Apparently we’re calling it a “culture war” now, this little fracas going on about the niqab and the Prime Minister decreeing what a woman can and cannot where, and when they can and cannot wear it. Face-coverings, for example – bad at citizenship ceremonies where a woman’s identity has already been determined and she’s completed all of the steps for citizenship, but okay in the civil service (or so says Tony Clement). Both of the opposition leaders are trying to press the narrative that Harper is “fostering intolerance” with his particular decrees, along with the way that he has singled out Muslims with references to mosques in his statements on countering terrorism. The NDP and the Conservatives are trying to cast Trudeau’s speech on Monday as over the top, and accusing him of bringing up the Holocaust when he in fact didn’t – only the immigration policy at the time as it dealt with Jews, and that was as an example of places that the country has failed in the past. For his part, Harper insists that the “overwhelming majority” of Canadians agree with him about niqabs – except that’s the thing about minorities, and why we shouldn’t subject them to the whims of the majority. It’s one of the hallmarks of a liberal democracy, as Harper should well know. Trudeau also tried to play his own rhetorical games, saying that Harper accused the Muslim faith of being anti-woman, when he was referring to the culture that insists that women wear niqabs. (Harper, incidentally, doesn’t seem to be pressing Saudi Arabia, where this cultural practice originates, on their misogyny). So really, everyone is playing political games here, and that’s as surprising as finding out that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Paul Wells notes, however, that it’s the first time in that the Liberals have given a Liberal argument in years – since the last three leaders, in fact. So while we are getting some discussion on an issue like this, I’m not convinced that this really qualifies as “culture war” territory, at least not like we’re seeing south of the border.

Good reads:

• Here is a good is a good look at the indignities suffered by the Fynes family over their soldier son’s suicide, and while Kenney promises to fix the problem, they’re not accepting the apology.
• Here’s some discussion about those missing 18 seconds on the Ottawa shooter’s video.
• The Senate Speaker is shaking up the Upper Chamber’s administration.
• The RCMP say they won’t be able to clear the backlog of the national criminal records database until 2018.
• Patrick Brazeau is stirring the pot again, this time claiming Diane Finley pulled funds for a community centre in his area when the NDP won the seat there.
• Andrew Leach’s second post on the oil sands economics shows what impact a price on carbon would have (hint: Not necessarily a big one).

Odds and ends:

Conservative MP Lawrence Toet’s ridiculous mailout is being roundly mocked, as well it should be. It bears mentioning that Paul Dewar tends to send out “questionnaires” with only a “yes” reply.

John Baird’s last day as an MP will be Monday (when the Commons isn’t sitting). There won’t be any point in running a by-election by now.

The House of Commons is getting e-petitions after the next election, but fortunately the idea that they trigger debates after a certain threshold didn’t survive.