Monday morning catch-up

In favour of Partisanship - Last Thursday, I opined how partisanship is understood to be an inevitable part of politics, and therefore we ought not be surprised that the cheque scandal was not gaining traction with voters. In Friday's Star, McMaster Professor John Varty went a bit further in his op-ed "I'm biased in favour of partisan politics." A few interesting excerpts:

I want no part of any politician who claims to be non-partisan. Not because I love partisanship per se, but because as a historian I know too well that nothing comes from nothing. There is no view from nowhere; yet politicians still clamour to convince us of their superhuman powers of disinterest and aloofness. All it really reveals is their collective capacity for hubris.

...

Of course, the idea/ideal of jettisoning partisanship is nothing terribly new; it is built into the nature of post-Enlightenment western political culture. No legitimate claim to truth and objectivity since the 19th century has managed to survive except via parallel claims of disinterest. It is astonishing, the extent to which appearing to have no position at all is now a dynamic feature of the very process of position formation. If you want, politics is largely about demonstrating the presence of absence. The whole discourse of partisanship has become too vapid for my taste and it is Canadians who are being played for fools.

Well put.

Trudeau on Diversity - Angelo Perischilli has an interesting interview with Justin Trudeau . While the whole piece is interesting from a political junkie perspective, I found the following quote on page 4 most intriguing:

Q How far do we have to accept diversity? “In terms of accepting a different custom or habit or culture or way of dress, I believe that we have to be very open to that. But one thing we shouldn’t be open to is anything that goes against any values that define us as Canadians. A simple thing: the right of freedom of expression, freedom of religion, the right of equality of men and women. These issues are not negotiable. So, yes, we are more than welcoming to someone coming from other parts of the world, and practice their religion, set up their temples and their mosque and practise the way they want, as long as they are abiding by our common values and principles around equality between men and women, respect about other people’s beliefs and religion.There is a classic line that is my freedom to swing my arm about ends where your nose begins. There is a set core of values that anyone who comes to this country needs to respect and abide to. And it has nothing to do with your religion, creed, colour of your skin, or the way you look. It has everything to do with the kind of values you live by.”

Trudeau rightly raises an important issue: if you want to retain freedom, there are limits in giving freedom to people who will use that freedom to take away freedom. Yet, there is a challenge in limiting freedom since in our times when "Canadian values" are seen to be relative and subject to constant redefinition, it is possible to use this argument to take away freedoms from those who use them to take positions we disagree with (even profoundly), but are not in themselves a threat to freedom. That line is a delicate and challenging one to draw.

Sad for St. Thomas - I was raised on a farm about 10 kilometers from the St. Thomas Ford Assembly Plant and it was the dominant employer in the community in which I grew up. Imagining the economy of the community without Ford was not in the realm of realism growing up. So news on the weekend that the plant is closing serves as a reminder that the times are indeed changing. I know from family and friends living in the community that it already faces economic challenges and this is only going to add to these.