Don't let the refugees down

Yeah, it's been a while. But I had to take to my keyboard today because of the refugee crisis that is swamping Europe - since many of them may be headed Canada's way. And I never thought, a month into the election, that it would become a debating point, but here we are.

I have an interest in this because my father and his brother, my uncle, came to Canada as refugees - in fact, fifty years ago this year. Having defected from the former Yugoslavia, they were lucky to have the choice of several countries to go to. They rejected a couple of South American countries because of their lousy currencies. Australia offered an instant ticket out of Italy where the refugee camp was, but my Dad and uncle told me that despite the country's large ex-pat community, they were told they would have had to live in the Outback for a couple of years; they knew what that was and thought No Way. The US wanted to make them wait a year before they got their green cards. Canada - just three months. That was their choice, and I'm glad they made it their choice.

Unfortunately, a lot of migrants fleeing the wars in Iraq and Syria don't have the luxury of a choice, or time. Notwithstanding any "safe third country" agreement that the EU states have amongst themselves, the refugees want to head to the wealthiest and most generous member states - Germany, France, Sweden, and Finland.

We don't need any more tragedies like the one with the cargo truck that had several dozen dead bodies in them. But there is no question we need to step up to the plate.

As I've mentioned before, Canada is quite unique among federal states in that immigration is shared between the federal and sub-national governments. (There may be a couple of others, but that's the only one I'm aware of.) Not only can provinces nominate their own regular status migrants (those with turnkey job skills), they also have a major say in how to settle refugees. (Something many states in America would only be glad to have, if only to spread migrants across the country rather than in specific regions.)

I've heard all sorts of numbers being bandied about. Ten thousand, fifty, a hundred. I personally think we should go for the higher end of the band, maybe even higher than that. We're way past the point where we once said of some ethnic groups that "one is too many". We have the resources to settle them. Let's do so.

It was suggested this past week that we should screen all potential refugees. That's a given, but in a rush like we're experiencing right now it's hard to say who is who. But that doesn't mean that one bad apple should spoil the whole bunch. Besides, do you think the originating countries, or ISIS for that matter, will provide a background check to federal and provincial immigration authorities? Exactly, they won't.

But I do have the worry about creeping Nativism. This is a perennial problem. But given that nearly all of the incoming population are Muslims, I fear a huge backlash. ("They're taking our jobs; they're using our social programs; they don't have to learn English / French, etc.) Migrants don't get a free ride. They'll have to pay taxes, especially income taxes - and that will help with our often shaky finances. And they're anything but lazy. They want to work, and there are TONS of jobs just waiting to be filled here.

From a crisis can come an opportunity. This country gave my family, and so many other families, a chance. It's time to step up again. We're better together, having all sorts of people here makes us a better society, and that's all there is to it. I'll leave it up to the provinces to figure out the numbers they're each going to absorb. But it's time, and making it a political football is simply unacceptable. Surely the three leaders can come to common ground on this then leave the rest of the campaign to other issues that matter.

But maybe that's too much to ask for.

Kick Russia out of the Helsinki Accords

Is the Helsinki Accord of 1975 a worthless scrap of paper? Because Vladimir Putin sure seems to think it's a joke.

I was not even three years old when the declaration was signed but my father, an emigré from Croatia, understood its meaning. As a younger it was impressed on me the importance of a document that, among its provisions, was a statement of several important principles:

• The inviolability of national borders in Europe, and that border disputes could only be resolved via peaceful negotiations.
• There should be no threat of use of force from one nation to another.
• Every country had a right to its own internal affairs without interference from another.
• That there were basic human rights that all persons had that could not be violated, including free speech, a free press and due process.

There were other areas discussed, including scientific cooperation and the opening of trade between western and eastern states, but it was these main points that came to the fore. While not a binding treaty, many dissidents took Helsinki seriously and used it to fight for what they saw were inalienable rights. Eventually, they were successful.

It's notable that NATO continued to stress that they did not recognize the illegal occupation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union, and that Helsinki did not change this. Nor could Helsinki keep the former Yugoslavia from collapsing. When Germany reunited, it was tacitly a merger of equals but everyone knows that in actual fact the West annexed the East with the latter's consent.

It therefore seems pathetic that the West seems to be willing to let Russia get away with its games in the Ukraine. First, by illegally annexing Crimea (only five countries, including erstwhile western ally Afghanistan, have recognized Russian sovereignty). Second, by overtly arming Russian rebels in the east of Ukraine. And Putin is on record as saying he could take over all of Ukraine in just two weeks.

Helsinki was also about reducing tensions in Europe. Which it did. Merely by threatening to cut off the natural gas that heats a quarter of homes in the EU, Putin is raising the stakes.

And let's not forget, all the networks and most of the papers in Russia are government controlled or sympathetic. And that titans of industry have been imprisoned for wanting to speak the truth. Not to mention there haven't been any free elections in Russia since Boris Yeltsin resigned.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the permanent body that was established by the Helsinki framework, should be on top of this. This is the best forum, I think, to deescalate the tensions.

But Canada as a founding member as well as long time champion of the Accord (and far as I can tell has been faithful to its rules) needs to firmly put its foot down. If Russia won't call a timeout of its own to give a chance for things to calm down then perhaps it is time for the West to say that, if Russia won't play by the rules that ended communism and has helped keep the peace in Europe all this time, then perhaps it should be expelled or suspended from Helsinki. On top of current and coming sanctions, this is not a palatable option, but at stage I think it may be the only way to make Putin wake up.

Where's the draft text?

Today, Harper and EU President Jose Manuel Barroso initialled a trade and labour agreement between Canada and the world's most powerful trading bloc.  Like I said in my last post, I think open trade with the EU will be overall good for Canada.

But don't you find it odd that there isn't even a draft text available for public consumption?   The final agreement may be two years off, but wouldn't it would be useful to know what each side "traded" [pun intended] to get to where we are today?

If the final agreement will be ready in 2015 that will be just in time for the next election.   We've fought three elections on free trade -- 1911, 1988, 1993.   There are going to be much bigger issues when the next campaign hits but this could be a dark horse that might come to the forefront.

We need to know what we're getting into, now.   Just because it's potentially a good thing doesn't mean it has to be a state secret.   Release the draft, Steve.   Let us read it, and let us decide.

Can boomerangs swing back out, after coming towards you?

It's a fair question, because there was another putsch in Australia today.    Three years after Kevin Rudd was forced out as Prime Minister by the ruling Labour Party in favour of Julia Gillard, today Gillard herself was shoved aside when it became clear her party has no chance of winning the spring elections in September (remember the seasons are reversed there) with her as leader.  The new Prime Minister:   Kevin Rudd!!!

Several MPs there have quit in disgust and some Cabinet members are moving to the backbenches.

Still, this has the kind of drama that is of a long ago era in Canada and only recently passed away (finally) in the UK -- that only elected members (in this case, MPs and Senators) voted for their leader, and such leaders got regularly tossed out for all sorts of reasons.   Can you imagine if the Cons here, fed up by the control freak nature of PMS, decided to dump him between conventions?    Get real.

I personally favour what has evolved in most countries, the one member one vote system -- that is, all card carrying members choose the leader, not just those elected to office.   A leader should be reflective of the rank and file, not just the narrow interests who are in the caucus.    If he or she is to become the head of government I'd think there has to be a connection to the grassroots.

Especially when voting is compulsory as it is Down Under.

But regardless, this story actually gave me a smile today -- that democracy in whatever form is actually alive somewhere, and much more relevant than it seems to be in Canada these days.   And that every so often ordinary MPs understand they actually have their own brains and are not "trained seals" like their leaders expect them to be.

Something that should be the case for any parliamentary democracy.

NDP -- socialist now a dirty word?

Barring a huge shock, it's almost certain Justin "Not Ready for Prime Time" Trudeau will become the leader of the federal Liberal Party, tomorrow.   But the one I'm watching this weekend is the NDP convention, and their mulling over whether to eliminate or significantly tone down references to its being a democratic socialist party.    Some of the delegates are saying to get rid of the word would make it a paler shade of the Liberals.   Others are saying that it needs to be more middle of the road if it has a chance not just to become the government, but to permanently displace the Liberals as the alternative to the Conservatives.

What does this remind me of?   The battle between New and Old Labour in the UK.

When Tony Blair took over the party after the unexpected death of John Smith, he and Gordon Brown understood that Labour had no chance until it became more pragmatic.   And the biggest challenge wasn't making a U-turn and taking on a tough on crime approach -- or more famously, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime."

No ... it was Clause IV.

This was, and is, the key underlying statement about what the party was.   The original Clause IV, dating from 1917, was an unabashed demand for nationalization of just about everything -- that its goal was:

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

After a decade and a half in the wilderness due to the huge strength of Margaret Thatcher (RIP) to 3 straight majorities, and then an upset win by John Major in 1992, much was said about what approach the party should take going forward.    After much back and forth, a new Clause IV was created in 1995.   It says:

The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.

In layperson's terms, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, but everyone should have an equal shot at getting to the top.    What is remarkable is that in one fell swoop, the party dropped its demand for nationalization and formally accepted free enterprise; while declaring for the very first time what everyone already knew -- that it's a democratic socialist party.    The strategy worked, helped by a very lackluster (albeit competent) rule by Major -- Blair managed to pull off a three-peat of his own.


Tom Mulcair is no Jack Layton, but he does have a lot of credibility stemming from his long time as a public servant and later member of the Québec National Assembly.   He comes off to me as a competent man who knows what he's talking about and where we as a country should be going.

Frankly, as a Liberal but one who could be persuaded to switch his vote, I think it would be a mistake to pretend to be something that you are not.   The only way and plausible chance the NDP has to beat the Cons in the next election is to say on the one hand, yes they are socialist, but on the other hand it would be pointless to dismantle the free enterprise system we have.   The nuts and bolts is for the party itself to decide of course, but presenting a honest but pragmatic foot forward would win many voters over.

Pragmatism is what has always served Canada best -- not ideology.   And the best ideas often become accepted planks.    Take public health care -- as late as the early 60s when it was first implemented in Saskatchewan, people in most other provinces thought it was not only ridiculous, but even Satanic.  Ditto public pensions, and even national parks.    Imagine a Canada without them.   We can't.

If the three candidates for PM -- well four, including Elizabeth May -- all put forward their real platforms rather than posture with nibbles that attract hidden by realities that hit us with a sledgehammer, we'd have a real election for once.    Don't we wish, though.

Weekly roundup (ending Mar 16 / 13)

First and biggest news of the week was the upset election of 76 year old Jorge Bergoglio, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, who interestingly has taken the name Francis I.    No sooner was he elected, and leading up to his investiture next week (since 1978, new Popes have refused to take the three tiered crowned during a coronation, preferring to be inaugurated instead like pretty much every monarch in Europe, save the UK, is) comes the news that Bergoglio may have had a hand -- or at the least said way too little -- in the so-called "Dirty War" in Argentina from 1976 to 1983, when 30,000 political opponents of the military junta "disappeared" and thousands more were tortured.

The bigger problem, though, is that because the junta was also Roman professors, the Catholic Church of Argentina made a deal with the devil in an attempt to stop insurgents who were against religion all together, as well as those who supported "liberation theology" -- the Catholic parallel to the Protestant "Social Gospel".   The code of silence, even if voluntarily self-imposed, had incalculable consequences.

(I can only think of Oscar Romero of San Salvador who paid the supreme sacrifice for speaking out against the five member joint presidential junta -- and the funeral thereafter when at least 50 mourners, maybe more, were murdered at the funeral.   Imagine if the new Pope came from there or another Central American country.   Then a lot of heads would have been rolling!)

I don't know what to make of this news.   Heck, the now retired Pope, Joe Ratzinger, had a lot of questions to answer about his membership in the Hitler Youth.   And while he was extremely complicit about child abuse during Wojtyla's time as Pope and only started doing baby steps after he became top of the heap, it was way too little, too late.

Let the good times roll.   We're stuck with this guy for another 10 years, if he follows Ratz' lead and quits at 85 -- which is actually a good precedent to follow.

******

Patrick Brazeau.    My God.   He really takes advantage of the $22,000 housing allowance by claiming he lived with his father, even though he didn't.   He claims he got a status card from the organization that represents non-reserve First Nations and that he used to run -- but the group doesn't have that ability, only bands do.    He allegedly beats his girlfriend (allegations before the courts at this time).   And so forth.   It's almost a relief he took a leave of absence from the Senate.

But for all that, comes an act of stupidity -- or fraud, depending on one's point of view -- and it wasn't even Brazeau.   It was someone I least expected and used to respect; MP Peter Penashue who also served as Harper's hitman dealing with the provinces and territories.    Once a respected leader of the Innu nation, in fact one of the people who created the autonomous region of Nunatsiavut in Labrador, Penashue was forced to resign this week over 28 illegal contributions he took for the 2011 election, including $10,000 from a regional airline and an additional $27,000 in "in-kind" donations from the same airline -- the latter, apparently unreported.

If the money was actually spent, then he would have been way over the spending limit for the district -- just over $84,000.   If the campaign took corporate donations then handed out receipts to individuals to get around the individual spending limit -- that would be even more illegal.

And the best part:   He wants to run in the by-election to replace himself; just as Sheila Copps did over the GST (although that was really a stupid promise to make anyway).

Yes, he did give the money back, but only because he got bailed out by the Conservative Party.   But that really isn't the point.   Taking money from whom you shouldn't knowingly and / or overspending beyond the limit is illegal.   It's illegal because it gives you an unfair advantage.  An illegal practice is punishable by up to five years in jail, and a concurrent ban from voting.   If the practice was motivated by corruption, it's five and seven respectively.

Besides, if you have any question at all about where the money's coming from you should put it in sequester until you get an answer.   And if you spent it and find out after the fact to try to give the amount back to the contributor, or if not possible, to the federal elections commission.

To wait more than a year after the election, though?    That's just wrong.   If I was running Elections Canada, I'd press charges.   And the law should be changed so that you can't run to replace yourself!


******

Finally things are really heating up again on the Korean Peninsula.   About 10 days after the Security Council passed Resolution 2094 against North Korea, the toughest sanctions ever in the history of the UN and even more draconian than those against Saddam Hussein during the Kuwait crisis, the North has engaged in one provocation after another, they said (again!) that the 60 year old ceasefire is over.    After a week of belligerence, today North Korea again test fired some missiles.

Many have said this is another "disarmament for aid" attempt.   It's time for the blackmail to end.    I said it before, and I'll say it again:    It's time once and for all to demand the Commies start feeding its people again, using its own resources to keep people alive instead of starving them for the purposes of militarization.   It must end its nuclear arms program once and for all.   And until the island is unified, it must begin the process of democratization and human rights including dismantling all of its prison and slave labour camps.

Even Mainland China has gotten fed up which is why they agreed to the resolution.    But they need to take the final step -- turn off the power to the North.    Nearly all of is used to run the nuclear weapons program anyway and if you do that, I think that then the North's regime's raison d'être will cease to exist or at least begin to.

Out of fear can come hope.   It's time to stop fearing the Kim clan and their posse of genocidal maniacs.

Now we finally know the real price of milk, thanks to the teabags

We're all familiar with the concept of a loss leader -- a store will deliberately price key products to a price below cost, often way below cost.    This is to get people into the store to buy stuff that is overpriced.    A good example are razor handles and blades -- the sample pack is cheap, but the replacement refills are extortionist, even at club pack warehouses.    The same with food staples like milk and sugar.   We get upset when milk goes up even ten cents a 4 litre bag or jug but the price has been more or less steady the last seven or eight years and growth well below inflation.  But the price stores pay is still less than the real price of production.

But there's another a part to the problem.   Whether by marketing boards that set a cartel price (and guaranteed profit for producers) or by any of a number of farm subsidies (one kind of "corporate welfare") stores actually pay less than they otherwise would.   If they paid the true price of production, in other words break even for the farmers, food would get way more expensive than it otherwise could be.

We often think of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy for making food prices more than they should be.   But for some foods it could be way more and put many less well off consumers into greater hardship were the subsidies were not there.

But that could all change in the States as early as next Tuesday.   Among the many line items that will be affected if the US President and Congress can't agree on a fiscal plan by a week today are farm subsidies.  And if dairy producers in particular have their subsidies cut off, they'll have to either sell the milk on their own or go into a Canadian style marketing board to fix prices like OPEC does for oil, then stores will have to pay the full price.   Since stores buying the milk at the reset price would become so expensive that a loss leader price strategy would be fiscal suicide, they'll have no choice but to charge full price just to break even.

The average retail price of milk in the United States is $3.65 per US gallon (3.785 litres).   If the subsidies go, that price will skyrocket ... to eight bucks.    In other words, the real price.   (If the same applies to Canada, we're also paying only 40% of the true cost.)  To ensure a "stable" market, the Department of Agriculture would have to get into the business of buying milk -- by law, and this is a "poison pill" of sorts that was introduced in 1949 and never intended to be used -- just to try to backstop the carnage.   To stay afloat yoghurt, cheese and butter producers would have to import milk from other countries.   Including, say ... Canada?

As Yakov Smirnoff says, "What a country!!!"   The teabags -- or at least the true libertarians among them, not the fascists who want things to go back to the pre-civil rights era) are all about limiting government to the lowest level necessary.  But they don't have a problem with subsidizing the national forests, which are actually owned by the Department of Agriculture (not Interior as with National Parks or Fish and Wildlife areas, or other recreation areas owned by either Energy or Defense).   They don't have a problem with spending tons of money subsidizing the construction of toll roads that are privately owned and/or operated.   They also don't mind giving tax breaks to people who buy $100k + cars, but not to small businesses who want the ability to compete with the big guys.

So why do the TBs (yeah, really bad abbreviation) who backstop forest companies for cutting federal timber lands -- feel just fine with pissing off a major part of their base?

Actions, or the lack thereof, have consequences.    I've said it before and I'll say it again, America needs major austerity big time.   But if little people, upstream and downstream, are the victims -- then the GOP will rue the day they let the NRA buy them off because the gun nuts will get really and sorely tempted to turn their anger on the legislative, not the executive.

Fasten your seat belts.   If DC goes off the cliff next week, then the real fun begins.

Immigration "reforms" actually regressive

We're starting to see the fallout from the Con government's proposed changes to immigration policy.   And while I agree that such policies need a reboot every now and then to meet current trends (and to a lesser extent, changes in social morés), what is shaping up to be what we'll be stuck with for at least the next twenty years is anything but promising.

For one thing, I see absolutely no evidence that the provinces were consulted.    This is a huge warning flag since immigration is supposed to be a shared responsibility between the federal and provincial governments.   In a world of extremely tight budgets, it is well and proper that the provinces should have the lead role in determining their respective needs for certain types of workers (Alberta, obviously, needs energy  and agricultural workers; while Ontario requires people in high tech and health care companies as well as for forests and mines).   This is because it's the high value and high paying jobs that generate the most revenues for the sub national governments.

There does appear to be some sense in reducing the weighting on proficiency in either English or French (although there should be some competency in one or both languages if not outright fluency).

But there appear to be no changes in the settlement monies to the provinces for regular class immigrants.   The amounts offered (about $5000 per capita in Québec and $3400 in the other provinces) don't even begin to cover the upfront costs.   The provinces have every right to demand a bigger slice of the pie and to increase their role in the selection process with agreements renegotiated more frequently (say, every five years or so instead of decades) and more transparently with legislative review.

As well there also doesn't appear (still) to be any fiscal arrangements to help legitimate refugees settle other than the "good offices" of local social groups as well as international NGOs such as the Red Cross-Red Crescent alliance and the Salvation Army.   And if that's not bad enough, the Cons are changing the list of what are considered "safe countries of origin" -- those where the receiving country believes that a "well founded fear of persecution" never or almost never exists.

These include, amongst others, the 27 European Union members, the US and Australia, among others.   But among the proposed list are some Central American countries which while nominally are democracies (finally) still have pretty bleak (and that is being mild) human rights records -- especially against women, Native North Americans and journalists.    Also are countries in Africa which have well known abuses against minorities and women even if they too have democratized.

And let's not forget, there are still many countries where the mere fact that one is LGBT is cause for persecution as well as prosecution.   True, there are many Canadians who have major personal moral qualms about alternative lifestyles but are at least willing to be tolerant of them.    What lies ahead possibly is a situation not unlike the "Voyage of the Damned" where this country indirectly participated in the Holocaust by sending a boatload of European Jews back to the other side of the pond because of widespread prejudice here at the time, including very prominently from "monarchist women's" groups.

Those on the so-called "safe list" will still get a Singh hearing but will not be able to appeal a negative decision to the Refugee Appeals Board; instead they will have to go directly to the Federal Court of Appeal (which normally handles such issues as claims for disability pensions denied by the CPP, patent and copyright disputes, and appeals for worker's comp for federal public servants).   Most lawyers will tell you that a "federal case" can be way more costly to prepare than a provincial civil trial and legal aid even more difficult to obtain than for the provincial courts or tribunals.    Most refugees therefore will just go home, or maybe even "forum shop" to another country that doesn't share "black lists" with Canada.

But lastly, it's not heartening to hear that the "investor" class is getting the short shaft.   While there have been some families who have "bought" citizenships as a matter of convenience in case things go really wrong in their home countries (think Mainland China, for instance, which keeps regressing on human rights) most have put their money here on good faith, creating jobs and on the presumption that they would get a fast track to naturalization.     Now, it seems, many of them are being forced to the back of the line to start over even though they have successfully resettled here.    If that's not acting in bad faith I'm not sure what is.

There's no way that we should ever go back to the "Whites First" policy we had for decades (and white supremacists -- ahem, "British Israelists" -- have long lobbied to have reinstated).

But I suspect many first and second generation Canadians would never have gotten over here if they had to qualify under the new proposed rules.   Canada is a better country because we have welcomed immigrants of all classes, all races and from all countries.   Most importantly, there may be an argument for "safe third countries" but the list has to be a lot narrower, otherwise Canada will lose a lot of potential migrants.    Even the  policies of the US and the Schengen bloc in Europe right now look way more enlightened.

"State" of Palestine? Where *and for what why)?

Yesterday, the UN General Assembly voted to grant Palestine the same status as the Vatican -- "non member observer state."   I have the feeling that if we in Canada had a Liberal or ND government, this country would have voted to abstain as more than 40 countries did.    That's the position we took in 1988 when the UNGA elected to temporarily adjourn from NYC to Geneva to hear a speech by Yasser Arafat of the PLO.   Of course, we have a conservative Conservative government and Harper directed our Ambassador there to vote No.   Odd we'd be in the same camp as the Democratic Obama albeit for very different reasons.   As you will read, I think that the way the UN did it yesterday was wrong-headed.   But not for the reasons that PMS had.

More than a year ago I wrote about this, that the concept of NMOS of Palestine, at least for now, was ill advised and for the same reason as now (in much more detail).   There is no clearly defined boundary of what would be a State of Palestine.   Officially, Canada takes the same position as most of the world -- that Gaza, the West Bank, the Golan Heights and most importantly East Jerusalem are not part of Israel and the occupations are illegal.   The existence of Israeli settlements which are operative exclaves of Israel are illegal.  (I have written numerous times here about legal exclaves -- just two of which include Alaska detached from the rest of the United States by Canada, and the gambling resort of Campione which is completely separated from Italy by Switzerland -- as opposed to these illegal territories and the real reason for their dubious existence.)

While I do support the concept of a country called Palestine, this really isn't the way to do it.  Not just because the borders have not been settled.   \This is not like Switzerland (which was originally an NMOS and evaded UN membership until 2002 even though it hosts the European headquarters at what used to be the League of Nations, and still maintains a policy of strict neutrality in world affairs although it does vote Yea or Nay at most of the General Assembly votes)    This is not like the Vatican which is still not a full member but a NMOS (the argument being that being a member would force it to take positions on world politics -- which is disingenuous, just read the diplomatic correspondence it does publish at its website www.vatican.va !)

The precedents  show that a non member state ought to be neutral.   In the ball park that Palestine is in and given the history of occupation and being dispossessed one can hardly expect that this "country" such that it is would be neutral.   It has a very militant populace.   I suspect most Palestinians want peace with Israel but not on the West's terms.   And you can be sure that the legation from Ramallah (the current de facto capital) will use its status with which it can now get seats on any of a number of UN agencies to drag Israel into the World Court, the IAEA, and the International War Crimes Tribunal (all three of which Israel does not recognize).   And forget the Permanent Court of Arbitration, not connected with any world body but has often acted to solve disputes reasonably and peacefully.   What would be the point of having a dispute if one of the parties didn't even admit there was something to resolve?

These are all reasons to give one pause.   But PMS makes it even worse.   It is more than obvious he is in the back pocket of groups which either do not recognize there is even a Palestinian problem, or that there is no land other than Israel, or at the very least the illegal settlement should be made legal.   This has long been a problem in the States, especially at the Congressional level (although nearly all Presidents, and especially Carter and Clinton, have tried to get all sides together at least partially successful).   Harper is nowhere near as bad as the disgraced Tom Delay who defiantly showed up at the so called "pro-Israel" rallies and proclaimed his support for annexation (if not expulsion of Palestinians including those who actually live in Israel).

But maybe there's another reason.   It's not like the Israel new shekel (ILS) is considered to be a global currency -- think the buck, the yen, the euro or even the loonie for that.   But Israel is a very reliable place to park money in strip and coupon less bonds.   It's not easy for a country offering 6 percent interest to make all of its payments on time and at full value but it does.   It's only natural that in these tough times Canada would diversify its portfolio beyond just bonds from the States or Europe.   We don't directly provide foreign aid to a first world country (unlike the US does, inexplicably even just weeks away from the so-called fiscal cliff).

But are our holdings so large, or our non government foreign investments so great, that to even throw a bone of neutrality at Palestine (i.e. to abstain) would tick off the Israel government?   It's not like we're leaving Tel Aviv any time soon.

Money will always drive ideology.   I think that's what it's about -- not just appeasing the religious right across the country.

The vote of No was wrong.   We should have just abstained.   We need to do what we've always done -- say both sides have a point but also offer to be a negotiator in an attempt as feeble as it is that a final settlement can be found.    Harper could go down as one of the truly outstanding PMs if he just did that much.

Fat chance of course.

Harper selling out to UK?

It's not necessarily a bad thing to be able to share consular services.    Canada and Australia have had such a sharing agreement for over 25 years -- Australia handles Canadian interests in parts of Asia-Pacific region and in turn we handle theirs in some countries in Latin America and Africa.    Similarly, a citizen of any EU country can use the services of any the other 26 if there's no mission of their home country.

But do we really want to have a protecting power relationship with Britain?   Our former colonial power, who we broke from in 1931 all because a British-appointed GG couldn't tell the difference between representing "Buckingham Palace" and 10 Downing?  This doesn't exactly bode well for an independent foreign policy.   I wouldn't go for a dual diplomatic relationship with the US -- the brief one in the 90s in Nigeria was required only because all Commonwealth states boycotted that country in a show of derision.   But surely there are other countries we can pair up with.   Say, Ireland or New Zealand perhaps?

When you consider all those propaganda ads showing how we "defeated" the States in the War of 1812 -- in reality it was a draw since no border changes resulted -- you'd think John Baird and PMS would want to "Stand Up for Canada ™".   This is anything but.

Harper putting screws on Roma, and it's wrong

I would have thought detention centres for would-be refugees were a thing of the past.   But in the last few days we've actually heard the Cons say that if their refugee "reforms" don't move things fast enough they are prepared to round up the in-process Roma population and confine them until they have their hearings.   And that's not the only proverbial baby that Harper wants to throw out with the bathwater.

Detention camps should have gone the way of the passenger pigeon.   They existed during World War II in Canada for the Japanese, Italians and Ukrainians because of a perceived "threat" to Canadian values.   Forcing the Roma into internal exile now is no better than what we as a country did seventy years ago.

And it leads to another problem.    The law of unintended consequences.

Although German Chancellor Angela Merkel said last week she wants to use her influence to finish up the negotiations on the proposed Canada - European Union trade, labour and copyright agreement by years' end -- our government may be actually prepared to put that into the trash can after four years of painstaking clause by clause drafting.    It is considering imposing visa restrictions on Hungary just as it has with the Czech Republic (since both are perceived as exit points for Roma refugee claimants).   Since most of the EU (as well as the four countries in EFTA all of which have adopted the Schengen rules -- and which we already have a trade agreement with) have mostly open borders and imposes no travel restrictions on visitors  who travel throughout the trade area (generally up to 90 days in a six month period for the area as a whole, not for each country), it would naturally insist on no travel restrictions on any EU country going the other way to Canada.   If there's one set of rules for 24 countries and another one for the other two, there's a big problem.

I have said before that while I think there are some fraudulent claimants among the Roma, that can be said for virtually any ethnicity.    I also think that prejudice no matter what ethnicity it's aimed at is reprehensible -- Antiziganism, as it's called in this case, is just as bad as Antisemitism.  But I have also said that since there exists the right of abode for those who have citizenship in one EU country to live in any other state in the bloc, that other countries in the bloc should be considered for residency before a claimant looks here.   
 While this may effectively create an "internally displaced persons" situation (i.e. refugees in one's own country or trade area) -- not unlike the United States which has about 700,000 IDPs escaping gang violence and which peaked at over 1.2 million in the recent past after the Katrina disaster -- finding a place to stay without having to go through the painstaking process of immigration is, I think, way simpler.   And it's not like there's no violence committed against Roma here because of course there is.

For a claim of this nature to work, one would have to say that there's a well founded fear of persecution that extends to all of Europe -- that no matter whether some moves to France, Germany, the UK or Sweden, there will be no safe home.    But it certainly begs the question -- isn't it easier to prove this out in the open rather than behind bars?

Frankly, not even the way some other countries do it -- letting the claimants out on unlimited day passes so they can work as long as they return before curfew -- isn't much better.   These are in way out places with no connection to the main country to which they want to live permanently.   Remember when Ezra Levant suggested we dump the Tamils on Haida Gwaii until they proved their case?

The thinking here for the Roma is exactly the same.   It's racist, prejudicial and unwarranted.   By all means, legal refugees and illegitimate immigrants should be documented so we know who's here and resources such as for health care and education can be deployed correctly.   But our mostly respected immigration policy will be shot to pieces if this goes through.

Iran: Getting away with genocide, thanks to banks (maybe)

If the allegations about the British based bank Standard Chartered Bank PLC are true then a financial institution that has been at the forefront of a "corporate responsibility" campaign is guilty of an instance of money laundering that makes the Bank of Credit and Commerce International look like Romper Room ™.    When I first heard about this late last night, I thought it was "only" $250 million.   Actually, as we know now, there may be been $250 billion laundered.

If on the other hand the nearly 160 year old bank is telling the truth, that it did not knowingly aid and abet Iran, then it really has been played for a fool and for a bank with just under $600 billion in deposits it really calls into question how trustworthy banks can be.

(SCB's statement is here, New York State's allegations are here.)

Think it couldn't happen in Canada?     I'm not so sure anymore.    I'll explain after a bit of a diversion but I hope it explains my thinking as to why.

***

By the time regulators around the world slammed the door shut on BCCI in 1991 (the bank had been open for only 20 years, "only" $10 to $17 billion had been moved around illegally with very little foresight; and while 75% has been recovered by governments for the portions not covered by deposit insurance, the trustees are still after twenty years trying to find the rest).    Depositors in most countries where BCCI operated were made whole (more or less) to the tune of just about $20 billion, its deposits; but this did create an embarrassing situation for states like Canada, which was forced to break its own rules that deposit insurance only covered citizens or full time residents of Canada -- not the diplomatic corps in Ottawa, much of which had BCCI as their preferred bank.    Really -- we had to bail out corrupt states like Saudi Arabia and Zimbabwe, and in the middle of a recession.


While it is true that BCCI helped launder USDA food aid money (about $100 million) intended for the poor in Iraq towards Saddam Hussein himself to fund the infamous Project Babylon "Supergun" invented by Canadian traitor Gerald Bull; and Iraq did have chemical weapons which it merciless plowed on Kurds in 1988, there's really no indication that Mr Hussein was at that time seeking nuclear weapons on a mass scale -- after Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1983, Hussein must have decided to keep it simple, hence Babylon.

The stakes are way higher here.    And not just because of the amounts involved here.

Iran, despite its denials, definitely has nuclear weapons ambitions.    We all know that.   And of course it would; with Israel to the left and Pakistan, India and Mainland China to the east (I highly doubt North Korea would want to take out Iran).    Pursuing a nuclear weapon isn't cheap.   You need massive amounts of power, certainly much more than most hydro (water) or coal plants are capable of producing.

And building a successful and viable nuclear generating station by itself is huge.   The Manhattan Project (a joint project of the US, Canada and the UK -- the "Atlantic Triangle") which led to the Trinity, Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs (as well as a fourth, undetonated one) cost about what it took to fund 9 days of conventional warfare, about $1.9 billion; about $24.4 billion today.   That's with three very developed and allegedly "advanced" nation-states.

Among the positive side effects of such a weapon of terror were nuclear power generation and medical isotopes that have successfully treated and even cured millions.    It has even helped combat art fraud (any painting or photograph after about 1948 has radioactive materials in it, in trace amounts but they're there).   But many of us are old enough to remember Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and of course Fukushima.   The fact is, you never build a machine gun only with the intent to hunt wild game for the purposes of conservation and food consumption.   Ask the real Anton Kalashnikov.

Iran can't simply go to a bank (one that operates within the rules) and say, "Can you extend us a line of credit, for say, $50 billion?    We'll pledge our oil assets as collateral."   The loan officer, knowing Iran's history and its rhetoric, can't just very well say, "Okay, sign here."    They would insist on some kind of assurance about what the money is for, and that it is indeed going for that purpose.   Especially for a third world country, and past instances of corruption throughout the developing world, due dilligence is vital.


SCB admits it had received 150 million text messages and other online contacts.   (The regulators are focused on about 60,000).    If there was a suspicion something weird was going on, a reasonable person might think they would have raised the alarm even before they were first contacted by prosecutors in 2007.

What has happened here, according to regulators, is an illegal "U-turn" in that Iran has multiple times wired X amount of one default currency (say, Euros, but of course using a dummy company as a front) to a European bank (especially one in the Eurozone) with a US branch office; in turn that US branch wires the equivalent in dollars to a US bank and one of its European branches into an account of the same front company.   

Not only has Iran managed to sucker two banks it would seem, but central banks have been suckered too.   The Euros are now "Euro-euros" (that is, a Euro outside the Eurozone and not controlled by the ECB in Frankfurt) and in turn an equal amount of bucks have become Eurodollars (a dollar outside of the US, and it doesn't have to be Europe either) and therefore outside the control of the Federal Reserve.

If there is a seizure of the bank in question here, the depositors may very well get most or all of their $600 billion back; it'll be covered by insurance (government and private).    But those insurance premiums paid by all of us for home, auto, life etc will skyrocket making it very unaffordable; and of course, a bank failure could start a chain reaction.

I think people have had enough of "too big to fail".

***

So to my point.   And this is only what I think, based on what we know:

SCB has a very small presence in Canada -- while it mostly exited retail banking here, it still is here via its majority ownership of the Canadian arm of American Express ™ Bank.    So there is some exposure there although also some protection with deposit insurance.

 But who's to say that given Canada's very tough position on Iran and our poisonous history with them (we didn't even have relations with them during the 1980s, a policy carried through by four Prime Ministers) that that country hasn't figured out a way to take advantage of what's left of our fairly reasonable stance on foreign policy issues and used front companies running money through any of the chartered banks or trust companies?     If we have been played for fools, then there's going to be a lot of egg on the face of PMS.

Some banks have proactively been trying to clamp down, although overreaching in some cases by closing personal accounts altogether without probable cause (think TD ™).    And while police activity needs to keep a low profile until charges are filed, stopping Iran from getting Da Bomb and / or funding terrorist groups should be our Number One foreign policy initiative.    We need to make that clear.    And if Iran has laundered money through Canada, then we should again suspend diplomatic relations with that country.

As for the banks, nothing less than full disclosure is called for.   If banks have found irregularities, we need to know, openly and now.   Otherwise, there should be a substantial forfeiture of cash and equivalents in hand, a major hike in that bank's deposit insurance premiums, and a very public shaming.

Otherwise the credibility of our banks are in question.    And with it, our confidence in their "stability" compared to other countries, especially the US.    We need to take the lead in saying we're splitting apart the retail (bank, trust and insurance) operations of financial institutions from the investment banking divisions.   That is to say, investor's escrow deposit accounts should of course be protected for their book value; but any risk management by the investors and the traders they rely on should be on a caveat emptor as well as caveat venditor.    We should not be held liable under any circumstances for derivatives that go haywire or transactions made with ill intent.

Furthermore if a Cabinet minister had a probable belief something was rotten but did not speak up, then that minister should be fired -- and that includes the Prime Minister.    If they knew, we need to know too.    If there is a time for "accountability" it's now.

Whether it's just $10,000 or $1 billion or more, we need to know the truth, now -- and the banks telling the government of Iran to get the hell out of Dawson Creek.

Romney should audition for Keystone Kops with his mouth

Remember four years ago and Barack Obama's goodwill tour of Europe -- well before the Democratic convention -- and how it brought out people in the tens of thousands; including 200,000 at Victory Column in Berlin.   No surprise there as he was spreading the word of reconciliation with the NATO alliance after eight years of 43.

Fast forward to 2012.   Mitt Romney, having locked up the Republican nod to challenge Obama, is now on a world tour of his own.   But the crowds just aren't there.   A corporate raider just doesn't have the chic of acommunity organizer.

And better for Obama's chances, the former Governor of Massachusetts keeps putting his foot in it.   First, he criticized the organizers of the London Games now on.   Fair enough -- having to bring in the troops when a security company can't get its act together is definitely a cause for concern.

But then he visits Israel.   And here's where it gets interesting.   First, as Obama has, Romney said that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.   That will get out the vote, but as no country in the world I'm aware of even recognizes the country's claim to West Jerusalem (instead adopting the official position of corpus separatum) it's not one that can be really put into practice, yet (sixty years plus on).

But second -- and here's where it gets fun -- Romney attempted a comparison between the relative wealth of Israel and the West Bank; noting the per capita GDP in Israel is twice the size of that in the Palestinian areas.  Romney's next line:   "Culture makes all the difference."

Wow.   This ranks right up there with Ralph Nader calling Obama an "Uncle Tom."

And this before one of Romney's aides told reporters to "kiss my ass" -- just after Romney arrived in Warsaw.

Yes, terrorist elements -- both organized and lone wolves -- have hindered Palestine a great deal.   But so have the restrictions on movements of all non-settlement residents of the Bank as well as Gaza.   When you have to go through several checkpoints to get to work, while those living in the illegal exclaves as well as tourists can get around as fast as one could in Israel proper, then of course economic development will be hindered.

 But to call it a "matter of culture"?    This sounds like those who fought against civil rights for blacks in the 1950s and 60s.   "Wait."   "Sit down, boy."  "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"    And other sorts of crap.

Christians have a special duty to stand up for God's Chosen People.    We also have a responsiblity to stand up for the rights of law-abiding Palestinians, too -- including those who are Christians -- both in the occupied lands and in Israel proper.   The toll on Christians has been especially stark.   In just two generations the percentage of Christians in the area has dropped from about 20% to just 2.1% -- nearly 90 percent.

So here are some questions worth asking Mitt Romney:

1. What does Romney find so offensive about the Palestinians' "culture" and what he perceives as their "inability" to raise their standard of living?
2. How does he feel about the refugee situation -- not just Muslims, but Christians and other groups caught on the wrong side of the fence?
3. Does he favour continuing foreign aid to a first world country with a less than stellar human rights record -- or does he think Israel is entitled to a free pass just as his own country often believes it's entitled to?   Trade should be linked to respect for rights, not to religion or a lack thereof.
4. Does he favour a contigous West Bank with land swaps, or one pot-marked by "settlements" as part of a final status settlement?   (This isn't Baarle-Nassau and Baarle-Hertog on the Netherlands-Belgium border, after all -- a geographic curiosity in Europe but one that's been left alone.  Heck, even India and Bangladesh have finally agreed to mostly resolve the preposterous situation in Cooch-Behar where there were a total of 202 enclaves sprinkled within each other's territories; that will be reduced to just 40.)   Put it this way -- would the West tolerate Palestine having it illegally occupy parts of Israel, say Sderot, Nazareth or Meggido (Armaggedon)?    This is an inherent double standard.
5. Lastly, as democracy continues to spread across the Middle East, will he favour extending free trade arrangements

I wonder if Auschwitz - Birkenau is on Romney's schedule, and what could possibly happen there.   If JP2 hadn't ordered a Catholic convent to get the hell out of the area on the perimeter, would Romney (a Mormon) have preferred the convent over the camp.   Just asking.

Deny, deny, deny -- Syria edition (and why sanctions aren't enough)

This past weekend's massacre in Houla, Syria was so uncommonly cruel in its scope that even Russia and Mainland China, which have been vetoing several resolutions due to their arms sales to Damascus, finally said enough is enough.   At least 108 are dead, and quite a few Western states have suspended ties to the Assad régime -- Canada, for instance, kicked out the Syrian legation to this country today, while Hungary is acting as "protecting power" for Canada in that country, for now anyway (as many of the EU states are also telling Syria to take a hike).

Yet unbelievably, when the Security Council voted unanimously to condemn the events in Houla, the Syrian Ambassador to the UN totally denied that anything happened in Houla and that videotapes that documented the massacre had been faked.    Interesting ... except that in the aftermath it was demonstrated that those who had been murdered had been hit with munitions only available to military and police forces.   Meaning it was a government job, or it had been outsourced to al-Qaeda or another terrorist alliance.

It's not we didn't see it coming.  When the presidents of Rwanda and Burundi were assassinated in 1994 at the same time it didn't take a genius to figure out that a major disaster was coming, which is what precisely happened.   After the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, Clinton couldn't even be bothered to send a mere ten Americans to don the blue cap -- and even a token American presence just might, might, have stopped the murder of 800,000.   And the attitude of the Hutu majority -- "What massacre?"

Srebenica.  Just a few months before the Dayton agreement, the town was cleared out of women and children, with "fighting men" told to stay.   It took just a few days to kill 8000.    The UN knew what was going to happen, but thanks to restrictive standing orders could do nothing.   Nothing.   And there were other cities and towns in the three way war where people of Serbian (mostly Orthodox), Croatian (mostly Catholic) and Bosnians (primarily Muslim) were systematically wiped out because of their ethnicity which could often be identified merely by surname.   And amazingly, Milošević denied Serbian troops were doing anything wrong and likewise Franjo Tuđman denied Croatian troops were doing anything wrong (oh yeah, the guy also was a Holocaust "revisionist" -- much to the embarrassment of many of Croatian descent, myself included).

In the above cases, the same "deny" machine quickly kicked in, even with independently verifiable video evidence, followed by retroactive introspection once the worst possible thing happened.   Yeah -- we admit we were wrong after the fact.   Familiar?


I mentioned this a short while ago, but does anyone believe the Civil Rights movement in the States would have been successful were it not for national news coverage?   Even local affiliates of the networks made sure the story got told of police orchestrated massacres, church bombings and lynching -- and the white "Citizens Councils" (read:   the KKK) came up with their own names for the networks:   the Nigger Broadcasting Company, the  Coon Broadcasting System, etc. (you can't make this up) to get the word around "not to trust the networks".    Ignorance is bliss, but knowledge is power and when you have power there comes a point when you're mad as hell (you know the rest).   What finally turned things around?   The 16th Street Church bombing in September 1963 ... when four young children were murdered simply because of the colour of their skin, that's when the civil rights legislation got traction.

If the world had imposed trade sanctions on the US, you can be damn sure that blacks would have gotten their freedom ten years earlier, maybe more.   There's a reason for that -- sanctions only work against government who honestly believe they are working in the best interests of their citizens, or more correctly their constituency.   A travel and trade embargo would have shut the States down -- especially if tourists boycotted the country in mass numbers.

Simply stated, when the home-bound people get fed up and turn against the powers that be, that's when the government reforms.  You lose your power base, you lose your power.

That's exactly what happened in South Africa.   When the UK (because of a backbench revolt against Thatcher) and the US (thanks to a Congressional override of Reagan's veto) turned the screws on the Pretoria government and the economy went into free fall, the ruling party finally had enough of P.W. "Crocodile" Botha and forced him out.

Unfortunately, however, sanctions do not work against governments who are only in it for themselves and their cronies.   Thirteen years of sanctions didn't force out Saddam Hussein, thirty years haven't twisted Iran's hand one bit -- and what a joke North Korea has been; it managed to detonate at least two bombs with the help of Pakistan (supposedly a Western "ally" that still refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist) while still managing to steal food aid and then sell it on the black market; not to mention it can make banknotes of any of the top ten currencies that are obviously counterfeit but can pass for a clean bill and thus undermine the foreign exchange system as well as the trust we have in the "full faith and credit" of our governments.

I'm not the only one who feels things have gone too far.   Sadly, the Syrian government is well stockpiled to keep the civil war going on for months, perhaps years -- even with an ironclad trade embargo and travel ban.  The only plausible solution is outside military intervention and that would mean a limited tactical strike campaign to out (pardon the expression) the Syrian government and finish them off just as NATO did to get rid of Qaddafi in Libya.

Then there are other governments that need to get what they deserve with similar force -- let's see, Sudan and Equatorial Guinea, to name just two.

I don't exactly support extrajudicial executions -- the OBL take down last year would have been more meaningful if he had just surrendered without a fight and gone on trial so he could have be held to account.

But sometimes the only way to get rid of a truly evil government is to take it out by force.   I would, of course, prefer a live capture and trial in the Hague, followed by a life sentence at Scheveningen Prison.

But if any of the heads of state or government happened to get killed in the process -- well, I certainly wouldn't miss them and I suspect a lot of others would not either.

Who's pulling Romney's strings?

Today, David Frum in a column for CNN said the obvious, what most of us in the progressive movement have been saying -- that Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican challenger to incumbent US President and Democrat Barack Obama, has allowed himself to cave in to the extremist elements of the GOP (i.e. the self styled "Tea Party".)   Just a few days ago, notes Frum, Romney was pretty much forced to fire his foreign affairs advisor and replaced that advisor with a former aid to John Bolton.   (Remember him?)

It is worth pointing out that in any other democratic country, a movement or a party with these über kinds of views on such things as immigration, birth control and foreign policy would be coloured on the political maps on TV and in newspapers black -- as in Black Shirts or facists.   In some countries like Austria and Italy, some coalition governments have been built with support of the far right not out of choice but absolute necessity.  In others, like France and the UK, the mainstream parties want absolutely nothing to do with the neo-fascists at the national level, even though such do manage to control some local councils as well as getting seats in the European Parliament in Strasbourg (and presumably has a slight hand in selecting some nominees to the European High Courts in Luxembourg City).

Sadly, the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln.   It's not the party of Hoover and Eisenhower, or even Nixon and Ford.   Even Reagan would be appalled at what the party has become, with the rightists demonizing the moderates (and thus disobeying The Gipper's Twelfth Commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican.")

Even a couple of weeks back, I was of the sense that Obama would win re-election though by not nearly as much as he did four years ago.   The rate things are going, Romney may not even come close -- I wouldn't be surprised if Obama not only holds on to the battleground states he won last time, he may even peel off marginal states like Missouri and North Dakota and just possibly even gain some upsets such as Arizona which is no longer a truly solid GOP state.

The Tea Party will no doubt blame Romney for fucking things up, but it'll be the tea-baggers who will only have themselves to blame (and each other's short and curlies to lick).   Romney is no doubt more competent to handle the business side of things in government but that may not be enough.   On the other hand, I think it would do well for Obama if, presuming he does win, taps Romney to run a blue ribbon panel on government reorganization -- such as Truman did when he hired Herbert Hoover after World War II to do the same -- and which is certainly needed given the huge budget challenges America faces now.   The Hoover Commission made nearly 300 recommendations, roughly 200 of them were implemented and is still remembered today for actually doing something to solve a big problem.

2012 is not 1947 and the executive is in need of a shakeup.   In such an office like Hoover had, Romney would be free to make proposals without the interference of the TBs -- and then present it as an all or nothing proposition to Congress, just as trade agreements are.   Hoover had no problem getting his way last time.   Maybe that was because many people remembered how he handled things when the lower Mississippi basin had flooded in 1928 -- he got government agencies and NGOs to work together.   I think if given a chance, Romney would be able to use the same kind of rationality -- and put the TBs out of their self-inflicted foot in mouth misery once and for all.

But in the present state, Romney is being pushed further and further back.   He's no Le Pen, not by any means, but those who run the GOP at this time would like him to be.   And that's a shame.   He should have the chance to run as the real him, not the marionette that he's become.

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.

Harper's "Office for Relgious Freedom": Another Newspeak front?

Dubya got into a lot of hot water in many circles with his so-called "faith based initiative" (which President Obama has actually continued and broadened to include people of faith who are LGBT) and now Harper appears to want to go down the same path with something called the "Office for Religious Freedom."    Internal memos obtained by the CBC through a FOIA request indicate that Team Harper wants to sidestep the obvious question, whether "promoting religious freedom around the world" is just a way to masquerade a true intent to let Con-friendly denominations dictate the national agenda.    Just like the Department of War became the Department of Defence and "Welfare" became Human Resources Development, this is potentially a new front in the game of Newspeak.


I absolutely agree that you can't have religious freedom without free speech and vice versa.    But I also happen to believe that when one is elected to government he or she has a duty to the community at large and not just specific interests, to work for the liberty of all and not just for some.    Specifically, to understand that the "Great Commission" does not mean refusing to take no for an answer.

I note that two lines were blacked out in the disclosure, regarding how the government chose who to consult with on how the Office should be set up.    All that was left was a smarmy line about picking people dedicated to freedom of religion.    Naturally, what was censored should leave one asking who they chose -- was it those who favour their own freedom of religion at the expense of others who don't have the same religion?    You can't avoid the televangelists in late night or the weekends.    The way most rail against Muslims is a concern.    Most televangelists shamelessly support the Jewish cause when their own grandparents most likely supported the Holocaust (without explaining the change of heart), but some through weasel words show their contempt for the Chosen People.    And yes, many also rail against Catholicism, in a country where a plurality, 42% or thereabout, are Catholics.

I have said before and I'll say again that while I accept the fact faith based groups are part of the delivery end of social services, that is because I and others who accept that fact do so because such groups make a clear distinction between service and proselytizing.   Blurring that line violates the accepted separation of church and state.    Harper is playing a dangerous game if he thinks he can start a war of words between religious groups based on religion.    Wars have started over such fighting words.   Just look at Yugoslavia.

Besides which, the Office isn't needed.    We already have the "Rights and Democracy" bureau which while somewhat tainted over the years is serving this purpose among many others.    Why waste money with duplication?   I thought Harper was a provincial rights advocate; this seems to go against that kind of thinking.  He was supposed to have been for openness but the censorship even at this level makes me ask what needs to be hid.

The Salvation Army, World Vision, the Kairos partnership -- those are great examples of faith based groups who serve the community at home and around the world, and who promote freedom of religion at the same time without rubbing our faces in it.   The government should certainly promote that freedom as well, but they should follow the lead of the groups who have figured out where the line is drawn.

How will DSK beat off this one? ... pardon the expression

No sooner did Dominique Strauss Kahn manage to stave off sexual assault charges in Manhattan than he now faces allegations he has ties to ... a call girl.   In northern France.   For €500 to 1500 -- a night.   (The French newspaper L'Express has much much more in their article published last night -- sorry, it's only in French.   Over 20,000 sent and 10,000 received SMS messages as well.    Even more remarkable -- he had his flings with the call girl while negotiating high stakes bailouts in his role as then IMF chief, including a €25 billion lifeboat to Ireland.

And he thought he wouldn't get caught?   And incredible he was able to fuck a woman not his wife and fuck a once great country not his homeland at the same time -- and not give anything away.   (Or did he fill the spare not just with wild oats but also super secret information that even most financial insiders would give their gold fillings for?   If he did he betrayed a heck of a lot of countries as well.)

I thought American politicians were stupid when it came to their tabs and slots.   But this goes way beyond the foibles we see south of 49 and north of the Rio Grande.    If DSK had any outside chance of still getting the Socialist nod to challenge Sarkozy next year, this will have finished that once and for all.

If you can't track the guns, you can't track the criminals

The Brady Law in the States, which is supposed to ensure felons don't have access to guns (they are supposed to be flagged by a background check), has proven to be a joke, the NYT reports today.   In just one state -- the State of Washington -- nearly 3300 convicts have had their "right to bear arms" that they forfeited, restored.   In one case, a man out of jail for just two months shot dead his girlfriend's lover -- then forced the dead man's fiancée to dump him into a river.     How did he get the gun?   They were in safekeeping through another friend while the guy was doing time in jail; and the judge who paroled the man said he had no choice under state law even though the judge knew the suspect was a ticking time bomb.

Here in Canada, of course, gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.   I know of some people who are perfectly law abiding but would never be allowed to get a gun license because of various mental health issues.    But it raises a question -- with the Cons bent on abolishing the long gun registry, are we about to become the outlaw country that the United States is -- and an increasingly woman hating one, thanks to the mostly white supremacist religious right and the even more non-white hating and misogynist Tea Party (two sides of the same coin)?

Or that Switzerland is?   While some of its very lax gun laws have been somewhat tightened to comply with general policies in the Schengen open border area that it joined in 2008 after much internal resistance (trade and tourism were the deciding factors in finally giving in), the fact is that most domestic violence incidents that result in death are the result of mandatory firearms possession (every male in Switzerland must possess a rifle until they are at least 30, 34 if they have served as officers).   The rate of firearms ownership there is about 50% higher than Canada (per capita) but only half in turn as that in the United States.    Part of the history is a long standing fear of invasion from its "enemies" but since every country that surrounds Switzerland is a fully fledged democracy and all of which are trustworthy enough to have open borders with, it's more an anachronism than anything else -- albeit a lethal one.

However, one of the reasons Switzerland has a higher conviction rate is that all guns, regardless of size, must be registered and provided with a unique ID number.   That makes guns easier to track and to finger the shooter (since missing weapons must also be reported).   It is true that there are quite a few unregistered weapons there, but if you get caught there you will more likely than not forfeit the right to possess a legal weapon.

Some in this country of Canada go to the old canard that we were trying to make criminals out of legal gun owners, and that a lot of unregistered weapons were making it across the border anyway, which is why the registry has to be abolished.   I agree that some of the penalties for non-registry are ridiculous and need to be revisited; but if we're getting rid of a $2 billion tool that police rely on, doesn't getting rid of the bathwater actually make their job more difficult and make the Harper government guilty of dereliction of duty -- not to mention it actually goes against their promise to be tough on crime?

You can't have it both ways.   Either you get tough on crime and increase the penalties for misuse of a firearm or the illegal possession of one, or you relax the rules on both.   Going at cross purposes (getting "tough" on one but easing up on the other) is a recipe for disaster.   The provinces and territories are well within their rights to say, if the feds want to get rid of the registry, they'll maintain their own -- and this I would support provided that they maintain a unified system rather than a "Balkanized" one.  The jurisdictions would also have every right to demand just and timely compensation for what would be another unfunded mandate on top of the one the Cons are creating with their "crime" bill.

Put it this way:   It makes as much sense as having capitalism in a country with a dictatorship -- sooner or later the regime must fall.   It happened in Yugoslavia, it's happening across the Middle East and eventually Mainland China too will rise up against its communist masters and usher in democracy.   I would welcome that day.   But then we'd better be prepared, because if we can't keep our own country safe from lead paint imports from "over there" heaven help us when we let people through with their firearms and rifles, in full view and not merely concealed, because we said it's okay for our own people.

Berlusconi out, not because of "bunga bunga" but bonda bonda

After sticking around what seemed like forever, and beating off one sleaze scandal after another, the world's most powerful womanizer, Silvio Berlusconi, has finally said he's going to resign after bond markets pushed up the yield of Italy's 10 year bonds to 7.25% (according to Bloomberg).   Compare that huge rate with fellow euro traveller Germany with a yield of just 1.7% -- practically giving it away.

This of course is because Germany has since World War II operated mostly on a pay as you go basis -- revenues match expenditures and borrowings if necessary are short term and paid back as quickly as possible.   Long term bonds are issued but it's not uncommon for Germany to retire them early.

For a populist, even a right wing one like Silvio, making every one live like a king means doing some truly irresponsible things on the backs of first the taxpayers and then the bondholders.    The difference of course is that the taxpayers, the citizens of a country, can always get rid of their rulers.   Bondholders often have little recourse but to dump their bonds, often at a loss or break-even if they get lucky.    The break-even point right this morning, for Italy to avoid default, sez Bloomberg, is 5.62%.

It's easy to forget that it could happen here.   We went through one round of austerity measures in Canada in the 1990s.    We could again unless we build a few firewalls here and there to stop the contagion from spreading here.   America's credit is at the breaking point as well, and the sneeze from them and Europe will make us catch cold big time.

For now, in any case, I say good riddance to the king of bunga.  It was bad enough he disgraced himself, now he may have taken an entire civilization back to the Dark Ages for another 1400 years.