Mosque: Welcome to the neighbourhood

Guess what you can find within three blocks of Ground Zero?

A strip club, an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory store, a grocery and video store, a cell phone outlet, a Catholic church, an Episcopalian church, a sausage / pretzel vendor, the offices of the landlord (Silverstein and Co.) of what was the World Trade Center, buskers, pizzerias, City Hall.   And not too far away, Greenwich Village.

So what's the uproar with a community center, two blocks away, only part of which would serve as a mosque?   I mean, get real!

Folks, the nineteen evil-doers on 9/11 weren't even real Muslims.  They were about as apostate from Islam as you can get as much as OBL is.    And Muslims, true Muslims, suffered the injury and death of the destruction in as much measure as Christians and Jews did.

I suspect at this rate the planners will just give up and move the Cordoba Center to another part of Manhattan, where they'd be more welcome ... say, Harlem.   (Hey, the locals let the adulterous Bill Clinton open up his offices next to the Apollo, didn't they?)

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Process refugee claimants, don't detain them

Yesterday, Ezra Levant suggested that we should have a "refugee processing centre" like Australia does.  Levant even suggested a location -- the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia.   For what it's worth, the Tamils who arrived in Canada last week are being held in detention centres on the Lower Mainland of BC and on Vancouver Island, as well as a vacant ward of a hospital in Victoria.


Several problems with Levant's suggestion.

First, the Queen Charlottes aren't called that anymore.   Officially, says BC, they are now known as Haida Gwaii.

Second, because of its abundant and unique wildlife, the area operates under strict environmental and development controls -- managed jointly by the feds, British Columbia and the Haida First Nation.   And it has a population of just under 5000.   There is no way the Haida would ever agree to their land being run over like that.   The US has its own immigration problems; France definitely won't let us use St. Pierre and Miquelon (off Newfoundland); and Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat), not in the EU but still part of Denmark, is also out.

Third, we don't detain refugee claimants like they are would-be criminals.   We may hold them to ensure their safety but they normally aren't criminals.  While there is a burden on applicants to prove they are refugees (and the threshold is a lot higher than it used to be), the burden of proof is still on the federal government to demonstrate that they are not.

Oz used to have a detention camp on the island nation of Nauru (really not a prison camp, more like a holding centre where applicants were still free to roam about the country) but then when Labour won in 2007 they closed it, causing a major economic headache for Nauru -- and the country now has one on one of Australia's colonies, Christmas Island.    Immigration, not surprisingly, is an issue in next weekend's elections with the Liberal-National coalition vowing to reopen Nauru if they win.

One concern I do have, expressed to me by conservative friends, is how the people on board managed to pay the $45k to $50k per person (about $20 million total).    One suggestion made is that they were funded by sympathetic Tamils already in Canada, either voluntarily or through extortion by the Tamil Tigers.   I would not be surprised if the Sinhalese majority government -- or fronts for it -- are doing the same with their brother community here to fund the persecution of Tamils in Sri Lanka.

If either or both are true then it is really troubling.   It means organized crime has penetrated yet another vulnerable community in this country, and that is something that cannot be tolerated -- any more than when some Catholic Irish people in America felt it was their "patriotic" duty to funnel money to Sinn Féin -- knowing full well it was going to the very illegal IRA, ditto with Protestant Irishmen who did the same for fronts to equivalent "Loyalist" paramilitaries.

There are currency reporting requirements when cash or equivalent instruments exceed pre-determined limits.   But this does not stop people from circumventing the rules either by wiring amounts just below the limit (which is potentially illegal under the crime of "structuring" if the process is repeated).   Nor does it stop people using hawala, a system of money transfer operating on the honour system and mostly under the radar and which has come under increased scrutiny since 9/11.   Last I checked, brokers for the hawala are subject to the same restrictions as banks, brokerages and wire transfer systems and there should be greater enforcement of these rules.

What about turning back ships?

Seems reasonable except that our territorial waters only extend to 24 knots (44.448 km).    We do have a 200 knot (370.4 km) "exclusive economic zone" to protect our fisheries, and a 370 knot zone (685.24 km) to protect threatened and endangered marine species but that's it.   We can't turn back ships just because they have refugees on board unless we have a reasonable suspicion that an overwhelming minority, at the least, are attempting to invade Canada for the purposes of war or terrorism.

This is a truly pathetic situation that has happened.   We now know at least one passenger died on the four month trip, and there may have been an outbreak of TB (a disease which has been all but eradicated in Canada or if it's detected is fought by antibiotics and not isolation as we used to).

We need better ideas, and since provinces and territories share jurisdiction with Ottawa the field of immigration they may have ideas on how to cope with the front lines.   So let's hear what the 13 Premiers have to say -- they've been remarkably silent which is shocking.

But we don't need stupid ideas like using a nature preserve to encamp boat people, or detain them in concentration camps inland.   That's what we did with the Japanese and Italians who were already here during World War II.   Do we want to go down that path again?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Obama cites precedent for Muslim accomodation (again)

No doubt this will get the conspiracy theorists going again ... but President Obama came out swinging in favour of a mosque near Ground Zero in Manhattan.    In fact at an iftar at the White House last night, he pointed out that Jefferson hosted a similar dinner for the Ambassador from Tunisia -- more than 200 years ago, in the same house, and making a point of waiting until after sunset with Jefferson realizing it was Ramadan.   (And in a speech last year, Obama also noted that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, took his oath on Jefferson's copy of the Koran.)

Take that, "Christianites"!

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Refugees, terrorists ... or what?

A conservative friend of mine and I actually agreed on something while we were taking a trip to Toronto yesterday ... something has to be done to stop the flow of those who would abuse our normally generous system of asylum for refugees.

I am of course talking about yesterday's seizure by the Canadian Navy of the MV Sun Sea which came to our Western shores after an odyssey of many months and after having been turned away by Australia.   Many if not most of those on board (who have been living in squalor and after paying tens of thousands of dollars each for passage) are likely legitimate refugees, and of course we should process their claims compassionately.   But it is also highly likely that some on board are members of the LTTE (Tamil Tigers), a listed terrorist organization in Canada, the US and the EU.   Not to mention those who actually organized the voyage are gangsters -- to put it mildly.

Canada finds itself in this bind almost every year, even almost every few months, thanks to a 1985 Supreme Court of Canada decision, Singh v. Employment and Immigration. which declared that everyone has a right to an oral hearing to determine their rights under due process, even stateless persons.    Significant was that in the 6-0 decision three of the justices found such a right under the Charter of Rights' guarantees of "security of person" and "fundamental justice", while the other three found it in Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights which prohibits "depriv[ing] a person of the right to a fair hearing in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice for the determination of his rights and obligations."

While no doubt this bipartite decision was the right decision (since it was founded in both the Constitution and statutory law, respectively) this unwittingly led to a huge backlog in refugee claims, one that persists twenty-five years later.   Being the son and nephew of refugees from Croatia from a time when it was a part of Yugoslavia (and both my father and uncle were persecuted for their religious beliefs whilst serving in the military), it does bother me that the line between legitimate refugees and those who are merely seeking better economic opportunities is increasingly blurred.   Far worse, however, are those in the underground who take advantage of the situation and create a black market to try to smuggle in those who truly need help.

This really isn't a time for partisanship.   After a long civil war, there is no doubt the Tamils in Sri Lanka are suffering even greater persecution from the controlling elements of the Sinhalese majority.   Those who have come here fleeing real and well-founded persecution (the standard under the four Geneva Conventions) must be granted protection.

But those who have no other interests other than economic ones should have applied through the regular process.   And those who would spread terrorism or organized crime should be sent home at the earliest opportunity -- or prosecuted here for their extortion and wilful neglect of their "passengers".

Expedite the process if we have to, but let's not screw it up either and send an innocent person home -- after all, one ship we sent back in 1939 -- thanks to the anti-Semitism of many Canadians including the most ardent "monarchists" -- headed right to a Nazi death camp.     There is no reason why this situation should turn into another "Voyage of the Damned."   That would be, in my opinion, even worse than what we're dealing with right now.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

RIP Dan Rostenkowski

Another political death ... this time it was the notorious Dan Rostenkowski, who shepherded tax reforms and NAFTA through Congress, but then got into trouble over how he expensed office chairs and postage stamps.   Seems like a minor thing now, but back in the hypersensitive era that led to the rise of Newt Gingrich, Dan's conviction may have actually led to the death of Clintoncare as he was its main champion in the US House.   Not to mention the political machine of Richard Daley Sr. that led to his rise in the first place had long gone.

Dead at 82, from complications of lung cancer.   Despite his shortcomings his accomplishments were nonetheless many.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

RIP Ted Stevens

While one may have profoundly disagreed with his pork-barrel politics, he was still a human, and a good servant to his fellow Alaskans.   Ted Stevens, former Republican Senator from the last frontier, died in a plane crash Monday night along with four others.  RIP.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Farrow KOs Campbell

So actress Mia Farrow has now contradicted what Naomi Campbell said last Thursday at Charles Taylor's war crimes trial -- Campbell knew exactly what she got.    One huge, shiny diamond ... not the rough diamonds Campbell claimed.

Maybe Campbell was mistaken.   Or maybe she decided, to protect her "reputation" as a model, she had to pull a Bill Clinton.   Rough or polished, a blood diamond is still a blood diamond.    And more and more women actually do care about where that magic stone comes from.   As should the men who buy them.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

West Harbour Out

It looks like the fix was in even before the debate started.   Word broke late yesterday that the West Harbour, next to the CN railyards and the bayfront parks, is off the list of sites for the Pan-Am Stadium.   Now up front is the East Mountain, a greenfield that will become the start of a public sewer when 30,000 people flush and the waste goes down the Red Hill Parkway.    This sudden turn of events is no thanks to inteference from, you guessed it, Stephen Harper.   Even the city's mayor, a Conservative no less, is pissed.

If people wanted the arena on a park, then why did the city take Confederation Park off the list in the first place?   It's not like anything's going to happen to the campground, in fact it's being abandoned.   And at least it'd be within some walking distance of public transit.

Message to Bob Young:    You wanted the East Mountain, and it looks like you won.   Fine.   Now, reach into your billions and pay for a spur line for the forthcoming Hamilton LRT.    With your own money.    Not all of us care for or want the "driveway to driveway" experience.   If you don't want to do that, you don't get a stadium.    Period.

We may lose the Ti-Cats in the process, but we should get something that benefits everyone and not a greedy computer geek for eight or nine home games while the place sits empty the rest of the year.  It's a fair quid pro quo.   A stadium and an LRT.

At this rate, the Pan-Am committee will look at the mess we've gotten into and say screw it, Hamilton gets no facilities at all.   We already lost track and field.   Now it looks like we'll lose soccer and cycling as well.   For shame.   Then again, it's Toronto that's the host city in 2015, not Hamilton.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

How could she NOT know?

Call me a skeptic on this one, but does anyone seriously believe that Naomi Campbell didn't know what she was receiving from Charles Taylor were in fact rough "conflict diamonds"?    Or her claim she didn't even know what the term meant until she ran it through a search engine?

Entertainment have some of the smartest people -- like Mia Farrow, who's been battling blood diamonds even before it became vogue to do so.

And the business also has some of the stupidest, or the most naϊve.   Especially in the fashion business.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

District court strikes down Prop 8

I suspected all along that this was the way the ruling was going to go on Proposition 8, and that's exactly what Judge Vaughn Walker did today in Perry v. Schwarzenegger (although "Ahnold" actually is personally opposed to Prop 8 as he himself pointed out in his filing and repeated publicly today, he was legally bound as California's governor to defend the law hence his being listed as the main defendant; Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown, the state AG, was also co-listed as a defendant although his position is the same).

The co-counsels, David Boies and Ted Olson (who represented Gore and Bush respectively in the infamous 2000 Florida recount), teamed up for this one and argued that Prop 8 violates due process and equal protection; and that is precisely what Walker said today.    Walker, however, has also stayed his ruling temporarily knowing that there will be an appeal.

No doubt that this is going to go next to the Ninth Circuit and onward to the Supreme Court in Washington.

The decision today goes into great detail about the history of marriage and the evolving roles of men and women within marriage, same-sex relationships, the changing nature of divorce laws and common-law partnerships, and the nature of family throughout history.   This background will, I think, be necessary when SCOTUS finally takes up the case.

When it does, the key vote will undoubtedly be that of Anthony Kennedy.   Either he will be the deciding vote as he has been on so many close 5-4 decisions (mostly on the side of law and order but also in favour of civil rights and environmental protection); or if Walker's ruling is upheld, Kennedy may actually manage to put together an even greater majority to underscore that this, like desegregation and banning sexual harrassment in the workplace, is a matter of civil rights.

Whatever happens down the line, this today is an important step forward.   There is no question about it.   But it's worth remembering too that many in California who voted for President Obama in 2008 also supported Proposition 8.    Just because one is economically progressive doesn't always mean he or she is the same on social issues, and this could become an issue in the extremely close race between "Moonbeam" and eBay founder Meg Whitman who supports Prop 8 but also says (or so she says) that she favours "civil unions," which was the status quo before the measure was passed.

But personal kudos from me to Olson especially.   The conservative icon, whose wife Barbara was killed when American 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11, has made a dramatic conversion and recognizes that equal rights mean equal rights for all and not for some.   No doubt he has burned some bridges with long time allies but he has made new ones, and gained new respect from many.   He's on the short list of 100 finalists for this year's Time "Person of the Year" and he deserves to be.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Massacre in Connecticut

Sure it could happen anywhere in the world, and it does.   But the vast majority of incidents of disgruntled workers "going postal" seem to be in the US, no thanks to the "right" to bear arms.

Is getting fired really worth killing eight people, then oneself?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Who's the extremist here?

It says so much about America these days that there would be so much opposition to a building two blocks away from "Ground Zero" in Manhattan of which only a part would be a mosque -- the proposed Cordoba Center would be a community centre open to all.    Opposition that is coming even from Sarah Barracuda urging the project to be "refudiated".   But this is America today, and it's really sad.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

Catholic bishops say keep long census

Another group has weighed in on the long-form census debate.   This time, it's the Catholic Bishops.   Maybe not exactly the most popular group right now as some in the grouping are accused of continuing obstructing justice in the never-ending sex abuse cases.   But setting that aside, the bishops say the data is needed to help them plot out where new parishes need to be built and which ones ought to be closed or merged ... as well as helping faith-based social service agencies plan out strategies to deliver services.

One of the justifications used to not have a long form census is that it allows people to put in joke answers -- over 21,000 Canadians in 2001 said they were "Jedi".    Alternately, since there is a near complete separation of church and state it's not appropriate to ask about one's religion, and in many countries -- the US and some EU member states, for instance -- it's actually illegal to ask.

I disagree on the "inappropriateness" point.   Yes, there is room for mischief.   But having information about religion patterns across the regions is important.    In 2001, for instance, 42.6% of Canadians self-identified as Roman Catholic.  23.3% said they were Protestant, 4.4.% Eastern Orthodox and 1.9% Muslim.   "Others" made up 11.8% while 16% said they have no religion whatsoever.   (Source:   CIA).

How can this be applied practically?

The fact is, whether we like it or not, certain patterns of violence do tend to spike in certain ethnic or religious communities.    "Honour killings" -- if we can call them that, for there is no honour in murder -- do happen across all communities but they do concentrate in those from the Middle East or South Asia.   Sexual assaults also happen all over, but patterns emerge that they can be often more frequent in some minority communities as well as less affluent areas in "white majority" areas.   If we can identify problem areas then we can fight crime before it begins -- in a sense, prevent a broken window from even being broken.

Another example.

Not that long ago, the local daily newspaper here, the Hamilton Spectator, did an extensive series that tied health outcomes to incomes as well as ethnic and religious background  -- and that one neighbourhood could be wildly different from the next.    This was by no means racial profiling.   It was meant to demonstrate that there is a link and that equal rights can only be achieved by equal opportunities as well as truly equal access to health care.   The newspaper relied on census tract information and cross-referenced that to health information obtained through Freedom of Information (with personal information stripped, of course).    The paper has made it clear such a series could not be done without the mandatory long form information.

The government claimed they received "thousands" of e-mails objecting to the intrusiveness of the census, but this past week the Privacy Commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart -- an agent of Parliament and therefore independent -- says she only received three formal objections related to the census in the last five years, and merely 50 in the last 20 years.   Who are these "thousands"?    People watching the religious channels who just click a form letter on a website and send a mass and duplicating e-mail (the same tactic the Parents Television Council uses in the States to bombard the FCC with "indecency" complaints)?

As for the claims made by the government new Canadians are fearful of being deported if they don't fill in the census, this is something that comes up every cycle.

And the solution remains the same -- go to the ethnic communities, the churches, the multilingual media and put in ads assuring people that their information remains private.   That this census is not an enumeration as in other countries (which here is updated by tax returns and "motor voter" laws).    That this does not relate to taxes, pensions, or any other entitlements.   That the information helps them in the long run, is a duty of citizenship and actually helps protect our freedoms.   That while, yes, it is mandatory, it's only a few minutes to a couple hours of time and that for the next five years they don't have to worry about it.

Social service agencies get it.   The police get it.   Members of the First Estate -- the clergy, from many denominations -- get it.    So why won't those at the top of the Second Estate -- the elected officials?

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

When all else fails, send in ... Mike Duffy

From respected journalist to on-air Con shill to Senator, the downfall of Mike Duffy has been slow and steady.    Now it's just about complete with Duffy being sent in as the point-man to represent the government on-air regarding the current turmoil in the Mounties' top management.

The Red Serge may have a lot of problems right now, but is The Duff the best Harper can send in?

Moreover, if a civilian was needed to clean up the mess in the first place, why didn't Harper appoint someone who actually had prior civilian police oversight?   Bill Elliott was at Indian Affairs, the Coast Guard, Transport and then National Security Advisor.    Not exactly my first choice for a job this massive.   And there probably wouldn't be this uproar in the ranks of the RCMP right now.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.

RIP Maury Chaykin

A truly versatile actor, appearing in numerous TV and film roles, far too many to count.    While many will remember him in such films as Whale Music, Dances With Wolves, The Sweet Hereafter, and Where the Truth Lies -- my personal favourite was where he played the first witness that Joe Pesci demolishes in My Cousin Vinny.  The line "No self-respecting Southerner would ever use instant grits ..." had me cackling.

Maury Chaykin was only 61 -- actually he turned 61 today when he died. Gone way too soon.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.