My third Digital Kayak column, which examines video games, has been published in Raise the Hammer, so take a look if that interests you.

This issue of Raise the Hammer has some great articles, including one that is simply hilarious. Ten Words Ben Hates lists a number of words the author finds offensive, many of which are used regularly by friend and regular Ade commenter Ryan:

Juxtaposition

Hey Ryan! How’s it goin’, man? How are the kiddies? Good? Great! Yeah I really liked that last piece you did, etc., etc. Okay, the buttering up is over: Ryan! Why do you use this word, man? You’re killing me!

Read the full article to get Ben’s opinion on segue, play date, implosion and others.

More filth from the American torture prison Abu Ghraib in Iraq. These photos date back to 2003 but are the second body blow to the American and British coalition in recent days, as they follow closely on the heels of video that depicts British soldiers brutally beating Iraqi youths.

A large selection of the new Abu Ghraib photos is available, but be warned, they are graphic and disturbing. The horrible picture I posted is among the mildest and least-offensive in comparison.

The core issue for BC voters now is not what David Emerson can do for them, but whether David Emerson is one of them.

———

The political culture in British Columbia is unique, and that is the polite description. In fact, politics in Canada’s westernmost province are often downright bizarre. BC politicians range from the eccentric, to the inept, to the crooked (two premiers were crazy; four have been tried in court).

BC’ers suffer never-ending polemic debates on all manner of issues: trade, sustainable development, tourism, drug policies, native land claims, official languages, transportation, and immigration.

The economy is a mixed bag, and the voting population is just as diverse. The 2001 census indicates that the immigration rate is more than double the provincial birth rate, outpacing every other province. Three of every four new Canadians coming to BC live in Vancouver, along with 65% of the population of the entire province. The city enjoys the highest average real estate prices in the country. Urban development is frenetic and arguably corrupt.

Municipal politics are far more influential in BC than in the rest of Canada. It seems the province’s issues naturally exist across all levels of government – from the municipal level into the provincial and again into the federal. Their former premier became a cabinet minister in the last federal government and the outgoing mayor of Vancouver was recently appointed to the Senate.

So what’s my point? Simply put, British Columbians have a right to say that politics on their side of the Rocky Mountains are unique (again, that is the polite description). And certainly, in many ways exception has become the defining feature of BC’s internal political dialogue. British Columbia prides itself on being terra incognito to the rest of Canada. A casual read of any Vancouver Sun column will help drive this point home. BC’s political commentary routinely describes the rest of Canada as out-of-touch with BC.

When Vancouver MP David Emerson unexpectedly joined the Conservatives this month after crossing the finish line of the federal election as a Liberal, one could reasonably expect an indignant response from BC voters. Not just because he lied and not just because he was arrogant (these are regular features in politics.) In addition to the usual arguments against this kind of democratic insult, Emerson has to contend with another factor. His floor crossing was not a made-in-BC idea, and underscores just how out-of-touch David Emerson is with his home province.

To many BC voters, Emerson is now equivalent to Belinda Stronach in Ontario or Scott Brison in Nova Scotia. He represents politics as usual in the rest of Canada, something that does not bode well in BC. Despite all his arguments to the contrary, David Emerson can no longer claim to be a unique product of British Columbia’s political culture. In the minds of many he is a denizen of political Ottawa and little else.

Emerson may claim to have British Columbia’s best interests at heart, but his actions are not consistent with that message. In fact, he is now significantly less empowered in the current government to act specifically as an agent for BC. Local Vancouver pundits were quick to point out that, in Stephen Harper’s cabinet, he lost his status as political minister to British Columbia (political minister roles were discontinued under Prime Minister Harper).

Emerson ran on his ability to bring home the goods for BC and continues to use that strategy to deflect criticisms about his defection and appointment to the Conservative cabinet. However, the core issue for voters now is not what David Emerson can do for them, but whether David Emerson is one of them.

Emerson was a qualified parachute candidate under Paul Martin; he has experience in the highest levels of BC’s provincial bureaucracy and corporate culture. As a result, few constituents were concerned with his undemocratic acclamation in the Vancouver—Kingsway Liberal riding association, where he was declared the candidate, not elected.

He squeaked into office without much agitation or competition. The Tory candidate who ran against Emerson in the Vancouver—Kingsway riding (whom he essentially replaced) garnered only 19% of the vote. The riding is historically an NDP bastion and not supportive of any past or current incarnation of the Reform or Conservative Party.

Voters were upset by his decision to join a party with little support in the riding. They roasted Stephen Harper and David Emerson for ignoring the democratic will of the electorate. The common feeling in Vancouver, as Sun columnist Barbara Yaffe writes, is that “[t]hese are two big-picture guys, arrogant types who want to get things done expeditiously.”

This is a dangerous classification for a politician in BC, which recently held a province–wide consultation on electoral reform that made recommendations geared towards empowering the individual voter. David Emerson’s unilateral decsion to change parties is the furthest thing one can get from a made-in-BC solution.

Emerson’s logic, that he can broker his new power on behalf of his constituents, is not wise. Further, if he can’t read the writing on the wall, he’s probably not tuned-in to his constituents. So the question is, was this a minor misinterpretation of the will of his constituents? Or is he simply out-of-touch?

David Emerson doesn’t live in Vancouver—Kingsway. Further, a Vancouver Sun poll from Feb. 8th concluded that he was not well-known in his riding. Just one quarter of respondents could identify their MP, and 90 per cent could not name a single accomplishment he’s made since being elected to represent the riding in 2004. Constituents are clearly not voting on his record.

Still, the Minister is annoyed by criticism. He has feigned ignorance and mock outrage, saying that he “did not realize that it would be the kind of firestorm of protest and so on that has developed.” He has even questioned the breadth of discontent. An opinion poll released yesterday found that 62 per cent of 800 British Columbians surveyed disapprove of Mr. Emerson’s defection, including 48 per cent who “strongly disapprove.”

Mr. Emerson responded by saying that he is “[resolved] to not be driven from office by what has been going on with a lot of the partisan zealots and party operatives who have been spinning the media.”

Media spin is one thing, but a deep misunderstanding of domestic political culture is quite another. It is the latter that is really driving the “firestorm of protest and so on”. It may not drive him from office, but it certainly underscores that Emerson – and Ottawa – is out-of-touch with BC.

———

This article was written by alevo.

The contoversy over the Danish cartoons depicting Muhammed continues to rage. At least two people died in Pakistan yesterday as unrest there escalated:

Thousands rampaged Tuesday through two Pakistani cities to protest cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, burning buildings housing a hotel, banks and a KFC and breaking windows at a Holiday Inn and a Pizza Hut.

In Canada, the conservative magazine Western Standard – the “independent voice of the new west”, in their words – published the cartoons, prompting the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, Mohamed Elmasry, to label their publication a hate crime, according to several publications (I have not been able to find a direct quote attributed to Elmasry that includes phrases like “hate crime” or “hate literature”, I’m taking reports that he made these sort of comments on faith, perhaps unwisely).

Ezra Levant, the magazine’s editor, responded with the freedom of speech argument and by calling Elmasry an “idiot”, several times.

The natural complement to the freedom of speech defense appears to be insults, something convincingly demonstrated on the blog of this self-described conservative. This post starts by lamenting the state of “individual freedom” in Canada, then labels Muslims who oppose the publication of the cartoons (in this case, entirely peacefully) as “barbarians”, and says that

Muslims riot. Muslims burn. Muslims rampage. And Muslims get their way.

Which is followed by a series of inflammatory and insulting comments that, ironically, include an incitement to violence in the jihadist tradition: “Time to stop pussy footing around and eliminate this leadership. Cut the head off the snake, the body dies.”

My point is not to bring up previous arguments. My point is to illustrate the connection between the opinions and commentary of some Canadian conservatives and Ezra Levant’s decision to print the cartoons in the conservative Western Standard.

Simply put, this is deliberate provocation, the inflaming of what one article calls “a proxy for the Clash of Civilizations”.

In Canada, this takes on a new dimension, one that is closely linked to the recent election of Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party. For some time now, I’ve been sensing a deliberate campaign to polarize political debate the same way it’s happened in the United States.

American politics is firmly entrenched in a war between two opposing ideological camps, the left and the right. Alevo has good insight into this:

[A]ny ideology stretched too far is dangerous…the world is not composed of ideological teams: the left, the right, the Christians, the Muslims. There is no prize to be won folks.

[Too often], people’s observations rely entirely on the assumption that a political left, or political right operates as a coherent stream of uniform thought.

The right has succeeded in demonizing their opponents to the point that the term liberal has become an epithet. Many American liberals now reject liberal in favour of progressive.

The book Rescuing Canada’s Right, which I haven’t read, but which claims to be a “blueprint for a conservative revolution” in Canada, includes, among other advice, “What Canadian conservatives can learn from the American and British experiences”. If there is anything to be learned, it is this: by polarizing debate, thrusting one’s opponents into ideological “teams” and resorting to false populism and jingoistic patriotism, one can win elections.

Canada’s Muslims aren’t terribly influential, nor are they militant. Insulting Muslims here isn’t meant to provoke a clash between them and Canadian non-Muslims. Instead, it’s aimed at provoking a clash between Canada’s numerous liberals and newly confident conservatives.

One problem with the attempt to paint moderate Canadians as Islamist-sympathizers who’d rather appease bin Laden than defend free speech is that a lot of paint has ended up splashed on conservatives in the process. And the shades – which run from matte bigot to semi-glossy xenophobe – aren’t too flattering.

Another problem is that for a strategy like this to work, Canadian liberals need to take the bait, which means responding in kind. Some do and some don’t. My hope is that most don’t, so that Canadians see two sides to this debate, one that is calm and thoughtful, the other that is angry, intolerant and proudly anti-intellectual.

The conservative magazine, based in Calgary, published the controversial cartoons of Muhammed yesterday. The editor, Ezra Levant, defended their publication and accused the “mainstream media” of failing to protect free speech by publishing them.

Ezra Levant, publisher of The Western Standard, says publications that refused to show the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad did so out of cowardice, and hid behind political correctness and religious sensitivity.

“The (Toronto) Star doesn’t want to offend religion?” he said. “The Star pokes fun at Christian ministers and (U.S. President) George Bush’s Christianity … we live in a liberal society where we get to debate these things without fear. And the Star probably goes farther than anybody, except maybe the CBC, in offending Christians.”

From today’s Toronto Star.