As president elect Barack Obama prepares to take office early in January 2009, a great number of urgent issues face his country.
Ranging from the war in Iraq to the current economic crisis, there are a broad number of issues that are on the agenda Obama will inherit from George W Bush.
One that has seems to have slipped through the public agenda is one that has been outsanding for more than 30 years: that of Assata Shakur.
For the unitiated, Assata Shakur is an aunt of the late rapper Tupac Shakur who is currently partaking of asylum in Cuba, where she has been since 1984 when she escaped from prison.
Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur faced criminal charges on seven separate occasions. Through the first six she was repeatedly exhonerated -- or, at the very least, found not guilty.
However, on 2 May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey turnpike in which a state trooper was killed and another wounded. Shakur was also wounded in the incident.
Despite the fact that testimony given by two of the surviving officers contradicted the recorded radio calls of the officers from the scene, and despite the fact that Shakur herself never so much as laid hands on a weapon during the incident, Shakur was charged with several crimes, including both first- and second-degree murder.
Under the circumstances of the matter, an accessory charge would have been dubious enough. But in a trial conducted before an all-white jury, in which defense councel were cited for contempt numerous times -- alll under dubious reasoning -- Shakur was found guilty.
In 1984, Shakur escaped from prison and fled to Cuba where she was granted political asylum.
Considering the expectations that many African Americans have with blacks in positions of political power -- a phenomenon that Barack Obama described himself in Dreams From My Father -- many of Shakur's supporters in the United States will likely be expecting that Obama make Shakur the recipient of his first presidential pardon.
Granting such a pardon would certainly cement Obama's credibility with some of his celebrity supporters -- particularly individuals such as Chuck D and Common.
However, it would also give Republicans -- who jumped all over his associations with Bill Ayers (and rightfully so) -- all kinds of ammunition to use against him in a future election. Perhaps even something as damaging as the Willie Horton ad was to Michael Dukakis.
That alone may be enough to dissuade Obama from pardoning Shakur.
Despite the expectations of many of his supporters, Obama may not necessarily keep his hands off Assata Shakur.
As anyone who's ever read a Batman comic -- or perhaps Dark Knight of the Soul -- knows, the world of Batman is philsophically intensive.
There are countless philosophical questions at the very root of the Batman character, and of the world he inhabits.
Because it was released prior to the release of The Dark Knight, Dark Knight of the Soul doesn't directly address many of the interesting questions raised by the movie. Yet this film is utterly full of them.
One of the more intriguing scenarios in the film is the devious boat dilemma, in which two ferries are being used to evacuate two very different groups of people from Gotham.
One ferry is loaded with regular -- and presumably innocent and law-abiding -- citizens. The other is loaded with accused and convicted felons.
Under the guise of a "social experiment", the Joker has bombed each ship, and given the passengers of each ferry with the detonator for their counterpart's bomb. At any point, the passengers of either boat can ensure their survival by destroying the other. However, the Joker promises that at midnight he himself with destroy both ships.
In the overall scheme of the matter -- which is rather ironic seeing as how the individual who has dreamed up this nightmare scenario insists that he himself isn't a schemer, or "planner" -- deciding not to destroy the other boat actually ensures one's own death.
The scene confronts the occupants of each boat with a key dilemma -- that of responsibility.
First off, the nature of the occupants of each boat is clearly in play. Trapped on one boat is a collection of ordinary Gotham citizens. In the other, a group of violent criminals -- "Harvey Dent's most wanted", as its been remarked. It very well could be surmised that the latter boat is more likely to kill the occupants of the former.
After all, they're criminals. Their apparent lack of respect for the lives and property of others is a precipitating factor in them winding up in this predicament in the first place.
However, to make such an assumption could very well be argued to be an ad hoc fallacy, arguing that the criminals are criminals because they're more likely to "kill and steal" (as one passenger puts it), and the ordinary citizens are as such because they're less likely to do these things.
This can be argued to be a fallacy because such a view overlooks the numerous complicated factors that influence the decision to become a criminal. Factors such as poverty and drug and alcohol are known to increase an individual's likelihood to engage in criminal activity. Furthermore, such poverty or drug use is unlikely to be exclusive to the passengers of either ferry.
Last, but not least, there is the question of relative guilt or innocence. Any number of individuals on the prisoner's boat could be innocent and wrongly convicted, just as any number of individuals on the citizen's boat could be guilty of some crime for which they haven't been caught.
This is all aside from simple considerations of character. The motive each man on the prisoner's boat for engaging in crime could range from anything between personality factors -- the previously-surmised lack of respect for others -- to economic desperation or even mental illness.
Likewise, the motive of each individual on the citizens' boat for remaining among the law-abiding is not entirely clear. It, too, could range between anything from personality factors -- perhaps these people have legitimately internalized society's rules and accepted as their own -- to economic comfort, or even mere fear of the potential consquences of criminal behaviour.
The situation is not nearly so black-and-white as those on the boats -- and many viewers -- may otherwise insist.
Each boat addresses the situation rather differently.
On the prisoner's boat, the prison warden holds on to the detonator. For the most part -- at least in the early going -- the decision seems to be largely up to him.
The captain of the citizens' boat seems to feel entitled to hold the same power over the situation. He tells the passengers of his boat that they aren't even going to talk about destroying the other boat. His passengers don't see it the same way. Intriguingly, they are much less orderly than the passengers on the criminals' boat. They loudly demand their say, using their obedience to the law as political capital with which they can demand the right to make that decision for themelves.
The National Guard sergeant on the boat concedes, and distributes rudimentary paper ballots among the passengers. When counted, more than twice as many passengers have voted in favour of killing the prisoners than have voted against it.
The test case used to teach about diffusion of responsibility in sociology and social psychology is that of Kitty Genovese, who in 1964 was brutally murdered outside of her New York apartment building while her neighbours watched. None of her neighbours came to her aid, or even called the police.
Diffusion of responsibility is believed to become more and more pronounced as more and more people are present. The more people are present, the less responsible each individual feels for whatever events may transpire.
Thus, as merely one among 500 people on board the ferry, most of the passengers on the citizens' boat finds themselves able to do something that they initially considered themselves superior because they -- unlike many of the passengers on the prisoners' boat -- had not done. Namely, make the decision to take a life. And not merely one life, but hundreds.
Yet the situation is really not that simple. One person still has to trigger the detonator. Even with nearly 500 people involved in making the decision to kill a comparable number of people on the other boat, someone still has to take a direct hand in exercising that decision.
The captain -- being against the decision -- is clearly unwilling to do so. Even having presumably voted against destroying the other boat, there's little question that he himself would be directly responsible if he were to trigger the explosion.
The diffusion of responsibility would coalesce rather abruptly around the individual who conducted this legally unauthorized execution of 500 lives.
Even when an unnamed man who had argued vociferously in favour of destroying the other boat volunteers to use the detonator, he finds his enthusiasm for the act significantly diminished in the face of the fact that while he made the decision to destroy the other ship in concert with more than 300 others, it's he alone who has his fingers on the detonator.
In the end, he returns the detonator to its box, seemingly preferring to die rather than be directly and personally responsible for the destruction of the other ship.
On the other ship, the warden seems entirely unwilling to destroy the other ship. Yet as the clock ticks closer and closer to midnight -- the time at which both ships will be destroyed -- the warden has to consider the possibility of the loss of both ships. Not merely the loss of the innocent (or perhaps not-so-innocent) citizens on the other ship, but of the prisoners for which he, himself, is ultimately responsible.
It's unlikely that many people -- in the corrections system or otherwise -- will miss the passengers on his boat. But to lose both ships is a total loss. By saving the prsioners, at least the warden prevents that.
Then, naturally, there is the question of self-preservation. The warden may have a wife and children that he may want to go home to, just as many of his men must have families of their own. Furthermore, there is the matter of the families of the prisoners for which he is responsible.
If the citizens on the other ferry live up to their presumed innocent and noble character a great many people would suffer needlessly. The seemingly perverse nature of saving the prisoners at the expense of the innocent citizens aside, from a purely objective point of view it's prefereable to a total loss.
Of course even the notion of self-preservation doesn't account for the fact that, being responsible for the destruction of the other ship, the warden would be widely reviled for his actions. That revulsion would almost certainly be taken out on both himself and his family by the families of the occupants of the other ship and by orderinary citizens alike. Then, to top this all off, there is the matter of moral and criminal responsibility.
But perhaps this is all besides the point.
Regardless of who makes the choice and whatever choice they make, the role of the Joker in the entire matter is unmistakable. After all, it was the Joker who engineered this sadistic choice in the first place.
Even more important than this is the Joker's compunction for offering deceptive choices. When Batman and Commissioner Gordon are given the choice of saving Harvey Dent or Rachel Dawes from the predicament they've been placed in, the Joker gives Batman a false location for each: Harvey is where Rachel is supposed to be, and Rachel dies because of this deception.
But the Joker himself accepts little responsibility for the matter. When confronted by Gordon about their whereabouts, the Joker asks him who left them with. One can't help but remember that Dent himself confronted Gordon with his concerns about some of the officers in his unit.
Just as the Joker refutes any responsibility for the death of Rachel Dawes and the disfigurement of Harvey Dent -- insisting to Harvey that he's just like a dog chasing cars -- he would certainly claim no responsibility for the result of his boat trap.
One way or another, the people aboard the boats made their choices. Fortunately for the people of Gotham -- and unfortunately for the Joker -- each chooses not to destroy the other boat, even under the prospects of impending death. After all, without Batman's heroic intervention, everyone involved dies, no matter what.
Almost unequivocally, those involved have to be taking responsibility for the prospect of their own deaths. And even if the Joker refuses to accept any responsibility for his actions, that refusal may prove to be a moot point. Responsibility ultimately would have been forced upon him, although his contempt for that may in turn render forcing responsibility upon him pointless.
If predictions for the coming new year turn out to be true, Omar Khadr may be on his way back to Canada.
With Barack Obama planning to finally close down Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, many are expecting Obama to return Khadr to Canada.
Michael Byers is among them.
"I am absolutely convinced that Khadr is coming home," Byers remarked. "Not because Stephen Harper wants him to come home but because of the pressure from the Obama administration for Canada to provide this small degree of assistance with respect to their closing down of Guantanamo Bay."
(This last little bit is yet another manifestation of Byers' bizarre predilection for blaming Stephen Harper for things that were actually started by the Liberal party that he somehow prefers to Harper.)
This may or may not happen before Khadr finally goes on trial for killing an American soldier in Afghanistan. In fact, rumours abound that Khadr will be returned to Canada mere days before he's scheduled to go on trial.
If that is the case, then Obama will have to act quickly. He takes office a mere six days before Khadr's trial is scheduled to begin.
Even if Khadr is quickly returned to Canada, serious questions will remain for individuals such as Byers to answer. Most important is the question of what, precisely, will be done with Khadr after he's returned.
Essentially, there are two ways to treat Khadr: as a terrorist or as a child soldier.
If Khadr is to be treated as a terrorist, he will have to be charged under Canadian law and put on trial. At that point the government will have to deport Khadr, as they should have deported Khadr's family long ago.
In Khadr's case, however, the more appropriate method is to treat him as a child soldier. But even in that case, Khadr cannot simply be turned loose into the Canadian public. If Khadr is to be treated as a child soldier -- and considering that he was indoctrinated into Islamic militant ideology by his father and participated in combat at the age of 15 -- he will have to be rehabilitated. Above all, he must renounce the terrorist philosophy his father raised him on.
If Khadr cannot be rehabilitated and will not renounce the beliefs he was taught by his father -- something representing the ultimate form of child abuse by any civilized standard -- then Khadr will have to be treated as a terrorist, and either imprisioned for life or deported.
But, upon his return to Canada, Khadr deserves the opportunity to determine his own future. Whether he does that by working hard toward rehabilitating and reintegrating into society or in how he chooses to answer for his purported crimes will have to be seen.
What should be known in the meantime is precisely what individuals such as Michael Byers believe should be done with Khadr upon his return to Canada.
If Byers were to suggest another one of his trademark reckless ideological stances -- such as his stance that Canada should interact amicably with countries that beat and rape our citizens to death -- it should serve as yet another reason for Byers to be rejected again by Canadian voters in a future election.
Odds are, the Omar Khadr situation is not nearly as simple as Byers would like Canadians to believe.
Some historical events can only really be understood with the perspective that comes with time.
World War II -- with its broad range of incredibly complex issues and events -- is certainly one of those events. One of the widely-disputed topics is the level of involvement of the German populace.
Books such as Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners dispute the notion that the German citizenry participated in atrocities such as the holocaust only under the duress of government coercion.
Even if the German populace's level of participation in the war was greater than previously estimated -- and according to Goldhagen's work it certainly was -- this doesn't overshadow the direct resistence that many Germans offered to Hitler's machinations, and even to his rule of the country.
Valkyrie is the story of the last of more than a dozen plots to depose Hitler and bring as peaceful an end to the war as possible.
The film opens with Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise), serving in Northern Africa, protesting the execution of the war. Germany has lost Northern Africa, and the forces deployed their could be better deployed in Germany's defense.
Upon being wounded in an allied attack -- he loses his right hand and two fingers off of his left -- Stauffenberg is reassigned to Germany, where he serves as a staff officer.
Stauffenberg becomes widely known for his criticism of the war and is quickly approached by a group of dissidents led by retired General Ludwig Beck about deposing Hitler. In a bombed-out church, Stauffenberg confesses his distress at the current state of Germany.
The only way for Germany to recover its soul, Stauffenberg concludes, is for Hitler to die and be replaced.
He hitches a plot in which Operation Valkyrie -- Hitler's plan to use the reserve army to quell a potential civilian uprising -- would be used to frame the SS and the Nazi party for a coup d'etat after the planned assassination of Hitler.
Stauffenberg quickly gains Hitler's confidence, but finds navigating the rest of the web of intrigue surrounding the Fuhrer's inner circle to be exceedingly difficult. As should be expected with any such plot, the eventual failure of the plot hinges on Stauffenberg's inability to control his fellow conspirators and sway the necessary individuals to his side.
As one would expect in a movie about a coup d'etat in a police state, a mood of fear hangs heavy over the entire film. As afraid as most of the characters seem of Hitler and his regime, they seem even more fearful once the coup begins. As frightening as Hitler and his cohorts were, most of the characters are even more afraid of what may replace him.
Whatever else it may be, it could be expected that a coup d'etat against Hitler and the Nazi party will not go entirely peaceably.
Yet even as Operation Valkyrie goes off without a shot, so nearly does the Nazis'$ counter-coup.
The film takes the audience from the thrilling triumph of deposing a despot to the dejection of a decisive defeat -- worse yet, a decisive defeat when the stakes are the highest, when the conspirators are fighting to redeem their entire country.
On the journey, the film even makes a brief stopover with bureaucrats deciding which orders to relay -- those coming from Stauffenberg in Berlin or from Hitler at his private residence -- and with a reserve commander trying to figure out which side of the conflict is the coup and which side is legitimate.
In the end, it takes direct communication with Hitler for the commander -- a "committed National Socialist" to, sadly, support the existing regime.
Valkyrie shies away from none of the terrible consequences of the defeated coup. Stauffenberg tells General Olbricht to look his executioners in the eyes as he is shot.
He does so, as does Stauffenberg himself after him. Simply, it isn't enough for the viewer to understand that the conspirators died for their principles. The film forces the audience to witness it, and know in unequivocal terms the price these brave men paid for their courageous act.
Valkyrie serves as a powerful and important reminder of the role the German resistance played, and the price they paid for it.
Sadly -- and perhaps even necessarily -- Germany still lives under the shadow of Hitler and the horrors perpetrated under his regime. The preoccupation with preventing a repeat of the events of the second world war -- especially the holocaust -- continues to permeate German politics to its very core.
Movies such as Valkyrie should serve as a reminder to the German people of the oppressive environment that Hitler created in the German state and used to perpetrate his historical acts. Even if the holocaust should never be forgotten, the war should one day be forgiven.
Most importantly, however, the German people have to someday forgive themselves.
Despite numerous efforts by the pro-abortion lobby -- and by politicians too afraid to stand up to them -- it seems there are still MPs on Parliament Hill who want to debate the issue of abortion.
And Joyce Aurthur of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada doesn't like it.
For her own part, Aurthur blames it on the Conservative party. Most of the Conservative party's MPs, she insists are "publicly anti-choice" (buy which she actually means anti-abortion).
"It's something that the Conservative party is out of touch with because Canadians don't want to go back to the abortion debate," Arthur insists. "People are happy with the status quo. It's working well."
But what she must mean by that is that she and her cohorts in the pro-abortion lobby are happy with the status quo and don't want to go back to the abortion debate. Some of them steadfastly insist that there is no debate.
But they and Aurthur are wrong. There are a great many Canadians who recognize the necessity of finally having this debate in Canada.
Rod Bruinooge, the Conservative MP for Winnipeg South, is much closer to the truth when he notes that this debate hasn't really ended. No matter what individuals such as Aurthur may prefer, this debate is ongoing. "I think the debate is ongoing," Bruinooge said. "We need to have a starting point of debating whether or not abortion should be legal right up until the moment of birth."
Bruinooge notes that there are members of each party on what he describes as an informal Parliamentary committee, although we won't identify any of them, insisting that each member should "present their personal philosophy on this issue."
Not that such an act wouldn't be politically perilous for these particular individuals. One may recall the outrage directed at NDP Peter Stoffer when he voted in favour of Bill C-484 -- the Fetal Homicide Bill -- being referred to committee for discussion.
Some of the most fervent believers in the pro-abortion lobby insisted that Stoffer should be cast out of the NDP caucus -- and this was just for voting in favour of the bill in questions -- which actually contained protections against the bill being applied to cases of abortion -- should be talked about.
Coyne never really advocated a particular stance on the issue -- he only noted that democratic debate is necessary to establish a legitimate consensus.
As Coyne himself noted, a debate on abortion would be emotional to the point of sheer savagery. It would give the most irrational denizens of each side -- the pro-abortion and anti-abortion lobbies -- an opportunity to seize the spotlight and draw attention to themselves.
But Canadians have the right to debate abortion -- whether it's under rational pretenses or otherwise -- if they so choose. That's part and parcel of living in a democracy wherein our freedoms of speech and expression are legally protected.
To allow the pro-abortion lobby -- who are so content to slur their opponents with meaningless and nonsensical epithets such as "anti-choice" -- to curb sucha debate out of simple fear of losing would be unconscionable.
Rod Bruinooge's courage in raising the issue should be recognized and saluted, just as Joyce Aurthur's intellectual cowardice should be recognized and condemned.
In the coming year, the world will mark 15 year anniversary of the Rwandan genocide.
As we approach this solemn marker of what very much was "Humanity's failure in Rwanda", as Lt General (ret) Romeo Dallaire's book insists, the time is always right to remember how the tenth anniversary of that atrocity was marked.
The original Shake Hands With the Devil film -- a documentary, as opposed to a docu-drama -- is the tale of Dallaire returning to Rwanda to confront what he continues to regard as his failure there.
In the course of the film -- which reassembles much of the media coverage of the genocide so adroitly that one almost feels as if they are actually there -- Dallaire encounters, and is in turn confronted by, not only his own defeat and by the Rwandans who survived (and surely some who participated in) the genocide, but by the very realpolitik that contributed to the horrors of 1994.
Even moreso than Roy Dupuis' portrayal of the general -- or even Nick Nolte's thinly-veiled misrepresentation in Hotel Rwanda -- Dallaire's journey in Shake Hands With the Devil provides Canadians with a window into Dallaire's soul.
It's nearly impossible to come away from this film not empathizing with Dallaire, even if only a little.
Shake Hands With the Devil is as important a chapter in the Canadian government's (and the United Nations') failure to stand by the espoused humanitarian principles of its foreign policy as Grant Dawson's Here is Hell (a book about the Canadian mission in Somalia).
More than anything, it's important for Canadians to understand that Canadians were engaged in Rwanda while the genocide unfolded. Canadians strived against the grim reality of the situation to put a halt to the killings, and were insufficiently supported by either their own government or by the United Nations (who had sent them there in the first place).
Canadians can never allow such a thing to happen ever again.
As yet another Christmas passes into our memories and the post-consumer consumerist binge that is Boxing Day looms, some people could probably be forgiven for wondering:
How, precisely, do the hatemongers at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink celebrate Christmas?
They pass Christmas as they pass every day of the year -- by being despicable, as always.
On this day of the year, when most people with a shred of decency and dignity are putting aside their petty differences in order to afford their political or ideological opponents a day of mutual good will, Canadian Cynic and the jackals at the Groupthink Temple are treating the day as just another opportunity to preach their gospel of hatred.
Among this year's highlights:
Suggesting that Ezra Levant should be punched in the face for suggesting that Christians should correct people who wish them a "happy holidays" by asserting that they prefer "merry Christmas". Naturally, Cynic overlooks the fact that freedom of speech allows us to peacefully correct people who offend -- something which can actually be done without the coercive and undemocratic Human Rights Commissions that Cynic and his cohorts so approve of.
'Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring -- except for Richard Dawkins. Fortunately, that guy is a bloody idiot.
In an amusing article appearing in the New York Times, Olivia Johnson recounts a story about Richard Dawkins telling her that Sir Isaac Newton was born on Christmas Day. Thus the 25th of December could be treated as an alternative atheist holiday -- celebrating the coming on the man who invented modern physics and mathematics.
Unfortunately, there turn out to be more than a few problems with Dawkins' suggestion.
First off, as Johnson notes, Newton wasn't really born on Christmas Day. When Newton was born England was still using the Julian Calendar. According to the Gregorian calendar, Newton wasn't actually born until January 4, 1643.
But this isn't the greatest difficulty with Dawkins' proposal.
"The story is told of an atheist scientist, a friend of Sir Isaac Newton, who knocked on the door and came in after he had just finished making his solar system machine.
The man saw the machine and said 'how wonderful' and went over to it and started cranking the handle and the planets went round. As he was doing this he asked, 'Who made this?'
Sir Isaac stopped writing and said 'nobody did'. Then he carried on writing.
The man said, 'you didn't hear me. Who made the machine?' Newton replied, 'I told you. Nobody did.' He stopped cranking and turned to Isaac 'Now listen Isaac, this marvelous machine must have been made by somebody - don't keep saying that nobody made it.'
At which point Isaac Newton stopped writing and got up. He looked at him and said 'Now isn't it amazing. I tell you that nobody made a simple toy like that and you don't believe me. Yet you gaze out into the solar System - the intricate marvelous machine that is around you - and you dare say to me that no one made that. I don't believe it'."
The story concludes that the encounter with Newton converted the man from atheism to Christianity -- although whether this is true or not is a detail that has been lost to the pages of unwritten history.
It's rather ironic that Dawkins -- as committed atheist as Newton was a Christian -- would seek to supplant a holiday celebrating the arrival of the Christian messiah with a holiday celebrating an individual who many consider to be the atheist messiah.
An atheist messiah who himself was a Christian, interred in Westminster Abbey upon his death.
Only an individual whose thought tends to be as empty as Richard Dawkins' -- after all, this is an individual who can't seem to tell astrology and racism apart -- could dream up something quite like that.
Among those looking for further excuse -- any further excuse -- to complain about Stephen Harper's recently-appointed Senators, University of Prince Edward Island law professor David Bulger seems to think he's hit a home run.
Mike Duffy's appointment to the Senate, he insists, is unconstitutional.
Bulger insists that Mike Duffy resides in Ottawa, not Prince Edward Island.
"What it comes down to is: does he have to be a resident in the province at the time when he’s appointed? Some of us, and I am one of them, would argue yes," Bulger insists.
Bulger goes on to claim that the Elections act is the only piece of legislation in Canada that defines an individual's residence. "It states if you work in one place and you live in another, then where you sleep is your residence — and Mike Duffy sleeps in Ottawa," he continued.
Unfortunately for Bulger, however, this isn't true. The truth is that various pieces of legislation in Canada define what an individual's residence is. These acts cover various things, from taxation to eligibility for social services.
While for the most part these acts stipulate that individuals have to live full-time in those provinces in order to be eligible for social services, these laws do maintain exceptions for individuals who must spend significant portions of the year -- in some cases, up to eight months -- living outside of their home province for the purpose of work or education.
To top it off, Bulger's insistence that where an individual sleeps defines their residence is incredibly oversimplistic. It overlooks the very nature of the profession that Duffy -- and many other Canadians -- work in.
Simply put, Duffy works as a journalist. His job -- which one expects that he will be resigning from -- required him to spend significant portions of the year in Ottawa.
Duffy's job is very similar to other examples: blue collar shift workers who often work in other provinces while maintaining residences at home, and the other example that Bulger himself mentions, that of a Member of Parliament.
In the specific latter case, the individual in question lives for significant portions of the year in Ottawa while they work in Parliament. Yet when election time rolls around, these individuals vote not where they sleep for most of the year -- in Ottawa -- but rather in their own ridings, where they presumably maintain permanent residences.
Likewise, shift workers who in many cases can sleep up to two thirds of the year in aother riding, province, or even country vote not where they sleep, as Bulger insists, but in the riding in which they maintain permanent residences.
One would have expected a Constitutional expert of Bulger's alleged calibre to know the difference. One would at least have expected the editorial staff of the Chronicle Herald to check Bulger's facts before reporting them.
Coming via National Post Full Comment is the sordid tale of Liberal MP Ken Dryden trying to sell his mendacious pro-Coalition rhetoric via email to economist Sally Zerker.
Zerker begins the exchange by expressing her concerns about the proposed Coalition -- concerns shared by 59% of Canadians.
"Dear Mr.Dryden;
I am a constituent in your riding. I cannot believe that I would live to see the day when you and your party would be willing to undertake such an undemocratic coup as is now underway with your attempt to oust the government. There is simply no basis for the kind of reaction by the Liberal Party which involves manipulating the democratic process to satisfy the unseemly passion for power. You are obviously entitled to criticize the government but that shouldn't justify going into a deal with the devils, socialists on one side and separatists on the other. At issue is power for its own sake because this move on your part is totally contrary to the interests of Canada. I can only say "shame on you and your party".
Dr. Sally F. Zerker"
Dryden takes nearly two weeks to respond. When he does, however, the response is predictably partisan, and outright deceptive:
"Dear Dr. Zerker,
I had originally drafted this letter after the events of last week. The events of this week have also been of great impact to Canadians so I will try to speak to them as well.
We now have a new Liberal party leader, Michael Ignatieff. I support Michael and I support the process by which he was chosen as our leader. It is time for us to present to Canadians a permanent leader. Our economic situation as a country is such that world governments will be taking important decisions in the next months. The Harper Government, to say the least, has not responded to the global crisis in any real way. It is our job as the principal opposition party to push the Government to do more, and to do what is necessary. It is also our job, in this minority situation, to present to the public a party that is ready and able to govern. That requires a permanent leader who will plan and act like a permanent leader, and who is seen by Canadians as the permanent leader.
Michael has the overwhelming support of Liberal Caucus and of members across the country. I look forward to the important weeks and months ahead.
Now to last week. Let me try to tell you what I think —
This is a time when we face the most serious economic crisis since the 1930s. It is a time when as Canadians, as a world, as Parliamentarians, we know we need each other. We know we need to come together.
After the Speech from the Throne on November 19th, things began promisingly. All parties, knowing the expectations of Canadians, talked of working more co-operatively. There had been enough bad experiences in the past that MPs couldn’t be anything but tentative about this, still the words were there.
Mr. Flaherty’s Economic Update, however, turned out to be fundamentally, economically, distressingly inadequate. It did not reflect the dimensions of our problem. Other countries were acting seriously and determinedly. We were not.
All that would have been bad enough, but there was something more. Again, this was a time to work together. There was just one thing to focus on — the economy; people’s jobs; the well-being of families. Nothing else mattered. We knew that. Everyone knew that. But Mr. Harper just couldn’t resist. He chose to do what he had done before, but never so outrageously as this time. It was the very wrong moment to do the very wrong thing.
He decided as part of the Economic Update that there should be the elimination of public support for political parties. He argued that everyone needed to tighten their belts, and politicians should take the lead and set an example. What could be wrong about that? Except, of course, the impact of cuts like this relative to the economic crisis was practically zero; and further, the impact of this on what was his real intention would be anything but “practically zero.”
Mr. Harper knew that this would mean all the Opposition Parties and any fledgling party such as the Greens would be affected far more than the Conservatives, and that in the next few elections at least (and with minority governments these elections happen more often), these parties would have a far harder time competing and potentially winning, which real and fair competition is the basis of our democratic system. Further, that this action, so wrong on its own, was doubly, triply wrong in the context of an economic crisis where everyone needs to work together. Where everyone needs each other. Where everyone needs to trust each other and focus on just one thing: the economy.
This was Mr. Harper at his absolute worst (one would hope) doing something so completely so utterly political, so completely so utterly partisan and non-democratic, so fundamentally, so disturbingly, so outrageously wrong.
It was at this point, after knowing finally and forever there was no way of working with Mr. Harper, that the Opposition Parties began talking seriously about whether we could work with each other.
Coalition governments are not what Canadians are used to, and that makes Canadians anxious and uncertain. That is understandable. But coalitions are not at all uncommon in other very successful, very stable Western democracies – e.g., Germany, Netherlands, Belgium. And given the fact that we have four parties represented in the federal House of Commons and both the Liberals and Conservatives are strong enough to elect many Members (unlike a few years ago when the Conservatives were not), minority governments are now more likely, even probable. For a party to govern, it requires the support of one or more other parties, not necessarily under a formal agreement as would be the case with a Liberal-NDP Coalition, but with other-party, often Bloc, support nonetheless. That was what happened with Mr. Martin’s Government. That has been the case with Mr. Harper’s.
As we go into the next few difficult weeks, let’s keep these things in mind:
First, this would be a Liberal-NDP Coalition, led by the Liberals with a Liberal prime minister, where the Finance Minister would come from the Liberal Party, where 18 of the 24 Cabinet Ministers would be Liberals and 6 would come from the NDP. This is NOT a Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition. The Bloc is NOT part of the government. Their part of the agreement is ONLY to vote for the Coalition when there are confidence votes during the next 18 months. They have no Cabinet positions. They have no say in the direction of the government or government policy any more than, as an opposition party, they do now.
Second, a coalition government, though unusual in Canadian experience, is absolutely contemplated under our Constitution. In our Parliamentary System, a government needs the support of the majority of the House of Commons. With a majority government, that support need come only from all the members of the governing party. With a minority government, there needs to be support from members of other parties as well. Mr. Harper’s Conservatives have 143 seats out of 308 in the entire House of Commons. A majority, therefore, is 155. The Coalition represents 163 seats. Just as it has been for the 141 years of our history, this Coalition would be a Government that represents the majority of the House of Commons. Again, different from what we are used to but entirely contemplated by our Constitution.
The last point –
I have said all that I’ve said above because the situation we have before us is not just about Canadians deciding between a Harper Government and a Liberal-led Liberal-NDP Coalition Government.
There is no doubt the Coalition has its work cut out for it. Between now and when Parliament resumes on Jan. 26, it must demonstrate to Canadians that it can be a strong, stable, effective Government. It needs to begin planning and setting out its priority directions like a government. It needs to be ready to govern if it is called on to govern by the end of January. That is its challenge. That is its bargain with Canadians.
But Mr. Harper has a challenge too. And his challenge, I believe, is even harder.
A prime minister sets the tone of the House of Commons. Respect gets respect. Disrespect breeds disrespect. The Prime Minister is now fighting to stay on to win a battle that need never have been fought in the first place. To preside over a Parliament whose dynamics, whose very relationships, he has poisoned and destroyed. It’s too late. This Parliament cannot work with this Prime Minister. All of us have heard the angry voices every day in the House of Commons, and now across the country. Shout and scream versus shout and scream.
Mr. Harper has scorched the earth of civility and trust for all of us. For him, it is over. He cannot be trusted. He cannot repair what is irreparable.
We need a new prime minister.
That is what I believe.
In the next days and weeks, we will be preparing ourselves for the return of Parliament on Jan. 26 with Michael as our leader. It is our job to provide to Canadians the best that is in us whether in opposition or in government. That is what we will endeavour to do.
Thank you for letting me know what’s on your mind. Thank you for the chance to let you know what’s on mine.
Sincerely,
Ken Dryden"
Sadly for Dryden, Zerkler did not buy this disingenuous response. Her reply certainly voices the sentiments shared by a great many Canadians:
"Dear Mr. Dryden; Thank you for your answer to my letter. I do appreciate your effort and I do pay attention to your opinion.
However, I do not agree with you about many aspects of your reply. I do not accept that the Bloc is not part of the coalition because as you noted, the majority you speak of, is only with the inclusion of the numbers in the Bloc. Secondly, I do not trust a Liberal coalition with a socialist party. If Canadians wanted socialists governing them they could elect them to power at the federal level. They never have because Canadians clearly do not want the kind of legislation that the NDP stands for and would enforce. Your coalition would have to make socialist-like concessions to the NDP and perhaps concessions of another sort to the Bloc. Also, I can't say I want Liberals back in power after the long history of Liberal authoritarianism when they were in a majority position. I did not enjoy how they used their power. As for Mr. Ignatieff, I am not thrilled that after 39 years absent from Canada, he does us a favour to come back here with the "chutzpa" to offer himself for the position of prime minister, and you Liberals are willing to anoint him.
Finally, I trust Prime Minister Harper even if you do not. The fact that all of you got so excited about the proposal to cut some of your bounty from tax dollars does not surprise me. People and parties on the dole are incenced when the flow stops or is reduced. I must say that it does not upset me in the least. It speaks very badly about the the Liberal Party management skills that it somehow finds itself broke, after all those years in power and the recipient of lobbiers' huge grants to the party.
It's true that PM Harper did not keep all his promises--he has kept most of them--but then no politician that I know of has done so. Indeed, the Liberal premier of Ontario broke over 200 promises and I never heard you or any other Liberal condemn him for it. And for me, Mr. Harper has kept a very important promise. He has done what no Liberal administration has done with regard to Israel and the Palestinians. He has been unbiased and fair. The Liberals pretended to be so, but they never were, and I can recognize the difference.
So, Mr. Dryden, I hope you can appreciate my point of view and learn from it.
Sincerely,
Dr. Sally F. Zerker"
Zerker's criticism of Michael Ignatieff is short and to the point. Whether the Liberal party wants to admit it or not, the fact that Ignatieff has spent the majority of his adult life outside the country is a real disadvantage for Ignatieff.
As will be the way in which he was selected. While partisans such as Dryden will naturally want to portray Ignatieff's ascension to Liberal leader in the most positive light possible, the simple fact of the matter is that the ascension of a leader who wasn't elected through democratic means and instead simply defaulted to the leadership through the closing down of the leadership process is not something that looks good on Ignatieff or the Liberal party.
Dryden is also being dishonest when he complains that no one in Canadian political history has had to tolerate the "abuse" that Harper heaped on Dion.
Dryden may say what he wants. The Conservative party never accused Dion of being out to destroy the country, nor did they ever accuse him of wanting to stage a military takeover of the country. The Liberal party did accuse Harper of these things. some Liberals insist on continuing to do so.
Ken Dryden may pretend otherwise to his heart's content. His party's own political ads stand as the dirtiest examples of politics-via-character assassination in modern Canadian history.
Dryden may also pretend to his heart's content that Dion was simply "taking a hit to make a play". Considering the voting plans expressed by 44% of Canadians should the Coalition actually come to fruition, the Coalition may score a quick goal, but would only lose the next game in disastrous fashion.
Even if Dion's reputation for "honesty, decency and intelligence" survived the recent federal election intact, it has not survived his move to build a Coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois -- separatists who he built his reputation fighting.
Now, Stephane Dion will end his career as an individual who sacrificed that reputation by cozying up to the Bloc in the shallow name of attaining political power.
Recent events -- such as the recently-announced aid package for automakers -- have truly put the lie to the most concrete of Dryden's criticisms. The Harper government's response to the economic crisis has been cautious, but it has also been methodical.
The Harper government was not "doing nothing" to address the crisis, as Dryden insisted. The government had already introduced liquidity into the Canadian credit market, and was working with the automakers and with Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government of Ontario to establish an aid package for that province's ailing manufacturing industry.
In Dryden's other criticism of the economic update -- that it was allegedly meant simply to destroy the opposition parties -- there is nothing short of a tacit admission that a great deal of the impetus of this proposed coalition was the opposition parties simply protecting what they view as their entitlements.
A Liberal coalition with socialists and separatists -- in defiance of a duly elected government -- would have been a bitter pill for Canadians to swallow under nearly any conditions. In the simple defence of their public subsidies? Intolerable.
Furthermore, there's a big question about whether or not this coalition is really about whether the opposition parties honestly believed they could work with Stephen Harper. These opposition parties have spent the last fifteen years in this country building our political environment to a point where they simply cannot be seen working with "dangerous" conservative politicians. This coalition is simply about whether or not they can beat Harper in an election. Consecutive Conservative victories have shown that, at least for the meantime, they can't.
But the greatest mendacity of Dryden's response deals with the nature of this coalition. As Zerker herself notes, the coalition cannot justify itself under its "62% majority" mantra without the Bloc Quebecois.
Furthermore, the Bloc's participation is necessary just to keep the Coalition stable. At a mere 132 seats, the Tories' 143 votes would be enough to defeat the Coalition should the Bloc abstain from any confidence motions.
Last -- and most importantly -- the Bloc formalized its support to the Coalition in the very same agreement in which the Coalition itself was formalized. Whether it recieves Cabinet seats or not, the Bloc Quebecois is very much part of this agreement and party to it.
Dryden himself insists that the Coalition represents 163 seats. He himself is counting the Bloc's seats in with the Coalition's total. If that isn't a tacit admission that the Bloc is part of this Coalition, few Canadians would know what is.
Dryden concludes by insisting that everything that is wrong with Parliament is Harper's fault. Yet it was Dryden's then-leader, Stephane Dion, who disingenuously accused Stephen Harper of lying when Harper spoke the truth about Dion's Coalition with socialists and separatists.
Sally Zerker doesn't buy Dryden's snake oil. Most Canadians should refuse it too.
A matter of considerable controversy for the last couple of weeks, Stephen Harper announced his appointments to the Senate today.
While some may not be willing to admit to it, Harper's appointments weren't the partisan landslide that many of them were expecting.
It would be disingenuous to pretend that partisan considerations didn't enter Harper's appointments at all. Defeated MP Fabian Manning, former MP Suzanne Fortin-Duplessis, former New Brunswick MLA Percy Mockler, Tory organizer Michael MacDonald, and fundraiser Irving Gerstein seem to round out the most blatantly partisan of the appointments.
Certainly, many will point to retired broadcaster Mike Duffy as similarily partisan. Yet they will conveniently ignore that Duffy has spent his career being accused of partisanship from both sides -- by both Conservatives who dislike journalists who show Canadians any negative aspects of their party, and by Liberals who aren't accustomed to being asked many hard questions.
Similarily, some will certainly try to portray Pamela Wallin's appointment to the Senate as a reward for her role on Harper's Afghanistan Commission. Yet they'll overlook the fact that Wallin has also been the recipient of Liberal party patronage as well -- she has previously served with distinction as the Canadian consul general in New York.
Even when Harper's so-called "window dressing" appointments lack some of those made by past Liberal governments. Nancy Greene, a winner of an Olympic gold medal and an astounding 13 World Cups, certainly cannot compare with Montreal Canadiens great Frank Mahovlich for public appeal. As with Mahovlich, however, Greene's performance in the Senate will tell the tale of her suitability for the chamber -- Mahovlich's performance demonstrated that he had no business being there in the first place.
Another notable appointment is that of Patrick Brazeau, the National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Brazeau adds a key aboriginal voice to the Conservative caucus, and will challenge the views of many conventional aboriginal leaders such as Phil Fontaine, whom Brazeau has challenged in the past.
As the National Chief of the CAP, Brazeau represents a segment of the aboriginal population that is frequently ignored in Canadian politics -- off-reserve aboriginals.
While many will seek to portray Brazeau's appointment as merely a reward for his support of the Conservative party -- and to an extent it almost certainly is so -- Brazeau will prove to be a valuable addition to the Senate.
The Conservatives have also suggested that each of these Senators will be expected to resign their seat should any of their provinces enact Senate election legislation or call a Senatorial election. Expectations are that Pamela Wallin will be the first to have to do so when Saskatchewan calls a General Election, currently slated for 2011, that is expected to be accompanied by an election for the Senate.
Of course this is a thin answer for the concerns raised by many of those who favour an elected Senate to an appointed body. While the government can expect these Senators to resign in the event an election, it cannot force them to actually do so.
And while elected Senators would have been preferable to any appointment, at least Canadians will not have to tolerate the farce of Green party leader Elizabeth May being appointed to the upper house.
In 1994, the world witnessed one of the worst genocides in human history unfolding in Rwanda.
Sadly, Canadian Lieutenant Governor (now retired) Romeo Dallaire witnessed those events from a front-row seat as the world did next to nothing to stop the horrific massacres unfolding in that country.
Shake Hands With the Devil -- named after Dallaire's book of the same title -- is the story of those massacres.
In any year, it is a sombre reminder of the fragile nature of peace in many parts of the world, and of the responsibilities that come with undertaking an effort to try and keep it.
The film presents the story in a brilliant bilingual style reminiscent of The Rocket, with the characters frequently slipping back and forth between French and English. Although the subtities are extremely sloppy, to the extent that they often cannot even be read, this bilingual style lends authenticity to the film.
The film opens with Romeo Dallaire (Roy Dupuis) in his civilian clothes, seated in an office with an unnamed defence ministry bureaucrat. The environment in the room is tense -- to put it lightly -- as Dallaire doesn't speak. Instead, he keeps himself locked up with his thoughts. As he comments on the flashbacks he has been suffering of his time in Rwanda -- which Dallaire has often remarked seem less like memory and much more like he is literally re-living the events -- Dallaire speaks to many of the individuals he dealt with in Rwanda.
The film follows Dallaire very closely throughout his tour of duty in Rwanda, and offers very deep glimpses into his soul as he conducts the business of his peacekeeping mission in that country. Dupuis masterfully depicts the disgust the real Dallaire almost certainly felt when shaking hands with the leader of the Interahamwe -- and the heightened disgust Dallaire must have experienced when it seemed easier to do it again.
The moment that Dallaire made his tragic turn toward suicidal behaviour contrasts starkly with the Dallaire in the rest of the film. It's saddening to witness Dallaire, a very proud and honourable man, mutilating himself with a razor.
Paul Kagame (Akin Omotoso), meanwhile, is portrayed as a consumate realist. While he seems to abhor the fact that the Rwandan Patriotic Front's retaliation will only lead to more killing, he seems to understand that such things were necessary. Perhaps the greatest difference between Dallaire and Kagami is that Kagami was allowed the option of doing the things he knows to be right.
Romeo Dallaire was allowed no such option, and it seems that Roy Dupuis understood this. Dupuis grasps the full fury that Dallaire must have felt when he was denied permission to sieze illegal weapons caches in Kigali. The film makes it seem like mere days before the fighting broke out. In fact, this occurred in January 1994. The killings would not begin until April 7, 1994.
The film doesn't back down from any of the grisly details of the genocide. Anything that could be fit into the just-under-two hours of the film seemingly was. However, those looking for an absolutely faithful historical flic may be disappointed. Some key figures, such as Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh and Faustin Twagiramungu, are missing.
Certainly, a seat for Canada on the Security Council would be a very good thing. But Canadians need to understand precisely why Canada is seeking such a position. There must be a reason.
One such reason seems obivious: international prestige.
Another is international influence. This is the motive Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon recently alluded to while speaking on the subject.
"Today, Canada is contributing to peace and security and making sacrifices in places as diverse as Afghanistan, Haiti and Sudan. Each of these Canadian engagements flows from a UN mandate. For Canada, a seat on the Security Council is a further way of stepping up to our global responsibilities," Cannon said. "With your support on the Security Council, Canada will push for greater transparency in the Council work, which I believe would be beneficial to the whole international community."
Cannon also spoke of the pragmatic role that Canada has previously played in the Security Council.
"With a seat on the Council in 2011 and 2012 we would continue this tradition, pursuing an active agenda for the United Nations in such areas as peace building, conflict prevention and conflict resolution. Activities, as you know, that contribute to global stability and security are common goals that we all share," he announced.
But we as Canadians need to be mindful of the important responsibilities that come with Security Council membership. Romeo Dallaire and his haunted mental state stand as sombre reminders of what can happen -- both on an international basis and on an individual basis -- when the Security Council shirks its responsibilities.
The United Nations Security Council had a responsibility to stop the genccide in Rwanda. Wrapt up in petty politics, it shirked this responsibility. But it did not do so alone.
When it became obvious that the United Nations was not living up to its responsibilities in Rwanda, Canada -- having been committed to the mission -- should have done everything within its power -- both diplomatically and militarily -- to fill the breach.
Years of intransigence by Conservative and Liberal party governments in Canada sadly rendered the country unable to do enough. Canada's shirking of its responsibility to the Rwanda mission sadly began decades before the tragedy officially occurred.
If the Canadian government really wants a seat on the UN Security Council, it has to be prepared to live up to Canadian values and live up to its responsibilities as a member of that body.
If our government is only seeking a Security Council seat as part of quest for international prestige and influence, then we are truly shaking hands with the devil.
Anyone expecting -- or led to expect -- the Al Franken/Norm Coleman Senatorial election in Minnesota to come to a swift conclusion upon the start of the recount was apparently in for quite the wake-up call.
The recount has proven to be a long and exhaustive process, with the Coleman campaign engaging in some highly dubious challenges. At one point arguing, for example, that any ballots featuring a vote for John McCain be counted as a vote for Coleman -- an obviously disingenuous take on the meaning of "voter intent".
With this recount starting to look as if it will never end, Franken, the Democrat candidate -- has recently announced that he expects to win that race by between 35 and 50 votes.
Franken himself would make a fine addition to the US Senate. But those clamouring for him to take a seat in that body need to be well aware of all the implications.
First off, Franken's talents have clearly been well-suited to the role of poliitical opposition. Even if he's often proven to be little more than a left-wing counterpart of Ann Coulter -- so it's unsurprising that one should note his level of disdain for Coulter -- one think that Franken has done successfully is keep a wide variety of right-wing commentators on their toes.
As a Democratic Senator, one can expect Franken to be little more than a loud mouthpiece for the Democrats and their sitting President.
Secondly, a Franken victory would give the Democrats their 60-seat filibuster-proof Senate. While those friendly or sympathetic toward the Democrats may view this with satisfaction, one has to consider the effect such a thing could have on the democratic process in the United States.
As the National Post's Terence Corcoran has noted, some Democrats seem to be looking to the current economic crisis in order to implement their own agenda in an environment reminiscent of Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine.
As we've previously seen, times of economic crisis are not the times for revolutionary shifts in economic policies or practices.
If Franken's election serves to enact such policy changes, it may not be quite the boon that Democrats imagine it to be.
Only time -- and the remainder of the recount -- will tell if the Franken campaign's prediction of victory will come true.
If it should, the rest of the story -- what Franken does when he actually reaches the Senate -- will be entirely up to Franken himself.
In today's Globe and Mail, Lawrence Martin has made an interesting suggestion. Among other such conservative luminaries as Mike Harris and Kim Campbell, Harper may appoint the recently-resigned leader of the Action Democratique du Quebec, Mario Dumont:
After Dumont's ascension to the role of Opposition Leader in Quebec's National Assembly, many observers were looking toward a Harper/Dumont tandem as a modern day incarnation of the John Diefenbaker/Maurice Duplessis collaboration that gave Diefenbaker one of the most dominant majority governments in Canadian history.
Instead, Dumont's ADQ was decimated at the polls less than a year later. By appointing him to the Senate -- and possibly even cabinet -- Harper could still salvage something out of the once-promising association with Dumont.
Of course, there's also a downside to such a move. Appointing Dumont to the Senate would make it more difficult for Dumont to ever seek a seat in Parliament -- something that Dumont's previous individual electoral successes demonstrate he is more than capable of doing.
In Dumont, Harper could find what Michael Fortier has decisively failed to deliver: a successful Quebec lieutenant.
Social Credit -- a political doctrine based on the teachings of Major CH Douglas -- tends to be more widely associated with Alberta. There, the Social Credit party governed for 36 years under the tenures of premiers William Aberhart, Ernest Manning and Harry Strom.
However, it's often overlooked that Social Credit also developed a strong following the province of Quebec.
Real Caouette, the charismatic force behind Ralliement des Creditistes, the Quebec wing of the Social Credit party, was born on September 26, 1917 in Amos, Quebec.
He would discover Douglas' political screed in 1939 and would win election to the House of Commons seven years later.
In 1962, Caouette led the Credistes to win 26 seats in the House of Commons. By contrast, the western wing of the Social Credit party elected only four members, even with the party governing in Alberta and British Columbia.
Interestingly, not only would Social Credit thrive in Quebec, but it would actually outlast its western counterparts.
According to Michael Stein, the Quebec voters who helped Social Credit attain its decisive emergence in Quebec were young and disaffected former Conservative and Liberal supporters, most of whom were voting in their first election.
Social Credit has always been distinguished by a paradoxical place in Canadian politics. Considering that Social Credit doctrine advocates turning loose what it describes as billions of dollars in untapped wealth being held by banks and the government, Social Credit would rely on a suspiciously high level of state intervention in the economy.
It really can't be considered a purely conservative ideology.
Yet Social Credit has, more often than not in Canada, proven to be little more than a haven for disaffected conservatives -- the obvious case is British Columbia's WAC Bennet.
In Quebec, Social Credit made a considerably greater deal of sense. Pre-1970s Quebec politics was often characterized by a preoccupation with English Canadian financial trusts that controlled a significant portion of Quebec's economy.
This is a historical political trend that would also, from time to time, benefit parties like Maurice Duplessis' Union Nationale and, obviously, Rene Levesque's Parti Quebecois.
Ralliement des Creditistes enjoyed the fervent support of its creditors. In 1973, Stein noted that not only were the Creditistes still active in Quebec, but its most active members were spending at least five nights a week on party activities.
Real Caouette, the face of Social Credit in Canada, would pass away in 1976. The movement would not survive him for long.
By 1980, the Fabian Roy-led Creditistes had been reduced to six seats in the House of Commons. The defection of Richard Janelle to Joe Clark's Progressive Conservative government would further reduce that number to five. At the conclusion of the 1980 federal election, they were gone.
While some still envision a Social Credit comeback, its clear that the SoCreds are a spent force in Canadian politics: an enigmatic vestige of Canada's political history long scattered to the four winds.
As a relatively young and inexperienced American President (47 years), Barack Obama can expect to face many challenges on the foreign policy front.
One of the premier challenges Obama will face may not necessarily be rounding up additional support for the war in Afghanistan, but in dealing with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
As Ray McGovern, a retired CIA analyst, tells the Real News Network, Obama would be well served by embracing a Glastnost regarding relations between the United States and Russia.
As McGovern notes, one thing that is certain to appear on the agenda between the two are American radar and missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. McGovern insists that these sites are unnecessary, and that they are part of the "old thinking" vis a vis the United States and Russia.
McGovern suggests that those missile sites, as well as the prospects of Georgian and Ukranian membership in NATO, should be traded for concessions from Putin.
McGovern may well be right about missile sites in Eastern Europe (although not necessarily about the radar sites). With nuclear disarmament clearly returning to the global agenda, the dismantling of those sites would go a long way toward convincing Russia to dismantle more of its own considerable remaining nuclear stocks.
Ukraine and Georgia's proposed membership in NATO is a little less negotiable. While both the United States and Russia clearly have an interest in having each country within their particular geopolitical camps, Georgia and the Ukraine are both sovereign states, and have the right to make such decisions on their own.
Considering that each country is seeking NATO membership, there are clearly limits to the extent to which each country wishes to associate with Russia. Attempting to force them to associate more closely with Russia does no one any favours.
Obama will face an increasingly complicated situation in Europe, as the New Europe, exemplified by Russia, will seek to build influence in what McGovern describes as the Old Europe -- France, Germany and Italy. With Vladimir Putin increasingly equating Russia as a European, rather than Asian, state it may also be a matter of time before Russia seeks to attain membership in the European Union.
Of course, Russia will only join the European Union under what it deems favourable positions, which for Russia entails a position of dominance.
Either way, many people will be looking to Barack Obama to provide new leadership on the Russian front.
Over at the Canadian Cynic Temple of Sycophantic Groupthink, Canada's hatemongering cyberstalker extraordinaire apparently wants to take issue with a challenge offered to Dr Dawg by concerned commenter "Q":
"I wonder if CC's posting of Richards children's names, address, and schools attended has anything to do with this."
To which Cynic offers a less-than-fully-truthful response:
" I have never posted the schools that Richard's children attend for the simple reason that I have absolutely no idea what they are, which would make it at least a little difficult for me to do so."
When the Liberal party and the NDP recently decided to form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois they had to have imagined it would be hard to distance themselves from the implications that move would have for national unity.
With western separatism becoming a vogue topic once again -- and western separatists becoming much more active -- perhaps it's only natural that some of those in the pro-Coalition crowd would seek to thumb their nose at such implications by trying to uncover associations between the Conservative party and western separatists.
At Boquets of Gray Buckets has uncovered what he portrays as some fairly damning alleged associations between western separatists and the Conservative party.
In particular, Buckets points at three separate episodes. Two of them can be immediately dismissed out of hand: he sights the case of Gord Stamp, who was forced to resign as Peter Goldring's assistant due to his separatist leanings, and Bert Brown, who apparently once made some ambiguous comments at an Alberta Independence Party convention.
Much more interesting, however, is the case of David Crutcher, a British-born Calgarian who is now the brains behind the Western Business and Taxpayers Association. Buckets points out that Crutcher's profile on the website identifies him as a member of the Conservative party.
The story actually turns out to be much more damning than Buckets would likely have many people believe. It seems that as far as his Conservative party membership goes, Crutcher's credentials are far from solid.
In 2007 Crutcher was forcefully removed over his role in the nomination of Craig Chandler, another disaffected -- and, some say, disgraced -- former member of the Alberta Tory party. Chandler left that party in 2007 when his nomination in the Calgary-Edgmont riding was refused by the party. He would later try and fail to attain election to the Wildrose Alliance party's board of directors.
Chandler had previously managed Crutcher's camapaign as an Alberta Alliance party candidate in the 2004 Provincial election.
All of these things considered, the question is well worth asking: what is the current status of David Crutcher's Conservative party membership? Is he actually active? If so, is the party executive actually aware of Crutcher's recent activities? And, if so, will the party revoke his leadership?
Buckets is actually spot-on when he suggests the Conservative party should restrict its membership to federalists.
But while Buckets seems to think he's uncovered quite the partisan smoking gun, he may want to keep a few inconvenient truths in mind: while Crutcher may well be maintaining a Conservative party membership, it most certainly isn't under the best circumstances. Nor is he as luminous a figure within the Conservative party as Rene Levesque was within the Quebec Liberal party.
Even Lucien Bouchard -- who served as Environment Minister in Brian Mulroney's government -- had previous associations with the Trudeau Liberals.
Furthermore, Rene Levesque was never forced out of the Liberal party. Rather, he resigned from the party when the Quebec Liberals refused to discuss a sovereign Quebec at a convention. His separatist sympathies had been no secret prior to that resignation.
Regardless, David Crutcher's membership status in the Conservative party clearly needs to be investigated, and addressed. If he does currently have an active membership in the party, it should be immediately revoked.
Likewise, Bert Brown's address to the inaugural convention of the Alberta Independence Party should be investigated. While it would be expected that a committed Alberta separatist would actually have joined the party there, it's worthwhile to know precisely what he meant when he wished the party "every success".
Historical mythology holds that Ronald Reagan was the man who won the Cold War. Even if this is the case -- a matter of some debate -- for many historical scholars, Reagan was not the man who ended it.
In the minds of some, that distinction belongs to Lech Wealsea, the leader of Solidary. In 1989, Walsea led Solidarity to leadership of a coalition government in Poland in the first free elections held in that country since the end of the Second World War.
When asked what the Soviet government planned to do about it, then-President Mikhail Gorbachev said it would do nothing. To many, Gorbachev's acceptance of a non-communist labour union/political party winning an election in the eastern European bloc marked the formal conclusion of the Cold War, the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back.
One has to imagine that legacy is on Gary Kasparov's mind as he's taken Solidarity as the name for a bold new effort to defeat the United Russia party of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev.
Kasparov is no newcomer to such efforts. He attempted to run in the most recent Russian Presidential elections, but was prevented from doing so through some rather unsavoury machinations by the Russian state.
"We are fighting for victory because we have something to say to our people and something to offer them," Kasparov announced. "On this very day, we are in a position to take stock of past mistakes and act differently."
"One of the tasks of the Solidarity movement is to rehabilitate those basic principles that, unfortunately, for a significant or even overwhelming portion of our fellow citizens, have become associated with failure, misery or reduction of freedom," he added.
Unfortuantely, Kasparov has an uphill battle to wage. With no seats in the Duma and the Russian government currently making it more difficult for opposition parties to win representation, it will prove excessively difficult for Solidarity to have the effect that Kasparov so desires.
Kasparov isn't alone in his predicament of being outside the Duma looking in. Yaklobo and the SPS (roughly translated as Union of Right Forces) were both weeded out of the Duma when the 5% rule that had set the lower limit for receiving seats in the proportionately-elected Duma at 5% of the vote was abolished in favour of a 7% rule -- only one recent move intended to increase United Russia's dominance in that chamber.
Another item on United Russia's agenda is a move to change the length of Presidential tenures from four to six years. With well over two-thirds of the Duma -- a Russian constitutional majority that allows United Russia to pass amendments to the Russian constitution -- there's little hope of derailing this process.
According to Russian law, Vladimir Putin will become eligible for the Presidency again once he's finished his brief time out as Russian Prime Minister. Upon winning the Presidency, Putin could serve for another 12 years.
In forming Solidarity, Kasparov is turning Putin's own tactics against him. While never officially associating with United Russia, Putin was instrumental in the uniting of hundreds of small conservative parties into the electoral powerhouse. Now, Kasparov is trying to do the same with Russia's numerous liberal parties.
Even if they understand the essence of time in restoring Russian democracies, other leaders in the new Solidarity movement seem to have abandoned any hope of accomplishing their goals expediently.
"We might not be able to launch an Orange Revolution right now, but we can certainly create an orange organization," mused Valeriya Novodvorskaya. The Orange Revolution, as most should recall, resulted in the ascension of Ukranian president Viktor Yushchenko.
While no electoral coalition capable of defeating United Russia can be built over night, Kasparov, Novodvorskaya and company need to come to terms quickly with the realities facing them. If allowed to reassume the Presidency under the proposed conditions, Vladimir Putin could conceivably serve for the remainder of his life.
Zombies-cum-biological warfare has been a theme of many recent movies -- 28 Days Later and the utterly-gone-to-shit Resident Evil films merely being a few of them.
Metallica has rarely backed away from dealing with the moral dilemmas underscoring warfare. Songs such as "One", "For Whom the Bell Tolls" and "Disposable Heroes" -- considered almost universally to be among their most classic works -- have addressed the human costs and horrors of armed conflict.
In the recently released video for "All Nightmare Long", off of their worthy recent effort Death Magnetic, Hetfield and company place the moral horrors of chemical warfare within the context of the Cold War.
The video uses the historic Tunguska explosion to set the table for the video, in which two fictional Soviet propaganda films, "Volcano Tunguska and the Revival of Organisms" and "Closing the Gap" are used to outline an insidious Soviet plot to use biological warfare to destroy the United States and replace it with a communist state.
In the video, a living spore is discovered in the ashes of the Tunguska explosion, reanimating dead animals. Taken for further study, Soviet scientists quickly discover that the spore can be used not merely to return the dead to life, but to reconstitute entire creatures from a few errant cells, or even heal injuries to the living.
In "Closing the Gap", a Russian propaganda film laments the Soviet Union's early inability to match the United States in the nuclear arms race. Soviet weapons tests, however, reveal new deposits of the reanimating spore, apparently lost at some point during the Second World War.
Further studies reveal two further details about the spore: animals reanimated by the spore tend to be extremely aggressive, and it quickly dies when exposed to radioactive Barium. The former discovery makes the spores militarily useful. The latter makes it controllable.
The film asserts that "An atomic US threatens the world with unchecked capitalist imperialism! They feed on the exploited and the spoils of war!"
The film also proposes the fictional Soviet solution to this threat: "We will feed them to their own!"
The Soviet plan involves sending a high-altitude balloon over the United States and dropping the spore from high altitude to be spread by wind. The dead are reanimated and turn violent. Naturally, they prove exceptionally hard to to control.
All that is left is for the Soviet Union to drag its feet, not deploying aid until it is too late. In the aftermath, the Soviets are left free to build a Communist state in the United States.
The stark immorality of such a scheme seems obvious, and it's the same moral dilemma faced by nearly any other biological war tactic -- biological warfare conducted on such a scale can't possibly discriminate between the guilty and the innocent.
Such tactics are all too reminiscent of total warfare, something humanity would be far better off having left to the pages of history. Yet total warfare continues to reemerge in all too many familiar patterns: civil and ethnic conflicts such as those in Rwanda and Darfur, and across the entire range of terrorist campaigns being conducted across the world today.
Sadly, biological weapons have provided those eager to engage in such conflict with the perfect weapon with which to do so.
Realistically, there can only be one solution to the threat posed by biological weapons. Just as with landmines and, more recently, cluster munitions, a global ban on biological weapons needs to be pursued.
Speaking at a Fraser Institute luncheon recently, Preston Manning issued a simple warning to Western Separatists looking to the recently proposed Coalition government as a pretext for promoting a resurgence of their movement.
"Don't threaten western secession," Manning warned. "An economic crisis requires us to pull together, not apart."
Manning admitted that, as Western Canada's representation (especially representation of Alberta and Saskatchewan) in such a Coalition has clearly been an afterthought for those supporting the proposed Coalition, it may be "tempting" for many to consider joining or re-joining the movement.
Certainly, some small-minded individuals have. At a recent anti-Coalition rally in Edmonton, a small group of people bearing signs advocating for Western Separation actually managed to go largely
But Preston Manning's words should sew caution into the minds of these individuals.
In making this pronouncement, Manning does what he has always done best: reminding pragmatic Canadians that, while political visions (and really, who is more visionary -- for good or ill -- than a separatist?) or activist crusades may demand otherwise, the first responsibility of any government is to do what is best for its citizens.
Considering the current state of the global economy, separatism should be furthest thing from the mind of any responsible Canadian in any part of the country. The implications of separatism fall, as they always do, across both the long- and short-term.
In the short-term, separatist agitation always breeds instability into the political order. In fact, this has been one of the most damning criticisms of the proposed Coalition government, the one that the coalitionists themselves cannot answer (to involve separatists in the political process is one thing -- to incorporate a destabilizing influence into the government is entirely another).
In times of economic crisis, political instability always decimates economic confidence.
Not to mention the short-term legal implications of seccession.
Denis Stairs provided an outline of the legal issues at the heart of separatism in his study of what the aftermath of a Quebec separation would have looked like. As they apply to Quebec, they would also apply to any Western province, or collection of Western provinces, that chose to secede.
First off, the presence of any representatives from a region that had voted to secede could not reasonably take part in the negotiations between that region and the federal government. Such MPs would suffer from a conflict of interest -- not only would the demands of their constituents conflict with their responsibilities to the federal government, but their interests (in this case, maintaining their own job) would conflict with the demands of their constituents. As such, the federal government would actually have to be reconstituted without those provinces before such negotiations could occur.
Secondly, the separating provinces would almost certainly have to pay for the costs of separation. This would only be added to the costs of establishing new political infrastructure to satisfy the responsibilities of that new state: responsibilities such as national defense, monetary policy and citizenship issues (including the issuing of recognized passports).
Third, the separating provinces would retain no claim to Canadian government property within their borders. "Scavengers" would inevitably be sent to recover that property.
Fourth, just as the west would have prevented Quebec from separating from Canada on favourable terms, Quebec and Ontario would prevent any western provinces -- especially Alberta -- from separating under favourable conditions.
The provinces would also have to establish new trading arrangements with other countries, and establish new diplomatic relationships. Entrance to defense alliances such as NORAD and NATO would also be complicated by Canadian resistance to their membership.
As daunting as these issues are, these are only the short-term implications. Longer-term concerns include what, precisely, would become of the western economy after oil in Alberta and Saskatchewan loses its value as an energy commodity -- an outcome actually much more likely than simply running out.
Within a united Canada, Alberta and Saskatchewan would at least have other federal partners to help develop alternative economic wealth -- although these two provinces should be doing this well in advance of such an economic blow. But within an uncertain and undefined coalition of western separatist provinces -- it could include British Columbia or Manitoba, but could just as easily be Alberta alone -- there would almost certainly be no such relief.
Sadly, all too few western separatists seem to have considered any of these issues. Instead, they seem to be relying whole-heartedly on an age-old dogmatic theme of western alienation: that of petro parochialism -- the notion that oil wealth will ensure the prosperity of the western provinces indefinitely.
Except that it won't.
If these individuals don't buy the arguments forwarded by the peak oil crowd, who wait gleefully for the decline of oil production, they should buy it under basic common sense: barring a civilization-wide meltdown, oil and gas will inevitably replaced by cleaner, renewable energy sources. While Alberta and Saskatchewan certainly could be an industry leader in the development of these alternatives, neither province has done nearly enough to secure that outcome.
It's sad that so many western separatists don't understand this. It's sadder still that the proposed Coalition seems to be providing the western separatist movement with a pretext to spread.
The great irony in this should not be missed. Simma Holt served in the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau, a separatist-fighter even more prototypical than Stephane Dion. And just as Dion and Justin Trudeau have chosen to cozy up to the Separatist Bloc Quebecois in order to attain power. Now, Holt seems set to reinvent herself as a champion of western separatism -- in this case, British Columbia.
But the case against Western Separatism is as strong as the case against Quebec Separatism, and as strong as the case against this Coalition government.
Just as with the case for Quebec Separatism, or the case for the Coalition government, the case for Western Separatism is extremely weak.
With the Mumbai attacks clearly dragging India into the War on Terror, cooperation between all of those participating in the war on terror is as important as ever before.
Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay has a special message for India: share your intelligence, particularly as it pertains to the activities of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Eastern Pakistan.
"We'd like to know the extent of their intelligence about Taliban and Al Qaeda activities inside Pakistan," MacKay recently announced, and noted that India now clearly shares this concern. "They [India] are clearly concerned that their own country is vulnerable. We have Canadians on the ground in Afghanistan that have encountered a very determined insurgency."
MacKay noted that India is poised to collect and share such intelligence due to its "proximity to Pakistan, which we know is still very much the home of much of the insurgency inside Afghanistan, and a place where al-Qaeda are making their mark."
This comes as Nalin Surie, India's Secretary of External Affairs, met with MacKay and other Canadian officials to discuss the Mumbai attacks.
India suspects Lashkar-i-Taiba for orchestrating the attacks. Lashikar-i-Taiba is a group that demands the withdrawal of Indian security forces from Kashmir and Jammu. They wish to establish an Islamic caliphate in the two regions.
MacKay noted that India's cultural familiarity with the increasingly tumultuous South Asian region could prove to be incredibly valuable.
"The Indians grasp better than we ever could the tribal nature of Afghanistan, and how that factors into the fighting, some of the allegiances ... in Kandahar, the Pashtun people in particular," he noted.
India would prove to be a pivotal ally in helping secure the region. However, a tripartite security arrangement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India faces challenges deeper than simply getting all three to the table. The challenges also involve establishing an agreement regarding the policing of the borders between Pakistan and Afghanistan -- one rendered more difficult considering the disputed nature of that border.
"Quite frankly, that's going to be an enormous diplomatic challenge, given the tribal nature of that area and the fact that neither side recognizes the Durand Line as the actual geographic border," MacKay said.
While tremendously challenging, that particular issue is merely another reason why the security situation in Southern Asia offers an opportunity for Canadian-styled mission diplomacy to yield positive results in establishing a workable security arrangement in the region.
Clearly, firmly establishing a formal border and a policing arrangement for that border is one important feature of that agreement. Intelligence sharing, both between the immediate partners of such an agreement and with NATO, is another.
Helping negotiate such an agreement between Afghanistan, Pakistan and India should be considered a top priority of Canada's Defense and Foreign Affairs deparment.
With his government still facing the prospect of defeat early next year -- even if those prospects seem to be narrowing -- Stephen Harper is moving to fill 18 empty chairs in the Senate before Christmas.
The argument being raised within Conservative circles is that this is necessary in order to prevent the Liberal/NDP/Bloc Coalition from stacking the Senate should it stay its plotted course and defeat the government.
That may well be true. Allowing the Coalition to appoint its own lackeys to the Senate -- including Green Party leader Elizabeth May -- could only serve to tilt the balance of power in the Senate on what, considering the tenure of most Senators, could prove to be a permanent basis.
Certainly, he doesn't necessarily bear all of the blame for this. When Harper introduced legislation calling for Senate elections, the Opposition blocked the bill under some fairly pretenses. NDP leader Jack Layton insisted that having appointed and elected Senators would only cause confusion (but naturally failed to mention that "confusion" would be short-lived, only lasting until the appointed Senators left office). Stephane Dion was closer to the mark when he protested the bill would do nothing to address the disproportionate distribution of Senate seats. But again, this was grounds to table another reform bill, not reason to block the particular bill in question.
"Once again, it appears Mr. Harper's words are empty, and his principles appear to be ever-shifting," said Liberal Democratic Reform critic Joyce Murray. "Not only does it appear Mr. Harper has abandoned his plans for Senate reform but he has once again demonstrated that his promise to only appoint elected Senators was meaningless just as he did when he appointed Conservative bagman Michael Fortier to the Senate when the Conservatives first came to power in 2006."
And the Liberal party would know quite a bit about appointing their bagmen to the Senate. Sadly, Harper's move to appoint these Senates seems much further from the Senate reform package he had promised and more like former Liberal Prime Minister Louis St Laurent's idea of Senate Reform -- St Laurent once noted that he simply waited for the Conservative Senators to die then replaced them with "good Liberals".
It may seem less than shocking that Stephen Harper would turn out to be a politician not much unlike any other. But many Canadians -- those concerned with the undemocratic nature of the Senate -- had hoped for much, much better from him.
There is no question. Opposition or no Opposition, Stephen Harper failed to deliver Senate Reform.
60 years ago today, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations.
In the 60 years since, it's amazing how far some countries in the world haven't come.
In China today, Liu Xiaobo, a press freedom activist and a participant in the Tiananmen Square demonstration, was arrest for signing Charter 08, a pro-democracy manifesto. The charter reads:
"A hundred years have passed since the writing of China‘s first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China’s signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.
By departing from these values, the Chinese government's approach to“modernization” has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with “modernization” under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions."
For signing this Charter Xiaobo, Chen Xi, and Shen Youlian have been arrested.
Chinese prison is nothing new to Xiaobo. In 1996, Xiaobo's criticisms of the Chinese Communist Party resulted in him being sentenced to three years in a forced-labour camp.
Charter 08 is based on six important principles: freedom, human rights, equality, republicanism, democracy and constitutional rule.
"Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech， freedom of the press， freedom of assembly， freedom of association， freedom in where to live， and the freedoms to strike， to demonstrate， and to protest， among others， are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom， China will always remain far from civilized ideals.
Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China‘s recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime’s disregard for human rights.
Equality. The integrity， dignity， and freedom of every person—regardless of social station， occupation， sex， economic condition， ethnicity， skin color， religion， or political belief—are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social， economic， cultural， civil， and political rights must be upheld.
Republicanism. Republicanism， which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served， resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of“fairness in all under heaven.”It allows different interest groups and social assemblies， and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs， to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.
Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics： （1） Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. （2） Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. （3） The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. （4） While honoring the will of the majority， the fundamental dignity， freedom， and human rights of minorities are protected. In short， democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly“of the people， by the people， and for the people.”
Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens， limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power， and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends."
The policies advocated by Charter 08 are a laundry list of the failures of the Chinese state:
"1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution， rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights， authorizes the exercise of public power， and serves as the legal underpinning of China‘s democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land， beyond violation by any individual， group， or political party.
2. Separation of powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative， judicial， and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.
3. Legislative democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election， and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.
4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible， we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically-sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.
5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government， not to a political party， and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations shall be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans， and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.
6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There shall be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee， responsible to the highest legislative body， that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one shall suffer illegal arrest， detention， arraignment， interrogation， or punishment. The system of“Reeducation through Labor”must be abolished.
7. Election of Public Officials. There shall be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on“one person， one vote.”The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county， city， province， and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.
8. Rural–Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.
9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups， which requires a group to be“approved，”should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws， which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.
10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly， demonstration， protest， and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.
11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech， freedom of the press， and academic freedom universal， thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to“the crime of incitement to subvert state power”must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.
12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws， regulations， or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups （and their places of worship） to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and， for those who choose to register， automatic.
13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens‘rights， fosters civic consciousness， and promotes civic virtues that serve society.
14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property， reporting to the national legislature， that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair， competitive， and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land， guarantees the right to buy and sell land， and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.
15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government—central， provincial， county or local—are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes， simplify the tax system， and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes， or institute new ones， without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.
16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education， health care， retirement security， and employment.
17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendents and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals， but also accept the supervision and participation of non-governmental organizations.
18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao， we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan， we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then， negotiating as equals， and ready to compromise， seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind， seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.
19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people， including their family members， who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought， speech， or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities， determining responsibility for them， upholding justice， and， on these bases， seeking social reconciliation."
Of course, the world should not hold its breath waiting for these reforms to be implemented.
Since its establishment in 1949, the People's Republic of China has been indistinguishable from its Communist Party government. For all intensive purposes, the party is the state.
The party has gone to certain lengths to ensure this remains to be the case. Its very legal system has been operated under these very pretenses, and has for the past few years been engaging in an exhaustive rejection of western legal principles, and oppression of Chinese lawyers who subscribe to these principles.
The arrests of Xiabo, Xi, and Youlian demonstrate that they have no intention of stopping any time soon.
With Canadians facing an economic crisis that quickly seems to be degenerating into a total meltdown, it's important that Canadians understand the economic choices their politicians face.
Part two presents the shortcomings of the alternative: the Friedrich Hayek/Milton Friedman model of unrestrained market economics that has helped lead not only to the current financial crisis, but has also exacted a staggering human cost in other parts of the world.
The film addresses such historical examples as Chile, Bolivia, Russia and Argentina, and reminds us of what tends to happen when Western economists and politicians try to incite economic revolutions in other countries.
It is not an experience that should be repeated in our own. The current situation calls for a new way forward, not merely recycling the failed economic revolutions of the past.
If we continue to do so, all we will ever succeed in doing is recycling the same consequences as before.
With Michael Ignatieff poised to be the next leader of the Liberal party -- even if merely by default -- his ideas are about to become of greater consequence to the country than ever before.
Fortunately, the man who would be Opposition Leader -- and, if he and his party have their way, Prime Minister -- has plenty of ideas, and has published plenty of books to back them up.
Perhaps one of the most relevant -- if a person were forced to choose -- are some of his ideas on human rights. While some of his prior ideas have proven to be very controversial -- such as musings often mischaracterized as support for torture -- Ignatieff is a man who understands the concept.
In 2000, Ignatieff gave the inaugural Vincent Massey lecture on the topic of human rights. That lecture has since been published in the form of a book.
In the book, Ignatieff notes the importance of rights speech in Canadian society and explains how this focus on individual and group rights in Canada has led the country into a key position of leadership in regards to human rights. He argues that Canadian rights speech has become a model emulated elsewhere in the world.
As such, the Canadian government will always have important global responsibilities vis a vis human rights. It hasn't always lived up to these responsibilities -- such as when Jean Chretien refused to even discuss the matter with Chinese President Jiang Zemin except under extremely cloaked terminology -- but it maintains these responsibilities nonetheless.
The Rights Revolution provides a valuable road map for the Canadian global human rights agenda -- one that leaders of all stripes could benefit from, and one that Ignatieff himself should be held to if he ever succeeds in his Prime Ministerial ambitions.
Nanaimo, BC bore witness to an interesting protest today, as a group of pro-coalition protesters declared Democracy in Canada to be dead.
In an organized stunt, a flag-draped box -- apparently it was supposed to be a coffin -- was carried to the office of Conservative Nanaimo-Alberni MP James Lunney where a eulogy for Canadian democracy was read.
Michael Byers then addressed the crowd.
"Democracy is not yet dead, this is a kind of funeral we could in all seriousness be having in a couple of months unless we do something serious to stop it," Byers announced. "Everyone in Canada needs to be educated on how our constitution works. They need to be educated that coalitions have happened before in Canada and that it happens in other countries - it happens every election in Israel, so there is nothing to be afraid of."
Except that, once again, Byers is putting ideology before reality. And this time, he's putting ideology before national unity.
To begin with, there is no Constitutional precedent for handing the reigns of government over to a coalition after a duly elected government has been defeated. There is, in the King-Byng affair, a precedent for handing the reigns of power over to a single-party government after a coalition was defeated.
However, those familiar with history will remember that William Lyon Mackenzie King -- defeated after his allies in the Progressive party abandoned his coalition government -- had preferred an election to the ascension of the Aurthur Meighen Conservative party. When Governor General Julian Byng refused to call the election, King denounced the affair as British interference in Canadian affairs. He moved quickly to help defeat the Meighen Conservatives, and used the issue to win the ensuing election.
It is certain that the Constitution allows for the ascension of a coalition government to power under such conditions. However, it emphatically does not demand it.
Whether Byers cares to admit it or not, the choice between the coalition and an election right now very much is up to the Governor General. But there's one key, undemocratic hitch in this particular matter: no one elected the Governor General, but they did elect a government.
In asking for a prorogation of Parliament, Harper bought time for the elected officials of this country to sort this mess out instead of simply relying on a decision rendered by an appointed governmental figurehead. Granting this prorogation was the only responsible option on the table for the Governor General.
Handing the reigns of government over to a government with a separatist party as a coalition partner simply cannot be regarded as an option, no matter what the ideologically blindfolded Byers may demand. No government with a separatist party as a coalition partner could even possibly be legitimate. No government with a separatist party as a coalition partner could be expected to meet its national unity obligations.
But this, by far, is not the only dilemma that Byers has overlooked. The second one is far more basic, far more important, and it is far more to Byers' discredit that he's chosen to ignore it.
The idea in a democracy is that power over the affairs of the nation is to be wielded by elected officials, not appointed officials. Even if the Constitution allows the Governor General to appoint a coalition government, there is no guarantee that even if such a government could command the confidence of the house that it could command the confidence of the people.
The most recent polls confirm that, even with the more popular Michael Ignatieff at the helm, this Coalition does not enjoy the confidence of Canadians.
In Intent for a Nation, Byers lays out his vision for Canada. Unfortunately, he seems to have no comprehension, whatsoever of the intent of Canadian democracy -- that Canadians, not appointed officials, will choose their government.
A plurality of Canadians voted for Stephen Harper as their Prime Minister. The plurality did not vote for Stephane Dion, Jack Layton, or Gilles Duceppe. The plurality did not even vote for a coalition government. Evidently, they wouldn't have voted for it even if they had the option. Canadians certainly don't plan to vote for it now.
Apparently Byers doesn't understand this. For Byers, democracy dies when appointed (yet oddly powerful) officials make the only responsible decision available. For Byers, democracy dies when elected officials are called upon to resolve a crisis before unprecedented actions are taken. For Byers, democracy dies when he doesn't get the government he wants.
Democracy in Canada is not dead. It isn't even dying. While it could certainly stand to undergo some elective surgery -- an elected senate and an elected Governor General, just for starters -- democracy is alive and well in Canada.
Even if people such as Michael Byers don't understand the intent.
In the midst of what has already been a historical two weeks in Canadian politics, the Liberal party has decided to set just a little more.
With Bob Rae and Dominic Leblanc both having dropped out of the Liberal leadership race, only one candidate currently remains -- Michael Ignatieff. The expectation now is that Ignatieff will be coronated as the leader of the Liberal party.
Never before in modern history has the Liberal party decided its leader by having all the other candidates simply fold their campaigns.
"I am not a candidate for the interim leadership, nor shall I pursue my candidacy for the party leadership at the Vancouver convention," Rae announced today. "I believe that the Liberal Party of Canada requires a new leader to be in place before Parliament returns at the end of January."
Rae's intent is clearly to keep the Coalition alive long enough to try and defeat the government on January 27th. The Liberals certainly do stand a better chance of doing this with a full-time leader in place rather than simply an interim leader.
But just as many Liberals are beginning to question whether or not the Coalition itself is a good idea, a great many Liberals should question if simply choosing a leader in such a clearly ad-hoc fashion is good for the party.
Many rank and file Liberals are undertaking an extensive process renewal process at the grassroots level. But in order for this renewal process to truly penetrate the upper echelons of the Liberal elite the selection of the new Liberal leader needs to be conducted in concert with that process of renewal. The leader selected needs to be one accepting the results of that renewal process.
Instead, the best they can now hope for is to conduct their renewal process around the selection of the new leader. Instead of choosing a leader who reflects the principles and values established by that renewal, they'll be attempting to adapt that renewal to a leader essentially chosen by default.
Perhaps that's the reason why Ignatieff himself should invite new candidates into the race and insist that it continue -- a leader chosen by default, at the head of a party that has already proven itself willing to sacrifice its principles vis a vis national unity, will find his credibility with the Canadian people to be very short.
"Even in taking his leave, Stephane Dion can't get it straight. By stating that the party needs a leader before the Commons resumes at the end of January, he is effectively rejecting the benefits of a considered leadership debate, while robbing tens of thousands of Liberals of their voice in choosing their own leader."
Hopefully, Ignatieff sees the folly in all of this as well.
For the Liberal party's own good they simply cannot afford to rush to coronate a leader, and certainly not under circumstances as dubious as these.
For those paying close attention to the winding-down of Stephane Dion's flirtation with the leadership of the Liberal party, a noticeable pattern is starting to emerge:
Dion is going to step down as the leader of the Liberal party. ...But not just yet.
Today Stephane Dion announced (again) that he will step down as the leader of the Liberal party. In a press statement released today Dion announced he will "step aside as Leader of the Liberal Party effective as soon as [his] successor is duly chosen."
However, that time will now come much sooner than previously expected, as the Liberal party prepares to significantly bump up its leadership convention.
"As the Governor General has granted a prorogation, it is a logical time for us Liberals to assess how we can best prepare our party to carry this fight forward," Dion mused.
"There is a sense in the party, and certainly in the caucus, that given these new circumstances the new leader needs to be in place before the House resumes. I agree. I recommend this course to my party and caucus."
The Liberals are now pointing toward a date in January for the selection of their new leader. They're even considering an online balloting process in order to streamline the affair.
Still, January will not be soon enough for some Liberals.
Among the high profile Liberals calling for Dion's immediate resignation are Stephen LeDrew and John Manley, who can't wait to see Dion gone.
Considering Dion's recent behaviour -- striking a deal with the NDP and the separatist Bloc Quebecois to form a coalition government -- LeDrew and Manley are both right to demand Dion's immediate resignation. Any Liberals who understand the consequences of Dion's proposal should be doing likewise. Doubtlessly, many are.
But the January date for the selection of Dion's replacement is as big a mistake for the Liberal party as the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition would have been for the country. What the Liberal party needs is a complete process of institutional renewal -- something much like the Liberal 308 initiative, and it needs to choose a leader that reflects its renewed values and principles.
It cannot do this if it rushes to coronate either Michael Ignatieff or Bob Rae as Dion's eagerly-awaited replacement.
With Dion set to finally relinquish the reigns of power in the Liberal party, it seems that the Grit elites are still planning to take shortcuts to the resumption of the reigns of power federally.
Just as before, it will almost certainly prove to be a disaster for all those involved.
A key snag in the entire affair is the involvement of the Bloc in the deal. The Conservatives have pressed on this detail relentlessly, and it's a detail that clearly has resonated with Canadians.
Stephane Dion and Ed Broadbent seem to have anticipated this, and attempted to write criticism of those details off as "lies".
Speaking with CBC this week, Broadbent insisted that Harper is not up to the standard of previous Conservative leaders. "I've never seen the leader of a Conservative party, certainly not Bob Stanfield, certainly not Joe Clark, lie — I choose the word deliberately — the way Mr. Harper has," Broadbent fumed.
Broadbent accused Harper of lying when he criticized the opposition for signing the deal in absence of a Canadian flag. While this was an awfully silly detail to try and criticize in the first place, it's almost certain that Harper wasn't present for the signing of the deal. Considering the number of photographs taken at the event with no flag visible, the evidence of malevolence on Harper's behalf is rather scant.
Harper made himself look ridiculous by jumping to a poor conclusion. But there's a difference between lying and simply being wrong.
Broadbent also insists that any criticism that treats the Bloc as part of the coalition is a lie, despite the fact that the BQ formally pledged their support to the coalition in the same agreement that formalized the coalition. Whether officially or not, the Bloc Quebecois very much is party to this coalition.
But as self-serving and dishonest as Broadbent's accusations are, Stephane Dion actually managed to one-up him during Question period. Wailing at the top of his lungs, Dion lamented that, "he say that we Liberals have sold out Canada to the separatists and that the separatists have sold their souls to the Liberals. He needs to choose between these two lies. I'm getting about fed up with his lies!"
This, however, is all a matter of perspective: to those who understand the extent of the demands that the Bloc Quebecois will be in a position to make of Dion's proposed coalition, these "lies" (as Dion insists they are) resemble the truth very closely.
Mostly because it is the truth.
It's reflective of the tenuous position that Dion finds himself in -- the former separatist fighter now cozying up to separatists in exchange for political power -- that Dion would resort to trying to re-cast the truth as lies.
This tactic -- one that Dion also resorted to during the recent federal election -- is one used by many politicians being confronted by inconvenient truths. Instead of confronting the truth head-on, they instead denounce those speaking these truths as liars, and hope that it sticks.
It's the politics of panic -- a political tactic that Stephane Dion and Ed Broadbent have both embraced.
John Manley, for one, can't see it happen soon enough.
"The first step for my party is to replace Stephane Dion as leader with someone whose first job is to rebuild the Liberal Party, rather than leading a coalition with the NDP," Manley wrote in today's Globe and Mail.
"The notion that the public would accept Stephane Dion as prime minister, after having resoundingly rejected that possibility a few weeks earlier, was delusional at best," Manley continued. "Mr. Dion had seemed to accept responsibility for the defeat (although somewhat reluctantly), and should have left his post immediately."
Manley's message is a simple one, indeed: Liberal party should not be looking for shortcuts back to political power. Instead, it needs to finally accept responsibility for its defeat -- this means it must stop blaming its erstwhile Coalition partner for its self-inflicted misfortunes -- and work on rebuilding itself into a party capable of winning and commanding power.
While Manley falls short on several counts -- for example, trying to blame the Conservatives for stirring up a national unity crisis while his own party hatches irresponsible and reckless deals with the separatist Bloc Quebecois -- his assessment of the Liberal leadership is spot-on.
The sooner the Liberal party divests itself of Dion's leadership -- perhaps as early as this upcoming Monday -- the better off it will be.
While Manley's comments should be considered anything but a declaration of intention to change his mind regarding seeking the Liberal leadership, they do suggest that Manley is precisely the type of leader the Liberal party needs right now.
Today, I attended a rally of approximately 1,000 people at the Alberta Legislature.
It was a heart warming show of concern for the perilous direction in which Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe would take this country's democratic institutions.
Edmonton-area Conservative MPs Laurie Hawn and Tim Uppal were in attendance, as well as former Reform party MP Deborah Grey.
While the rallies taking part across the country today are an encouraging demonstration that Canadians do indeed care about what will become of Canadian democracy, they also serve as an opportunity to do some serious soul-searching.
For those attending the anti-Coalition rallies today, we need to ask ourselves an important question:
Were we rallying today merely in support for a Conservative government?
Or were we rallying today because we understand the utter folly of Dion and Layton attempting to forge a Coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois as an ad hoc member?
Wrapping ourselves in the flag while defending our own narrow partisan and ideological interests is unequivocally not what Canada needs at this time.
If indeed those rallying across the country today can say the latter -- that the proposed Coalition risks perilously mortgaging the country to Separatists than those Canadians can hold their signs -- and their heads -- up in pride.
Not all Canadians can say the same.
Pro-Coalition rallies were, likewise, held across the country today. But it's hard to credit them with anything other than narrow partisan and ideological fervour. Not if one understands the consequences of this agreement with the Bloc Quebecois.
Of course, they believe they have all the answers. They insist that the Bloc won't be part of that government, and has merely promised to support the Coalition on confidence motions. They insist that the Bloc has promised to take sovereignty off the agenda for a period of 18 months.
But those of us who haven't chosen to forget Canadian history know very, very different.
After all, these are people who, during the 1995 sovereignty referendum, posed a question to Quebeckers that was ambiguous by design. They intended to mislead and confuse Quebeckers into separating from Canada. Suddenly, the pro-Coalition crowd insists, we're supposed to trust them now.
We're supposed to trust people who lied to their own people to suddenly do the right thing for people with whom they feel no bond.
It is the apex of farce and folly.
Those who legitimately love and care for this country unconditionally cannot allow this to come to pass, and certainly not unopposed or unanswered.
At this moment in Canadian history, it is up to each and every Canadian to show where they stand. Not merely for their fellow citizens today, but for all of Canadian history.
Those who cannot -- those who will not -- put this country before their narrow partisan and ideological demands will be remembered. Those who understand the stakes will make them famous, and history will know their names.
History will know the name of Stephane Dion, and it will know him as a man who not only betrayed national unity in exchange for a brief interlude with political power, but ultimately betrayed himself and his own legacy. This is the man who gave us the Clarity Act -- a piece of legislation that was necessary because Quebec separatists could not be trusted to be honest with their own people -- suddenly insisting that Canadians can trust the Bloc so long as it's to help him govern.
History will know the name of Jack Layton, and it will know him as a man who wanted to mortgage the government to separatists so he could pursue a few baubles for the auto industry. History will remember him as a man who couldn't stand by his own demands -- the vanishing elimination of $50 billion in corporate tax cuts -- while making a deal with separatists. Who hatched this deal for power, and nothing else.
History will know the name of Gilles Duceppe, and it will know him as a man who procured for his movement the ultimate trump card: the ability to bring down a federal government from within, and the opportunity to make all kinds of demands that were previously inconceivable.
But history will learn the names of many individual Canadians as well: the only question is how.
This is the hour in which Canadians will show Canadian history where they stand: for a united Canada that does not give Separatists the pry bar with which they can tear the country apart, or for a Canada in which we betray the demands of national unity for political party.
This is the hour in which we will choose our Canada.
As mentioned yesterday, Governor General Michaelle Jean made the right decision for Canada when she granted a suspension of Parliament in lieu of having to consider allowing an unstable, illegitimate Coalition government to take power.
But considering that this is the second tough political decision to confront the Governor General -- an appointed role that is actually supposed to be almost entirely ceremonial -- it has become evident that come changes to the office of the Governor General are in order.
The first controversy to confront the Governor General this year was Stephen Harper's request for a snap election despite his government's legislation on fixed election dates.
On that occasion, Jean had to decide whether to take advantage of loopholes seemingly intentionally written into that law in order to allow for such an election or deny Harper's request.
One way or another, Jean was called upon to make a political decision. The matter was more complex than simply rubber-stamping the Prime Minister's request. And while Jean has, to date, done a brilliant job as Governor General these decisions are simply too important to be left to unelected individuals who are ultimately accountable to no one.
Clearly, the role of the Governor General's office in preserving and administering Canadian democracy demands that at least two conditions be in place. First off, the office must remain as non-partisan as possible. Second, the Governor General must remain in place between general elections (after all, the Governor General must remain in place to call an election, and to make the decision of whether or not there will be an election when political conditions warrant that decision).
Candidates for the Governor General could be nominated by Canadians at large and proceed through several committees -- a committee at the level of the municipality from which the candidate is nominated, followed by an examination by the Supreme Court of Canada, and completed in a non-partisan Parliamentary committee (featuring a single member from each party represented in Parliament) to ratify the nominee before their name can appear on a ballot. A unanimous agreement would be necessary for the nominee to officially become a candidate.
As such, the candidates for the Governor General would be nominated by individual Canadians, approved by town, city or municipal councils, examined by the Supreme Court to ascertain their level of knowledge regarding Canadian political procedures and traditions, and, finally, approval by a representative from all the parties active in Parliament.
To add heightened security against installing partisan hacks in a position that places a premium on non-partisanship, individuals who maintain a membership in any of Canada's political parties could be immediately disqualified for nomination -- although one has to imagine that the unanimous approval of Canada's political parties would eventually serve this end regardless.
Electing the Governor General is an idea that has been toyed with by those proposing transforming the Country from a Constitutional Monarchy to a Republic. But such a drastic change in the nature of the Canadian state is not necessary in order to begin electing the Governor General.
But Canada's recent slew of Constitutional dilemmas vis a vis the role of the Governor General have clearly demonstrated that an elected Governor General is a good idea whose time has finally come.
For many years, Biker gang activity proved to be quite the preoccupation for law enforcement in Quebec.
A six-year war between Hells Angels and the Rock Machine between 1994 and 2000 (when the Rock Machine was "patched in" to the Banditos) left 163 people dead and countless wounded.
On December 5, 1997 Maurice "Mom" Boucher was arrested under suspicion of planning the murder of two Quebec prison guards. He would escape trial without a conviction less than a year later.
Yet Boucher could just as easily have been a member of the Rock Machine. The defining event in Boucher's criminal career is enshrined in Biker history as the Lennoxville Massacre.
The Lennoxville Massacre also led to the ultimate formation of the Rock Machine.
The events of the Lennoxville Massacre began to take shape when Rejean "Zig Zag" Lessard, the President of the Hells Angels Chapter in Sorel, Quebec, finally lost patience with the Angels chapter in Laval.
Known as "North Chapter" and including the notorious Yves "Apache" Trudeau amongst its members, the Laval chapter had grown lax in its collection of up to $60,000 in monies owed and was partaking excessively in its own cocaine.
Lessard had made a decision -- North Chapter was to be closed. In a meeting with the Presidents of the Halifax and Sherbrooke Chapters of the Hells Angels, Lessard denounced Trudeau and North Chapter as a disgrace. A vote was called, and a decision made: two members of North Chapter would be forcibly retired and two more would be allowed to join the Sorel Chapter. The rest were to be killed.
Trudeau would soon check himself into rehab in Oka. He would later remark that he had "seen what was coming".
A plan was quickly put together. Robert "Ti-Maige" Richard, the enforcer of Sorel chapter, invited the members of Lavel, Sherbrooke and Halifax Chapters to a party in Sherbrooke.
The party was to take place on March 23, 1985. However, only half of Laval chapter showed up. The party was improvised, but Lessard announced that "Church" -- Hell's Angels jargon for a meeting -- would be the held the next day, and that attendance was mandatory. At 2:30 on March 24, 1985, when the members of North Chapter arrived for Church, the massacre began.
Five members of North Chapter were killed: Laurent "L'Anglais" Viau, Jean-Pierre "Matt le Crosseur" Mathieu, Michel "Willie" Mayrand, Jean-Guy "Brutus" Geoffrion, and Guy-Louis "Chop" Adem.
Three of the North Chapter members present -- Gilles "Le Nez" Lachance, Yvon "Le Pere" Bilodeau, and Richard "Bert" Mayrand -- were spared. Of them, Lachance was offered membership in Sorel Chapter. He accepted.
Michel "Jinx" Genest, absent from the meeting, was also offered membership in Sorel chapter. He, too, accepted.
Trudeau was dishonourably discharged from the Hells Angels.
North Chapter's clubhouse was looted for any valuables it contained. These were presented to Vancouver Chapter as a gift in order to placate the West Coast Angels.
Trudeau's motorcycle was also taken, but he was offered it back in return for the murder of two individuals: Ginette "La Jument" Henri -- North Chapter's accountant and "Matt le crosseur"'s girlfriend -- and Jean-Marc "Le Grande Guele" Deniger. He would complete both jobs, but would have to tip off reporters from Le Journal de Montreal before he could collect his bike -- the Hell's Angels rely on media coverage for kill confirmation.
The liquidation of North Chapter sent shockwaves through the biker movement. The Outlaws were emboldened by the act. They distributed crude hand-drawn leaflets denouncing the Angels for the killing of their own members, attended public events in full colours, and even bought a farm in Dundee, Quebec where they planned to throw a party involving members of American chapters. Before any party could actually occur the Surete du Quebec raided the farm, finding hand guns, handgrenades and dynamite. However, no significant arrests were made.
The clubhouse in Sherbrooke had been wiretapped. Armed with knowledge that five Hells Angels were missing and suspicious activity on behalf of the Sherbrooke Angels, the Surete du Quebec raided the building, but only a small amount of drugs were found -- no serious arrests were made.
Yves Trudeau was eventually arrested on weapons charges. Amidst published rumours that he was to be Laval chapter's next target, Trudeau turned state's evidence and testified against Sorel chapter. Fearful for their own safety, Gerry "Le Chat" Coulombe and the previously-spared Gilles Lachance also turned informant.
17 members would be charged with murder.
Halifax chapter ran into its own woes. All eight full-patch members of that Chapter would be arrested when getting too ham-fisted with a local prostitute led to her testifying against the chapter. Each member would recieve a one-year prison sentence.
Faced with the need to keep at least six full-patch members in chapter in order to avoid a (possibly permanent) suspension by Angels Brass. Six members from Vancouver chapter would be flown in at a time -- on two week shifts -- in order to prevent this.
The liquidation of North Chapter also stirred up defiance in the SS, a Nazi-themed biker gang affiliated with the Hells Angels. Unwilling to continue associating with the Angels, Giovanni and Salvatore Cazzetta left the SS to form Rock Machine.
They would be joined by fellow SS members Fred Faucher, Paul "Sasquatch" Porter, Andre "Curly" Saugeau.
Disaffected members of other gangs -- such as Real "Tintin" Dupont, a former Condor (a quiet, efficient gang respected by the HA), whose bar was bombed by a member of his own gang.
They also attempted to recruit an SS member who had been in prison at the time of the closing of North chapter: the infamous Maurice "Mom" Boucher.
By 1994, however, things had changed. The Hells Angels ran the Outlaws out of Quebec, leaving no other threat to their control over the province other than Rock Machine.
With the Cazzettas both in prison -- stemming from separate drug-smuggling charges -- Boucher judged the Rock Machine to be vulnerable.
The ensuing biker war would change the face of the Quebec criminal underworld. However, it would receive remarkably little international press coverage due to an even more intense biker war in Chicago between the Hells Angels and the Outlaws.
Without the liquidation of North Chapter, there would have been no Rock Machine. Without Rock Machine, Maurice Boucher would have never joined the Hell's Angels and significant portions of the history of Canada's biker underworld would never have come to fruition.
Following Prime Minister Stephen Harper's morning meeting with Michaelle Jean, the Governor General has agreed to prorogue Parliament until January, when the Conservatives will table their complete budget for 2008/09.
Regardless of what supporters of the Coalition will insist, this matter is very, very simple. The Governor General has a responsibility to either ensure that Canada has a stable, workable, credible and legitimate government, or call an election.
The Coalition meets virtually none of these conditions.
While lacking sufficient representation from Alberta or Saskatchewan, the Coalition is workable, but only barely.
However, the Coalition government would not have met any of the other criteria. Relying on the Bloc Quebecois is relying on a party that could choose, at any time, to withdraw support from that government in order to show the House of Commons to be unstable. No government depending for its existence upon the formal support of a separatist party could be expected to fulfill its obligations vis a vis national unity. Nor could any such government possibly be legitimate.
Unstable, illegitimate and lacking credibility -- the Coalition government was simply not an alternative to an election. And Canadians simply don't want an election right now.
Unlike those supporting the coalition, Michaelle Jean has put the country first -- before the demands of partisanship, and before ideology.
Shamefully, those who support the Coalition seemingly cannot do that.
The leaders and supporters of the Coalition of the Willing will never admit it, but Stephen Harper is right.
A Coalition government involving a separatist party will not -- and can never be -- a legitimate government. Especially not at a time of economic upheaval.
It's time to put the spin and the dishonesty aside. If they go ahead with this Coalition government, Stephane Dion and Jack Layton will not be putting the country first: they will be putting their own partisan interests ahead of Canada's interests.
If what seems like it could very well be inevitable comes to pass next week, Edmonton-Strathcona MP Linda Duncan will almost certainly be one of the NDP MPs claiming at least 1/4 of the cabinet positions in that government.
As the only non-Tory MP from Alberta, Duncan's appointment is necessary to create an illusion of regional parity in cabinet.
Which portfolio Duncan will acquire, however, is still a matter of question.
As a widely-renowned environmental lawyer and former Assistant Deputy Minister of the Environment, Duncan would make for a natural Environment Minister. However, this may not happen.
Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems set to join the Senate. Speculation suggests that May could be granted a cabinet post as well -- and May indisputably has her heart set on being Minister of the Environment.
Aside from this, Dion may also appoint another Liberal Senator -- possibly Grant Mitchell -- to his cabinet.
Which wouldn't do any wonders for the already-tenuous legitimacy of any coalition government. The involvement of a party pledged to separate Quebec from Canada is clearly the most serious issue clouding the legitimacy of such a coalition. If Dion is forced to appoint an unusual number of Senators to cabinet -- he will also need to figure out a way to bolster his cabinet numbers from Saskatchewan -- serious doubts will be cast on the accountability of his government.
With Canada's Opposition parties poised to defeat the sitting Conservative government over what they claim are economic concerns, economics is becoming more of a hot button issue than ever before.
With global economic turmoil provoking tidal waves in Canadian politics, it's becoming as important as ever before for Canadians to understand the economic issues their politicians which to explore.
Produced by PBS in 2002, The Commanding Heights provides a valuable road map of the dominant theoretical schools at work in economic policy today.
For those willing to make the hefty investment -- very nearly a whopping five hours -- The Commanding Heights is an eyeopening film series that can help put the current political situation in perspective.
Part one introduces the ideas of John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek, the two men who are the defining theorists of modern economics. Keynes favoured controlled economies in which governments essentially save during times of prosperity, then spend during times of economic recession.
Part one of the film examines various key periods in economic history and highlights the successes and failures of each theoretical school. The film examines the Keynesian successes of post-war Germany, Britain and the United States as well as the devastating crashes of the 1970s. It then turns to 1970s and '80s Britain and the United States, and documents the turn toward Hayek's market economics under the guidance of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
This portion of the film puts Keynesianism under the microscope and closely examines its eventual failures. While initially successful in many cases, Keynesianism has had a tendency to lead to an economic collapse as economies eventually stagnate.
A particularly telling example of gross over-regulation turns out to be the American Airline industry, wherein regulations would not allow airlines to compete in terms of price. When Airlines instead tried to compete by offering better perks -- such as better meals -- the regulatory agency in charge literally ends up regulating the size of sandwiches.
Of course, de-regulation has its own consequences. While over-regulation had gross consequences for consumers, de-regulation had almost immediate harmful consequences for workers in related industries -- such as the aircraft manufacturing industry.
Part one of The Commanding Heights sends a resolute message, not only to Canadians, but to citizens of countries around the world: competing Keynesian and market revolutions are leading us to economic disaster over and over again.
Right now Canada's political situation is, in many ways, an indirect consequence of a failed market revolution. It's important that Canadians come to understand these consequences and the course that have led us here so we can pressure our politicians not to repeat the mistakes of the past -- again.
There is one thing about being ignorant of your country's history. Some believe that in Canada we've refined this down to an art.
Apparently, Justin Trudeau has done likewise. But for a man like Trudeau to be ignorant of his family's history -- that is something else altogether.
In a Full Comment blog post, Graeme Hamilton insists that Pierre Trudeau would have been A-OK with the deal that the Liberal party has hatched with the Bloc Quebecois. And he isn't alone.
Justin Trudeau also insists that Trudeau's father would have welcomed the deal.
And certainly, this is true. Trudeau, Levesque and Jean Marchand and Gerard Pelletier were all active within Quebec's labour movement during the Maurice Duplessis era.
When the four formally entered politics, it was as Liberals. Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier joined the federal party. Rene Levesque found himself recruited into the provincial Liberals, where he served as Minister of Labour under Jean Lesage.
Levesque's ascension to the Office of Premier of Quebec in 1976 naturally brought tensions between the two to a head. These tensions would reach a pinnacle in 1980 during Levesque's referendum on Quebec sovereignty.
During the sovereignty campaign Trudeau promised to negotiate the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution. This promise helped the non side win the referendum with a decisive margin, and would set the table for Trudeau's most famous dealing with Levesque.
Dealings which Justin Trudeau seems to be ignorant of.
But he should know better. First off, Duceppe should not be trusted to keep promises he can't afford to keep.
Beyond this, Canadians remember how Pierre Trudeau dealt with separatists. During the negotiation of the 1982 Constitution, Trudeau, along with then-Minister of Justice Jean Chretien masterminded a deft end-run around Levesque in order to dismantle his "Gang of Eight" coalition of Provincial Premiers opposed to the Constitution.
In what has become known as "the night of the long knives", Chretien negotiated a "notwithstanding clause" into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Gang of Eight acquiesced and the Constitution was settled.
For his own part, Levesque was infuriated. "We had been betrayed, in secret, by men who hadn’t hesitated to tear up their own signatures, and without their even taking the trouble to warn us," Levesque complained. On the flight back to Quebec City, Levesque is said to have said it rather differently.
"[Trudeau] fucked me," Levesque is said to have fumed.
For his own part, Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to be worried about the demands that Duceppe should be expected to make of this coalition government.
“We have a provincial election going on in Quebec and separatism is not one of the issues," Justin continued. "The fact that the Conservatives are spending so much time talking about national unity and bringing up all those old divisions, it’s just out of their playbook of divide, divide, divide.”
But Trudeau couldn't be further from the truth.
So long as the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois exist, separatism will always be an issue in Canadian politics -- unless, that is, both of these parties formally and finally renounce it.
In the absence of such a complete renunciation, the Libereal-led coalition is just another page out of the Liberal playbook of doing whatever it takes to get power, no matter what the consequences.
As for Trudeau, it's hard to believe that he would be this ignorant of his vaunted family history. It's significantly easier to believe that he would be disingenuous in the name of claiming political power.
Once upon a time, Liberal leader Stephane Dion was a committed separatist fighter. The most committed separatist fighter in all the land, as the Liberal party would have Canadians believe.
A separatist fighter in the tradition of Pierre Trudeau and Claude Ryan.
Yet now, with political power seemingly within his grasp, Dion is doing things that Trudeau would have never done, as he's forged a coalition government with the help of the Bloc.
One very legitimate question on many Canadians' minds is this: precisely how far is Stephane Dion willing to in order to preserve this Coalition?
Canadians have every reason to wonder.
During the 2008 federal election, the Liberal party promoted the Clarity Act as one of the best reasons to support Stephane Dion. They even promoted a YouTube video insisting as much. They insisted that he literally saved the country.
Now, he's set to embark upon a Coalition government which will depend on the Bloc Quebecois for its survival.
The Bloc has never supported the Clarity Act, and for obvious reasons. With the Bloc seemingly having a place at the table of government, its supporters would view it as nothing short of an absolute betrayal if they didn't seek a legislative repeal of the Clarity Act.
Interestingly, this could give the Conservative party grounds to call a quick confidence vote in the government: a confidence motion calling on this Coalition government to reaffirm its commitment to the terms and conditions laid out in the Clarity Act.
Never mind that Dion can't claim sole credit for the Clarity Act -- Stephen Harper himself proposed the Quebec Contingency Act.
The Quebec Contingency Act would have required the federal government to hold a parallel referendum on the same day as any Quebec sovereignty referendum posing an ambiguous question. It also would have required Canada's other provinces to authorize -- via referendum -- the federal government to negotiate Quebec's secession. Unsurprisingly, the act was defeated.
And while Canadians have every right to know just how far Stephen Harper would go vis a vis the Clarity act to preserve his proposed coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, this issue seems much more pertinent now that a formal coalition agreement is on paper and signed.
One simply has to wonder what Pierre Trudeau would have to say if he were alive to see this today.
With Stephane Dion stooping to some of the lowest depths of dishonesty ever seen in Canadian politics in order to become Prime Minister, perhaps its fitting that his Central Nova bedfellow is apparently now in the running for a Senate seat.
Green party leader Elizabeth May held a press conference today to confirm that yes indeed she was talking with Stephane Dion about being involved in the proposed coalition government -- perhaps as a Senator-cum-Cabinet Minister.
"I would be the only senator that received a million votes," May crowed.
Of course, with no elected MPs -- no Green Party candidate has ever successfully won election in Canada -- the Green Party clearly brings very little of value to the table. Not that May understands this.
"We do not have a seat in the house, but we have people in this country who will mobilize to do what's right," May insisted.
(Apparently, in May's mind, doing "what's right" includes deceiving the Canadian people in order to justify overthrowing the sitting government in order to bring an illegitimate and unstable coalition government to power.)
"Canadians urgently need action on the economy. Mr. Harper is not providing that," May insisted. "Now is time to turn to the other parties and see if they can form a government."
Of course, this should raise another question mark for many Canadians regarding May and her relationship with Stephane Dion. After all, not only is Dion the former Environment Minister who failed to take any action regarding the Kyoto Protocol (which the Green Party supports), but Dion also supported the government's Speech from the Throne -- a program that contained no promises of an immediate stimulus package.
The only thing that has changed since then is a proposed cut to the $1.97 per vote subsidy that Canadian political parties receive.
Which, considering the state of the Canadian economy, is an awfully bizarre priority to have at a time like this.
But it's unsurprising that Dion would choose May as his bedfellow in government. They've long been bedfellows in dishonesty, as May and Dion defended their arrangement not to run candidates against one another as "leader's courtesy". They also insisted it was traditional -- despite the fact that this collusion was unprecedented during a general election, and that this "courtesy" was not offered to their competitors.
It's merely another sad turn in the emerging farce of this proposed Coalition government.
Depending upon who you ask -- and how honest they're being with themselves and others -- Canada is on the brink of experiencing something that falls anywhere in the range of an orderly exchange of power and a political junta.
The most fervent supporters of the Conservative party, naturally, are insisting upon the latter. The most fervent supporters of the Liberal party, the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois are insisting upon the former.
The truth falls somewhere closer in the middle. Though distasteful, the displacement of Stephen Harper's Conservative government with a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition is actually perfectly legal.
But this transition of power is anything but orderly. The coalition is displacing a minority government that was recently returned to power stronger than it was before the 2008 federal election. Its legitimacy is far from clear, and its making this move under false pretenses -- insisting that it's due to the lack of an economic stimulus package in the government's economic update rather than what it's really about: the protection of each party's government subsidies.
In other words, at least one of the leaders involved is lying. That would be Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who is expected to become Prime Minister in this coalition, and accused the NDP and Bloc of playing "political games" by voting against the Speech from the Throne, but is now prepared to topple the government only after his party's subsidies were threatened.
The Liberal party is hardly acting in the country's best interests -- it's acting in its own self-interest.
During the recent federal election, Dion spent the entire election complaining to anyone who would listen about "Stephen Harper's lies" -- which were actually much closer to the truth about Dion's ill-fated and now-aborted Green Shift plan than Dion would ever care to admit.
We're learning that Dion is, himself, far from a paragon of honesty.
We're also learning that Stephen Harper has failed to learn his own lessons. His first minority government provided many opportunities that, in retrospect, he simply squandered. While Harper accomplished many worthy goals -- no matter what his most intellectually dishonest and cowardly detractors insist -- he blew many opportunities to legitimately build a softer image.
Instead of cooperating with the opposition parties on key issues such as health care reform, Harper instead resorted to political strategy.
While the opposition stuck to their ideological guns on issues such as criminal justice -- in defiance of the expectations of Canadians -- there were plenty of issues on which compromises could have been worked out.
Harper received a golden opportunity to undo the fear mongering tactics of the Liberal party in particular. Instead, he often made himself appear as ideological as anyone else, even if his opponents were often just as ideological -- and often hypocritical.
Conservative politicians simply do not have the option of always governing as if they have a majority. Whether or not Harper has learned this remains to be seen. Indeed, it may never be seen.
One other thing we're learning from this is that our politicians simply do not learn from example.
As Canada lurched into the 1990s, it faced a mounting debt crisis and an out-of-control deficit. The Keynesian principle of governments spending more than they have led to considerable speculation that Canada would be facing a default on its debt obligations as the 90s drew on.
To his credit, then-Finance Minister Paul Martin got the mess under control, even if most Canadians don't like the way he did it -- by slashing programs such as health care and education.
South of the border the Republican administration of George W Bush spearheaded a reckless program of deregulation that eventually led to a mortgage crisis as American financial markets hemorrhaged on reckless loans -- actually mandated by the Clinton administration -- and by an absurd sub-market in which such mortgages were actually bought and sold by third parties. In other words, a market in which accounts receivable were being sold off as assets.
In the wake of this economic collapse, left-wing blocs on both sides of the 49th parallel are getting set to take advantage of the disaster in a not-so-atypical left-wing embrace of Naomi Klein's shock doctrine, each lining up a Keynesian budget in which governments will essentially attempt to spend their way out of the crisis.
What we are learning about now is the failure of our politicians to perceive the failures of the past and chart a course that will lead us toward economic success. It's going to be a very harsh lesson, and one can only hope that more Canadians -- and Americans -- will actually learn it this time out.
If our politicians fail to find alternative methods of managing the economy -- something that embraces the strengths of Keynesian economics and market economics -- there is really only one future for Canada, or for any other country that follows this course: lurching from economic crisis to economic crisis, and lurching back and forth between ideologically rigid left- and right-wing blocs, accomplishing very little of sustainable value in the meantime.
Sadly, politicians like Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton may be more than content to do this so long as they get a taste of power every now and again.
Which is something we've learned about Canada's Opposition parties (which now seem poised to ascend to government): that at the end of the day, what matters to them most is power.
All the lies and dishonesty aside, that is what Canadians should be learning.
There's a saying in life, as in politics: be careful how you treat people on your way up, because you'll meet them again on your way down.
That is something that Stephen Harper should keep in mind today, as Cumberland-Colchester-Musquodoboit Valley MP Bill Casey has announced he will vote no-confidence in the government on its economic update a week from today.
"At this time of economic crisis, Stephen Harper has failed Canadians as prime minister," Casey announced. "Rather than providing leadership and a badly needed economic stimulus package, Mr. Harper and his finance minister, Jim Flaherty, opted instead to play partisan politics and, for some reason, attack unions and women’s rights."
While coming off as little more than typical fickle rhetoric, Casey's announcement at least comes from someone with a little credibility on the topic.
In other words, Casey has voted against this government before -- while he was still a member of it. Furthermore, as an independent MP, Casey doesn't receive any government subsidies.
While the opposition parties move to defend their entitlements, Casey can at least argue that he's simply voting on the virtue of the economic update.
But it's also hard to overlook the vengeful undertones of in Casey's move. After being booted from the Conservative caucus for nothing more than voting in what Casey no doubt legitimately believed was in the best interests of his constituents, it would be hard to fault Casey for wanting to get even with Stephen Harper -- especially considering that Casey's vote will almost certainly not be the deciding factor in the government's downfall.
"Every day I have people, especially single mothers, on unemployment who are looking to upgrade their skills or their education, but I haven’t been able to help them," Casey said. "This economic statement does nothing to help them. It does nothing to help people who have lost jobs, either."
Casey's decision to vote against the Harper government should give Stephen Harper ample reason to think twice before turfing his MPs for voting their conscience.
With the Mumbai terror attacks having reached their tragic conclusion, it finally seems safe to comment.
The Mumbai attacks are sobering in their implications. With up to 155 dead -- including at least two Canadians -- the War on Terror has clearly opened a new front in one of the world's most populated countries.
The attacks were carried out with frightening precision. In less than an hour, Mariman House, Leopold's Cafe, the Taj Mahal Hotel, the Oberon Trident Hotel, the Cama Hospital, and the Chatrapati Shivaji railway station were under attack. It would take three days to bring the attack to a halt.
If anything, the Mumbai attacks demonstrates the importance of dealing with domestic terrorism. The Deccan Mujahadeen and the Students Islamic Movement of India who have been accused of jointly planning and executing the attack were previously identified as responsible for bombings in Uttar Pradesh.
India and Pakistan clearly have common interests in tackling the Deccan Mujahadeen. Yet these attacks are far too likely to increase the tensions between the two countries -- tensions that are already perennially preoccupied with the contentious Kashmir region.
But the terrifying events in Mumbai has also presented Canada with an opportunity. While difficult, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon now has the opportunity to crack open the Chretien-era handbook on Mission Diplomacy and help negotiate a tripartite security agreement between India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The goals of this agreement should be to harmonize their efforts and strategies in approaching the security threat posed by the tumultuous regions of western Pakistan.
The second front of the Canadian response to the Mumbai attacks should be to push for the British Commonwealth to provide military aid to the three countries in pacifying the region.
As a prominent member of the Commonwealth, Canada has an opportunity to lead the Commonwealth in an area where it has nothing short of a responsibility to respond.
One can only hope that Lawrence Cannon is keeping an eye on this pivotal opportunity while naturally keeping the other eye on the survival of his government. Furthermore, one can only hope that Cannon is prepared to mix an aggressive, muscular foreign policy stance with the mission diplomacy approach favoured by the Chretien-era Liberals.
For the unitiated, Assata Shakur is an aunt of the late rapper Tupac Shakur who is currently partaking of asylum in Cuba, where she has been since 1984 when she escaped from prison.
On Facebook
