The British Grasshopper

How it Used to Be: The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold

How it is Now: The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he’s a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed.

A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving. The BBC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food. The British press inform people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so, while others have plenty.

The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Council of GB demonstrate in front of the squirrel’s house. The BBC, interrupting a cultural festival special from Notting Hill with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing “We Shall Overcome”. Ken Livingstone rants in an interview with Trevor McDonald that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his “fair share” and increases the charge or squirrels to enter inner London.

In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel’s taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work.

The grasshopper is provided with a council house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel’s food is seized and redistributed to the more needy members of society, in this case the grasshopper. Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home.

The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Britain as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Britain’s apparent love of dogs. The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody.

Initial moves to then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people’s credit cards.

A Panorama special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel’s food, though spring is still months away, while the council house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn’t bothered to maintain the house. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper’s drug ‘illness’.

The cats seek recompense in the British courts for their treatment since arrival in UK.

The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery. A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost 10,000,000 and state the obvious, is set up. Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers and legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased.

The asylum-seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Britain’s multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats. The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose.

The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister.

The cats are paid a million pounds each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in the United Kingdom. The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds.

Originally published: September 5, 2007 at Political Correctness Watch.

Elections Canada Comes Under Fire for “Vote Veiled” Initiative

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has joined with the Canadian Coalition for Democracies (CCD) in criticizing Elections Canada’s recent decision to let Muslim women wear face-concealing burqas while voting.

The federal election regulator announced last week that Muslim women would be allowed to “vote veiled” in upcoming by-elections in Ontario and Quebec, by merely producing two pieces of ID or swearing an oath and having another voter vouch for them.

Harper said yesterday that he “profoundly disagrees” with the decision, noting that all four federal parties voted this past spring for a law requiring the visual identification of voters.

David Harris of the CCD, meanwhile, said that the Elections Canada initiative “violates the basic premise of public voting in Canada and the principle of equality of all Canadians before the ballot box. It is an invitation to fraud, misrepresentation, and the debasing of our democratic electoral system.”

There is little doubt that outrageous decision to “accommodate minorities” with special treatment will meet with plenty of opposition from Canadians, hopefully forcing Elections Canada to scrap its vailed voting position, just as Quebec’s Election Commission was forced to do with a similar initiative earlier this year.

Educational Freedom Takes Front Seat in Ontario Election Campaign

Education policy, and most notably educational freedom, is already a hot-button issue in Ontario’s provincial election campaign, which officially kicks off tomorrow.

Conservative opposition leader, John Tory, promises that his government would fund faith-based schools, giving parents more economic freedom when it comes to their children’s education – something that current Liberal Premier, Dalton McGuinty has opposed throughout his time in office.

Policies surrounding school funding have a profound effect on taxpayers whose children attend private and faith-based schools which are not subsidized by the government. McGuinty’s government scrapped Ontario’s private school tax credit in 2003, forcing many children into public schools and taking away a significant amount choice and flexibility from parents.

The provincial government continues to fund Catholic faith-based schools, in addition to Ontario’s own public school system, but will not provide any support to parents who choose independent religious or secular private schools.

This conflict ultimately boils down to the personal freedom of parents to choose how their children will be educated versus the government’s statist attitude to socialized education.

“It’s such a small issue in the big picture, but it’s obviously pulling at the emotional strings of a lot of people,” commented executive director, Elaine Hopkins, of the Ontario Federation of Independent Schools.

The only fair solution is for provincial governments to provide meaningful tax rebates to parents who choose an accredited private school over the state-controlled public school system. Economically incentivizing parents to consider Ontario’s private schools, which already serve approximately 120,000 children, would ultimately shrink size of government and offer new choices and possibilities to parents and children.

Relaxing Regulations Could Help BC Labour Market, Says Fraser Institute

British Columbia is the third strongest performing labour market in Canada, behind Alberta and Saskatchewan, but could rise to the number one spot with looser provincial labour laws, according to a recent report by the Fraser Institute, a Vancouver-based free market think-tank.

Alberta came out on top of the study, which measured employment growth, productivity, unemployment, and other factors in each U.S. state and Canadian province. Saskatchewan scored the tenth place overall, while BC came in twelfth. No other Canadian province made the top-30.

“If we actually improved the characteristics of labour markets we would be among the top performing labour markets in North America,” explained the Fraser Institute’s director of fiscal studies, Niels Veldhuis, who credits the three western provinces’ booming economies for their current strong performance. “We would probably be No. 1. And that’s the message here for B.C., that we can be even better than what we have been in the last five years if we improve some of our characteristics.”

This could mean relaxing labour laws, reducing the percentage of employees working in the public sector, and reducing the minimum wage in relation to the average wage, Veldhuis said.

“All of these things have been shown by academic research to have negative impacts on labour markets,” he said, giving Alberta as an example of a free market leader. “They have lower unionization, they have less public-sector employment, they certainly have a much lower minimum wage relative to the average wage, and they have more balanced labour-relations laws.”

Pandering Could Ruin Harper’s Election Chances

I noticed an interesting editorial on CANOE.ca this weekend about Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s political strategy, and how he could ultimately be harming his own chances at a majority government.

Peter Worthington of Sun Media writes that Harper has little to gain by pandering to the beliefs of Canadian Liberals on issues like private medical clinics, same-sex marriage, and the mission in Afghanistan. The Prime Minister should be true to his own beliefs and succeed or fail with ideological honour, Worthington argues.

Although this article tends to simplify things a little (obviously, some bridge-building is necessary in politics), I generally agree with the message that history’s greatest leaders have been some of the most principled ones. I’m not saying that politicians don’t have to tweak and improve upon their political views over time, but they shouldn’t have to sell their souls in doing so.

From where I stand, Stephen Harper seems to be an honest and principled leader who is quite capable of leading this country and doing it well. The more time our Prime Minister spends pouring over polls, however, and giving up on his own beliefs in hopes of pleasing everyone, the more respect he stands to lose. And it’s respect — not hour-by-hour poll numbers — that defines a great leader.

Mitt Romney Makes Disappointing Comments on Civil Liberties

I’ve been casually following the U.S. presidential nomination race for a couple of months now, and had begun to form an opinion that former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, might be a good man for the job. He has an impressive background in business and is a strong fiscal conservative, supporting a free market economy with limited taxation and a parallel public-private education system.

Romney also supports tough anti-crime and terrorism policies, which is often a good thing, but some of his comments at this week’s Republican candidates debate in South Carolina were nothing short of disturbing.

“My view is we ought to double Guantanamo,” Romney asserted when asked about the infamous Guantanamo Bay Naval Base on the island of Cuba, which for the past several years has been used to house suspected terrorists and other militants captured by American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. “I want them on Guantanamo, where they don’t get the access to lawyers they get when they’re on our soil.”

This shows just how little respect Mr. Romney has for the idea of a fair and balanced justice system, where the onus is on the state to prove the guilt of an alleged criminal. He actually sees it as an inconvenience to give proper legal assistance, or even a fair trial, to someone his country is holding prisoner.

Guantanamo Bay may not be located on American soil, but it is operated by Americans, who ought to live their lives by the concepts of liberty and freedom. If the prisoners of Guantanamo are guilty (which most of them likely are), they should be tried and convicted in a fair and just fashion, and properly punished for their actions.

As for Mr. Romney, he is right in saying that intelligence and prevention are crucial to the War on Terror, but preventing terrorism shouldn’t involve sacrificing the very legal and ethical principles that the western world was founded upon.

Judge Dismisses PageRank “Defamation” Lawsuit Against Google

A California judge dismissed an infamous lawsuit against Google last week, ruling that a parenting website called Kinderstart could not seek damages after the search giant downgraded its rankings for certain keywords.

Kinderstart filed the case back in March 2006, claiming that Google had punished its website without reason, adversely affecting its revenues and violating “libel” and “defamation” laws.

Judge, Jeremy Fogel, however, ruled that KinderStart had failed to explain how Google caused injury to it by a provably false statement, as opposed to an unfavourable opinion about KinderStart.com’s importance.

“PageRank is a creature of Google’s invention and does not constitute an independently-discoverable value,” Fogel explained. “In fact, Google might choose to assign PageRanks randomly, whether as whole numbers or with many decimal places, but this would not create ‘incorrect’ PageRanks.”

Although this is an important victory for free enterprise on the internet, the outcome was never really in doubt. No webmaster likes to see his site drop in the search engine rankings, but it’s important to remember that without the ability to maintain a fluid, ever-changing ranking system, search engines simply wouldn’t work.

As I stated last year on SitePoint Forums, dismissing this case was the only decision that would have made sense to maintain the integrity internet search technology. With this verdict on the books, and Google expected to go after Kinderstart for legal fees, I don’t imagine that any more internet companies will try pulling this stunt anytime soon.

Canadians Debate Future of the Penny

A recent report on coin usage by the Desjardins Group, a Quebec-based economic think tank, has revived the debate on the future of Canada’s one-cent coin.

The study revealed that only 37% of Canadians regularly use pennies for purchases, while many others give them away, throw them in fountains, or let them pile up around the house. Because of this, and the fact that taxpayers spend around $130 million per year on minting new pennies, Desjardins analysts are recommending that Canada follow the lead of Australia and New Zealand and do away with the largely obsolete and insignificant coin.

The Bank of Canada, while not formally taking sides on the issue, released its own 3-page report this weekend saying that eliminating the penny wouldn’t increase inflation, and could even result in some prices going down. Merchants who now charge $9.99 for a product for example, might choose to cut their prices to $9.95.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is a long-time coin collector, has also weighed in on this issue, admitting that while he has a “sentimental” attachment to the penny, he exchanges them for higher denominations at cash registers whenever possible.

Personally, I don’t think there’s any need for the Bank of Canada to aggressively remove the penny from circulation quite yet, but it certainly doesn’t make sense to keep minting 816,000,000 million new ones every year.

The government should start cutting back on the production of pennies and encouraging stores and customers to use nickels whenever possible. That way, we can begin a gradual transition away from the one-cent coin and see if anyone really misses it.

NDP Bashes Banks to Win Easy Votes

There’s been a lot of talk in the past few days about the ATM fees charged by Canada’s major banks; and as the federal parliament reconvenes, NDP leader Jack Layton is jumping on this issue as a new way to misinform the public and boost his party’s lethargic position in the polls.

Although this cause is a pretty safe bet for winning public support, it reeks of unwanted government intervention in the economy, not to mention the fact that it lacks all logical purpose.

If you ban ATM service fees, the banks will either be forced to stop providing after-hours automated service, or levy another fee (or two) somewhere else. And much as we like to bitch and bicker about ATM service charges, at least they can be avoided, which might not be the case for whatever would take their place.

Personally, I could probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve paid an ATM user fee, since I always plan ahead and make use of my own bank’s facilities. I also choose to keep the minimum balance on hand so as to avoid monthly account charges. In fact, aside from the cost of printing cheques, I can’t remember the last time CIBC got a dime of my money.

If you want the convenience of visiting any bank machine in town, that’s fine. Just remember that the banks can and will ask you to pay for it, and there’s no reason why politicians should be expecting anything else.

Canadian Economy is Over-Equalized, Says Report

Canada’s much-hyped culture of regional and institutional equality is a flawed concept, and is seriously undermining our country’s competitive clout in the global marketplace., according to a recent Conference Board report on the Canadian economy.

“We’ve called (it) the peanut butter approach,” explained Glen Hodgson, economist and co-author of the report’s 144-page first installment. “You kind of spread it smoothly across the land, even though you could get greater benefits if you found a way to concentrate in particular areas.”

As a country, Canada needs to invest its resources more efficiently, the report argues, especially in relation to the education and training of highly skilled workers.

The report also discusses regional distribution of resources, criticizing the current system of equalization payments and funding for cities, which it says penalizes growth.

Equality “might be part of the culture, but look at the practice,” Hodgson said.

“Here, as elsewhere, Canada will have to abandon a cherished myth of equal treatment for all its institutions,” social scientist Janice Gross Stein reminds us in the forward to the Conference Board report.

What these people seem to be saying is that, although the principle of “equality” looks good in theory, there are some situations where it simply doesn’t work, and shouldn’t get in the way of practicality, efficiency, and fairness. This type of objective reasoning can be applied economically on a great number of levels, and shouldn’t be dismissed too easily in any genuine capitalist society.