Mediaboss Marketing

The Liberal government has agreed to hold an emergency parliamentary committee hearing on Canada's ability to defend itself against an attack by North Korea, including whether the government should join the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

The Conservatives and NDP called on the House of Commons defence committee to study the North Korean threat amid an escalation of tensions between the United States and North Korea. The Liberal members of the committee agreed on Tuesday to hold an emergency meeting on the matter before Parliament resumes on Sept. 18, although an exact date has not been set. The committee will hear from government officials and subject-matter experts on Canada's ability to defend itself and its allies against a North Korean attack.

"Canadians are talking about North Korea and what's been going on and they want to know answers to some of those questions," Liberal committee member Mark Gerretsen said.

Story continues below advertisement

The meeting comes after a series of tit-for-tat threats between the U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. Earlier this month, Mr. Trump threatened "fire and fury" upon North Korea after Pyongyang conducted two intercontinental ballistic missile tests in July.

The war of words between the United States and the hermit country has reignited a debate over whether Canada should consider joining the American ballistic missile defence (BMD) system a matter that will likely be discussed at the parliamentary hearing.

Video: U.S. pleased by North Korea's restraint: Tillerson (Reuters)

"Given the fact that North Korea has been toying with missiles, I think ballistic missile defence would be something that would most definitely come up," Mr. Gerretsen said.

Former prime minister Paul Martin originally opted not to join the U.S. program in 2005. The Conservatives also refused to join when they were in power from 2006 to 2015. In its recent defence-policy review, the Liberal government said Canada will continue to remain outside of the U.S. anti-ballistic missile program. Mr. Gerretsen said it is time to revisit that position.

"Given the threats that are continuing to emerge in the world and the fact that over the last number of years Canada has not been a participant when the United States is pretty much running the show with respect to missile defence, we should be having an ongoing discussion about what our role should be in that. And I think 10-years plus after the fact is a timely opportunity to have that discussion again."

Mr. Gerretsen said he does not know if other Liberal caucus members share his "personal" views.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan's office said that while government remains committed to its position on BMD, it noted ballistic missiles are just one of a variety of threats being considered as Canada and the United States work to modernize the North American defence system.

Story continues below advertisement

Story continues below advertisement

"The new [defence] policy commits the Government of Canada to examining, through NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] modernization, territorial defence against all perils, including threats from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and other future technologies to provide Canadians with greater security at home," spokesman Jordan Owens said.

The Conservatives said they are waiting to hear from government officials before taking an official position on Canada's involvement in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

"It's up to the government of Canada to make a determination of how best to protect Canadians. And we will wait and see what that position is before we make any recommendations on any future engagement with defence co-operation with the United States and other NATO allies in how we deal with North Korea and other rogue states," said James Bezan, a Conservative committee member.

The NDP opposes Canada's participation in BMD. Foreign affairs critic Hlne Laverdire said Canada should instead focus on encouraging a diplomatic solution through talks with North Korea and allies, notably the U.S.

View post:
Liberals agree to hold emergency meeting on North Korea threat - The Globe and Mail

The Washington Post published a piece today offering a perspective on free speech by history professor Jennifer Delton.Ive read this piece twice now and Im still not sure I follow it. Partly because it seems to be on both sides of the issue and partly because the authors arguments seem self-contradictory at times. The piece opens with a dilemma for college administrators:

Heres the dilemma college presidents face in the fall: Either uphold free speech on campus and risk violent counterprotests, or ban conservative provocateurs and confirm the freedom of speech crisis on campuses.

A few paragraphs later the author writes this:

As college presidents try to figure out whether the First Amendment protects conservatives right to create political spectacle and instigate violence, it might be useful to recall another time when American liberals were forced to sidestep First Amendment absolutism to combat a political foe: the 1940s, when New Deal liberals purged U.S. communists from American political life.

Ive highlighted that phrase because its a cheat. In the first paragraph, the author puts the danger down to violent counterprotests. Thats a reference to the actions of left-wing groups in response to speech, i.e. what we saw at Berkeley. But a few paragraphs later, responsibility has shifted to the right for instigating the violence. Instigating itin what way? Byspeaking?

Once youve made theleap to blame the rights speech for the lefts violence, its only a short hop to the claim that maybe the left should sidestep First Amendment absolutism. Deltons main thrust is that some speech is actually part of a grand conspiracy which justifies treating it differently:

Historians remain divided about the pros and cons of American communism, but most agree that the party often operated in secret and that it was directed and funded by Moscow. Communists denied this, of course, but the partys activities were the basis of Hooks contention that the CPUSA was a conspiracy, and thus not protected by the First Amendment although its ideas were. Hook didnt think thatthe state should ban the Communist Party (which would be unconstitutional and ineffective), but that private citizens and institutions should shun and expose communists, denying them the opportunity to further their political agenda.

Is there a grand conspiracy behind both Milo Yianoppolis and Ben Shapiro speaking on college campuses? These are two individuals who have been publicly at odds with each other for some time. In any case, if we translate Deltons advice to the modern day, she seems to be recommending that progressives treat the rights speech on campus as a conspiracy which thereby justifies doing exactly what the left is already doing, i.e. denying their opponents opportunities to speak. She doesnt use the phrase hate speech to justify this, but the outcome is the same. This next bit may be my favorite though, continuing where the last paragraph left off:

Subsequent liberals (and most of my professors) condemned these anticommunist liberals for opening the door to McCarthyism and Cold War militarism. But given our current political moment and the threat posed by the actions of alt-right provocateurs, Schlesingers and Hooks arguments may bear revisiting.

In short, when liberals did this before it worked out badly, but maybe itll be different this time. Thats not much of a recommendation.

It would be one thing if Delton was simply arguing liberals should continuing doing what theyve been doing on the grounds that the right is responsible for the lefts violence. I think thats very misguided and unfair, indeed its an endorsement of the hecklers veto, but at least its a clear position. But Delton closes her piece by taking another jarring turn. She cites Jonathan Haidt to make the point that, actually, free speech really is under threat on campus from left-wingidentity politics:

At the same time, however, colleges and universities need to recognize that their liberal critics of, say, diversity policies or Title IX excesses are not political foes and should not be subject to censorship or censure. One reason the right has been able to so effectively exploit free speech is because campuses have become places where the free exchange of ideas has been curbed by peer pressure, self-policing and a self-righteous call-out culture, as described by Jonathan Haidt,Jonathan ChaitandMark Lilla. Until university presidents offer real leadership inreconciling the liberal critique of identity politicswith a new generation of diverse students, faculty and staff for whom such politics representprogress, they will be unable to protect their institutions from conservative attacks.

So to sum up her advice tocollege administrators: They should a) prevent the right from speaking to stop left-wingers from responding violently and b) preserve free speech on campus which is genuinely under pressure from left-wing identity politics. If administrators hope to untie that Gordian knot they better bring a sword.

Read the original:
Washington Post perspective: Liberals should stop being free ... - Hot Air

The MPP for Nipissing is questioning the Ontario Liberals math in their quarterly financial report. The report shows that during the first quarter, Ontarios real Gross Domestic Product grew one percent for this year, which is better than the rest of Canada and all the G-7 countries. However Vic Fedeli says something doesnt add up. Fedeli says the Conference Board of Canada says Ontario will see lower growth, the Financial Accountability Officer has concerns about the Liberals economic forecast and so does the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The Tory finance critic says considering the Liberals have been wrong numerous times in the past, he says with this latest go round, hes ignoring their claims and going with the outside experts. In the report, the Liberals also play up the fact they have balanced the budget which translate into better health care. They say because the budget is balanced, the annual interest the province pays on its total debt remains at $11.6 billion. However Fedeli says the Liberals balanced the budget by using the proceeds from the sale of Hydro One. He adds after the Hydro One money is used up well be back in a deficit and he adds even the FAO has expressed a similar concern. The Liberals also maintain Ontarios real GDP will increase 2.7 percent this year which is higher than the 2.4 percent they forecast earlier.

More here:
Fedeli on Ontario Liberals' finance report - My North Bay Now - My North Bay Now

South Surrey-White Rock MP Dianne Watts at a 2013 State of the City address in Surrey. (Black Press files)

Former Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts sits as the favourite to replace Christy Clark as the BC Liberal leader, according to a new survey.

At 39 per cent, the Conservative South Surrey-White Rock MP is nine points ahead of Vancouver-False Creek MLA Sam Sullivan, 11 points ahead of former finance minister Mike de Jong, and 15 points ahead of Richmond-Queensborough MLA Jas Johal.

The figures comes from an Insights West poll published Tuesday.

READ: MP Watts tweets photo from hospital bed

As the former mayor of Surrey, Watts could improve the Liberals fortunes in an area where they lost votes at least in part thanks to the NDPs promises to nix bridge tolls and reconsider the Massey bridge.

Watts also pulled strongly ahead with baby boomers: 49 per cent of them want her as leader ahead of anyone else. Watts has not responded to repeated requests for comment from Black Press.

READ: Surrey BC Liberals look beyond their caucus for next leader

Neither former transportation minister Todd Stone nor former education minister Mike Bernier were memorable to those polled. Only 39 per cent recognized either.

The Liberals are gearing up for their leadership race. The partys executive met in Vancouver on Sunday to work on the leadership election process and appoint a rules committee.

@katslepian

katya.slepian@bpdigital.ca

Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Read the original post:
Ex-Surrey mayor Dianne Watts top pick to lead BC Liberals: poll - Barriere Star Journal

InMark Lillas new book The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics, he argues that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Its a sentiment that evolved from his highly controversialarticle in The New York Times,published just after Donald Trump was elected president, in which he wrote that movement politics and the celebration of difference have become a disaster for the Democratic Party and left-liberal politics in general. Lilla spoke with Salons Amanda Marcotte about regaining voters and power, and the Democrats adopting a more inclusive message.

On where Democrats get it wrong:

Weve been losing for 30 years, so obviously were doing something very, very wrong, and I think part of it is thinking of the institutional politics as coalition-building. If we think of politics on our side as coalition-building and simply ascending groups, we will not get to the state where we need to, which is to articulate a vision.

And we also have to remember movement politics in this country is happening in the glare of right-wing media. Now, this is a fact of our lives, and we cant wish it away, and we cannot ignore it. If were serious about winning back people, lets say people who voted for Obama and then voted for Trump, and having a message that they might go for, we have to get our act together, and not act like this is just a festival, or its about self-expression.

On moving forward and seizing power on aninstitutional level:

We cannot help the people we care about if we do not seize power back from the Republicans. Its just talk, unless we actually hold power.

Institutional politics is not about speaking truth to power. Thats what movements can do. Its about seizing power to defend the truth, and the place were at now, on our side, I think all of our energies must be devoted to that.

Watch the video for more of our conversation about identity politics.

Continue reading here:
Author Mark Lilla on liberals: We've been losing for 30 years - Salon