From John Ibbitson’s Globe and Mail [online] column today: “Balls, the opposition replied…”

The head reads, “Historic ruling to bestow supremacy on either Parliament or PM”, but talk about opinion writing that jumps off the page — at least in Canada, where so much such penmanship is as drab as the newsprint it falls on.

At practical issue is whether the government will be found in contempt over its reservation to release records to a parliamentary committee. In a larger sense, the article partners that issue with a long struggle between “the executive” (read a government, through its cabinet, devolved from a monarch) and parliament in general (the people, through general representation).

In any case, perhaps the well-used U.K. idiom, “balls”, was pulled from a subject drew from talk about the mother parliament (with deference to John Bright). In any case it was well-played.

And, as the article notes:

Patrick Monahan, provost of York University and a constitutional scholar, believes that Mr. Milliken’s decision “will be a historic ruling” watched by Westminster-style governments around the world.

So, as Rupert Murdoch seems to aim his hounds at The New York Times, it is nice to see Canada’s “Gray Lady” going a bit ‘Foxy’ — language-wise, at least.

Recently:

• The Globe: “Balls”
• Sexual innuendo makes for poor military story headline [writing]
• Public disclosure and MLA pay increases in Richmond: an investigation [finally] reported
• Unspun: a BC Liberal guide to its throne speech
• He’s Gibson the Great, but his ’2009 win for BC-STV and NDP’ piece is too tainted to accept at face value
• Responsible to millions from billions [of dollars], Ballem’s pay may not have changed — much — for new Terminal City post
• Globe goes with hyphen modification(s)?
• One broken neck, but many happy returns. Happy Christmas.
• Holidays ‘pun’ishment
• On the lighter side of nerdom