Poor voter turnout in municipal elections can be largely attributed to voter perception, or rather misperception, of their importance. Ask most people to order the three levels of government in order of importance from highest to lowest and most will probably cite the federal level as the most important, followed by provincial and finally municipal. The perception is that municipal politics is boring, doesn’t matter and that the larger issues are at the provincial and federal levels. That could not be more wrong.

Our municipal government is the level of government which affects us the most. If the federal government were somehow wiped out tomorrow, how long would its absence go unnoticed? Those receiving EI payments would notice within two weeks, but most of us probably wouldn’t miss the federal level of government for months. The same goes for provincial. The absence of a municipal government, however, would be noted almost immediately: there would be no garbage collection, no building permits, or no parking permits, among other things.

Because of the low level of interest in local politics, municipal government lends itself more easily to corruption. It is much easier to broker shady deals when nobody is looking. (No doubt the lack of a scrutinising opposition party also increases the likelihood of corruption.) We need voters to pay more attention to local politics so that corruption may be avoided. However, people often cite government corruption as a cause of voter apathy.

It’s a catch-22. How do we get people interested in local politics so that corruption is avoided, when the corruption is what repels them? I don’t have the answers, but I hope that it starts with an election like the one we saw in Toronto earlier this week. David Miller’s promise to clean up City Hall seemed to attract a lot of attention. If he is successful, it could rekindle interest in participation at the local level and, hopefully, increase voter turnout to non-abysmal levels.

That wannabe terrorists in Toronto could be planning to shoot down a civilian aircraft is disturbing news indeed. But just as disturbing was Mr. Collenette’s weak-kneed response — a case study of exactly how not to respond to threats of terrorism. Instead of questioning the future of El Al’s presence in Toronto, the Minister should have expressed his resolve to eradicate any threat.

Certainly, if the threat is real then all leads should be followed and investigated. However, until the threat disappears it would be irresponsible to allow subsequent flights to land at the Toronto airport. Doing so would be placing the passengers of El Al flights, not to mention people on the ground, in jeopardy. In a perfect world, we could eradicate this threat in an instant. Unfortunately, investigations take time.

The threat to El Al flights is not like the Los Angeles airport incident which the letter mentions — that could have been avoided through better airport security. This threat may not even come from within the airport itself; it could come from anywhere along the landing or takeoff path of an El Al flight.

Despite what some people may believe, acting with temporary precaution does not mean that the terrorists have won. The terrorists win when they successfully kill people or cause damage, thereby increasing fear. Rest assured that if El Al flights are temporarily diverted from Toronto, terrorists will not be jumping up and down and cheering. They will, however, be jubilant if they successfully down an El Al flight over Toronto simply because we did not take precautions.

I am, however, ashamed of Canadians who post to right-wing American comment forums and beg Americans to invade and “liberate” Canada. In many other countries, such talk would land you behind bars on charges of treason. Me, I’ll be civil and offer some advice. If you people dislike Canada so much, perhaps it would be best for your cause if you coordinated the attack from outside its borders. The rest of us will even help you pack your bags. Hell, we’ll even hide some prime BC bud in your luggage as a surprise to share with your friends at the Immigration and Naturalization Service¹!

¹Now a subsidiary of Homeland Security.

It was interesting to see how this decision was presented in the various newspapers. Not surprisingly, The National Post broadcast their opinion of the vote with the negative banner headline “Traditional marriage defeated”.

It is amazing that many in Canada feel that the gay marriage ruling is a ruling against traditional marriage, as the National Post headline implies. Indeed, Stephen Harper said as much in the presentation of his bill:

“This position is also very dangerous because, no matter what the Liberals say today, the kind of mentality that would have traditional marriage declared illegal and unconstitutional would inevitably endanger actual rights that are enshrined in our constitution, not merely read in, such as freedom of religion.”

Mr. Harper makes it seem that marriage between men and women will be outlawed or marginalised once marriage is redefined to be more inclusive. He then went on to mention the oft-repeated false assertion that churches would be eventually forced to marry homosexual couples:

“The Liberals and the justice minister say today that they will not touch the ability of churches, temples, mosques and synagogues to determine their own definition of marriage but these are the same people who said in the last election that they would never consider touching the definition of marriage itself.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the Liberal Party who agree with us in principle to think very carefully about this. If the Liberals and some of their front bench people now say that the traditional definition of marriage is illegal, immoral, discriminatory and racist, what will stop them? Why would they ever tolerate those who, through their religious institutions, believe otherwise?”

Churches in Canada have always been able to refuse to marry couples they do not wish to marry. Many churches will not marry those who are not members of their church, or those who have not been baptized. Some will refuse to marry couples if they do not approve of their character or their moral fibre, although this is often dependent on those performing the ceremony. Still others refuse to perform inter-faith marriages and some, although this is a very small minority, will not allow interracial marriages. Clearly, nobody is forcing churches to marry anyone.

On a related note, Svend Robinson introduced his bill to include homosexuals in the list of groups protected from hate crime. Thankfully, this one won by a comfortable margin of 141-110.

It’s interesting to note that when a similar issue was in front of the House in May of 1996, Stephen Harper voted against it, but voted for it this time around. Yet he attacked the PM on his change of heart since a 1999 motion almost identical to yesterday’s on the definition of marriage. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

On another somewhat interesting note, Progressive Conservative leader Peter MacKay endorsed Robinson’s bill:

Mr. MacKay told reporters that he supports Mr. Robinson’s bill because it modernizes laws that have not changed in 100 years.

MacKay voted yesterday to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, which has remained unchanged since the early 19th century. Sadly, the irony is lost on him.

It looks like Canada’s conservative parties will try to make gay rights an issue in the upcoming election. Brace yourselves if you think the hate being flung around in Ontario election campaign is bad. You haven’t seen anything until you’ve seen the right-wing and the bible thumpers participate in some good, old-fashioned, religious, homophobic hate-mongering. Thankfully, Svend Robinson thought ahead with Bill C-250. Now those anti-gay marriage types will be rounded up and sent to jail. Problem solved!

In these times, the idea of Québec sovereignty is a quaint one, especially given that Canada’s own sovereignty inside North America is at risk of completely disappearing. At least Québecers have a say in the running of our country, either through direct votes or through their representatives in Ottawa. You can bet your bottom dollar that if we ever found ourselves in a tight North American union, which seems to be a rapidly encroaching reality, that Canadian and Mexican voices would have no such representation. Clarkson sums this up nicely with the following paragraph:

The American colonies declared their independence from the British empire invoking the principle of No Taxation Without Representation (for themselves). But the American empire in the 21st century now insists on Continentalism Without Representation (for Canada or Mexico). And without representation in the seat of continental power, it’s obvious that neither country’s interests would be protected.

Here’s another nice quote:

To accept full labour integration would require including Canada and Mexico in a common security zone, with the frontier administered by officials integrated in U.S. data banks applying U.S.-dictated criteria to would-be immigrants.

Maybe we should let the sovereigntists have their fun. After all, in a decade or so it probably won’t make a difference.