Category Archives: Liberal

For Kevin Vuong, the embattled Toronto MP facing a military investigation and calls to resign, even everyday constituency work is proving contentious.

It was a lesson a Toronto grocery store owner learned the hard way this week, after she reached out to Vuong's office to deal with a long-standing business matter involving the Canada Revenue Agency.

"I was wary of making the call," said Michelle Genttner. "But who do you call? It's a federal issue for our MP."

What happened next highlights a concern held by many constituents in Vuong's downtown riding of SpadinaFort York.

As a newly elected political outcast ditched by the Liberals shortly before the federal vote, they fear Vuong will be unable to get anything done in Parliament and constituents will not want to approach him for essential matters.

In the final days of the election campaign, the Toronto Star reported Vuong had been charged in 2019 with sexual assault a single count that prosecutors later withdrew.

The Liberals asked Vuong to pause his campaign after it was made public he didn't disclose the charge during the Liberal vetting process. The party then cut ties with him two days before the election.

Vuong has denied any wrongdoing.

This week, when Vuong visited Genttner's zero-waste grocery store, Unboxed Market, she said she hadn't noticed his staffer taking pictures during the meeting photos Vuong then posted to Twitter, with a caption that said visiting the business was "an absolute pleasure."

Angry constituents reacted swiftly.

"Unboxed, do you support Kevin Vuong?" asked one Twitter user. "I actually shop with you and I won't be if you're backing him."

"I would not associate with him if I were you," warned another user.

Genttner was forced to issue a statement, clarifying Vuong's visit was strictly to seek "help in addressing a federal issue."

Vuong has not responded to several requests for comment from CBC News since he was elected. Afterthe grocery store incident, he tweeted:"Our team is working ... so that Unboxed Market can focus on their business."

Following the publication of this story, Vuongadded: "It's unacceptable for peopleupset with me to harass businesses wanting their MP to help them."

The episode illustrates how Vuong has become a "toxic" figure, said Stphanie Chouinard, a political science professor affiliated with the Royal Military College of Canada and Queen's University, both in Kingston, Ont.

She said the incident"should make him seriously reflect on his ability to serve his constituents."

It's only the latest controversy to dog the 32-year-old since the revelation of his dropped sexual assault charge, followed by his election win on Sep. 20. Within days of the vote, Vuong, a naval reservist, was facing a military probe and the elections watchdog was asked to step in, too.

Vuong has remained virtually silent, declining for nearly two months to answer questions from constituents and journalists.

"I feel like I have [an MP] who can't really do much," said Jocelyn MacLeod. She said she voted for Vuong, with the intention of electing a Liberal.

Since the party's split with Vuong came just days before the election, campaign signs dotted around the riding still listed him as the Liberal candidate, as did the paper ballots used by voters on election day.

He later said he would sit as an MP without party affiliation, but Vuong's website and social media profiles don't expressly list him as an Independent.

Vuong, a sub-lieutenant in the naval reserves, remains on leave from his role at HMCS York, a navy spokesperson recently confirmed. Vuong's LinkedIn profile lists him as a naval intelligence officer from 2015 to 2018, then as a public affairs officer from 2018 onward.

The reserve division "is conducting an internal investigation. It is not yet completed," Capt. Mathieu Dufour said in an email to CBC.

Armed Forces members like Vuong are required to disclose a criminal charge to their chain of command. The navy has not said what sanctions Vuong could face if the investigation reveals he failed to follow military protocol.

Prior to the election campaign, Vuong himself requested a "pause of service," Dufour said, which was meant to last until Oct. 4. The navy said the pause in service was not related to any news stories about Vuong.

A number of Vuong's constituents have taken steps to complain. One online petition asking Vuong to resign received more than 5,000 signatures.

Some said the federal elections agency should do more to prevent such confusion in the future.

Nadia Qureshi said she complained to Elections Canada after polling staff mistakenly told her husband on election day, "you can still vote for the Liberal Party and they'll still fill the seat with someone."

Qureshi said she's been disappointed with the way Vuong has conducted himself since winning the seat.

"He's not replying to anybody, not engaging in any way," she told CBC News. "What does this say about the way he's going to serve as an MP for the coming years?"

Others on social media say they've written to Speaker of the House of Commons Anthony Rota to demand a byelection in the riding. A byelection could be called if Vuong resigned or if other MPs voted to expel him from the House.

"Our political procedures do not have the ability to respond to such real and nuanced complications," said Arezoo Najibzadeh, the founder of Platform, a civic leadership organization. "This is a matter of democratic integrity."

Constituent Aris Daghighian filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Canada Elections, alleging Vuong presented himself online as a Liberal even on election day, after the party cut ties with him.

Daghighian wanted the case investigated as a potential violation of the Elections Act, which prohibits publishing "false statements to affect election results" and transmitting "misleading materials."

In an emailed response to Daghighian, the elections watchdog's office said it reviewed the allegation and "several others" it received regarding Vuong. Regardless of the news stories reporting that the Liberals had cut ties with Vuong, the office said he "remained the confirmed LPC candidate" for the riding, according to the email, viewed by CBC.

"We understand that the events in question may give rise to concerns on the part of electors in SpadinaFort York," the email read. However, it said, "the circumstances described do not contravene any provision" of the Elections Act.

The Liberals had tapped Vuong to replace retiring MP Adam Vaughan earlier this year. The son of Vietnamese refugees, he holds a master of laws from the University of Toronto and received a young leaders award from the Queen at Buckingham Palace in 2017.

An online profile from the University of Toronto in 2016 quotes him as saying: "I aspire to run for public office one day." The same article said Vuong recounted turning to "petty theft" as a teen before his father put him on the right track.

He made an unsuccessful run for Toronto city council in 2018.

In August, Liberal campaign co-chair Navdeep Bains said in a statement he was "pleased" to announce Vuong had been acclaimed as the party's candidate for SpadinaFort York.

At the same time, Vuong was facing a $1.5-million lawsuit filed by a former business associate, who alleged she was cut out of a lucrative pandemic mask-making firm. Vuong denied the accusations, which have not been proven in court.

The Liberals' vetting process also failed to note the sexual assault charge levelled against Vuong in April 2019. It was dropped the following November. Party officials said Vuong never disclosed the charge. It only came to light in September once the complainant approached the Toronto Star with details of the case.

In Vuong's only public comments about the dropped charge, he called the alleged incident "consensual" and said it involved "a casual but intimate relationship." He pledged to address the allegations at a later date, but that statement was later removed from his Twitter page.

See original here:

How a grocery store visit highlights voters' fears that Kevin Vuong could be a lame duck MP - CBC.ca

The liberal media fawned over a pro-abortion "Saturday Night Live" skit over the weekend that a conservative comic slammed as "leftwing talking points on air with zero humor attached."

Cecily Strong played Goober the Clown, who "had an abortion at age 23," and joined "Weekend Update" to discuss her situation. Colin Jost set up the bit by welcoming Goober to discuss the "controversial Texas law that essentially bans all abortions after just six weeks."

Cecily Strong played Goober the Clown, who "had an abortion at age 23."

CNNS BRIAN STELTER SCARES AWAY VIEWERS, HALLOWEEN RELIABLE SOURCES CONCLUDES LOWEST-RATED MONTH OF 2021

Strong, dressed as Goober the Clown, began by joking that she wanted to "clown around" before diving into the pro-abortion portion of the program.

"I had an abortion the day before my 23rd birthday," Goober announced. "People keep bringing it up, so Ive got to keep talking about freaking abortion, but its a rough subject so were gonna do fun clown stuff to make it more palatable."

Strongs clown character then made a balloon animal while diving into the topic.

"I wish I didnt have to do this, because my abortion at 23 is my personal clown business, but thats all some people in this country want to discuss all the time, even though clown abortion was legalized in Clown v. Wade in 1973," Strong said. "Did you know one in three clowns will have a clown abortion in her lifetime? You dont because they dont tell you, they dont even know how to talk to other clowns about it."

Strong went on to explain that abortions are extremely common among "clowns," which Jost eventually pointed out was clearly a pseudonym for "women" throughout the bit.

SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE' ADDRESSED 'LET'S GO BRANDON' TREND IN CUT SKETCH

"Heres my truth," Strong said as she sucked helium from a balloon. "I know I wouldnt be a clown on TV here today if it wasnt for the abortion I had the day before my 23rd birthday."

The liberal media was quick to celebrate the routine. CNNs left-wing media correspondent Brian Stelter even led his media newsletter with a roundup of the praise.

"Normally I wouldn't lead a Sunday night newsletter with Saturday Night Live. But this weekend was no normal SNL episode.Review after review, recap after recap, proclaimed that it was punchy and provocative," Stelter wrote, before linking to the "Goober the Clown" video. "I found that it took a second viewing to fully appreciate what Strong was doing."

Cecily Strongs Goober the Clown joined Colin Jost on "Weekend Update" to discuss her abortion in a sketch praised by the liberal media.

Vanity Fair called the Goober the Clown skit the nights "most powerful moment," declaring "anything else the show did last night was gravy."

TheWraps Andi Ortiz published a roundup of activists praising the skit, while The Daily Beast called it "brilliant."

ABORTION ACCESS ADVOCATES REPEATEDLY DECLINE TO SAY AT HOUSE HEARING WHETHER PROCEDURE TAKES A HUMAN LIFE

"Strong used the absurdity of her concept and manic quality of her performance to underscore some sobering facts," Daily Beast entertainment reporter Laura Bradley wrote.

"She used the cover of being dressed like a clown to get extremely real about a womans right to choose," TheWrap reported in a separate article. Countless liberal members of the media took to Twitter to praise the sketch, including The Atlantics Deborah Copaken who asked who wrote it.

"Please give them their preemptive Emmy right now," Copaken wrote.

Podcaster Quinn Cummings added, "This is brilliant," while reporter Caroline Reilly said the sketch "literally brought tears to my eyes."

Attorney Marc Hearron with the Center for Reproductive Rights and attorney Julie Murray with Planned Parenthood, speak to the media following arguments over a challenge to a Texas law that bans abortion after six weeks, in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., Nov. 1, 2021. (REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein)

The president of Panned Parenthood even complimented it.

"Our stories power our fights for justice and freedom even when, no joke, they make us laugh, too," Alexis McGill Johnson wrote.

While the left loved Goober the Clown, political satirist Tim Young wasnt amused.

"Of course the liberal media loves sketches like this. It isnt remotely funny, its literally just reading left-wing talking points on air with zero humor attached," Young told Fox News Digital.

"The humor in this, if anything, is found in the irony that you're a clown if you believe reading talking points about abortion is somehow entertainment to Americans," Young said. "Unlike Dave Chappelle or even Bill Maher, SNL, with a room full of liberal writers, can't seem to piece a joke together when dealing with serious issues. They just want to scream talking points, which will only get their liberal media friends like Brian Stelter to cheer."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Young then mocked Stelters ratings, as the liberal pundit recently finished October with his smallest monthly audience of 2021.

"It's important to note that Stelter has lost track of what gets viewers on his own show, so you should probably be worried if he thinks your programming is good," Young said. "Maybe NBC should just have Stelter join the cast of SNL at this point."

Link:

Liberal media fawns over SNL skit about Goober the Clown who had an abortion when she was 23 - Fox News

Breadcrumb Trail Links

'We have very ambitious targets and goals from a greenhouse gas perspective, but no concrete plans, in terms of how we're going to use clean electricity to meet those objectives'

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

OTTAWA While other major economies are making big bets on nuclear energy to get to a carbon neutral future, Canadas Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault says the market will decide which carbon-free technologies replace fossil fuels.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

At the Glasgow climate summit, which ended Friday, major economies agreed on the need to cut global carbon emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. To do that, means more power to charge electric cars, heat homes and even run heavy industries like steel plants.

The U.K. government gave famed engine manufacturer Rolls Royce $350 million this week to help the company build a new generation of small modular nuclear reactors. China also announced plans to build up to 150 new reactors. And France, which was set to reduce its reliance on nuclear power, announced this week it would instead build more plants.

We are going, for the first time in decades, to relaunch the construction of nuclear reactors in our country and continue to develop renewable energies, the countrys president Emmanuel Macron said in a televised address to the nation.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This was meant to guarantee Frances energy independence, to guarantee our countrys electricity supply and achieve our objectives, in particular carbon neutrality in 2050, he said.

For Canada, Guilbeault said nuclear will have to compete alongside technologies like wind and solar, which are becoming the least expensive types of power available.

Its not up to the government to decide which of these technologies will thrive. Its going to be up to the market, he said to reporters in Glasgow.

The Liberals have helped fund some companies pursuing small modular reactors or SMRs, an industry term for reactors that generate smaller, though still considerable amounts of power.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The reactors are still in the planning and development stage, but theyre promised to be safer and cheaper than current large reactors and could be built in factories and then delivered onsite. They could also be used in remote communities and they generate significantly less waste than traditional reactors.

Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said the government is supporting early projects, but they will have to prove themselves.

We have supported the development work. And certainly I look forward to seeing what that looks like when they are demonstrated at scale and when we actually have a sense of what the commercial economics of those systems will be.

Conservative MP Dan Albas said the Liberals are missing an opportunity to take a bolder stance and Guilbeault should be a much more ardent backer of the technology.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Conservatives believe that nuclear energy is essential to lowering GHG emissions in Canada and taking action on climate change. By failing to clarify his position, Minister Guilbeault calls into question the safety and relevancy of nuclear energy and the countless Canadians that it employs.

John Gorman, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, said the Liberal government has done a lot to help the industry, but the country will need a lot more electricity to achieve net zero.

We have very ambitious targets and goals from a greenhouse gas perspective, but we have no concrete plans, in terms of how were going to use clean electricity to meet those objectives, he said.

Gorman says solar, wind are great technologies, improving all the time, but nuclear has to be part of the equation to meet the coming increased demands for electricity.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

He said the expertise and talent is available in Canada, but the government needs to send a sign to get companies building the next generation of plants.

The part thats missing right now is the actual signal from the federal government and from the provinces and their systems operators that we actually are going to have that demand for electricity and signal that we got to start building, he said.

One company that is close to building is Global First Power, a partnership between the Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation (USNC) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG). The company is planning on setting up a small reactor at the Chalk River facility north of Ottawa.

Ken Darlington, a vice-president with USNC, said their reactor is a test of the technology, but its smaller scale, something that could be used in remote communities or in mines.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The reactor is the first to enter the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commissions formal licensing process and it would be able to generate five megawatts of power, enough to power a small community of about 5,000 people.

Darlington said there are a lot of northern communities especially that rely on large diesel generators and reactors like this could get them off those permanently.

He said Canada has a top regulatory system, but it will need some changes to adapt to the smaller projects that are coming. He said its not about looser regulations, but about ones that dont treat massive power plants the same as the newer, smaller reactors companies are planning.

The nuclear regulations, theyre all predicated around very large-scale projects.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Darlington said there is a lot of hope in the industry right now, but the government does need to do more.

There has been financial support to nuclear projects in Canada over the last couple of years. But do they need to step up? I would say yes.

In addition to the Chalk River project, Ontario Power Generation has a second modular reactor proposal at the Darlington Nuclear plant just east of Toronto. Its expected to pick one of three companies soon to build a 300-megawatt reactor beside the existing plant.

Four provinces, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, have signed onto an agreement to work together on small modular reactors and its possible the reactor OPG picks will be used in other provinces eventually.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Gorman said there are a lot of companies working to make the reactors a reality.

Weve got 12 different technologies that are going through the review and licensing process right now. And they range from technologies that produce one megawatt of electricity up to technologies that produce 300 megawatts of electricity.

On Lake Huron in southwestern Ontario, Bruce Powers nuclear plant is the largest in the world producing enough power for 30 per cent of the provinces needs.

It and the provinces other large nuclear stations Pickering and Darlington account for the majority of Ontarios power and have allowed the province to phase out coal generation, the biggest carbon reduction achieved anywhere in North America so far.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Chris Keefer, President Canadians for Nuclear Energy, said small modular reactors are worth exploring, but Canada should also be building new large plants again, because the country will need the clean power.

He said the Liberals and Guilbeault should have been trumpeting how helpful nuclear has been and the countrys technology.

In my mind, he should have been saying, you know, were very proud of what weve accomplished, he said.

The CANDU reactor that powers Pickering and Darlington has been exported to countries all over the world and Keefer said it is a tremendous economic opportunity for the country as well.

The Pickering Nuclear plant is set to be shut down in 2025 and when it does Ontario will begin burning more natural gas to make up the difference.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

We are a world class decarbonized grid, and were going to be going up to the middle of the pack again, which is just shocking in the middle of this climate crisis, Keefer said.

Britains investment in nuclear also came with regulatory changes that allow the plants to be financed even while under construction, reducing their overall interest costs and reducing the cost of power. He said Canada could take some of the same steps.

They need to include nuclear and be proud of nuclear as a green technology, which will encourage investors to do that and de-risk capital.

Before Gorman worked for the nuclear industry he worked for solar firms. He said more solar and wind projects will be needed, but they havent shifted any country off of fossil fuels on their own.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

When I started in that field, we had 36 per cent non-emitting electricity on the worlds grids. And 20 years later, you know, today after trillions of dollars of investment and those incentives and all of the market reform and the huge rollout of wind and solar, were still at 36 per cent.

Gorman acknowledges the industry has a stigma of being high cost. Pickering, Darlington and Bruce generating stations all dramatically overshot their initial construction budgets when they were first constructed, but he argues SMR technology will bring down costs.

Nuclear is also considered dangerous due to disasters at Chernobyl and Fukushima. Japan and Germany both shut down most of their nuclear energy after Fukushima and both countries are now burning more coal.

Gorman said the industry definitely has work to do, but he is confident when Canadians get all the facts they will support its carbon-free power.

The more that people understand the real facts behind nuclear and can get beyond all that stigma and misinformation, the more supportive they are.

He said the world needs more power and needs it quickly.

We dont have 20 years to stay even keeled. We have to clean up the last two thirds of the worlds grids and then we got to double or triple the amount of electricity we have.

With additional reporting by Reuters

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Continue reading here:

Liberals leaving nuclear's future 'to the market' while other countries bet big - National Post

The Herald revealed in May the pop-up inner-city cycleways installed during the pandemic had become so popular they occasionally overtook the busiest bike paths. However, residents in areas such as Moore Park and Glebe have complained about new routes appearing on their streets.

Cr Moore is campaigning to further spread the cycling network, achieve net-zero emissions across the city by 2035, and provide more access to parkland, including at Moore Park Golf Course, an area the Liberals want to maintain as 18-holes.

Ms Jarrett said free parking, to be absorbed by the Citys operating surpluses, would draw visitors into the city on the weekends and after work, to help revive the economy.

Post-COVID business recovery will be a battleground issue among lord mayoral candidates.Credit:Edwina Pickles

Labors lord mayoral candidate Linda Scott said the Liberals plan risked ruining the Citys weekends, flooding our streets with SUVs at the expense of the creation of more walkable spaces and safe cycleways.

Loading

Im committed to growing spaces to walk, cycle and for shared transport, Councillor Scott said.

Lord mayoral candidate and Wiradjuri woman Yvonne Weldon, leading the Unite team, said she was opposed to free parking, but favoured pricing that responded to peak periods. She said investing in cycling infrastructure reduced emissions and improved health.

However, I was troubled by the way in which the City of Sydney snuck in the pop-up cycle paths under the cover of emergency COVID legislation, Ms Weldon said.

While the Liberal candidates plan to increase the number of trees planted annually, facilitate electric vehicle use, and increase charging stations, Ms Jarrett said the council should move in unison with state and federal government policy on climate action.

Despite throwing the Commonwealth a backhander over the time it has taken to change its messaging on climate change, she said she ascribed to Scott Morrisons technology not taxes mantra as it allowed for innovation rather than restraint.

However, Cr Scott said the Liberal Party couldnt be trusted on climate change, saying a Labor mayoralty would commit to net-zero emissions by 2030 and increasing green space to 50 per cent of the city by 2050.

A spokesperson for Cr Moore said the City already had many of the Liberals promised policies and COVID-recovery initiatives in place.

Our extensive free outdoor dining and live entertainment program, business grants and changes to planning controls will all be crucial to helping the city bounce back post-lockdowns, the spokesperson said.

The Morning Edition newsletter is our guide to the days most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up here.

The rest is here:

Thats ideology: City of Sydney Liberal team take on Moore over bike paths - Sydney Morning Herald

Breadcrumb Trail Links

These are words we should be hearing from the current Conservative leader, and the tone in which they should be expressed

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

Like so many other countless Canadians, I was extremely gratified to hear some thoughts from former Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Mr. Harper, being of the old school of political leaders, sensitive to the need to maintain the dignity of high office, has kept himself very largely out of public discussion since leaving politics. It was till some time ago an understood courtesy that former prime ministers did not, or only rarely, seek to clash with their successors, even from the opposing parties. If you look down to the States you will see that that convention has been fully abandoned, and if you wish an outstanding example go no further than the great light bearer, Barack Obama.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Mr. Harper recently gave a speech . It was not intended for public release. Nonetheless in these days of the ubiquitous cell phone any verbal transaction involving more than two people will be recorded, and will be public as soon as the words have dropped from the lips of any speaker.

Mr. Harper was discussing the consequences for Confederation of the Liberal governments declaration that it fully intends in pursuit of that great chimera, net zero to put a hard cap on oil and gas emissions, to essentially phase out Albertas and Saskatchewans energy reliant economies. It was so good to hear from a gentleman really in a position to rate those consequences he was prime minister for nine years how seriously misguided and jeopardous to the whole Confederation, those policies are.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Clarity is a great virtue, and this sentence was really clear: Obviously, the way some things are being handled today where certain parts of the country are singled out in ways that others arent I think is really inexcusable.

That inexcusable is, in context, a very hard word. But it is the needful word, as it is perfectly accurate. Any policy which, in effect, sets up great resentment in one region of the country, puts inequitable pressure on one or two provinces and carries hardly any negative impact comparatively on the others, is dangerous. Very particularly a global warming policy, which will have at best a trivial effect on the problem it presupposes to address as long as China, India, Russia continue their industrial ambitions and yet ignites extreme (and justified) resentment in a whole region of the country, that policy is both inexcusable and dangerous.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

As Mr. Harper made clear, if the region of the country being targeted, being made to bear all the negative weight of that policy is one in which the ruling party has next to no representation, it is even more inexcusable. The Globe reported on the remarks that Harper said he would not be taking measures to shut down an industry in a region that didnt generate political returns for him. For the message of such a course would be: since we have no support out there there is no cost to our party, and so we do not have to consider the feelings or objections to the policy coming from that region.

It is an attitude that inescapably will breed deep resentment and backlash, possibly to the point of that region asking the otherwise unthinkable question: Why do we stay in this arrangement called Confederation? That was the point of Mr. Harpers words. They amount to a grave warning, a warning which up to now obviously has not reached the Prime Ministerial ears, or if it has, has been allowed to drift by carelessly unheeded.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

These are words we should be hearing from the current Conservative leader, and the tone in which they should be expressed. But he and his party have been frightened off by the global warming juggernaut, they even have their own carbon emission plan.

Mr. Harpers words however did receive considerable reinforcement from another Conservative leader who is quite clearly not intimidated: Scott Moe. On this net zero issue Saskatchewan doesnt headline as often as Alberta, but the impact on that province is very great. Premier Moe sees the concerns of Saskatchewan brushed aside. The federal government is not listening. So, as Premier, he has a return strategy: Were really starting to feel the differences between Saskatchewan and where our federal government is heading, is were actually, at this point in time more like a nation within Canada.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The Liberals are very much IPCC and COP26, very little Alberta and Saskatchewan. And as one province is already a nation within Canada, he borrows the logic that approves of that arrangement.

And surely if the first is not bizarre to certain elitist centrist snobs (Jordan Petersons crisp formulation) then the second cannot be either. So it is very encouraging that Premier Moe does not decline the example of Quebec but quite rightly sees that what is sauce for the francophone goose is sauce for the anglophone gander: Weve been very open on our quest to flex our provincials muscles and to really increase the autonomy that we have in this province of Saskatchewan.

There is so much more to say on this topic, but for now a little reflection on the wisdom of a former prime minister and a present premier will surely do for the early coffee or the late afternoon tea.

The big issues are far from settled. Sign up for the NP Comment newsletter,NP Platformed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Follow this link:

Rex Murphy: Stephen Harper is right how Liberals are treating the West is inexcusable - National Post

The Constitution of KnowledgeA Defense of Truthby Jonathan RauchBrookings, 305 pp., $27.99

It is difficult to imagine a more timely or important subject than that of Jonathan Rauchs new book. The constitution of knowledge in his books title refers to the complicated set of tools and rules, practices and norms that we use to determine what is truefrom the replication of scientific experiments to the fact-checking procedures used by magazines. The aim of his book is to discuss how we know what we know, and to diagnose contemporary threats to the constitution of knowledge, so that it might be better protected.

Readers will come away from Rauchs book better equipped to describe and defend the people and institutions that devote themselves to understanding reality. Rauchs hopefulness with regards to the future integrity of knowledge and truth is refreshing and in many instances persuasive. He anticipates important objections and addresses them thoughtfully throughout. And he writes with attention and care, which is both essential and difficult given the scope of his subject.

In what follows, I want to offer a respectful critique of one specific aspect of Rauchs argument. Throughout his book, he draws an analogy between political liberalism and epistemic liberalismbetween the American constitutional order (broadly conceived) and the constitution of knowledge. He offers many insights into how they are mutually beneficial. And, far from assuming that the elective affinity between the two means they always work in concert, Rauch concedes that there are ways in which contemporary politics threatens liberal science. Indeed, half of his book is devoted to the dangers of politicized assaults on knowledge-sustaining institutions.

But Rauch largely neglects the converse problem: the ways in which institutions and persons affiliated with the production of knowledge can pose a threat to liberal politics.

Populist fears of technocratic overlords tend to be overblown, especially these daysso much so that I am wary of even wading into this discussion for fear of adding wind to their sails. But it is still the case that science, even liberal science, can thwart political life and political freedoms. Ignoring that problem creates a riskthe risk of elevating science to a primacy that it does not deserve, and ceding to it responsibilities that it cannot bear.

By not concerning himself with this problem, I worry that Rauch has written an unwitting apologia for scientism and technocracy, or at least for the domination of the public sphere by science, at a moment when we would be better off thinking about how to find common ground between genuinely clashing and contesting human outlooks.

Fully fleshing out this argument would require a book in its own right, but I can at least attempt a sketch worthy of public discussion. The problem with Rauchs book arises not so much with the core of his argumenthis account of modern science and its character, and of what he calls the reality-based community and the truth-seeking techniques it relies onbut rather with how he contends with the outer boundaries of the constitution of knowledge. Rauch is great at describing the overlapping practices and principles of those who devote themselves sincerely to truth-finding. Its when he makes strong claims about who does and doesnt belong in the model that things get more questionable.

Rauchs delineation of the bounds of liberal science is in some ways very broad and expansive; in other respects, it is pinched and monolithic. And there are some contradictions in his description that render it vulnerable.

Consider: Rauch says that liberal science is open-minded and does not privilege particular viewpoints. In a world of conflicting certitudes, we must accept and even embrace pluralism, he writes. Anyone who calls for particular viewpoints to be privileged or for particular ideas to be censored is, by definition, not doing science.

Yet at the same time, Rauch argues throughout the book that liberal science must be closed to a wide range of opinions and outlooks, and that it is the exclusive arbiter of public truth:

These passages contradict Rauchs claims about pluralism and the refusal to privilege particular ideas. In essence, he is saying that liberal science must not privilege particular viewpoints while also saying that liberal science is not merely privileged, it is the exclusive arbiter of public truth. He could ease the tension by acknowledging explicitly that, of course, liberal science privileges some viewpoints over others; it is constantly testing and ranking the validity of particular notions about the world. But Rauchs insistence on exclusivity for liberal science is a move that strikes me as both epistemically misguided and politically corrosive.

There is no reason for the average person or for politicians to give equal consideration to the views of reputable immunologists and those of anti-vaxxers, but people who are working in journalism, government, and the law must in principle be willing to hear out just about anyone, and to take on their ideas and arguments patiently and respectfully. The same goes for people working in the sciences: they ought to be willing to listen and engage with a wide range of people. And I dont mean this merely as a matter of civility or politeness: I mean it as a real epistemic concern. As Rauch is aware, knowledge is always provisional, and it is always humanincomplete, sometimes flawed, often not fully understood. And since the scientific enterprise is a human undertaking, any particular individual in the sciences is subject to error and insularity and groupthink and corruption. It is also simply the case that we can never know ahead of time where genuine insight is going to arise. So liberal scientists and institutions have no business being dismissive of outside views and arguments a priori. That is just an excuse to shut down engagement, and most institutional incentives already point away from popular/democratic input and towards exclusion.

Rauch comes close to conceding as much when he discusses the need for a wide social funnel that is open to all kinds of ideas, which liberal science then sorts through and turns into knowledge. But this way of describing the process, even just in the abstract, and even with respect to the hard sciences, is still too closed. Scientists and others who work in the constitution of knowledge are trained experts within their particular fields, but they are also just ordinary people. Their expertise often means they will be especially subject to epistemic prejudice and close-mindedness, which means that they more than most need to hold tight to a principle of radical open-mindness. (Rauch admits as much at one point in the book: fallibilism has to be an organizing principle for our lives and careers, he writes, admitting that this is very hard.) There is plenty to learn from people in other traditions, disciplines, and from the public; sometimes unfiltered insights from the world are much better than what makes it through the institutional funnels. As Aurelian Craiutu puts it in his review of Rauchs book, citing J. S. Mill, truth is eclectic.

The problem of closedness is magnified tenfold with respect to more speculative areas of inquiry. As we move further from straightforward empirical matters and closer to speculative or normative or artistic thinkingeverything from abstract physics, to the creative arts, to politics, ethics, and theologythen, in Rauchs view, we start to break away from the rules of liberal science, and so too from the realm of the kinds of legitimate, constitutional truths that should inform public life.

Rauch is right to observe that early moderns like Bacon, Hobbes, and Locke turned away from speculative fields like politics, metaphysics, and theologyclaims which, because they are not checkable, are not adjudicablebut they did not permanently close off those areas from intellectual inquiry. Even if they had wanted to (I dont believe they did), they did not and they could not.

Just because a perspective or an area of inquiry is especially contentious does not mean it has no place in public life.

And so I see no upside to dismissive lists like the one Rauch supplies (see the first bullet above) to delineate whom he believes de facto to be excluded from the circles of liberal knowledgecreationists, homeopaths, 9/11 truthers, QAnoners, and so on. The list might well be unobjectionable to some, but it reveals some serious limits to Rauchs approach. The fact, for one, that he would be so disdainful of postmodern professors and political partisans, and vaguely contemptuous of adherents of any number of other belief systems and religions is remarkable.

Regardless of where you come down on questions of ultimate truth and meaning, or on the whole world of critical theory, and even granting that plenty of academic work translates very badly to the so-called real world, the idea that postmodern professors should be epistemically shunnedor that they do not contribute to the constitution of knowledge in important waysis simply untrue. The same goes for all kinds of work in theology, and politics, and literature, and the arts, and philosophy, and the humanities more generally. I would venture that Rauchs list in fact encompasses the vast majority of Americans: most of us have at least a streak of countercultural skepticism, or partisanship, or mysticism, or conspiracism lurking in our souls.

At some points, Rauch claims that his version of liberal science is open to at least some non-empirical disciplines. He describes how liberal science is meant to be expansive, and so to include the softer sciences and even humanities such as literary criticism and moral philosophy. And he contends that science, as conventionally defined, makes up only a fraction of the reality-based community. But Rauchs descriptions of how liberal science operates fails to capture a lot of what actually goes in the more humanistic disciplines. This is partly because he is devoted to the principle of objectivity, or no personal authority, and so is resistant to anything that smacks of subjectivity or perspectivalism. But some forms of genius or intelligence amount to little more than idiosyncratic expressions of personal authority. And clarity about subjectivism is a major part of much social science and humanities research. Taking subjectivism seriously isnt a rejection of truth or knowledge, its a rejection of the simplistic idea that truth, to be true, must always in principle be broadly shared or communicable.

Unfortunately, Rauch is overly dismissive of precisely those species of inquiry that are often the most thoughtful about political power, in addition to being the most rigorous and self-aware regarding the problem of intellectual overreach.

Rauchs rhetorical choices similarly reflect a mode of thinking that excludes much philosophy, theology, and humanistic thinking. My own humanists ear is fine with the idea of the constitution of knowledge, but pretty displeased by the presumptuous notion of a reality-based community in the singular, even one as broadly conceived as Rauchs. I believe strongly in a collective liberal process of knowledge-accretion, but I do not care for Rauchs notion of outsourcing reality to a social network, nor for the use of the metaphor of the operating system to describe a human community.

So what to do? Lets revisit Rauchs bold claim:

You have to check your own claims and subject them to contestation from others; you have to tolerate the competing claims of others; you have to accept that your own certainty counts for nothing; you have to forswear claiming that your god, your experience, your intuition, or your group is epistemically privileged; you have to defend the exclusive legitimacy of liberal science even (in fact, especially) when you think it is wrong or unfair. (Page 91)

Here is how I would revise it to make it more liberal, and more consistent with genuine pluralism:

You have to check your own claims and subject them to contestation from others; you have to tolerate the competing claims of others; you have to accept that even your own feelings of certainty are fallible; you have to honestly admit that you do believe your mode of engagement to be epistemically privileged (and be able to give reasons why), while at the same time sustaining a radical openness to counterarguments from any and all quarters, even (in fact, especially) when you think it is wrong or unfair.

One of the reasons that it is so important to stay rigidly open-minded about potential sources of knowledge and truth, even those that are highly contestable or seem dead wrong, is that the liberal sciences (which, again, for Rauch also include jurisprudence, government research, and journalism), for all of their considerable virtues, are hardly foolproof. The constitution of knowledge, being a human endeavor, is not merely fallible, but also is ridden with internal tensions, is often ineffective, is prone to insularity, and is subject to abuses, in ways that Rauch is too blithe about.

Science is our best process for understanding empirical facts, but ideas wrapped in the mantle of science have often had pernicious effectsmost notoriously when scientific arguments were offered on behalf of slavery, racist policies, eugenics, and other affronts to human dignity. It took moral reasoning and political action to challenge and overcome those arguments, usually long before they were decisively discarded as pseudoscientific. And students of history will have little difficulty thinking of many other cases when attempts to apply what was understood to be scientific rationalism to human affairs resulted in what would eventually come to be recognized as bad policy, as when highways were designed to maximize speed and convenience by gutting American cities; as when the great boon of powerful painkillers combined with perverse financial incentives to create the opioid crisis; as when the effort to create more precise, targeted weapons so that we could spare lives contributed (as Samuel Moyn argues in his new book) to new, dehumanizing modes of warfare. And the scientistic, technocratic impulse in our politicsthe inclination to defer to those who claim their innovations represent not just technical progress but human, social progressdeforms how we govern emerging technologies, from social media to pharmaceuticals to biotechnology to tools of surveillance to, any day now, artificial intelligence and virtual reality.

Rauchs model supposes that the various branches and institutions of the reality-based community will provide a check on one another. I dont think liberal science can afford to close off any avenues of counter-critique or caution a priori.

Rauch makes another effort to safeguard genuine epistemic pluralism at the end of Chapter 4, in a short section called Reality Is a Part-Time Job. Here he once again argues that liberal science, as he defines it, should have exclusive epistemic authority, but he adds a caveat: only when it comes to public knowing (supremacy in the realm of public knowledge, but not in the realm of private belief; liberal science cannot run your life, rule the world, or control your brain). This effort to save other forms of belief falls a bit flat insofar as they have already been deemed not reality-based. But beyond that, while I agree with Rauch that public decision-making bodies should privilege knowledge and insights that are generated by accredited scientists, lawyers, and researchers, when it comes to creating laws and other overtly political work, we enter a different realm. In my view, many forms of knowledge can and should come to bat in political life. My sense is that Rauch would give liberal science the starring role.

In other words, for Rauch, those involved in politics should rely, perhaps exclusively, on the knowledge that comes from liberal science. The idea that science should dominate in public lifeeven just as a theoretical proposition, and even just as an epistemic matteris necessarily to diminish the importance of politics and contestation, which in some ways must always be primary (since liberal science depends on political institutions more than political institutions depend on liberal science).

I want liberal science to have a lot of authority in public life, too, but I want that to be the result of high-quality public education, strong advocacy and persuasion on the part of literate citizenry, politicians who understand and care about reality, and scientists who are willing to speak for science (and are thoughtful about how that can be done and about its limitations)not because anyone said it should in principle be so. The older image of the clash of ultimate valueswhere science is one voice in a broader cacophony, as Max Weber laid out in his famous lecture Science as a Vocation, among other placesis truer to Americas liberal constitutional order than the idea of a streamlined liberal science that reigns supreme.

Absent a clearer articulation of the ways in which knowledge can threaten politics, I foresee two distinctive long-term dangers for American democracy:

On the one hand, I worry about the emergence of a technocratic liberalism that is overconfident to the point of inhumanityone that is oppressive to dissidents of all stripes, that regards artists, critics, and the faithful, as well as whistleblowers, radicals, and other renegades, as existential threats to the reigning order, rather than as unruly citizens of a messy pluralistic reality.

On the other hand, I worry about a future reactionary politics that uses all the trappings of objectivity and liberal science to usurp political authority from the people. I worry about right-wing authoritarians who will use the climate crisis to justify illiberalism, and about conservative intellectuals who would abandon democracy in a second to secure their own vision of the objective good (backed by plenty of statistics).

Again, Rauch has admirably labored to build public confidence in a set of important institutions and practices, and I hope that the book is successful in helping Americans advocate for truth and knowledge. But his approach can easily tip into the kind of rah rah science that is already a distinct flavor of liberal hubris and that does not easily win over new friends.

If I had my druthers, liberals would talk less about how #ScienceIsReal and #TruthMatters and more about sciences complexities and limits and all that we dont know. As I read Rauchs book, the famous line from Hamlet kept popping up in my mind: There are more things in heaven and Earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

Its a good line: An appropriate mantra for an epistemic liberal at any time, but maybe especially in times of heady polarization, strife, and uncertainty. In the long term, humility makes for a better epistemic balm than Rauchs bolder prescription.

See the rest here:

The Limits of Liberal Science - The Bulwark

I finally figured out why its easier to talk truthful trash with my conservative friends than with my liberal friends. Of course Im speaking in generalities. My conservative friends are more inclined to look closely at expenditures. They want to know what theyre getting for their money. Common sense tells them that tossing unlike recyclables into a single compartment truck is questionable and likely to increase recycling fees.

My liberal friends, especially in their 30s and 40s, have an emotional attachment to recycling that prevents them from questioning beyond the bin. Theyre accustomed to non transparent, single stream. Paying increased recycling fees, and having double digit contamination was normalized as they were becoming adults.

Liberals, please dont be angry with those who dont recycle. It takes time and transparency to restore trust, once you realize youve been conned. We all need to back up, and rethink our goals. Originally, the three Rs were about conservation of resources. Unnecessary, single use, plastic items are not about conservation of resources.

Greed and addiction to convenience have played a key role in the degradation of our conservation ethics. Yep, we really need to rethink our goals.

Louise MannSignal Mountain

More:

Talkin' Truthful Trash With Liberals And Conservatives - The Chattanoogan

ALBANY Did Republicans in New York have a good Election Day? Or was it just a bad day for progressives?

Those may seem like one in the same, but, at the risk of splitting hairs, I'll insist there's a difference. Many of the results Tuesday that seemed to signify a rightward shift in the electorate didn't exactly come with a Republican label.

Buffalo's democratic socialist mayoral candidate was clobbered, but she lost to an incumbent Democrat mounting a write-in campaign. Progressive constitutional amendments that would have made it easier to vote or gerrymander congressional districts lost statewide to the delight of Republicans, but it seems a stretch to call the defeats a GOP victory.

Which isn't to say there weren't significant Republican bright spots. Locally, Peter Crummey cruised to victory in Colonie, painting the town red after a 14-year hiatus from the supervisor's office, and Steve McLaughlin, who is apparently no longer controversial, easily won reelection as the Rensselaer County executive.

Yes, there were counterexamples, including Democrat Ron Kim's apparent win in the Saratoga Springs mayor's race in a city consumed by police-versus-activist turmoil.

But farther afield, Republicans also made in-roads on the New York City Council and won two district attorney seats on Long Island, evidence that suburban voters, in particular, are returning to the GOP fold. The swing combined with a Glenn Youngkin win in Virginia and a close gubernatorial contest in New Jersey was fodder for Republican glee.

"It was pretty resounding around the state," said Nick Langworthy, chairman of the New York Republican Party. "This sets the tone for things to come."

Things to come is, of course, a reference to 2022 and its biggest prize: The governorship. The results on Tuesday might just suggest that Republicans have a better chance in the race to unseat Kathy Hochul than many would have assumed.

Or they might not.

"That Election Day is almost 53 weeks away," countered Steve Greenberg, a Clifton Park-based political consultant who poo-pooed the notion of Tuesday's lasting relevance. "The world is going to change 12 times between now and then."

Thanks for killing a perfectly good narrative, Steve. Oh, but I suppose he's right that shifts in the economy and other unforeseen events (such as, say, the arrival of a pandemic) have a way of making predictions look stupid, and, yes, it's a bit foolhardy to draw direct lines from one election to another.

But I'm going to do it anyway! Or I'm at least going to assert that while Tuesday's results may not demonstrate a GOP comeback, they do prove New York is not the progressive haven national pundits and our own politicians claim it to be.

(Example: "New York is the progressive capital of the nation," said Andrew Cuomo earlier this year, before he ... well, you know what happened.)

If this were really the progressive capital of the nation, a ballot initiative offering no-excuse absentee voting a perk enjoyed in Montana, Kansas, Alaska and many other red states would not have suffered an easy defeat on Tuesday. If this were the progressive capital, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's trip to Buffalo would have helped India Walton, the democratic socialist mayoral candidate.

If New York was so darn progressive, a former cop named Eric Adams would not be enjoying a victory lap in the state's biggest city after rebuking defund-the-police rhetoric.

All of which means that if Hochul and her Democratic primary challengers, including Attorney General Letitia James, spend the next eight months playing Who's the Most Woke, the Republican gubernatorial candidate will have a chance in next year's race. Not a great chance, or even a good chance, but a chance nevertheless.

A suggestion: Democrats might want to pay more than lip service to the problem of rising crime, which is a real worry and likely contributed to Tuesday's results, even in places like Colonie. That doesn't mean Democrats should return to the "predators on our streets" rhetoric of old, but they do need to address the spike.

If they don't, well, voters may deliver a George Pataki-style surprise, which shouldn't seem so far-fetched. Consider that in Massachusetts, a state arguably a deeper shade of blue than New York, Republicans have regularly won the governor's office by promising to act as a check on the lefties in the state Legislature. Why couldn't the same strategy work here?

Heck, even Vermont has a Republican governor. Vermont! If Republicans can make it there, they can make it anywhere.

cchurchill@timesunion.com 518-454-5442 @chris_churchill

Read this article:

Churchill: New York isn't as liberal as everyone thinks - Times Union

When it comes to Europe's strictest abortion laws, Poland, Malta and San Marino are among the countries that tend to hog the headlines.

Yet even in progressive Germany, there are rumblings about the repressive nature of restrictions around terminations.

Now with a new socially liberal coalition edging towards forming a new government, activists are hoping abortion laws might be relaxed.

Paragraph 218 of Germanys criminal code outlaws abortion, with possible penalties of up to three years in prison.

Exceptions exist if the abortion seeker receives mandatory counselling; if the pregnancy creates health risks for the woman; or if the pregnancy is the result of rape.

Nevertheless, terminating a pregnancy after twelve weeks is illegal.

Its not uncommon for women to realise theyre pregnant at a rather late stage, and then theyre confronted with the massive challenge of not being able to receive an abortion in Germany. Then their option is to head to the Netherlands, where abortion is legal up to the twentieth week of pregnancy, Kersten Artus told Euronews.

Artus works on a volunteer basis for Pro-Familia Hamburg, a sexual and reproductive rights organisation, and Pro-Choice Germany, which gives legal support to doctors providing abortions.

These restrictions bring opacity to an important health issue, establishing a quasi-legality where abortion is technically illegal but permitted in some cases.

Abortion access is further limited by Paragraph 219a, Nazi-era legislation that bans advertisements for abortion services.

Many doctors have the feeling that theyve already got one foot in a jail cell because abortions are still criminalised and can only be provided under very specific conditions, said Artus.

Limited abortion access and challenges for both those seeking abortions and the doctors providing them has long been the reality in Germany. Though this does not match the global perception of a nation often seen as progressive, possibly in part because of the leading role played by long time Chancellor Angela Merkel. Knowledge of restrictive reproductive legislation is often limited within Germany itself, too.

For activist Valentina Chiofalo, from the Alliance for Sexual Self-Determination, this is rooted in self-reflection that is all too often based on comparisons with other nations.

You had this kind of myth that its not really a problem to get an abortion in Germany, that were not as conservative or religious as Poland, for instance. And you have a lot of people who just believe that and dont really look into the law, she told Euronews.

If many Germans were unaware of abortions legal status before, they should know it by now, as recent controversial reforms to Germanys abortion laws have brought the debate to the fore.

When practitioner Kristina Hnel was fined 6,000 for stating that she provided abortions under the list of services on her website in 2017, it unleashed a wave of criticism against Paragraph 219a.

Despite widespread calls to abolish the law, including assurances to do so from the SPD, then part of a ruling coalition with the conservative CDU, the Bundestag settled for a controversial compromise in 2019, deciding instead to reform the law.

In theory, the law was reformed, but nothing has changed practically, reflected Artus.

The 2019 reform made it legal for practitioners to publicise that they provide abortions online, but further details, including the methods, necessary care, or risks associated with the procedure are not allowed to be posted.

The compromise was seen critically by anti-abortion pressure groups and many religious organisations. Germanys Conference of Catholic Bishops claimed the reforms were redundant.

In our view, lists that provide information about providers and methods of abortions would be unnecessary, as these details are best shared in the privacy of a counsellors office. Since counselling is mandatory for anyone seeking an abortion, this information is already available, said the organisation in a press release prior to the reform.

Pro-abortion activists like Artus and Chiofalo argue this means few doctors feel comfortable posting whether or not they provide abortions, while it offers little help for those seeking the procedure if critical information is not included.

Ever-louder cries for Paragraph 219a to be abolished look set to finally be heeded, thanks to the likely arrival of what looks to be a socially liberal "traffic light" coalition.

Nicknamed so because of each party's colours, the prospective coalition consists of the centre-left Social Democrats (red), the liberal FDP (yellow) and the Greens.

Talks between parties that bridge a fairly wide ideological spectrum can be like trying to complete a puzzle with three unique sets of pieces. And while finding common ground on how precisely to fight climate change, or compromise between the FDPs pro-business DNA and the SPDs campaign promises to raise taxes on the rich seems impossible, the three parties do largely converge on one vital issue: advancing reproductive rights.

We dont hope that the new government strikes down Paragraph 219a, we expect it to happen, said Artus. Especially given the role the SPD played in ensuring that it wasnt abolished years ago but really, well believe it once its officially happened.

Though the outgoing centre-right Christian Democrats did not include protecting Paragraphs 219a in its campaign platform, Markus Sder, head of Bavarian sister party the CSU, recently spoke out against striking it down.

Abolishing Paragraph 219a is something we wouldnt do. I can only warn against backing out of this compromise on abortion rights, Sder told the German newspaper Bild.

The three parties in Germany's prospective coalition are all in favour of abolishing 219a. Still, even if that makes finding details about abortion services easier, it wont change the quasi-legal, criminalized status of abortion generally.

We want [219a] to go, but its also important that it is not the only thing that needs to go. Sometimes there is a bit of a proxy war about the issue around 219a, and its important we get rid of it, but also that 218 goes as well. Maybe even more important, Chiofalo said.

The biggest stumbling block to abolishing Paragraph 218 and keeping abortion out of the criminal code entirely is the liberal FDP, the only incoming party that didnt commit to repealing the law in their election platform.

The SPD and Greens are on board with striking down 218. But the FDP is more tricky. Which is weird because the SPD are a liberal party and love freedom and freedom of choice, but when it comes to abortion theyre kind of conservative, said Chiofalo.

Activist groups are continuing to pressure all three parties as coalition negotiations unfold.

For Germanys reproductive rights activists, abolishing Paragraph 219a would be an important victory, but as long as Paragraph 218 remains, theyll have further work to do to ensure that reproductive rights are seen as within the domain of healthcare provision, and not criminal acts.

Thats one of the main wishes we have, that abortions must be seen as healthcare for women, not something so outside of that framework, said Chiofalo.

Every weekday, Uncovering Europe brings you a European story that goes beyond the headlines. Download the Euronews app to get a daily alert for this and other breaking news notifications. It's available on Apple and Android devices.

View post:

On abortion, Germany is not as liberal as you may think - Euronews

Lets revisit a question I raised in passing last time: How much of Canadas reduction in greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to carbon pricing, and how much to other measures?

The question is germane. Before we can discuss what policy the government ought to pursue, it helps to know what policy it is actually pursuing.

If you were to ask most Canadians to describe the Liberal governments approach to fighting climate change, they would say: carbon pricing carbon tax, a price on pollution, call it what you will. The policy of the government is carbon pricing, and carbon pricing is its policy.

Oh sure, it has also implemented a lot of other emissions-reduction measures. But the centrepiece, the showcase, the thrust of Liberal policy is carbon pricing. It has been a central issue in the past five national elections. It was the subject of a historic Supreme Court decision. And, as we have seen at the COP26 conference, it is the governments calling card to the rest of the world. Hi, were from Canada you know, the country of carbon pricing?

So it is interesting to discover that it is not, in fact, the policy. It is, to be sure, a policy. But it is not the means by which the government of Canada has chosen to achieve the bulk of its emissions reductions. Measured by what it does, rather than what it says, its policy might better be described as not carbon pricing.

I said in my last column that carbon pricing accounted for only a part of the governments total planned emissions reductions. But I had not until now been able to nail down just how small a part. Not many people have: The figure is not readily available.

The flaw in the foundation of the net-zero emissions plan? Its right in our infrastructures foundations

How much we cut carbon emissions is less important than how we do so

However, with the help of analysts at the Clean Prosperity organization, which advocates for carbon pricing and other market-based solutions to climate change, Ive been able to piece together a figure. It turns out carbon pricing is projected to account for just a third of the overall emissions reductions, actual and projected, under this government perhaps as little as a quarter.

How did we get that figure? In 2015, the year the Trudeau government took power, Canadas emissions were projected to grow to 815 megatonnes in 2030. That was if no further actions were taken, beyond those already in place: the business-as-usual scenario. But of course we did take action, or at least promised to: At that years Paris climate conference, we committed to reduce our emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels (730 MT).

Six years later, Clean Prosperity now projects emissions will fall to 458 MT by 2030 beating our Paris commitment (if still short of the 40-per-cent to 45-per-cent standard more recently adopted). More to present purposes, it is a reduction of 357 MT from the business-as-usual number. Thats if this and future governments do not backslide, enact every currently planned measure, etc. But somewhere in that neighbourhood.

And how much of that 357 MT can be attributed to carbon pricing? The government has previously projected the first wave of carbon pricing, during which the price rose from an initial $30 a tonne to $50 in 2022, would reduce our emissions by 50-60 MT. Clean Prosperity estimates the second wave, announced in December of last year, in which the price will rise by $15 a tonne in annual increments to $170 in 2030, will cut emissions by a further 63 MT.

Total: about 120 MT. Divided by 357, equals roughly one-third. Arguably its even less than that.

That 2015 business-as-usual projection 815 MT by 2030 was substantially lower than projections made earlier in the century, reflecting measures enacted by previous governments. If we rewind to before those measures were taken, if the business-as-usual scenario in fact looks more like 900 MT the National Energy Board, in 2007, predicted it would be more than 1,000 that would imply a reduction of more than 450 MT. Of which carbon pricing would account for roughly a quarter.

This is extraordinary. Two-thirds to three-quarters of our emissions reductions by 2030 will have been achieved, not by carbon pricing, but by other measures by not carbon pricing, if not by anything but carbon pricing.

Its hard to square this with the governments repeated pronouncements, not only that carbon pricing is its policy, but that carbon pricing is the best policy: as the Prime Minister told COP26, the most efficient and powerful way to cut emissions. Hes right the evidence on this score is overwhelming. And yet the policy he is actually pursuing is, for the most part, to use other, less efficient ways the usual mixture of subsidies and regulations.

This is of some political significance. For all the while the Liberals have been supporting carbon pricing, the Conservatives have been opposing it. And while the Conservatives have offered many objections to the policy, the core of their opposition, it is safe to assume, is that it is Liberal policy. Had the Liberals never adopted it, the Conservatives probably would have.

One suspects Liberal support for carbon pricing was also mostly for show: they were for it, mostly because the Conservatives were against it. What really gets Liberal hearts pumping, after all, is not the abstract contemplation of market-based approaches to the environment or market-based approaches to anything but the more earthly pleasures of personally directing economic activity this way and that. Hence the bulk of their program.

So, if carbon pricing is not Liberal policy again, measured by what they do rather than what they say then the way is open for the Conservatives to adopt it as their own. If the Liberals prefer to reduce emissions mostly by other means, the Tories can be the party that wants to reduce them mostly by pricing carbon. Indeed, the Conservative should aim to use carbon pricing to replace those other policies.

The Liberals half-hearted embrace of carbon pricing is, after all, not merely a crime of inconsistency: it comes at great and growing cost to the economy. Ecofiscal Commission, another environmental economics outfit, has calculated that the current Liberal plan would reduce economic growth from an already sickly 1.7 per cent a year to less than 1.4 per cent. Compounded, that adds up to a loss of 7 per cent to 10 per cent of GDP by 2050, versus a pure carbon-pricing approach, whose economic costs are basically rounding error.

Thats not only an economic matter. To say that carbon pricing achieves the same reductions in emissions at lower cost than the alternatives is also to say that it could achieve greater reductions at the same cost. Or some combination of the two faster economic growth, and a more ambitious emissions reduction plan. If the Tories cant see the opportunity in that, they deserve to spend the rest of their lives in opposition.

View post:

Opinion: Is carbon pricing Liberal policy? For the most part, it's anything but - The Globe and Mail