Galagher"

The test site - http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/

Guest Author - Value of Real Money and Kids Today

Following is an e-mail I received earlier today from a life-long friend which I thought you would find interesting.

"Galagher"

"Galagher,

You and I are a couple of good old boys from Brighton. I feel that we both grew up in families that really understood not only the concept of money, but also the true value of money. What I mean by 'true value' is how it is earned and the means by which it is earned. This being Men and Women such as our parents and Ourselves going out working hard during tough times.

This made me think of the days our our youth when we would scour the ditches for empty pop bottles and take them to Bonisteel's little grocery to get our two cents or treats in return. The many of cold night we worked together after school or on Saturdays deliverying the Stedmans' flyers all over town for half a cent a flyer. We both knew and understood the idea and value of money. We had coins in our pockets and sometimes even bills in our wallets.

Sadly, this is not always true of kids today. Too often kids think that money is magical and comes from plastic cards, be it Visa or MC or even a Bank Debit Card. They see their parents pulling out these plastic cards and getting merchandise without any actual currency changing hands. They are not being taught the importance of having actual funds in their own pockets or wallets, nor do kids today really grasp the value of the services or the merchandise their parents are buying. Kids simply do not get it. It is magic for them; they never see the items actually being paid for by real money.

I have often wondered why when I purchase something, the young student at the cash does not count my change when handing it to me. This simply does not happen in today's society with kids working in the various retail outlets. It is due to the fact that they are ignorant (not their fault) as to how to count change. Schools and retailers do not teach them that, plus they do not completely understand what cash in hand is. The older cashiers still count the money back for the most part since they have been trained and they understand it.

Linda and I got into a discussion today on this very subject and we both agree with an article that was in the paper early this week. This article basically said what I have just said, Kids today do not know, grasp or understand how money is earned. The cashless society and all those credit / debit cards are taking away a vital knowledge from our children.

Thank god, we grew up in the age when we did."

Thank you John.

P.S. John mentioned Bonisteel's grocery. It brought back a memory to me. Right beside their grocery store was a pop bottling works. They would throw out, back of their building, damaged pop bottles - i.e. ones they believed could no longer be refilled. As kids we would scour through those 'damaged' bottles and pick out the ones that were least 'damaged'. And then it was off to Bonisteel's to cash them in for 'real' money. I have wondered how many times some of those damaged bottles got recycled due to our efforts. G