Canada's relative proximity to the United States is beneficial in many ways -- not the least of which include that we get access to their markets relatively easily and we share a common air defense. But it's not so beneficial in other respects; especially the dirty tricks in politics we have seemed to learn from south of the border. Including robo-calls. Thanks to the Internet, we can just program a list of phone numbers into a software program and auto ring the people connected to those phone numbers; often in the thousands.
Because there are so many complaints now, going into the tens of thousands where people were told by "Elections Canada" (not) to go to another polling station; and at least one district where quite a few registered with no address, an address not in the district or even a business drop (UPS ™) one can reasonably ask if enough districts were tipped to give Harper his long sought majority.
I am not accusing Harper or anyone else of wrong doing. I do think all parties have tinkered with the rules long enough to know how to game the system, but there's a difference between GOTV and suppressing the vote to win.
At last count, the number of "irregularities" reported hit about 35,000. There are so many that Elections Canada, the non-partisan agency of the House of Commons tasked with running and policing the system, is being overwhelmed. If there was indeed thievery, maybe that's what the culprits are counting on so they can get away with it.
I think the leaders of all five parties should just get together and ask the Justice Department to appoint a special prosecutor.
To be clear: This need not be a runaway cad like Judge Kenneth Starr who turned a real estate deal gone sour to an investigation about Vincent Foster (not murdered, said Starr -- twice), Hillary Clinton's playing the futures market (highly irregular in how she did it, but in any event just a case of dumb luck in making a lot of money) and finally Bill Clinton's middle leg (affairs with six women, only one of which resulted in impeachment but ultimate acquittal).
Instead, get a good, impartial lawyer or judge to go over the facts, specifically limited to the allegations at hand, set a date certain to conclude findings of fact, and then present them for referral for a preliminary hearing and possible indictment (unless the evidence is so overwhelming that that a direct indictment under section 577 of the Criminal Code is indicated). Let this special prosecutor sort through the wheat and the chaff so we can get back to fixing our economic problems. A six or nine month breather isn't really that much to ask. And if some of the elected members turn out to be disqualified because of fraud, it's not like the laws passed during that time would be automatically void; the "Doctrine of necessity" would kick in as it did with the Manitoba Language Reference in 1985.
I do worry ever more about the soundness of our democracy. But cheap shot comments like calling unsuccessful incumbents "sore losers" doesn't help. An open mind to fixing things so it doesn't happen again, does.
Thursday, 8 March, 2012
No more "nuclear ambiguity"
As tensions continue to rise in the Middle East about what Iran is up to with its nuclear program, a reasonable person cannot be in much doubt. With the large number of centrifuges it's more than obvious that Iran wants a bomb. And there can only be one intended target -- Israel. Why else would a Holocaust denier like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad want the bomb other than to finish off what Hitler started?
That being said, I have to say that this is one time where there can be absolutely no double standards. When India, Pakistan and North Korea each introduced their nuclear program in a "big" way the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions, as well as it should have.
However, despite overwhelming evidence that Israel also has nuclear weapons (depending on who's counting it's anywhere from 50 to 400, former President Carter is probably the most on the money with an estimate of 150), the country continues to promote a policy of "deliberate ambiguity" -- they have never denied having weapons but they have also said they aren't going to be the first to "introduce" a nuclear weapon. Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and continues to refuse admission to IAEA inspectors -- which puts it in the same company as Iran and North Korea, India and Pakistan. Of this grouping, only India can be considered a legitimate democracy as is internationally understood and Pakistan is moving back towards democracy but not without a fight from radical Islamists. What's more telling is that although the world has known the truth since 1985, no sanctions have ever been introduced against Israel. Is it because the world thinks that its brand of democracy is legitimate but India's isn't?
Given Israel's neighbourhood one can probably understand its recalcitrance. It does need every tool in its toolbox. But I happen to believe there can be no double standards either. The only outcome that could bring stability in the region is if all countries in the region declared the extent of their nuclear and other WMD programs and then disarmed without any qualifications. This would also have to include explicit recognition by Arab states of Israel's right to exist. Much as I would like this to happen I am not holding my breath.
The only possibility short term that I see is for Israel to launch an air strike against Iran to take out its nuclear sites, much as it did in 1981 against Iraq. Back in those days, Iraq was too busy with its border war with Iran to care that much, in fact Saddam Hussein famously said that when he won over Iran, there wouldn't be any Israel any more.
Moreover the war in Iraq did not as its backers hoped produce a stable democracy. Instead, there is a very shaky coalition that still refuses to recognize Israel and is increasingly in Iran's back pocket. If Iran ever does succeed in building a bomb and stations some of them in Iraq, then the stakes get even higher. And it's not just countries -- terrorist groups pretty much know how to make a nuclear bomb, it's just a matter of sourcing the ingredients.
The best diplomacy comes not from hiding things but putting everything on the table. Much as it would discomfort me I think this has to happen: 1) The four dissenting countries all need to sign the NNPT on the basis that, yes, they broke the rules but they will get a one time free pass; 2) there needs to be international agreement that that's it -- no other country will be allowed to develop a nuclear deterrent under any circumstances; 3) inspections must take place regularly to ensure limits on weapons are being followed and indeed "The Nine" are reducing their stockpiles with a defined goal in time towards abolition; and 4) both Pakistan and Iran must recognize Israel's right to exist.
If there is a genuine security agreement based on these then I think we can finally begin to get a handle on the nuclear threat posed by rogue terrorist groups. By exchanging notes on best practises we may finally get the upper hand against al-Qaeda and other like minded groups.
But I'm not going to dream about this, or how it should be. This is going to be a hot year in international relations. I can only hope, not to the point where it hits 5500 C.
That being said, I have to say that this is one time where there can be absolutely no double standards. When India, Pakistan and North Korea each introduced their nuclear program in a "big" way the rest of the world imposed trade sanctions, as well as it should have.
However, despite overwhelming evidence that Israel also has nuclear weapons (depending on who's counting it's anywhere from 50 to 400, former President Carter is probably the most on the money with an estimate of 150), the country continues to promote a policy of "deliberate ambiguity" -- they have never denied having weapons but they have also said they aren't going to be the first to "introduce" a nuclear weapon. Israel is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and continues to refuse admission to IAEA inspectors -- which puts it in the same company as Iran and North Korea, India and Pakistan. Of this grouping, only India can be considered a legitimate democracy as is internationally understood and Pakistan is moving back towards democracy but not without a fight from radical Islamists. What's more telling is that although the world has known the truth since 1985, no sanctions have ever been introduced against Israel. Is it because the world thinks that its brand of democracy is legitimate but India's isn't?
Given Israel's neighbourhood one can probably understand its recalcitrance. It does need every tool in its toolbox. But I happen to believe there can be no double standards either. The only outcome that could bring stability in the region is if all countries in the region declared the extent of their nuclear and other WMD programs and then disarmed without any qualifications. This would also have to include explicit recognition by Arab states of Israel's right to exist. Much as I would like this to happen I am not holding my breath.
The only possibility short term that I see is for Israel to launch an air strike against Iran to take out its nuclear sites, much as it did in 1981 against Iraq. Back in those days, Iraq was too busy with its border war with Iran to care that much, in fact Saddam Hussein famously said that when he won over Iran, there wouldn't be any Israel any more.
Moreover the war in Iraq did not as its backers hoped produce a stable democracy. Instead, there is a very shaky coalition that still refuses to recognize Israel and is increasingly in Iran's back pocket. If Iran ever does succeed in building a bomb and stations some of them in Iraq, then the stakes get even higher. And it's not just countries -- terrorist groups pretty much know how to make a nuclear bomb, it's just a matter of sourcing the ingredients.
The best diplomacy comes not from hiding things but putting everything on the table. Much as it would discomfort me I think this has to happen: 1) The four dissenting countries all need to sign the NNPT on the basis that, yes, they broke the rules but they will get a one time free pass; 2) there needs to be international agreement that that's it -- no other country will be allowed to develop a nuclear deterrent under any circumstances; 3) inspections must take place regularly to ensure limits on weapons are being followed and indeed "The Nine" are reducing their stockpiles with a defined goal in time towards abolition; and 4) both Pakistan and Iran must recognize Israel's right to exist.
If there is a genuine security agreement based on these then I think we can finally begin to get a handle on the nuclear threat posed by rogue terrorist groups. By exchanging notes on best practises we may finally get the upper hand against al-Qaeda and other like minded groups.
But I'm not going to dream about this, or how it should be. This is going to be a hot year in international relations. I can only hope, not to the point where it hits 5500 C.
Thursday, 23 February, 2012
What passes for road maintenance -- in Hamilton (Part 1 of an unending series)
Really. This is one of Hamilton's busiest routes – the Claremount Access which connects the lower city at Victoria (northbound) and Wellington (southbound) with the upper city at Upper James. They rebuilt part of this route about two or three years ago, along the upper section where the southbound lanes actually are carried over a bridge, such that it overhangs the escarpment. And they somehow forgot to check the retaining wall on the other side? It collapsed yesterday, and the lanes going north into downtown are going to be closed for days. Nice tie-ups on the other escarpment access routes, especially the ones with only one lane in each direction.
If this is what passes for a good roads program, then whoever runs the Public Works Department needs to be fired. Can you imagine the chaos if this happened during a snow event (like we're supposed to get this weekend)? We pay the highest property taxes in Central Canada and this is what's happening with our money?
Long ago, Pittsburgh, a city with a similar topography, had a solution for the routes going up and down the hill – they buried them. Why can't we do that here? It might cost a bit up front but at least the roads would stay open.
Wednesday, 22 February, 2012
It's called ministerial responsibility, Toews!
"Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail -- if we were to read every bill that we passed? Well, the good thing, it would slow down the legislative process." Rep. John Conyers (D -- MI 14) to Michael Moore on the rush passage of the Patriot Act.
Good to be back after taking a bit of a break. Hope my postings will become much more regular going forward.
Seems we learn nothing from the Americans because don't need to, or perhaps we should. No sooner does our Attorney General, Vic Toews, accuses the Opposition of supporting child pornography because the Opposition is concerned about possible Charter violations on police searches of Internet Service Providers than Toews admits that he actually hadn't read the bill before tabling it in Parliament for first reading last week.
A minister who introduces legislation on behalf of the government is responsible for the content. He or she can't blame it on government lawyers. Especially when it's the head of the Justice Department itself, the Attorney General. Vic Toews is our chief law enforcement officer, for heaven's sake. Wouldn't it be nice for him to say that he screwed up and is open to introducing amendments to fix the major concerns we have about the bill, even before it goes to the Justice Committee after second reading? Frankly, this should actually be read by Committee of the Whole.
This situation almost sounds like the rush job on the anti-terrorism provisions that were passed by Parliament in the wake of 9/11. Most of the bill had actually been ready for tabling before the outrages that befell our American friends (and killed 24 of our own) since the then Liberal government wanted to come down hard on biker gangs and other organized crime elements; but the provisions dealing with preventative detention and secrecy of classified information which were drafted after that horrible day weren't really thought through. Even the "Official Secrets Act" had its name changed to the "Security of Information Act" -- as much a whitewash as when the "War Measures Act" became the "Emergency Measures Act"; martial law by any other name is still martial law.
Regarding the bill itself, the fact any police officer could without a warrant check on my purchasing patterns or my library records -- not to mention what I post here and my Facebook ™ and LinkedIn ™ accounts -- is frightening. It's really no one's business if I want to read Mein Kampf (because I'm not a racist) or The Anarchist's Cookbook (because I have no intention of making a bomb). The government would better spend its time going after rampant identity thieves or unlicensed online "lotteries."
I stand next to no one in my opposition to child porn. The slime-bags who produce and distribute it should be locked up in a deep, dank hole for a very long time.
But what ever happened to legitimately opposing legislation without being branded this or that? This is something learned from the Americans that we never really should have. For that matter, why is it that the only acceptable point of reference on how legislation should be written or enforced is the American way? If we look at other liberal democracies our sentences are already relatively harsh -- in much of the EU sentences for most crimes are substantially lighter for first offences (with the exception of DUI, where a reading of .05 is usually a misdemeanor and .08 is a felony).
Be that as it may, I have to break with many of my fellow progressives in saying the online campaign to air out Toews' dirty laundry (i.e. his divorce) really isn't that polite. Sure what he initially said about the Opposition was wrong, but two wrongs don't exactly make a right unless Toews himself has trafficked in the very kind of atrocity he wants to stamp out (and there is no indication of course that he has ever done that). If we're going to argue for civility and the right to privacy, then we should practice what we preach. There are still rumours about Bytown about another politician facing a family crisis; until we know for sure it really is him or her there's no point spreading rumours.
I support getting tough on crime, especially when there is virtually no chance of redemption as with the disgusting filth the law is intended to address at base. But when the government overreaches, it's the Opposition's duty to presume the "right to advise, to consult and to warn." In this case, we need to go by what we always have done -- probable cause to obtain a warrant. I thought that was what one of the components of habeas corpus was about.
Thursday, 9 February, 2012
Prop 8 struck down again
I have only had enough time to skim through the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in California's Proposition 8, the gay marriage ban. As we all know, the appeals panel upheld the lower court ruling striking down the measure as violating the federal constitution. It did stop short of saying sexual orientation is a "suspect class" entitled to Fourteenth Amendment scrutiny but that on the face of it the proposition nevertheless violates that amendment.
The vote in the 9th Circuit was 2-1, but what is more important is that all three judges on the panel also dismissed out of hand the so called "family values" claim that the district judge was prejudiced in favour of striking down because he happens to be gay himself. This is patently ridiculous. A judge is sworn to uphold the law and to render equal justice to all. His or her own personal beliefs can be described in obiter if that judge so chooses but he or she still has to settle the case, in this case a request for a restraining order, based on the facts. And that's precisely what Judge Vaughn Walker did in the district court case in Prop 8, the last significant one he rendered prior to his retirement.
Canada took a huge lead in recognizing same sex couples, first at common law (or "partners in fact" as the relationship is known in Québec) then recognizing marriages. The act of marriage and even common law relationships carry with them legal responsibilities. In fighting for the right to marry, the LGBT population was asking for nothing less than to also accept the responsibilities that come with marriage -- including how taxes are paid and child-parent relationships are structured.
And it's not as if the rights of the First Estate have been damaged. No minister is required to act as the arbiter of a same sex marriage ceremony in any jurisdiction where it is now legal -- any more than that minister would be forced to marry a mixed race couple (there are bigots like that still out there, but their freedom of religion in that regard does remain protected even in the new status quo).
Whatever my personal convictions are, I state again that just as it is now considered unthinkable to ban interracial marriage or an inter-faith marriage, there's no reason whatsoever to stop gays and lesbians from marrying. And for one simple reason: It's none of my business. Frankly resources could be better spent fighting polygamist communities where women are swapped several times over and teenage boys abandoned like so much human garbage, than gay or lesbian couples who want nothing more than to live and let live -- which one of the two in the end is, after all, a bigger threat to the social fabric?
The vote in the 9th Circuit was 2-1, but what is more important is that all three judges on the panel also dismissed out of hand the so called "family values" claim that the district judge was prejudiced in favour of striking down because he happens to be gay himself. This is patently ridiculous. A judge is sworn to uphold the law and to render equal justice to all. His or her own personal beliefs can be described in obiter if that judge so chooses but he or she still has to settle the case, in this case a request for a restraining order, based on the facts. And that's precisely what Judge Vaughn Walker did in the district court case in Prop 8, the last significant one he rendered prior to his retirement.
Canada took a huge lead in recognizing same sex couples, first at common law (or "partners in fact" as the relationship is known in Québec) then recognizing marriages. The act of marriage and even common law relationships carry with them legal responsibilities. In fighting for the right to marry, the LGBT population was asking for nothing less than to also accept the responsibilities that come with marriage -- including how taxes are paid and child-parent relationships are structured.
And it's not as if the rights of the First Estate have been damaged. No minister is required to act as the arbiter of a same sex marriage ceremony in any jurisdiction where it is now legal -- any more than that minister would be forced to marry a mixed race couple (there are bigots like that still out there, but their freedom of religion in that regard does remain protected even in the new status quo).
Whatever my personal convictions are, I state again that just as it is now considered unthinkable to ban interracial marriage or an inter-faith marriage, there's no reason whatsoever to stop gays and lesbians from marrying. And for one simple reason: It's none of my business. Frankly resources could be better spent fighting polygamist communities where women are swapped several times over and teenage boys abandoned like so much human garbage, than gay or lesbian couples who want nothing more than to live and let live -- which one of the two in the end is, after all, a bigger threat to the social fabric?
Wednesday, 8 February, 2012
Where is the politically independent bureacracy? Going, going ...
There's still quite a bit of fallout from last week's rather surprising admission that employees on the federal government's payroll, the permanent civil service, were recruited to take part in a citizenship "reaffirmation" ceremony -- and broadcast on the Conservative's semi-official organ, Sun News TV. Seems that some of the new Canadians saw the stunt for what it was, a stunt, so six bureaucrats were "conscripted" to take their place.
Set aside the fact that so many new Canadians, perhaps as many as 3000, were phoned in hopes of finding any ten willing to. And it was handled by communications people, not actual citizenship clerks. That's a major invasion of privacy since a citizenship application should only be used for that purpose; just as we all expect our tax returns whether filed electronically or by snail mail to be used to calculate only what is owed and by whom and not to find out who's running "X" grow op, "Y" chop shop or "Z" brothel. After all, if the government is getting its revenues, it really should not matter to them if income is being reported from whatever source even if it is being laundered. The police may want to know what illegal activity is going on, of course, but one would think they have other investigative modes at their disposal.
It's not just the charade demeans the naturalization process as we understand it. It's a big deal to assume a citizenship, and when it's by choice and not by birth it carries with it major rights as well as responsibilities -- the same in fact as for native-born Canadians. My family in the two generations before me have at least several "new" Canadians and I am sure they would be quite appalled by the Con / Sun ploy.
It also makes me want to ask a much more ominous question -- what is the point of having a permanent civil service if it only serves to carry out the will of the governing party? Or promoting from within based on skill, if those skills aren't necessary after all?
The existence of a public service based on merit and not on who one knows is one of the things which helps push back against possible influence peddling. The rules may change from time to time based on what the law is, but the same people can be depended upon to act in the interests of all people and not for a chosen few. It also ensures, in theory, there are no "press opportunities" where the people get one message but those tasked to put policies into place know what the real rules are. After all, if you are telling the truth there is no need to repeat the story.
Many governments of all stripes have no doubt been guilty of this.
But it is the brazenness of this stunt that I find worrisome as it it marks a trend towards those who are willing to pay for the message and twist it for their own ends. When it comes to citizenship in particular, I have been under the impression that one does not take the oath as a conservative Canadian or a liberal Canadian or a socialist Canadian but a Canadian, period. To use the taxpayer funded bureaucracy to spread this kind of propaganda is unacceptable.
There should not only be a ban on this kind of politicking. There should also be a ban on all propaganda ads crafted by the party in power promoting X "Action Plan" or Y "De-register this" but labelled "A message from the Government of Canada" -- such seal of approval ads should only apply to legitimate public service announcements, such as (for an example) how to access the SAME codes for programmable weather radios.
The Cons have a huge warchest. Let them rely on that for their smears and propaganda on what tax "cuts" (really "expenditures") they've implemented, and that will allow the other parties to compete on a level playing field.
I say the same should apply to names for acts of Parliament. No sloganeering in the long or short titles, just something neutral so there is no confusion.
Let the public service do what they were hired to do -- serve the public, the whole public, not one specific party. After all there is only one pool of money to draw income from.
Set aside the fact that so many new Canadians, perhaps as many as 3000, were phoned in hopes of finding any ten willing to. And it was handled by communications people, not actual citizenship clerks. That's a major invasion of privacy since a citizenship application should only be used for that purpose; just as we all expect our tax returns whether filed electronically or by snail mail to be used to calculate only what is owed and by whom and not to find out who's running "X" grow op, "Y" chop shop or "Z" brothel. After all, if the government is getting its revenues, it really should not matter to them if income is being reported from whatever source even if it is being laundered. The police may want to know what illegal activity is going on, of course, but one would think they have other investigative modes at their disposal.
It's not just the charade demeans the naturalization process as we understand it. It's a big deal to assume a citizenship, and when it's by choice and not by birth it carries with it major rights as well as responsibilities -- the same in fact as for native-born Canadians. My family in the two generations before me have at least several "new" Canadians and I am sure they would be quite appalled by the Con / Sun ploy.
It also makes me want to ask a much more ominous question -- what is the point of having a permanent civil service if it only serves to carry out the will of the governing party? Or promoting from within based on skill, if those skills aren't necessary after all?
The existence of a public service based on merit and not on who one knows is one of the things which helps push back against possible influence peddling. The rules may change from time to time based on what the law is, but the same people can be depended upon to act in the interests of all people and not for a chosen few. It also ensures, in theory, there are no "press opportunities" where the people get one message but those tasked to put policies into place know what the real rules are. After all, if you are telling the truth there is no need to repeat the story.
Many governments of all stripes have no doubt been guilty of this.
But it is the brazenness of this stunt that I find worrisome as it it marks a trend towards those who are willing to pay for the message and twist it for their own ends. When it comes to citizenship in particular, I have been under the impression that one does not take the oath as a conservative Canadian or a liberal Canadian or a socialist Canadian but a Canadian, period. To use the taxpayer funded bureaucracy to spread this kind of propaganda is unacceptable.
There should not only be a ban on this kind of politicking. There should also be a ban on all propaganda ads crafted by the party in power promoting X "Action Plan" or Y "De-register this" but labelled "A message from the Government of Canada" -- such seal of approval ads should only apply to legitimate public service announcements, such as (for an example) how to access the SAME codes for programmable weather radios.
The Cons have a huge warchest. Let them rely on that for their smears and propaganda on what tax "cuts" (really "expenditures") they've implemented, and that will allow the other parties to compete on a level playing field.
I say the same should apply to names for acts of Parliament. No sloganeering in the long or short titles, just something neutral so there is no confusion.
Let the public service do what they were hired to do -- serve the public, the whole public, not one specific party. After all there is only one pool of money to draw income from.
Monday, 30 January, 2012
Guilty verdicts in Kingston -- a turning point in the war against women?
The struggle for equal rights never ends and must never end. Recent events in two parts of the world, seemingly disconnected but linked by the common element of who the targets are, are a reminder of this.
Firstly, the guilty verdicts yesterday in Kingston in the so-called "honour killings" of Zainab, Sahar and Geeti Shafia and Rona Mohammad Amir are not only welcome but perhaps finally causing the discussion we should have been having all these years. I'm not just talking about deliberately killing women because they just want to be themselves; it's that people bring their preconceived notions of what's right and wrong to Canada. Moreover there seems to be a willingness to completely isolate oneself from the community at large and force one's children born here to act and comply as if it is "the old country."
But what I find even more incredible is that this was not a case of refugees gone bad. No, one of the convicts, Mohammed Shafia, bought his way into Canada, via the Québec immigrant investor program. The others, second wife Tooba Yahya and son Hamed Shafia, managed to get in under suspicious circumstances. Of course Mr Shafia couldn't bring in both of his wives into Canada since polygamy is illegal here but he came up with a BS story that Ms Yahya was his cousin, and numb-nuts immigration officers overseas didn't run a background check.
I suppose there is a reason why we have to have a business class of immigrants; every province in fact runs a program although Québec's always seems to be the highest profile. It's because we need those skills and if it means fast-tracking the naturalization process then so be it. But is it too much to ask some questions beyond the normal questions we'd expect?
And it's not just would-be Canadians. It happens in long-established communities here as well and in all religious groups. Sadly, there are going to be more tragedies like this one. Every province will have its own goals on what it needs to achieve from immigration from all classes but surely we can all agree that leadership starts from the top, and that in particular it's the licensed religious leaders of all faiths who need to take a stand. Child protection authorities need to be more vigilant as well. There are far too many false apprehensions which cause nothing but grief on their own, but it's the failure to act even when victims don't want the help but obviously need it that's outrageous.
It's good to hear most Muslims in Canada and their leadership want to stop the cycle of violence. But it all goes back to where it begins. If someone wanting to come here to Canada refuses to recognize the equality of women, they should not even bother applying. If someone already here refuses to recognize equal rights for women and acts on that notion, the full force of the law should be applied.
This leads somewhat awkwardly to what's been going on in a number of places as of late and secular vs religious Jews. We have all heard about women who have been "ordered" to go to the back of the bus by ultra-orthodox Jews, or the eight year old who was attacked for the dress she was wearing to school and by grown men. Or even in Montréal a few years back when a women's only exercise studio caved into some radicals who said they wanted the windows tinted because they thought a woman in skin-tight exercise gear was offensive.
Set aside the principle that you should pick on someone your own size -- and gender. Many of these men have managed to get around mandatory conscription laws for far too long. They don't even have to subscribe to alternate service, such that existed in most Allied countries during World War II.
It's good to see people fighting back, in small but measurable ways.
The major principle I think we need to get around is that while as a secular society we are very accommodating to all ethnic groups and religions -- consider how boring dining would be if there weren't the choices of food out there, particularly Middle East and South Asian -- there has to be a limit to where we say this is what we are all about. That there are common values we all hold to. I'm not saying we have to agree on everything, because then we would not be a democracy any more. We need to however say that there is a point where we are willing to reasonably accommodate each other but at a certain point we need to have common rules of the road.
Because in this particular case whether we like it or not, religious based "tribunals" of all religions (and we see agitation to allow these alternate forms of arbitration, be it Sharia for Muslims, the Beth Din for Jews, the Curial courts for Catholics, etc.) are almost always stacked against women. Until relatively recently, even the law here was constructed to be against women. Women who were married weren't allowed to get their own property until the 1970s. We forget easily that spousal assault didn't even exist as a crime in Canada until 1983 and the principle of "no means no" wasn't enacted until a decade after that.
I've said this before and I'll say it again -- we need to see this for what it is, a war against women. There are too many men and sadly even many women too, who openly and enthusiastically support femicide. Until we all get around to this fact and push back, more will die. The longer we let this go on, sooner or later we'll get to the point where the blood will be sticking on our hands rather than those of the perpetrators.
To be honest I breathed a sigh of relief when the guilty verdicts came down yesterday. It's unfortunate however that the four life sentences each of the Montréal Three got are concurrent -- frankly a hundred year sentence is call for, not twenty-five. Actually, I would have gone even further, invoked that this was a crime of hate as an aggravating circumstance, and doubled it to two hundred years.
UPDATE (7:46 pm EDT, 0046 GMT 01-31-2012): Minor edits.
Firstly, the guilty verdicts yesterday in Kingston in the so-called "honour killings" of Zainab, Sahar and Geeti Shafia and Rona Mohammad Amir are not only welcome but perhaps finally causing the discussion we should have been having all these years. I'm not just talking about deliberately killing women because they just want to be themselves; it's that people bring their preconceived notions of what's right and wrong to Canada. Moreover there seems to be a willingness to completely isolate oneself from the community at large and force one's children born here to act and comply as if it is "the old country."
But what I find even more incredible is that this was not a case of refugees gone bad. No, one of the convicts, Mohammed Shafia, bought his way into Canada, via the Québec immigrant investor program. The others, second wife Tooba Yahya and son Hamed Shafia, managed to get in under suspicious circumstances. Of course Mr Shafia couldn't bring in both of his wives into Canada since polygamy is illegal here but he came up with a BS story that Ms Yahya was his cousin, and numb-nuts immigration officers overseas didn't run a background check.
I suppose there is a reason why we have to have a business class of immigrants; every province in fact runs a program although Québec's always seems to be the highest profile. It's because we need those skills and if it means fast-tracking the naturalization process then so be it. But is it too much to ask some questions beyond the normal questions we'd expect?
And it's not just would-be Canadians. It happens in long-established communities here as well and in all religious groups. Sadly, there are going to be more tragedies like this one. Every province will have its own goals on what it needs to achieve from immigration from all classes but surely we can all agree that leadership starts from the top, and that in particular it's the licensed religious leaders of all faiths who need to take a stand. Child protection authorities need to be more vigilant as well. There are far too many false apprehensions which cause nothing but grief on their own, but it's the failure to act even when victims don't want the help but obviously need it that's outrageous.
It's good to hear most Muslims in Canada and their leadership want to stop the cycle of violence. But it all goes back to where it begins. If someone wanting to come here to Canada refuses to recognize the equality of women, they should not even bother applying. If someone already here refuses to recognize equal rights for women and acts on that notion, the full force of the law should be applied.
This leads somewhat awkwardly to what's been going on in a number of places as of late and secular vs religious Jews. We have all heard about women who have been "ordered" to go to the back of the bus by ultra-orthodox Jews, or the eight year old who was attacked for the dress she was wearing to school and by grown men. Or even in Montréal a few years back when a women's only exercise studio caved into some radicals who said they wanted the windows tinted because they thought a woman in skin-tight exercise gear was offensive.
Set aside the principle that you should pick on someone your own size -- and gender. Many of these men have managed to get around mandatory conscription laws for far too long. They don't even have to subscribe to alternate service, such that existed in most Allied countries during World War II.
It's good to see people fighting back, in small but measurable ways.
The major principle I think we need to get around is that while as a secular society we are very accommodating to all ethnic groups and religions -- consider how boring dining would be if there weren't the choices of food out there, particularly Middle East and South Asian -- there has to be a limit to where we say this is what we are all about. That there are common values we all hold to. I'm not saying we have to agree on everything, because then we would not be a democracy any more. We need to however say that there is a point where we are willing to reasonably accommodate each other but at a certain point we need to have common rules of the road.
Because in this particular case whether we like it or not, religious based "tribunals" of all religions (and we see agitation to allow these alternate forms of arbitration, be it Sharia for Muslims, the Beth Din for Jews, the Curial courts for Catholics, etc.) are almost always stacked against women. Until relatively recently, even the law here was constructed to be against women. Women who were married weren't allowed to get their own property until the 1970s. We forget easily that spousal assault didn't even exist as a crime in Canada until 1983 and the principle of "no means no" wasn't enacted until a decade after that.
I've said this before and I'll say it again -- we need to see this for what it is, a war against women. There are too many men and sadly even many women too, who openly and enthusiastically support femicide. Until we all get around to this fact and push back, more will die. The longer we let this go on, sooner or later we'll get to the point where the blood will be sticking on our hands rather than those of the perpetrators.
To be honest I breathed a sigh of relief when the guilty verdicts came down yesterday. It's unfortunate however that the four life sentences each of the Montréal Three got are concurrent -- frankly a hundred year sentence is call for, not twenty-five. Actually, I would have gone even further, invoked that this was a crime of hate as an aggravating circumstance, and doubled it to two hundred years.
UPDATE (7:46 pm EDT, 0046 GMT 01-31-2012): Minor edits.
Wednesday, 18 January, 2012
Harper: Right about Iran, but on the tar sands and "outsiders" ...
This week, the Prime Minister expressed aloud concerns many of us Canadian of all stripes have had either openly or privately – that Iran is a ticking time bomb with its nuclear program which without a shadow of a doubt has only one aim, to create a nuclear bomb that would threaten Israel. Meanwhile, the PM has been critical of “outside interference” in the debate over piping the oil sands south and west.
The priorities of the Western alliance got totally distracted by the Iraq debacle when it should have been aimed squarely at North Korea and Iran. And while Canada would almost certainly have no choice in the matter should there be a war, and hopefully one with only conventional weapons, there is also no doubt we should have done a more persuasive job in using our “good offices” (such that they are) to help calm things down, given that we have direct relations with Iran and the United States still does not, over thirty years after the hostage crisis ended.
Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz which would choke off oil supplies from Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates; but it would also have the result of of Iran blockading itself. So no one can really take that one seriously. But its willingness to crush internal dissent as well as diverting massive resources that could be feeding and educating its people but instead going into a fanatical voyage over the atom cannot be ignored. It rigged two elections in a row and loudly supports honour killings of women.
The whole idea of “Atoms for Peace,” as Eisenhower called it in the 1950s – the Fifties! -- is really a joke. Once you can control the atom, you can do almost anything, just short of being God (although you can certainly pretend to be the Almighty). No doubt nuclear energy has had its benefits in terms of power generation and practical uses ranging from irradiating food to nuclear medicine. But the ability to make weapons grade fuel, like Canada can, carries with it huge responsibilities.
While the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regularly inspects our nuclear facilities, you never hear about it on the news because we comply fully with our international obligations. It's time for the world to take a firm and unequivocal stand with Iran. Iran has to open up their facilities, all of them, or face suspension from all UN agencies on which Iran has a seat. For a country that really doesn't care about world opinion, it may not mean much, but such shunning may spark the kind of revolt that has carried across much of the rest of the Middle East.
Briefly, as for Canada – well, as a democracy, we have to be willing to accept outside criticism of our policies as many in this country have those same anti-government views. The old saying goes, we hold our friends close and our enemies closer but we also hold our allies to a higher standard. Or in this case, to the standard that our allies hold us. We should be living up to that standard, quite frankly. The pipelines are almost certainly going to be built even if they are delayed for a time. That doesn't mean we can't listen to reasonable criticism and make alterations to the routes that ameliorate as much as possible the potential damage; while also settling once and for all the ensuing Aboriginal land claims as well.
Guess that makes James Cameron and Raffi Cavoukian agitators as much as Robert Redford and Kevin Bacon -- even though the former two are Canadians. I don't really like Cameron (for all the obvious reasons) and I outgrew Raffi decades ago, but they have as much right to complain as anyone else. And Redford and Bacon's opinions should be welcome, after all, the border is just a line in the map -- we share the same ballpark, more or less.
Guess that makes James Cameron and Raffi Cavoukian agitators as much as Robert Redford and Kevin Bacon -- even though the former two are Canadians. I don't really like Cameron (for all the obvious reasons) and I outgrew Raffi decades ago, but they have as much right to complain as anyone else. And Redford and Bacon's opinions should be welcome, after all, the border is just a line in the map -- we share the same ballpark, more or less.
We can't very well say one country can't have energy while we should have as much as possible. Of course every country is entitled to nuclear energy provided it truly is peaceful and any weapons grade level material is handled according to strict and accepted norms. For our part, we should be leading by example. After all, I thought Alberta was the land of the Four Strong Winds. Heck, even we're trying to “ride the wind” in Ontario too although it's costing us plenty with the "feed in tariff" (especially on windy days when windmill power makes up 10% of the "load".)
UPDATE (7:50 pm EST, 0050 2012-01-19 GMT): Looks like President Obama has indefinitely shelved Keystone XL. It'll eventually happen though not for another couple of years at least. But I still say we have to keep an eye on the ball that is Iran -- just as we should of after 9/11.
UPDATE (7:50 pm EST, 0050 2012-01-19 GMT): Looks like President Obama has indefinitely shelved Keystone XL. It'll eventually happen though not for another couple of years at least. But I still say we have to keep an eye on the ball that is Iran -- just as we should of after 9/11.
Monday, 16 January, 2012
Foot in mouth syndrome: What is Harper's real position on gay marriage?
Towards the end of last week, news emerged that the Harper Government was taking the position that thousands of same sex marriages in Canada may have never taken place because the institution was not valid in the home countries of the couples who took out marriage licenses here. Therefore, a gay or lesbian couple who later decides to get a divorce cannot access our courts to dissolve something that "never really happened." And this actually had me reeling. No matter what one may think about the practice it is perfectly legal in Canada and we've collectively made a decision, through our elected representatives, to just move on. Some time later, Team Harper appeared to backtrack slightly but nowhere near enough.
Here's what makes me angry about it: This is the exact same excuse many Southern States used to try to stop interracial marriage. They would not recognize any such marriages that had taken place out of state -- in clear violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Even mixed race couples who had clear roots in the North or West put themselves in peril when they travelled on vacation to the South. Since "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" many well-intended couples were summarily banished and ordered never to come back again, "or else." Eventually it was recognized that the heart wants what it wants, and that marriage should be as colour blind as public education or mass transit. Which is as well as it should be.
To use an analogy -- and I realize I'm hyper-extending, but bear with me -- in Israel, many couples of all stripes get married civilly in Turkey or Cyprus. In fact, make that most, somewhere like 80%. Reason? Because of the very strict norms imposed by the various religious heads -- the Chief Rabbinate for Jewish people, the Supreme Imam for Muslims, the Patriarch of Jerusalem for Catholics, and so forth. A civil marriage can only be contracted in Israel if both can prove a lack of connection to any confessional group -- and that's not really easy. Just one baptismal certificate for a Christian, for instance, and game over; you get married in that denomination in Israel, or not at all -- civil marriage is not an option.
This has proven problematic for those Jews from the former Soviet Union who took advantage of perestroika and immigrated en masse to Israel, and are in the opposite camp -- they want to get married under a chuppah. Under the Law of Return, part of Israel's constitution, they gained immediate Israeli citizenship as soon as they cleared customs in Tel Aviv. But because their parents and grandparents didn't practice Judaism (because they could not) the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider them to be Jewish. Seriously. So they have to take a trip out of the country to get their marriage contracted (or covenanted if your prefer). Crazy but true.
So what of the marriages contracted out of country -- civil or religious? Israel considers them to be perfectly valid. There was some dispute as to validity for decades, but it was established beyond a doubt in 2006 by the country's courts.
I wrote a few years back about a lesbian couple who validated their marriage in a northern state then the relationship soured, one of the partners won custody of their daughter, and the other took the child to another state and was charged with spousal kidnapping. The at fault party tried to invalidate the marriage by claiming her state of abode, Virginia, banned gay marriages in its state constitution. The courts ruled against her saying that whatever the position of the voters on this one, the federal constitution overrode that and a same-sex custody order from out of state could and would be enforced even in states where the practice was outlawed.
I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is at this time. If this is an example of what to expect from the "hidden agenda" of Mr Harper I cannot imagine what he has planned next. Splitting hairs on legal points is to be expected from all political parties, one would suppose. But it does no good to the families who could be forced apart on a "technicality."
Here's what makes me angry about it: This is the exact same excuse many Southern States used to try to stop interracial marriage. They would not recognize any such marriages that had taken place out of state -- in clear violation of the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. Even mixed race couples who had clear roots in the North or West put themselves in peril when they travelled on vacation to the South. Since "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" many well-intended couples were summarily banished and ordered never to come back again, "or else." Eventually it was recognized that the heart wants what it wants, and that marriage should be as colour blind as public education or mass transit. Which is as well as it should be.
To use an analogy -- and I realize I'm hyper-extending, but bear with me -- in Israel, many couples of all stripes get married civilly in Turkey or Cyprus. In fact, make that most, somewhere like 80%. Reason? Because of the very strict norms imposed by the various religious heads -- the Chief Rabbinate for Jewish people, the Supreme Imam for Muslims, the Patriarch of Jerusalem for Catholics, and so forth. A civil marriage can only be contracted in Israel if both can prove a lack of connection to any confessional group -- and that's not really easy. Just one baptismal certificate for a Christian, for instance, and game over; you get married in that denomination in Israel, or not at all -- civil marriage is not an option.
This has proven problematic for those Jews from the former Soviet Union who took advantage of perestroika and immigrated en masse to Israel, and are in the opposite camp -- they want to get married under a chuppah. Under the Law of Return, part of Israel's constitution, they gained immediate Israeli citizenship as soon as they cleared customs in Tel Aviv. But because their parents and grandparents didn't practice Judaism (because they could not) the Chief Rabbi doesn't consider them to be Jewish. Seriously. So they have to take a trip out of the country to get their marriage contracted (or covenanted if your prefer). Crazy but true.
So what of the marriages contracted out of country -- civil or religious? Israel considers them to be perfectly valid. There was some dispute as to validity for decades, but it was established beyond a doubt in 2006 by the country's courts.
I wrote a few years back about a lesbian couple who validated their marriage in a northern state then the relationship soured, one of the partners won custody of their daughter, and the other took the child to another state and was charged with spousal kidnapping. The at fault party tried to invalidate the marriage by claiming her state of abode, Virginia, banned gay marriages in its state constitution. The courts ruled against her saying that whatever the position of the voters on this one, the federal constitution overrode that and a same-sex custody order from out of state could and would be enforced even in states where the practice was outlawed.
I cannot for the life of me understand what the problem is at this time. If this is an example of what to expect from the "hidden agenda" of Mr Harper I cannot imagine what he has planned next. Splitting hairs on legal points is to be expected from all political parties, one would suppose. But it does no good to the families who could be forced apart on a "technicality."
Wednesday, 4 January, 2012
Lahey sentenced -- fire the bastard
We learned today that the disgraced Roman Catholic bishop of Antigonish, Nova Scotia, Raymond Lahey, was sentenced to time served for possession of child pornography on his laptop which he was stupid enough to have in his carry-on and not in checked luggage. Time served.
Some may say merely being disgraced in public fashion is punishment enough. But I have to disagree. As a member of the First Estate, indeed an "apostle" in the eyes of the church, Lahey not only should have known better but was expected to; and instead undermined the trust of a laity already disgruntled by the inaction of their church on sex abuse.
In my opinion, nothing less than excommunication (or dis-fellowship, if you prefer that term) is indicated. But that's something only the church can do, and I'm not wasting my time waiting for the Holy See to exhale on this one.
Some may say merely being disgraced in public fashion is punishment enough. But I have to disagree. As a member of the First Estate, indeed an "apostle" in the eyes of the church, Lahey not only should have known better but was expected to; and instead undermined the trust of a laity already disgruntled by the inaction of their church on sex abuse.
In my opinion, nothing less than excommunication (or dis-fellowship, if you prefer that term) is indicated. But that's something only the church can do, and I'm not wasting my time waiting for the Holy See to exhale on this one.
Wednesday, 28 December, 2011
Perry doesn't know how to shut his big mouth
Less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses. And Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) has chosen to fan the flames. First, by associating with the most unscrupulous of televangelists (which I wrote about a few months back). Now he has come out (pardon the expression) against an entirely predictable but still unwisely chosen target. Courtesy of Ginny Grimsley's News and Experts site comes this short piece from Shay Dawkins (thanks to Ginny for letting me and other bloggers use this column):
My comments:
While I have to say that I am not surprised, it is truly troubling that it has taken this long for the US to acquit itself of the issue of LGBT persons in the military. Worse, that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to be a talking point, and it still continues to be debated after DADT was repealed -- long after all its allies in NATO, with the exception of Turkey, declared it's not an issue at all nor should it be and that not only are such persons welcome in the military but to discriminate against them will come under the same scrutiny as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sex.
Here in Canada, for example, we lifted the ban in 1992, during the Mulroney administration. That's right, it was Mulroney, not Chrétien or Martin. And far as I can tell, Harper has no intention of making it an issue again. Perry is a paleolithic guy on this one: He'd turn the clock back to before DADT and send the "guilty" to a term in a military brig before being dishonourably discharged. Now, he also wants to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest. And with nothing to offer women as an alternative either. Perry wants to bitch about unfunded mandates. Maybe someone should bitch to him about his being a "Christian" who only accepts fellow Christians who fit his definition of one.
What are America's top priorities? A sane person would say, jobs, strong families, and making America respected. Rick Perry seems to think America's priorities should be big business, letting televangelists continue to commit financial acts that would be considered tax evasion in the secular world, and making America a laughing stock. Nice choice Iowa has. No wonder why a loser like Newt Gingrich looks so much better by comparison. Yikes.
Gov. Perry’s Anti- Gay Christianity Is Not My ChristianityBy: Shay Dawkins
Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s anti-gay “Strong” TV advertisement has been getting a lot of air time in Iowa in the run up to the Jan. 3 Republican caucus. It’s also getting some surprising reaction among his fellow conservatives.
I, for one, am happy to see that his ad failed to win the endorsements of a couple of key anti-gay groups: the American Family Association and Family Leader. Because Perry’s Christianity is not my Christianity.
I’m a heterosexual raised in the Pentecostal and Baptist faiths deep in the Bible belt state of Alabama. I studied the Bible in search of the Scripture that commands Christians to judge homosexuals and I didn’t find it. Instead, I found just the opposite. For my book, The Good News: How Revealing Delusions in Christianity Will Bring Peace to All, (www.thegoodnewsbook.com), I also looked for the biblical basis for other “Christian” beliefs, including opposing abortion. I didn’t find it.
In the “Strong” ad, Perry says, “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian but you don’t need to be in a pew every Sunday to know there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military.”
Really?
Why would it matter whether a soldier is homosexual or heterosexual? If he or she is ready, willing and able to defend us, our country and our freedoms – including Christians’ freedom to be Christian – isn’t that all that matters? Perry’s Christianity brands gays as evil. It seeks to turn “God-fearing” heterosexuals against their fellow man. That is not my Christianity. The true message of Jesus and the Christian Bible is to bring people comfort, not misery; promote unity, not division; and bring hope, not fear.
It’s not Jesus or the Bible that teaches Christians to be intolerant – it is other Christians. The Bible says that we should judge/condemn only people who act with the intent to hurt or harm other people (Romans 14: 13). It tells us to love our neighbors, welcome strangers, and even to love our enemies.
Jesus states that “his commandment is to love one another” (John 13: 34). The Bible goes as far as stating that “all the law of the world is fulfilled in one command: Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5: 14) and that “without love a person with everything has nothing” (1 Corinthians 13).
Perry likes to conclude his speaking engagements with “Here is what I want you to leave with: Somebody’s values are going to decide the issues of the day … somebody’s values are going to be installed. The question is going to be whose values? Is it going to be those of us of faith or somebody else’s values?”
He does not understand that his “religious beliefs/values” are based on other men’s beliefs and values; clergy often are taught what to believe in seminary. Perry’s “faith” is based on man-made, false religious doctrine -- “somebody else’s values,” as he likes to say. I’ve combed through the Scriptures and rather than finding support for Perry’s stand on homosexuality, I found a half-dozen verses that tell us homosexuality is not “sinful” for everyone.
No one should judge or condemn anyone else for being heterosexual or homosexual, atheist or believer, black or white, fat or skinny, attractive or unattractive. The Bible instructs us to be slow to judge others as “you will be judged by the same amount that you judge others” (Matthew 7: 2) and “to not make snap judgments of others” (John 7: 24).
Imagine a world where people judged and condemned only for how people treated others. I’m not sure if peace on Earth is possible, but I do know the world would be a much happier place if everyone lived by the Golden Rule, “treat others as you would like to be treated” or as Jesus stated, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 22: 39).
About Shay Dawkins: Shay Dawkins is a Tuscaloosa, Ala., businessman who grew up in Baptist and Pentecostal churches. His observances about how Christianity can be divisive despite being based on one book led to his analysis of the Bible. He is the author of “The Good News: How Revealing Delusions in Christianity Will Bring Peace to All” (www.thegoodnewsbook.com).
My comments:
While I have to say that I am not surprised, it is truly troubling that it has taken this long for the US to acquit itself of the issue of LGBT persons in the military. Worse, that "Don't Ask Don't Tell" continues to be a talking point, and it still continues to be debated after DADT was repealed -- long after all its allies in NATO, with the exception of Turkey, declared it's not an issue at all nor should it be and that not only are such persons welcome in the military but to discriminate against them will come under the same scrutiny as discrimination on the basis of race, religion or sex.
Here in Canada, for example, we lifted the ban in 1992, during the Mulroney administration. That's right, it was Mulroney, not Chrétien or Martin. And far as I can tell, Harper has no intention of making it an issue again. Perry is a paleolithic guy on this one: He'd turn the clock back to before DADT and send the "guilty" to a term in a military brig before being dishonourably discharged. Now, he also wants to ban abortions even in cases of rape or incest. And with nothing to offer women as an alternative either. Perry wants to bitch about unfunded mandates. Maybe someone should bitch to him about his being a "Christian" who only accepts fellow Christians who fit his definition of one.
What are America's top priorities? A sane person would say, jobs, strong families, and making America respected. Rick Perry seems to think America's priorities should be big business, letting televangelists continue to commit financial acts that would be considered tax evasion in the secular world, and making America a laughing stock. Nice choice Iowa has. No wonder why a loser like Newt Gingrich looks so much better by comparison. Yikes.
Tuesday, 20 December, 2011
North Korea: Moving the doomsday clock closer to midnight
It's been a little over thirty six hours since North Korea revealed that Kim Jong Il died from an apparent heart attack on Saturday. It was well known that Kim was in ill health for years but his passing poses a huge risk for the West. Having dealt with Libya with mostly flying colours and disposing the world of Osama bin Laden, US President Obama now has to figure out how to deal with the new devil inside, whomever he might be -- and it is definitely a he; I can't imagine the military leadership of the PDRK ever taking orders from a woman. It is by no means clear Kim's youngest son Kim Yong Un, has taken over notwithstanding the state propaganda. (The country does have a prime minister but the post is as toothless as it was during the pre-Gorbachev USSR).
There's an old saying that danger presents both a crisis and an opportunity. This may be one of the very few chances we ever get to disarm the North and to make it a democracy. I have no doubt that one or more of three things will happen in the present uncertainty. One, the North will detonate another nuclear missile to prove it's a serious world player. Two, it will finally succeed in launching an unarmed three-stage rocket -- which means it can launch a payload, nuclear or not, at Alaska or Hawaii, making it not just America's business but all of its allies including Canada. Three, it will go all out and go for what it has long threatened, a land attack at the South.
There can be no question who will win -- the South -- but it would come at a terrible price. Easily, a million civilians would be "collateral damage" making Iraq II look like a picnic. Second, the huge sums of money needed to rebuild the North would cripple the South even with aid from the IMF and the World Bank both of which are just about tapped out with the crises in Europe and saving the rainy day money for the inevitable bailout of the United States.
This isn't like when East Germany was annexed by the West or South Yemen by the North (the former in both cases the communist regime). In both cases, the formerly socialist regimes had relatively well developed infrastructure and a well educated workforce; and both got a huge consolation prize when their respective capitals were ultimately chosen for the reunited country. Korea is a different beast -- even Mainland China concedes that reunification will eventually have to happen and it will be a Seoul regime rather than a Pyongyang one (if WikiLeaks is to be believed). Seems the only thing North and South can agree on is when reunification does happen the anglicized spelling of the country will be with a C instead of K (as in Corea).
The North has been rightly called the "hermit kingdom" because a) the people there have literally been starved to death, perhaps two million or more have died because of Mr Kim's zeal for the bomb; b) the North's people are on average four inches shorter than their much healthier Southern brethren; c) the supreme leadership is very much an elective monarchy.
I think that this could be THE issue that tests Obama's foreign policy credentials. He may have had major successes this year in foreign policy, but he also needs to avoid having a huge policy failure. This is one he can't afford to lose. Indeed the world can't. A few years back, the "Doomsday Clock" in Chicago had gone all the way back to seventeen minutes to midnight with all the disarmament agreements that stuck. Thanks mostly in part to the belligerence of three countries -- the US under Dubya in Iraq, an anti-Semitic maniac in Iran, and North Korea's politburo -- we're now at six minutes to doomsday in a proverbial sense.
I still believe we had a chance if the world had gone after Iran, not Iraq, first. But now, the first order of business is North Korea. I'm not exactly sure I like anticipating how the next few weeks are going to roll out especially with primary season in the States now upon us. Canada's role? Who knows -- we may be one of the few countries with direct ties with the North but even that's been on ice for quite some time, given the nature of the country.
With power comes responsibility. Especially when your country can make weapons grade material like we in Canada can. Not that we would ever make a bomb, but the more the number of rogue states that have it, the more legitimate countries will want one as a deterrent. If more of our allies want one then there will be pressure for us to have our own rather than "hosting" allies' missiles too. And that will mean open season for terrorists who will seek to attack any nuclear power plant to get the secret fuel to make a dirty bomb.
There's an old saying that danger presents both a crisis and an opportunity. This may be one of the very few chances we ever get to disarm the North and to make it a democracy. I have no doubt that one or more of three things will happen in the present uncertainty. One, the North will detonate another nuclear missile to prove it's a serious world player. Two, it will finally succeed in launching an unarmed three-stage rocket -- which means it can launch a payload, nuclear or not, at Alaska or Hawaii, making it not just America's business but all of its allies including Canada. Three, it will go all out and go for what it has long threatened, a land attack at the South.
There can be no question who will win -- the South -- but it would come at a terrible price. Easily, a million civilians would be "collateral damage" making Iraq II look like a picnic. Second, the huge sums of money needed to rebuild the North would cripple the South even with aid from the IMF and the World Bank both of which are just about tapped out with the crises in Europe and saving the rainy day money for the inevitable bailout of the United States.
This isn't like when East Germany was annexed by the West or South Yemen by the North (the former in both cases the communist regime). In both cases, the formerly socialist regimes had relatively well developed infrastructure and a well educated workforce; and both got a huge consolation prize when their respective capitals were ultimately chosen for the reunited country. Korea is a different beast -- even Mainland China concedes that reunification will eventually have to happen and it will be a Seoul regime rather than a Pyongyang one (if WikiLeaks is to be believed). Seems the only thing North and South can agree on is when reunification does happen the anglicized spelling of the country will be with a C instead of K (as in Corea).
The North has been rightly called the "hermit kingdom" because a) the people there have literally been starved to death, perhaps two million or more have died because of Mr Kim's zeal for the bomb; b) the North's people are on average four inches shorter than their much healthier Southern brethren; c) the supreme leadership is very much an elective monarchy.
I think that this could be THE issue that tests Obama's foreign policy credentials. He may have had major successes this year in foreign policy, but he also needs to avoid having a huge policy failure. This is one he can't afford to lose. Indeed the world can't. A few years back, the "Doomsday Clock" in Chicago had gone all the way back to seventeen minutes to midnight with all the disarmament agreements that stuck. Thanks mostly in part to the belligerence of three countries -- the US under Dubya in Iraq, an anti-Semitic maniac in Iran, and North Korea's politburo -- we're now at six minutes to doomsday in a proverbial sense.
I still believe we had a chance if the world had gone after Iran, not Iraq, first. But now, the first order of business is North Korea. I'm not exactly sure I like anticipating how the next few weeks are going to roll out especially with primary season in the States now upon us. Canada's role? Who knows -- we may be one of the few countries with direct ties with the North but even that's been on ice for quite some time, given the nature of the country.
With power comes responsibility. Especially when your country can make weapons grade material like we in Canada can. Not that we would ever make a bomb, but the more the number of rogue states that have it, the more legitimate countries will want one as a deterrent. If more of our allies want one then there will be pressure for us to have our own rather than "hosting" allies' missiles too. And that will mean open season for terrorists who will seek to attack any nuclear power plant to get the secret fuel to make a dirty bomb.
Thursday, 15 December, 2011
What's in YOUR drinking water? In Hamilton it could be Scotchgard ™
Several months ago, back in the spring of this year, Radio Canada ran an investigative report regarding the run-off of chemicals from John Munro International Airport at Mount Hope, the highest point in Hamilton. This was prompted after a lot of fish and turtles were turning up dead downstream in Chippewa Creek which supplies Lake Niapenco and onward to the Welland River. This water system is the drinking source of water for residents of the mostly rural Binbrook section of the city who haven't been hooked up to Lake Ontario's supply, but also for many rural residents in the Niagara Region.
What did the reporters find in the water? Something called Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS. PFOS was until a couple years ago the active ingredient in Scotchgard ™ and was also used in flame retardant foam. The kind you'd find in fire trucks. Radio Canada discovered through lab tests that levels of PFOS were twenty times the legal limit of 10 parts per billion. And what makes it worse, is that PFOS has a half life of five years. Meaning it persists for years, and the concentrations add up the more you drink it.
Two years ago, the 3M ™ company, when it recognized the problem, reformulated what comes in the cans and barrels with another chemical that has a half life of only one month -- meaning it breaks down much faster over time.
It's not just the fish that have been affected. In the States, there are PFOS excess levels in bald eagles, polar bears, minx and two species of the dolphin just to name a few. And public health officials have found kidney cancer clusters from exposure to excess levels of PFOS; and it affects all age, sex, racial and ethnic groups who are exposed, equally. Not to mention how it compromises the immune system.
The story was quickly picked up by the alternate media in town (View Magazine for instance) but it wasn't until this fall that mainstream outlets got on the story. Two days ago, the local city council said it should be the feds who should pay for the cleanup. This after it was learned that the provincial Environment department might slap the city with a cleanup order. The argument the city makes is that the airport fire training facility was used not just by Hamilton but by fire departments in other cities -- that Hamilton only makes up for 10% of the total.
Well, shouldn't it be the company that made the stuff -- 3M -- in the first place, that has to pay, at least a large portion of the damages? Maybe they didn't know what it was, at first. But if it was causing problems, why wasn't anything done then? It would not have been hard to recall the product. And it wasn't like 3M was the only company making flame and fabric retardants in those days -- efficacious substitutes were available.
I lived out in the country for about three years as a kid. My parents and I moved back to the city largely because of water quality issues -- even though ironically it meant the school I attended, the same school in fact, was actually now further away from me and I had to take a school bus. That formerly country area has now been cemented over for suburban housing. But barely 500 metres away, the country begins again (in part due to a hard urban boundary that is enforced). Rural folk have the same right to clean drinking water as those in the urban landscape. They shouldn't have to worry about what's in the water -- whether it's sewage run-off from a week ago, or persistent chemicals that stopped being used twenty years ago. I thought the rule was, the party that caused the problem is the one that should pay to fix it. That means 3M.
Someone once asked, what price progress? Indeed.
What did the reporters find in the water? Something called Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS. PFOS was until a couple years ago the active ingredient in Scotchgard ™ and was also used in flame retardant foam. The kind you'd find in fire trucks. Radio Canada discovered through lab tests that levels of PFOS were twenty times the legal limit of 10 parts per billion. And what makes it worse, is that PFOS has a half life of five years. Meaning it persists for years, and the concentrations add up the more you drink it.
Two years ago, the 3M ™ company, when it recognized the problem, reformulated what comes in the cans and barrels with another chemical that has a half life of only one month -- meaning it breaks down much faster over time.
It's not just the fish that have been affected. In the States, there are PFOS excess levels in bald eagles, polar bears, minx and two species of the dolphin just to name a few. And public health officials have found kidney cancer clusters from exposure to excess levels of PFOS; and it affects all age, sex, racial and ethnic groups who are exposed, equally. Not to mention how it compromises the immune system.
The story was quickly picked up by the alternate media in town (View Magazine for instance) but it wasn't until this fall that mainstream outlets got on the story. Two days ago, the local city council said it should be the feds who should pay for the cleanup. This after it was learned that the provincial Environment department might slap the city with a cleanup order. The argument the city makes is that the airport fire training facility was used not just by Hamilton but by fire departments in other cities -- that Hamilton only makes up for 10% of the total.
Well, shouldn't it be the company that made the stuff -- 3M -- in the first place, that has to pay, at least a large portion of the damages? Maybe they didn't know what it was, at first. But if it was causing problems, why wasn't anything done then? It would not have been hard to recall the product. And it wasn't like 3M was the only company making flame and fabric retardants in those days -- efficacious substitutes were available.
I lived out in the country for about three years as a kid. My parents and I moved back to the city largely because of water quality issues -- even though ironically it meant the school I attended, the same school in fact, was actually now further away from me and I had to take a school bus. That formerly country area has now been cemented over for suburban housing. But barely 500 metres away, the country begins again (in part due to a hard urban boundary that is enforced). Rural folk have the same right to clean drinking water as those in the urban landscape. They shouldn't have to worry about what's in the water -- whether it's sewage run-off from a week ago, or persistent chemicals that stopped being used twenty years ago. I thought the rule was, the party that caused the problem is the one that should pay to fix it. That means 3M.
Someone once asked, what price progress? Indeed.
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree (Justin edition)
I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. And it did yesterday when Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre, called Environment Minister Peter Kent "you piece of shit." At least Justin apologized.
Of course there was no excuse for it -- but entirely understandable given that Kent was giving a patronizing answer to an NDP member when he was trying to explain why opposition members weren't invited in on the Canadian delegation for the Durban talks.
Frankly I don't think the elder Trudeau ever apologized for saying -- well, you know, "fuddle duddle," at least until years later when it was much too late to apologize.
I know it's coming close to Christmas when a lot of fuses need to be lit. But there's a time and place for it. Question Period isn't one of them -- even if it's the place the Exempt Media focuses on most.
Of course there was no excuse for it -- but entirely understandable given that Kent was giving a patronizing answer to an NDP member when he was trying to explain why opposition members weren't invited in on the Canadian delegation for the Durban talks.
Frankly I don't think the elder Trudeau ever apologized for saying -- well, you know, "fuddle duddle," at least until years later when it was much too late to apologize.
I know it's coming close to Christmas when a lot of fuses need to be lit. But there's a time and place for it. Question Period isn't one of them -- even if it's the place the Exempt Media focuses on most.
Wednesday, 14 December, 2011
Kyoto backlash
It's been over a week since my last post. Too much has been going on but I did want to talk about Peter Kent announcing Canada is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol, or rather forcing the world to pull out of Canada so we don't get fucked with $14 billion in penalties. It's not too surprising the Conservatives doing this -- they said all along they would. And the worldwide reaction is entirely deserved and proves just how out of step the dogmatists on the right are with reality or with public opinion. But there are two things that are bothersome for me.
First is the messenger, Peter Kent, a former news anchor. Back in 1978, he had the courage to resign the anchor chair at CBC English when Pierre Trudeau was deliberately interfering in the newsroom by Trudeau ordering the network to cancel the live broadcast of a speech by René Levesque in favour of one from Monsieur Pirouette himself. The demotion Kent got -- Johannesburg, still reeling from the murder the previous year of Steven Biko and when people on this side of the planet were finally beginning to realize that segregation and state sponsored terrorism was alive and well. Later, he came back to co-found The Journal with Barbara Frum and Mary Lou Finlay. He also was distinguished in the media in other respects but he earned those credentials by having his own mind.
But now, Peter Kent is a total lackey for Stephen Harper. He has even admitted, long before he got the environment portfolio, that he he only uses language pre-approved by the PMO. My only conclusion from this is that he doesn't even try to convince Harper the times when he is patently wrong, even if it is behind closed doors. A country where the Cabinet takes its instructions directly from the head of government rather than it being a group of senior advisors that tries to make decisions by consensus, no longer has a Cabinet. It has instead a variation of a Central Committee. Communist minded states call theirs a Politburo. I don't know off hand what the term would be for a right wing government would be but I believe that is what we have here today in Canada.
I suppose the next thing is that the Weather Office, part of the Environment Department, will be ordered to stop issuing tornado or hurricane warnings, so as not to offend the "Christianites" who dominate the ruling party because the fact such storms are becoming more powerful because of global warming doesn't ... well, they just don't like facts, period. Even if the storm is coming.
But the second thing, and what is more worrying, is how this action has further made the point that Canada can no longer be trusted to be an "honest broker" in world affairs. That is to say, the sense that no matter where we stood with our allies (the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.) we were also willing to bring often hostile sides together to some form of consensus, and in the process the often red hot tensions that this world often were cooled down before boiling over. In some capacity we still have this in the fact that we "protect" Israel's interests in Cuba (as the two countries still do not have direct ties).
I'm not saying the Liberals were entirely blameless in this. Actually, there should have been much more consultation with the provinces since natural resources and electrical production are, under Article 92A of the 1867 Constitution, the provinces' "province."
Nor am I saying the provinces should have had a veto (this is impossible for treaties anyway, and it would make the Balkanization of Canada even worse than it is in Belgium, where Dutch-speaking Flanders, French-speaking Wallonia, the small German-speaking community, and the city council in Brussels each have vetoes on changes to the EU structure.)
But Canada at the federal level, had they listened just a little more, could have set more realistic targets that could have been easily beaten and then exceeded. In fact we could have quite conceivably achieved the Kyoto goals without having ever committed to doing so.
There was precedent for this happening at around the same time during the nineties -- when we put ourselves in a much stronger financial position by setting worst case scenario targets for fiscal balances; which led to strong surpluses, a big reduction in debt to GDP and an end to income tax bracket creep. The provinces for the most part also benefited from better fiscal positions even after the shock 1995 poison pill budget that offloaded a lot of the cost for social programs to the provinces.
But Canada has in a fairly short period of time made itself look bad. We are going to have to be held to account in some way or another for the fallout from the tar sands, clear cutting and strip mining. Whether this is a penalty that Harper claims no longer has to be paid (I think it does, actually) or poorer relations even with democracies that share our values of basic human rights and free elections, this is unacceptable. Pollution does make its way around the planet. Don't forget that the fallout from Chernobyl, Ukraine was so widespread that every part of the permanently inhabitated planet experienced some trace levels of radioactive isotopes. With only one exception -- the Falkland Islands, according to the CIA.
What a comedown from the 1990s, when we led the world in banning CFCs and leaded gasoline, and pushing a convention to ban all land mines. When we pushed the US to adopt clean environment policies -- in the 1970s, about the only thing Trudeau was able to convince Nixon on. And on it goes.
I'm not going to say I'm ashamed to be a Canadian. Of course I'm proud to be one. But the definition of what it is to be Canadian has undergone a huge redefinition this week. And for that, I am embarrassed.
UPDATE (2:50 pm EST, 1950 GMT): Minor corrections and clarifications.
First is the messenger, Peter Kent, a former news anchor. Back in 1978, he had the courage to resign the anchor chair at CBC English when Pierre Trudeau was deliberately interfering in the newsroom by Trudeau ordering the network to cancel the live broadcast of a speech by René Levesque in favour of one from Monsieur Pirouette himself. The demotion Kent got -- Johannesburg, still reeling from the murder the previous year of Steven Biko and when people on this side of the planet were finally beginning to realize that segregation and state sponsored terrorism was alive and well. Later, he came back to co-found The Journal with Barbara Frum and Mary Lou Finlay. He also was distinguished in the media in other respects but he earned those credentials by having his own mind.
But now, Peter Kent is a total lackey for Stephen Harper. He has even admitted, long before he got the environment portfolio, that he he only uses language pre-approved by the PMO. My only conclusion from this is that he doesn't even try to convince Harper the times when he is patently wrong, even if it is behind closed doors. A country where the Cabinet takes its instructions directly from the head of government rather than it being a group of senior advisors that tries to make decisions by consensus, no longer has a Cabinet. It has instead a variation of a Central Committee. Communist minded states call theirs a Politburo. I don't know off hand what the term would be for a right wing government would be but I believe that is what we have here today in Canada.
I suppose the next thing is that the Weather Office, part of the Environment Department, will be ordered to stop issuing tornado or hurricane warnings, so as not to offend the "Christianites" who dominate the ruling party because the fact such storms are becoming more powerful because of global warming doesn't ... well, they just don't like facts, period. Even if the storm is coming.
But the second thing, and what is more worrying, is how this action has further made the point that Canada can no longer be trusted to be an "honest broker" in world affairs. That is to say, the sense that no matter where we stood with our allies (the US, the UK, Germany, Japan, etc.) we were also willing to bring often hostile sides together to some form of consensus, and in the process the often red hot tensions that this world often were cooled down before boiling over. In some capacity we still have this in the fact that we "protect" Israel's interests in Cuba (as the two countries still do not have direct ties).
I'm not saying the Liberals were entirely blameless in this. Actually, there should have been much more consultation with the provinces since natural resources and electrical production are, under Article 92A of the 1867 Constitution, the provinces' "province."
Nor am I saying the provinces should have had a veto (this is impossible for treaties anyway, and it would make the Balkanization of Canada even worse than it is in Belgium, where Dutch-speaking Flanders, French-speaking Wallonia, the small German-speaking community, and the city council in Brussels each have vetoes on changes to the EU structure.)
But Canada at the federal level, had they listened just a little more, could have set more realistic targets that could have been easily beaten and then exceeded. In fact we could have quite conceivably achieved the Kyoto goals without having ever committed to doing so.
There was precedent for this happening at around the same time during the nineties -- when we put ourselves in a much stronger financial position by setting worst case scenario targets for fiscal balances; which led to strong surpluses, a big reduction in debt to GDP and an end to income tax bracket creep. The provinces for the most part also benefited from better fiscal positions even after the shock 1995 poison pill budget that offloaded a lot of the cost for social programs to the provinces.
But Canada has in a fairly short period of time made itself look bad. We are going to have to be held to account in some way or another for the fallout from the tar sands, clear cutting and strip mining. Whether this is a penalty that Harper claims no longer has to be paid (I think it does, actually) or poorer relations even with democracies that share our values of basic human rights and free elections, this is unacceptable. Pollution does make its way around the planet. Don't forget that the fallout from Chernobyl, Ukraine was so widespread that every part of the permanently inhabitated planet experienced some trace levels of radioactive isotopes. With only one exception -- the Falkland Islands, according to the CIA.
What a comedown from the 1990s, when we led the world in banning CFCs and leaded gasoline, and pushing a convention to ban all land mines. When we pushed the US to adopt clean environment policies -- in the 1970s, about the only thing Trudeau was able to convince Nixon on. And on it goes.
I'm not going to say I'm ashamed to be a Canadian. Of course I'm proud to be one. But the definition of what it is to be Canadian has undergone a huge redefinition this week. And for that, I am embarrassed.
UPDATE (2:50 pm EST, 1950 GMT): Minor corrections and clarifications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)