V for Victory, Peace Through Victory

Today is the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

10 years ago today, Al Qaida terrorists under the direction of Osama Bin Laden crashed two jet airliners into the World Trade Centre in New York City. They also crashed a jet airliner into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. A fourth airliner crashed into a field in Pennsylvania when passengers decided to take the plane back from the hijackers.

2,819 people were killed in the attacks. Fortunately, it was far short of the 10,000 suspected to have been killed within hours of the attacks.

The people of the United States, Canada, Britain and the civilized world were certainly afraid on the day of the attacks. But not too afraid to fight back.

Osama Bin Laden would not live to see the 10th anniversary of the attacks he directed. But he did live to see the full extent of the western victory over the fear he sought to plant in the hearts of the civilized world.

The civilized world should not be mistaken to mean only the western world. The attacks launched on the United States were meant not only to terrify citizens of the United States, but freedom-loving people around the world, including those in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran (among others).

He did live long enough to see the civilized world fight back: in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, in Iran, in Tunisia, in Egypt, in Libya, in Syria, in South Sudan, and in countless other places around the world.

The fight for freedom certainly hasn't been definitively won anywhere. Even in places that now show so much promise, such as Egypt, there is still a chance that the forces of Islamofascism will exploit the efforts of the liberal (classical liberal, that is) activists who are throwing off the chains of oppression. There is still a chance they may simply be re-chained under someone else's brand of oppression.

It happened after the Iranian revolution, and could quite easily happen again.

But in the guise of Islamofascism -- something that should not be mistaken for Islam itself, but is rather a political perversion of Islam -- the world sees the kind of threat it has seen on occasion in the past: the kind of threat that simply must be defeated in order for peace to be possible.

It's been seen before. During the 1930s, in Germany, Adolph Hitler lead a political phenomenon so hostile to anything even resembling peace -- let alone a just peace -- that it had to be destroyed for peace to be possible.

Some, like Neville Chamberlain, attempted to placate that threat in the hopes of attaining peace. The more they attempted to appease Hitler, the more aggressive he became. Peace was only possible when Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of Britain, and stood up and declared that they would fight Hitler anywhere and everywhere they could.

In the process, he made the v-shaped finger salute -- v for victory -- truly iconic.

In the 1960s, the peace movement adopted the same gesture in order to demonstrate their devotion to peace.

Some have viewed this as a perversion of the "v for victory" gesture. They're not entirely correct.

Certainly, the peace movement can often be wrong about their pronouncements. For example, any peace activist who demands that the western world stop fighting the war on terror is not legitimately a peace activist. Their demands would result in a world in which radical Muslim terrorists would continue to attack the civilized world while the civilized world simply declines to fight back.

That is not peace.

In the case of Islamofascism, as with the case of Nazism and fascism before it, peace -- true, actual peace -- is only possible through victory.

On this, the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, we must not allow ourselves to forget the example of Winston Churchill. We must win the victory against Al Qaida and the varied forces of Islamofascism so peace can be possible.

Rest in Peace, Motherfucker

Osama Bin Laden killed in Pakistan

Reports coming out of Washington, DC indicate that US and Pakistani special forces pulled the trigger on Osama Bin Laden today.

According to Obama, the beginning of the end for Bin Laden was nearly a year ago, when intelligence regarding Bin Laden's hiding place came to light. After a year of careful investigation, surveillance, and close contact with Pakistani counter-terror forces, the time was judged to be right.

Bin Laden's death may offer closure to many of those whose family members were killed on 9/11, but it's pivotally important to remember that this does not render closure on the war on terror.

While Pakistan's involvement in bringing Bin Laden to justice is reassuring in terms of underscoring their commitment to fighting terrorism, there is still much to be done.

The Taliban must still be defeated in Afghanistan. Al Qaida needs to be finished off. Hamas and Hezbollah must be next on the chopping block. Last but not least, terrorist-funding regimes in Libya and Iran must be shuffled off into the good night. (Fortunately, the citizens of each country will do this on their own if provided the proper support and encouragement.)

It's not over. It won't be over until the defeat of the Islamist movement Osama Bin Laden led is remembered as his legacy.

Why Do We Fight? Redux

Why We Fight presents numerous threads of director Eugene Jarecki's take on post-9/11 American foreign policy. Dominant in those threads seems to be a left-wing interpretation of the actions of the United States since 9/11 -- peppered with references to "American Empire".

But more compelling, and perhaps more illuminating are some of the personal stories of post-9/11 America. One of those is the story of retired NYPD officer Wilton Sekzer, whose son was in the World Trade Centre on 9/11, and died therein.

In the film, Sekzer tells his story of seeking comfort in the days following 9/11. In his case, he did this by asking the US military to dedicate a bomb to his son's memory during the opening days of the Iraq War.

Eventually disillusioned by the war -- he had been led to believe that the war was a retaliatory campaign for 9/11 -- Sekzer comes to regret having asked for this.

He seems to have reached a sobering revelation about the waging of war as a measure of revenge.

Not everyone in the United States has reached this realization. The plan of Pastor Terry Jones of Florida's Dove World Outreach Centre, a non-demoninational evangelical church, to burn a Koran on 9/11 -- which, at most recent reports, had been cancelled -- demonstrates this.

Revenge per se wasn't the stated motivation for Jones' announced intention to host a Koran burning. Rather, he had reportedly planned it in response to the building of the controversial Ground Zero mosque (located not at Ground Zero, but within a few city blocks of it).

But the pettiness that pervades notions of revenge positively saturates Jones' pledged act.

There should be little doubt that Jones regarded his planned Koran burning as an act of revenge for 9/11.

But revenge isn't a valid justification for any act, especially not for acts such as these. It's an emotional response.

To fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan with revenge as the motive would be wrong. The only valid justification for waging such conflicts is to ensure the security of the states waging them, or international security as a whole.

There is no credible question that removing the regimes in place in each state at the time of the invasion would benefit international security as a whole. Whether the Iraq war, more specifically, actually achieved that goal is credibly a matter of some debate.

The question of why the Iraq war was fought, and the relationship of that decision to the events of 9/11 will remain a crucial question for not only the United States, but for the world as a whole.

When going to war, it's crucial to know why we fight. It cannot be for revenge.

The Wrong Idea

In a 60 second spot rejected by CBS, the Republican Trust attempts to make its case against Cordoba House, a 13-story Islamic centre that will also feature a mosque.

Arguments against Cordoba House insist that it will become a lightning rod for militant Islamists, will promote militant Islam, and that it will be a celebration of 9/11 -- a symbol of Islam's triumph.

This is precisely the argument presented in this ad.

The problem for the GOP Trust is that this argument relies on an overweening ignorance of the individuals behind Cordoba House, and the beliefs of the organization leading the project.

Even the evidence offered for the alleged radicalism of Cordoba Initiative -- such as its Shari'ah index project -- are not in reality what they are said to be. In fact, the Shari'ah law promoted by Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf doesn't appear to be any Shari'ah law that would be recognized by those familiar with the extreme variant of it practiced in so many states today.

“What are the principles that make a state Islamic?" Rauf rhetorically asks. "We can say among them is justice, protection of religion and minorities and elimination of poverty, and so on.”

Protection of minorities isn't a concept one would associate with Shari'ah law-practising countries such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The opponents of Cordoba House are close to being right about one thing: the construction of the centre would represent a triumph for Islam: a triumph of moderate Islam over the evil and militant political ideology individuals like Osama Bin Laden have transformed it into.

Opposing Cordoba House doesn't aid the fight against this insidious political ideology -- it actually hampers it. By denying organizations such as the Cordoba Initiative public space, they deny them the opportunity to counter the vile message of militant Muslim demagogues who send their poorest and most disenfranchised to wage war for their benefit.

Opponents of Cordoba House may not appreciate the symbolic value of Muslims worshipping peacefully at the feet of the towers their hateful counterparts destroyed. But a great many moderate Muslims will.

To deny them that opportunity out of a xenophobic, intolerant and paranoid mania would be a historical tragedy with little comparison, and that is what would really embolden militant Islam.

On the fifth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings that tore through downtown London, there are few better days than today to realize that obscuring the difference between peaceful, moderate Islam and the aforementioned Islamist political ideology is unacceptably counter-productive.

It's the wrong idea, through and through.

Ward Churchill and the Making of a Martyr

In 2001, University of Colorado Professor Ward Churchill sparked a firestorm of controversy when he wrote and published an essay in which he described the victims as "Little Eichmanns".

In the essay, he wrote:

"As for those in the World Trade Center … Well, really, let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire — the ‘mighty engine of profit’ to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved — and they did so both willingly and knowingly… If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it."

Naturally, in the wake of an international outrage -- at least in the eyes of those not blinded by ideological fervour -- these comments were bound to provoke a great deal of animosity.

When They Came For Ward Churchill is a carefully-planned film, in which Churchill and the film's producers attempt to lionize him and transform him into a martyr at the same time. For those satisifed by the film's treatment of the affair, it may seem as if they succeeded. For those willing to weigh the film against a broader sample of reality, the film's failure is nothing short of dismal.

Throughout the film, clips of a speech given to a sympathetic audience in which Churchill spoke with his voice dripping with outrage.

Irritatingly, the film tacitly avoids speaking to anyone critical of Churchill, his comments, or his work. So on this note Churchill's history of plagiarism and fabrication within his own academic works goes entirely unaddressed.

But there's other value in When They Came After Ward Churchill: as an exploration of the attempts of Churchill -- and many individuals like him -- to make himself into a martyr.

In the film, Churchill appears before a sympathetic audience, backed by a party from a nearby First Nations tribe, replete with drums. Their dress and demanour suspiciously resembles that of "war party" styled militant protesters.

Churchill -- widely known as a self-styled blowhard -- seems to be striving to create the impression of himself as an otherwise-helpless target of reactionary forces.



Churchill reiterates a litany of Chomsky-esque historical grievances against the United States -- many of which, in many ways, are entirely legitimate, even if in some cases stripped of their historical context (the nature of the warfare used against Imperial Japan during the Second World War is an atrocity by today's terms, but Churchill is reflecting on an entirely different era of total warfare).

But to use those acts as justification for the 9/11 attacks would be to artificially transplant many of those grievances into the motivations of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. As will shortly be elaborated on shortly, this is a grave conceptual and analytical error.



Russel Means, a lawyer appearing alongside Churchill in interviews, insists that the backlash against Churchill was simply racism. He chooses to overlook the fact that many other academics and commentators have provoked similar outrage, without the benefit of having the race card to play.

(Canada's own Kevin Potvin comes to mind.)

This kind of disengenuous allusions to race and racism are a convenient refuge for the demagogue desperate to artificially establish themselves as a martyr.

Furthermore, in order to classify the response to Churchill's essay as "anti-intellectual" is to overlook the dubiousness of the academic, analytical, and conceptual value of his essay.



Most intriguing about the film is Churchill's own -- again, unchallenged -- attempt to spin the academic review of his work into a crusade against him.

Churchill would later admit that the plagiarism did, in fact, take place, and admitted that he was directly involved in it through his role as an editor.

Interestingly enough, the allegations of plagiarism pre-dated Churchill's "Little Eichmann" comments. In 1997, Fay Cohen, a professor at Dalhousie University, complained that Churchill had plagiarized her.

Cohen would also report that Churchill placed a threatening late-night phone call to her.



Churchill also takes time to complain about the state of aboriginal policy in the United States. His complaints are every bit as valid in the United States as they would be in Canada.

But, again, the last thing on Osama Bin Laden's mind was the state of American aboriginals. It can't be used to justify 9/11, or Churchill's comments about 9/11.



It's remarkable how willing Churchill is to contradict his own argument. While Churchill insists that he didn't mean to declare that the children, police officers, firemen, and other "support workers" were legitimate targets, he also argues that in order to be considered "innocent" one also has to oppose what he describes as the oppressive system of global capitalism.

Thus unless each and every one of those individuals were opponents of the social order Churchill so despises, they would still be considered legitimate targets according to his own argument.



But at the end of the day, the most pertinent point is this: Ward Churchill's comments weren't merely inflammatory, but they were also academically bankrupt.

Churchill's suggestions that the sins of global capitalism -- real, imagined, and invented -- justified 9/11 and rendered the victims of 9/11 legitimate simply doesn't hold water when one considers that Osama Bin Laden, and those who carried out the attack, wouldn't agree with Churchill's analysis of the attack.

Osama Bin Laden and Khalid Sheik Mohammed didn't plan and execute the 9/11 attacks as a retaliation against global capitalism. They didn't even plan and execute the attack as a retaliation against American foreign policy.

Al Qaeda planned and executed 9/11 as an act intending to intimidate the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia into giving into their demands, and helping to reestablish the Caliphate.

Not only does Ward Churchill's feigned outrage distract from the general weakness of his thesis, but the public outrage at them served as a distraction as well. In this particular sense, the controversy -- though well-provoked by Churchill -- was actually a grave disservice to the discourse on the matter, both public and academic.

Remember the Victims as People, Not as Victims

Eight years ago today, Al Qaida terrorists hijacked four airliners.

As the world will remember today, two of those planes were crashed into the World Trade Centre. One of them was crashed into the Pentagon. A fourth never made it to its target.

When one watches United 93, one may expect a story of heroism. That is, after all, what the film was marketed as.

But watching the film can be rather frustrating if one considers the ease with which the film at least makes it look like the passengers could have overcome the hijackers.

What instead emerges is the simple story of real people caught in a situation not of their choosing, and how they react to it.

To suggest that by watching United 93 a viewer can get to know the passengers killed on that plane would be an extreme exaggeration. But a viewer does walk away from the film with a much more real sense that these were real people -- they had real lives, real families, and made a very real sacrifice.

As the world looks back on 9/11 today, it will remember those killed in the attacks as victims. And indeed they were.

But it may be even more important to remember them not as an abstraction -- and the ideal of victimization is certainly an abstraction -- but rather as real people.

It's a simple idea, but one that is all the more important today.

Why Do We Fight?

September Tapes offers post-9/11 cautionary tale

In the post-9/11 world, many people have developed a fascinating interest in telling people "why we fight".

Many people treat it as a foregone conclusion: "We fight. This is why." Rarely is the matter even treated as a question.

2004's The September Tapes -- think of it as The Blair Witch Project meets Babel in wartime Afghanistan -- presents Don Larson (George Calil) as a documtary filmmaker in Afghanistan intent on witnessing the capture of Osama Bin Laden by American troops. His Afghan-American guide Wali Zarif (Wali Razaqi) leads Larson deeper and deeper into the dangerous world of Afghanistan's ethnic conflicts.

As he does so, Larson is drawn deeper and deeper into the conflict, eventually sacrificing his role as an observer and non-combatant for that of warrior, as he pursues the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks with a fierce doggedness that quickly escalates into outright obsession.

As the movie progresses, it quickly becomes obvious that Larson has taken the events of 9/11 very personally. It turns out that he actually has ample cause -- something the viewer doesn't learn until the film's conclusion.

But the film offers a cautionary tale about 9/11 and about the war on terror that it has spawned.

The United States and its allies -- including and especially Canada -- cannot allow the war on terror to be about revenge. The United States and its allies cannot allow the war on terror to become about revenge.

It's impossible to argue that the response to 9/11 shouldn't be considered personal. The country attacked on that dark day certainly took the event personally. Frankly, it's hard to blame them.

As Frank Castle (Thomas Jane) notes in 2004's The Punisher, "revenge is not a valid motive. It's an emotional response." Any response to 9/11 based purely on emotion is one that is certain to fail.

Frank Castle is a character incapable of dealing with his own internal (emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of his family's murder. Instead, he focuses his efforts on the destruction of external enemies. When he finally manages to kill the man who ordered his family's murder, he takes to the road in search of other enemies to fight.

Likewise, Don Larson is a man seemingly incapable of dealing with his own (again, emotional and psychological) problems in the wake of 9/11. Instead, he focuses his efforts on witnessing American soldiers bringing the man who masterminded the attacks to justice. When it becomes apparent that this will not happen, he takes up arms and pursues Bin Laden on his own.

The loss of his allies along the way doesn't deter him. In the end, the conclusion of the film is a foregone conclusion. In fact, it's divulged at the start of the film -- Larson disappears, and his tapes are eventually recovered by American soldiers.

Don Larson the man has vanished. He may be dead, or he may be hunting Osama Bin Laden still.

As the world stops to commemorate the seventh anniversary of 9/11, one wonders about the ultimate fate of the country south of the 49th parallel. Has it learned how to deal with its own internal problems (psychological or emotional, or economic or political), or will it continue to hunt for enemies?

Will it focus on the very real enemies that exist -- terrorist organizations such as Al Qaida, the states that choose to harbour them and, ultimately, the conditions that breed them -- or will it again expand its crusade to threats that, if they even exist at all, are far from pressing? (One fears that talks about an eventual invasion of Iran are not as far-fetched as they may seem.)

The question is not if we will fight. The question is why. And, yes, it is a question.

As Canada and other countries continue to ally with the United States in the global war on terror, we must come to grips with the fact that the motives for which the United States fights will, in one way or another, impact upon us and be our motives as well.

We must continue to ensure that the United States is not fighting for revenge, but for the betterment of the world as a whole, and in the promotion of global security. If we witness the United States straying from this path again -- as it did when it chose to invade Iraq to confront non-existent weapons of mass destruction -- we must ensure that Canada does not follow them there.

That is why we fight. Not for revenge, as Don Larson eventually does, but for the betterment of all. For justice. For reason.

But never revenge.

9/11 At Election Time

Normally, the pressure has been to keep partisanship to a bare minimum on this day every year.

But with this year's anniversary of 9/11 -- the seventh year since that infamous day -- falling during not one but two North American elections, 9/11 will almost certainly become a topic of some importance today.

Particularly with an American election in which no incumbent can be returned to the White House, the question of 9/11 and how another such attack can be prevented will be a pivotal issue. In 2004, voters knew first hand President George W Bush's views on how to avert terrorist attacks. In 2008, they don't have that luxury in comparing the anti-terrorism plans of John McCain and Barack Obama.

But to truly understand the events of 9/11, and truly understand how another such attack can be prevented, it's important to understand how the event unfolded in the first place.

As such, today The Nexus presents (with brief commentary) the documentary Inside 9/11: Zero Hour:



It's remarkable how ineffective pre-9/11 security was at detecting the 19 terrorists, even when a number of them were selected for additional security. The very rules set by the FAA actually facilitated the hijacking by allowing the hijackers to carry their weapons on board.

It's also disconcerting how, even after the hijacking was known, the eventual disaster was still unable to be prevented.

The FAA's inability to communicate effectively with F-15 fighter jets that had been scrambled to track American Airlines flight 11 and the literal impossibility of fighting a fire at the height in question point to the obvious ill-preparedness of the American transportation infrastructure, military and civil authorities to deal with the events of that day.

One would almost excuse ill-preparedness to deal with events previously considered almost unimaginable. But on the very day of the events in question, novelist John Grisham told CNN that he had proposed events remarkably similar to 9/11 as a national security scenario to Pentagon officials.

The events of 9/11 weren't as unthinkable as we may like to believe.

The detail with which the film portrays the events of 9/11 is shocking, but underscores the reality of the event -- and reminds us why a repeat of that catastrophe must be averted.



Confusion began to set in as the FAA and air traffic controllers literally lost track of which planes were still in the air, and which planes had already reached their target.

Particularly chilling is the deception the hijackers employed with their passengers. Knowing full well that they were all going to die upon reaching their target, one can't help but treat the deception -- and the false hope it promises -- as unnecessarily cruel.

Then again, perhaps it could be said that any hope in the heart of a suicide bomber is false hope indeed.

Part of dealing with any event such as 9/11 requires a response plan -- something evidently lacking on that date in 2001. It pains any rational person to criticize the response of emergency services -- men and women doing their jobs under extremely difficult circumstances.

But there is little question that their jobs were made unacceptably more difficult by the lack of a response plan. When building a 100-plus story building, it isn't unreasonable to expect that civil authorities will plan for a possible evacuation of that building in the event of a catastrophe -- particularly when that building has been the target of a terrorist attack before.



The lack of a realistic plan to deal with fires such as those burning in the WTC becomes immediately apparent. The film notes that the average firefighter takes an hour to climb 25 stories, meaning the firefighters being sent to fight the fires -- each carrying 100 pounds of equipment -- would take four hours to reach the fire.

The fires, meanwhile, were beginning to soften the support beams, which had been stripped of their fire-proofing by the impact of the planes.

The lost four hours could have potentially prevented the collapse of the towers -- if there were a plan in place to help get firefighters to the impact floors in a reasonable amount of time.

Only the determination and dedication of the firefighters in question served to avert further loss of life that day where disaster planning effectively failed.

The film also presents some of the smaller human tales amidst the tragedy, such as that of Usman Farman, a Muslim man who a Jewish man helped escape from the debris cloud following the WTC's collapse.

Zero Hour also imparts on the viewer the culpability of basic human hubris for the loss of life that occurred on 9/11. Individuals less fortunate than Pasqual Buzzelli who were instructed by building security to remain in their offices despite the fires raging so far above died simply because of the apparent inability of WTC security staff to comprehend the inherent mortal hazard of the situation unfolding.

Once again, a complete evacuation should have been part of any disaster response plan. That there was no evacuation is simply a tragic testament to the lack of an effective plan.

The film also briefly addresses the policy shift following the attack -- explained by talking head David Frum -- and the policy and administrative failure in the lead-up to the attack.

"We were shocked at the carnage, but we certainly weren't surprised," explains J Coffer Black, a CIA analyst.

"I don't think anyone who worked on this problem expected anything less than what happened on 9/11," explained Michael Scheuer. "If the policymakers expected anything less, than shame on them."



There's a disturbing irony in the chirping of the firefighters' electronic locators -- devices once used to find a firefighter in the midst of a blaze, instead marking their graves amidst the rubble of the World Trade Center.

Even seven years after the event, the losses on that day stagger the imagination.

The film concludes with a brief summary of the events following 9/11: the invasion of Afghanistan, the fall of Kabul, the invasion of Iraq -- basically, the rest of the story thus far. It outlines the continuing challenges of the post-9/11 world.

With elections underway in both the United States and Canada, it will be hard to keep the legacy of 9/11 separate from the political and partisan considerations at the very heart of these contests -- even if one agrees that it should be kept separate.

If the legacy of 9/11 really is to be dragged into the middle of either election -- and for the record, this author prays it won't be -- we will owe it to those lost on that day to postulate wisely on the topic, and ensure that it leads somewhere constructive.

To do anything less would trample their memories.

Luckily, He Didn't Say "Jewish Bankers"

Anti-Israel Green candidate will stay on ballot

In the immediate aftermath of Green party leader Elizabeth May's decision to allow the candidacy of Qais Ghanem to stand, one question remains on the mind of those observing the Green party during this 2008 federal election:

Why, exactly, was John Shavluk's nomination scrubbed?

We've heard the official explanation: Shavluk's apparently anti-semitic remarks were "not consistent with Green party philosophy".

Meanwhile, Ghanem -- a physicist and immigrant from Yemen -- who along with Sylvie Lemieux, Paul Maillet and Akbar Manoussi (collectively, they are known as the "Ottawa group of four"), to sponsor a resolution entitled simply "Palestine". The resolution "calls upon Israel to end its forty-year occupation of all Arab lands without preconditions."

Ghanem has caught flack within the Green party for using a Green party message board to post messages that were "one-sidedly anti-Israel".

For his own part, Ghanem insists that I do not have to record the opposite point of view to every quotation I dig up, for the sake of so-called 'balance,'. The Israeli point of view is voiced non-stop by the North American media which is controlled by a small oligarchy."

Of course, it would be hard to pretend that when Ghanem refers to a "small oligarchy", he isn't referring to media owners such as the Asper family, who own and control Canwest Global.

So long as he doesn't refer to "a small Jewish oligarchy", it would seem, he's treading on safe territory.

Apparently, Ghanem can counter-factually claim that Israel is the only country in the Middle East that refuses to allow its nuclear facilities to be inspected despite the fact that Iran has barred nuclear inspectors from its facilities.

So long as Ghanem restrains himself from posting bizarre references to Jewish bankers online, it seems, he's safe, even if such sentiments in his comments seem only thinly veiled.

There is, of course, one other element in play: Ghanem didn't mention 9/11 in the course of his comments.

Of course, he has voiced some rather remarkable views regarding 9/11 on his campaign website:

"2001-Sept-11 The Big Event!

Hijackers were Saudis with box cutters, NONE were Afghans or Iraqis.
2001-Sept-12: (ONE day later) Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz declared that Iraq should be attacked!

Here is a list of questions that need answers:
Why was the FBI investigation of hijackers shut down?
Why were military response stand down orders issued?
Why were distracting war games set up on 9/11 of all days?
Why did building 7, not attacked at all, collapse like controlled demolition?"

This is in the course of a post entitled "What are we doing in Afghanistan?"

(Interestingly, he can't quite seem to come to grips with the Taliban's harbouring of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida terrorists in Afghanistan.)

Meanwhile, Kevin Potvin wrote an editorial wherein he cheered Bin Laden's escape ("Go Osama go!"), and encouraged Vancouver-area 9/11 "truth"ers to meet with him to discuss the matter. His nomination was rejected.

John Shavluk posted a comment implicating the Americans in a terrorist attack on their own soil upon "[their] shoddily built world bank headquarters", and his nomination was turfed as well.

Meanwhile, Qais Ghanem writes a blog post endorsing the 9/11 "truth" movement and advances resolutions that deny Israel's right to exist, and somehow he's still "within [Green] party policy."

While there's clearly a strong 9/11 "truth" movement within the Green party, it may seem that Elizabeth May really isn't trying to excise that particular demon at all.

From any mainstream party, this would be shocking. Fortunately, this is the Green party we're talking about here. One thing about being a fringe party is that eventually you have to embrace fringe politics, in one way or another.

What is It With the Green Party and 9/11?

Greens pull candidate over controversial remarks

Less than a week before the seventh anniversary of 9/11, the Green party has pulled yet another candidate over some remarks made on the subject.

On Thursday, the party rejected the candidacy of John Shavluk, the party's nominated candidate for Newton-North Delta. At the heart of the issue lie comments made on Enmasse.ca in the course of a post about drug laws, police, the Iraq war, and (that troublesome old topic) 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Courtesy of blogger Robert Jago, the post in question reads as follows:

"… you cops are on borrowed time as far as being the enforcers of bad laws and being used as society’s GOONS.
YOU soon will be seen as relevant again and as important as you used to be ,a pillar of the community. i realize how hard it would be to enforce stupid laws and i know i could not have thrown Rosa Parks from the bus. must be a redneck gene somewhere.

if we want to talk about laws,,why don’t you care that your country started an illegal war in Iraq,,arrest some one you law racists!!!!
everyone knows but you guys whats going to happen and its way over due
hey i heard some guy in Australia knows someone who says he had something to do with your governments complicate attack on your shoddily built Jewish world bank headquarters. you know “the 2 towers” (who has the ring i wonder)better invade there too eh,,oh no oil?"

Apparently, John Shavluk isn't quite the kind of person any self-respecting political party (even the Green party) would want representing them. Go figure.

Of course, we've seen this kind of controversy with the Green party before. In fact, we've seen it within the last 18 months.

The Shavluk affair, as it will quickly come to be known in Green party circles, has quickly come to mirror the Kevin Potvin affair (as it has come to be known in Green party circles).

First off, you have a candidate oddly overconfident despite running for a fringe party with barely 5% popular support in the country. Secondly, controversial topics regarding 9/11 (although, for the record, Shavluk was removed due to the seeming anti-semitic nature of some of his remarks). Finally, both individuals seem to be completely unable to be honest -- even with themselves -- on the topic.

Kevin Potvin insisted that his words had somehow been misrepresented, and that he was being slandered by the mainstream media who found The Republic of East Vancouver threatening.

For his own part, Shavluk insists it's an insidious conspiracy against his particular political goals, insisting that the rejection of his nomination is merely intended to undermine his efforts to legalize marijuana. Shavluk reportedly had worked to bring members of the Marijuana party and like-minded members of the NDP over to the Green party.

Both candidates insist that the Green party will somehow be lost without them. Kevin Potvin imagined himself they would be denying themselves their first MP (although the recent defection of former Liberal Blair Wilson should have dispelled that particular fantasy). Shavluk insists "the Green Party are pretty much cutting their legs out beneath them".

Surely, they'll rue the day. And John Shavluk should totally hold his breath while he waits for that to happen.

As for Kevin Potvin, he's made his own views regarding 9/11 crystal clear. Not only was there his "Revolting Confession", but also once participated in a YouTube video in which another individual encouraged people to vote for Potvin based on his views on 9/11 (the video has since been marked as "private" by its creator).

Now, with John Shavluk's candidacy evaporating over some nutty 9/11-related comments, one has to wonder: does the Green party have an official policy regarding the 9/11 "truth" movement?

If not, does it need one? Apparently, it just might.

Al Qaeda, Iran Fighting Over Who Gets Credit for 9/11

Al -Zawahri: Israel conspiracy theory meant to discredit Al Qaeda

In yet another turn of events that throws the allegedly indisputable relationship between Iraq, Iran and Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, has accused Iran of trying to steal the credit for 9/11 from Al Qaeda and give it to Israel.

The conspiracy theory in question -- one of dozens on the subject -- insists that 9/11 was perpetrated by an Israeli spy ring intent on pushing the United States into war with Iraq.

The argument is that this was done to make Israel more secure -- although it ignores the fact that Iraq posed no credible threat to Israel at any point following the conclusion of the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Al-Zawahri accuses Iran of circulating the rumour through Hezbollah's Al-Manar television, which was acting as a proxy.

"The purpose of this lie is clear -- (to suggest) that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no else did in history. Iranian media snapped up this lie and repeated it," he said. "Iran's aim here is also clear -- to cover up its involvement with America in invading the homes of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq."

(Of which it actually had none, just to underscore the fact that Al-Zawahri isn't exactly playing with a full deck of cards here.)

In all likelihood, this story should take the wind out of the sails of those who insist that Al Qaeda wasn't really responsible for 9/11 -- that they were merely scapegoats so the United States could flex its imperialistic muscles in the Middle East.

After all, if an individual like Ayman al-Zawahri is willing to fight over credit in the 9/11 attacks, that's a pretty explicit statement -- notably, an admission of guilt.

Only in Canada

Canada continues to ignore national wake-up call

One of the most-chronicled tales of recent American history has been the abject failure of various American intelligence agencies to work together to prevent 9/11.

While many of the aforementioned intelligence agencies had various pieces of information regarding the plot, they failed to share it appropriately. Even when the threat was made known to decision-making authorities, including the administration, it was ignored.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20. Yet it’s all too easy to allow one’s vision to be clouded if they can’t see the entire picture or, worse yet, willfully ignore it.

In Canada, we have a catastrophic terrorist attack of our own which revealed the clogged channels of communication between our intelligence agencies – the 1985 Air India bombing.

In the years following the Air India bombing, the failure of the RCMP and CSIS to share key information regarding the plot has revealed various rivalries between the two agencies that served to undermine their effectiveness in preventing these attacks.

Air India, like 9/11, was preventable.

And while the United States moved quickly in realigning their intelligence gathering capabilities in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, Canada, with an additional 16 years of time to do this, has, as yet, failed to do the same.

Today, the National Post reports that CSIS is apparently afforded little knowledge regarding whether or not information they pass along to the RCMP is being used or not. Nor does the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

“I cannot speak a great deal about the downstream results -- the charges, the prosecutions,” said FinTRAC spokesperson Mark Potter. "We are not in a position to answer questions about how many convictions there have been."

This actually contradicts recorded comments by FinTRAC director Horst Intscher, who, in the agency’s last annual report, announced, “It is especially gratifying to see the results of our work now being reflected more and more frequently in criminal investigations, charges, prosecutions and convictions. The positive feedback we are getting from law enforcement agencies and from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) shows us that our efforts are making a valuable contribution to protecting the Canadian financial services sector from abuse by criminals and terrorists."

If the seeming inability of Canadian intelligence-gathering and law enforcement agencies to work together toward a common cause seems silly to the average Canadian, it seems equally so to Air India Enquiry Commissioner John Major.

"It just seems to me that this is getting awfully complicated, that there could be easier ways if we weren't sort of wrapped in barbed wire about exchanging information between agencies,” Major said.

Only in Canada would our intelligence-gathering agencies be allowed to continue to work is disaccord and disarray more than 22 years after such a terrorist attack, which should have been interpreted as a national wake-up call. The United States took less than a year to overhaul its ability to gather, share and act on intelligence related to national security.

It should be considered a national embarrassment – at best – that Canada has, with more time to work with, failed to do the same.

9/11: A Reflection on Past and Present

9/11 anniversary underscores importance of Afghanistan mission

Yesterday, foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay met with Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada, Omar Samad.

The topic of their conversation was probably unsurprising: 9/11, and it’s continuing implications for the war in Afghanistan.

"Let's not forget that on 9/11, terrorism came to our shores on this continent," MacKay announced. "We have to be vigilant and very responsible in continuing to play a role [in Afghanistan]."

MacKay is absolutely correct to speak about responsibility in regards to Canada’s contributions to Afghanistan.

In 2005, Canada was joined by other nations in agreeing international organizations shared a collective duty to oppressed and endangered peoples – a Responsibility to Protect.

Chief among the creators of this doctrine is former foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy. Although Axworthy’s support for the Afghanistan mission has always been luke warm at best (he supports the rebuilding of Afghanistan, but opposes fighting the Taliban), Axworthy has recognized that Afghanistan stands, along with Rwanda, East Timor, Darfur and countless other examples, as a historical failure of the international community to intervene in situations that demand intervention.

While it is clearly too late to prevent tragedies in Rwanda and East Timor, it isn’t too late to stem the tide of oppression in Afghanistan. Naturally, however, this is merely a foreign affairs bonus. The war in Afghanistan today remains what it always has been – an effort to stem the threat posed by terrorism.

"[Afghanistan] fell into the hands of international terrorists, drug dealers, warlords and al-Qaida," says Samad. "Do we want Afghanistan to revert and once again become a failed state and become a threat not only to its own people, but to the region and to the world at large?"

Certainly not. This 9/11 anniversary should serve as an opportunity to remember that 9/11 could have been prevented if we had moved on our responsibility to protect – to protect Afghans, protect our allies and protect ourselves – before it was too late.

Most important is this: if the leaders of the western world, including Canada, had sooner recognized the threat posed not only by terrorists (it’s only fair to keep in mind that the hunt for Osama Bin Laden began under Bill Clinton, no matter how many dishonest Republicans insist otherwise), but also by the countries that harbour them, 9/11 likely never would have happened.

Although it is also only fair to admit that the overall effect on history likely never would have changed. NATO would still be in Afghanistan in order to prevent terrorist plots from originating in that country (although a key component of the pretext for war in Iraq would have been absent).

Occasionally having to fight in our defence is the price we pay for enjoying the safety and privilege that our society affords us. Giving other societies (like Afghanistan) the opportunity to embrace them (or, admittedly, choose not to) is a responsibility we owe to the rest of the world.

As Canadians continue to debate the divisive Afghanistan question, and continue to define the Afghanistan mission, this is something that must not be forgotten.

This Weekend in Farce: Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference

"Truth" likely to be in short supply at 9/11 conference

Somewhere in East Vancouver, Kevin Potvin is surely knee-deep in his own glee.

Starting yesterday, and continuing until tomorrow, the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Society is hosting a 9/11 Truth Conference.

Dr. Steven Jones -- pushing the envelope of credulity

Among the speakers at the conference is Doctor Steven Jones, a retired professor from Brigham Young University (an institution owned by the Church of Jesus Christ for Latter-Day Saints -- also known as the Mormons), who will claim that the official 9/11 report cannot explain that collapse of the World Trade Center. Dr Jones, whose specialties include "metal-catalyzed fuision, archaeometry and solar energy", claims the only way to explain how a pair of 110-story skyscrapers could collapse as they did is that they were demolished by pre-set explosive charges, as used by demolitions experts.

According to Dr Jones, the 650 degree celsius temperature generated by the fires from burning jet fuel from the two airliners would have not been enough to melt the steel girders of the two buildings. He also argues that, historically, when such buildings have collapsed (most often as a result of earthquakes) they have always toppled over sideways.

Dr. Jones even claims he can identify microexplosions, where thermite demolition devices are being detonated sequentially as the building collapses.

However, Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" quickly falls into credibility pitfalls. For example, his work is consistently touted as peer-reviewed -- but it was never peer-reviewed by a civil engineer. He is noted to have no experience in building collapse forensics. Even his own university rejected his paper. Dr. Woodruff Miller, BYU's chair of Civil and Environmental Engineering said, "the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Dr. Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims."

Dr. Jones' "peer-reviewed work" was not even peer reviewed by the engineers at his own university. Perhaps there's some sort of "consipracy" at work here, too.

Dr. Jones' claims rely on skepticism regarding the alleged "pancake effect" where the floors fall neatly into each other at freefall speed, as in a professional demolition. For evidence of this, he relies on video footage. Yet, when the video footage is more closely examined, it becomes ovbious that this "pancake effect" never truly occurred. Much of the debris fell faster than the debris cloud, which fell faster still than the building itself. Dr. Jones' primary argument holds no credibility.

Not only are Dr. Jones claims refuted by examining the video footage which he, himself, uses to try to refute the official story, but they are also refuted by virtually every legitimately peer-reviewed study on the subject.

Even then, Dr. Jones' claims suffer from one fatal flaw: demolitions charges need to be set up before they can be used to demolish a building. Yet, no one working in the World Trade Center reported seeing anyone setting up such charges. Not one.

So much for Dr. Jones.

Robin Hordon and the politics of the 9/11 truth movement

Another speaker at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, Robin Hordon, describes himself as a commendated air traffic controller, certified air, ground and facility instructor and designer of the Boston Center Descent and Metering Program. He has worked on numerous in-air emergencies, and two hijackings.

Hordon insists that he knew 9/11 was a "false flag" operation (an attack carried out under the guise of another country or group) hours after. He insists that "there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

Despite the fact that no hijacked plane in the history of the United States has ever been shot down, Hordon does begin to make a persuasive case. He notes that a sophisticated system was in place, prior to June of 2001, that would enable fighter jets to intercept any suspicious airliner within 10-15 minutes of a potential problem.

Yet Hordon's claims over look two very serious issues: firstly, a number of war game exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001, diverting figher jets that otherwise would have been available to intercept the jetliners. Secondly, the FAA was not dealing with one hijacking on 9/11. They were dealing with four largely simultaneous hijackings.

Hordon is actually much more revealling as to his true motivations for his claims when he begins to discuss his political views. "I see September 11th as being a symptom of a far bigger problem. A problem that Dwight David Eisenhower had brought to our attention as he left office in the 1950s when he he warned [the United States] about two significant elements of our economy looming above us: the Military Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Congress. 9/11 served the goals of both those elements."

"That I can show how Rumsfeld's Military reshaped interceptor protocols so that 9/11 could happen without the airliners being shot from the sky, is but a small bit of evidence that is flooding past the Bush regime," Hordon insists.

Yet, Hordon is exaggerating the Pentagon's eagerness to shoot down hijacked airliners, particularly when full of civilians. Despite the 75-150 high-speed scrambles he notes were performed by military aircraft each year in the United States for ten years, not a single plane was ever shot down. Surely, at least one of these 1,500 scrambles would have been related to a plane off course for at least 30-60 minutes.

Finally, there is the matter of shooting down civilian airliners over populated areas, such as New York City. When examined on merely the basis of the procedures in place to deal with hijacked aircraft, Hordon's claims are very persuasive. When compared to the actual situation on 9/11, they don't hold water.

Furthermore, it isn't as if events such as those surrounding Hurricane Katrina don't demonstrate that the proper procedures can fail when human error causes them to be disregarded.

Like any good 9/11 conspiracy theorist, however, Hordon doesn't seem to let facts or even proper analysis get in the way of politics. While shooting down flights 11 and 175 could have prevented the World Trade Center disaster, it still would have resulted in thousands of casualties. The decision to shoot down the planes would have also had to have been made at a time when the applicable authorities couldn't have known the true goal of the hijackers.

Certainly, there is a degree of negligence in the FAA's handling of 9/11. But negligence doesn't demonstrate complicity, and certainly not in the conspiracy that Hordon and his cohorts allege.

In short, Hordon has traded his air traffic controller's hat for that of a base conspiracy theorist, and surrendered his credibility for activist cred. It isn't as good a fit as he'd like to think.

Rowland Morgan - Contradicting the conspiracy

Among one of the most amusing claims about 9/11 is made by British author Rowland Morgan, who will be speaking at the conference as well. Morgan actually claims that a drone Boeing 747, painted with American Airlines colours, was flown into the Pentagon.

This is an especially amusing claim considering that it contradicts one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories, one that insists a missile, not a jetliner, hit the Pentagon.

He, along with his co-author Ian Henshall (who together wrote 9/11 Revealled) make this claim despite the positive identification of all 64 passengers & crew of the downed aircraft.

Rowland will also speak to his claims that United Airlines flight 93 (crashed in Pennsylvania) was actually shot down, as opposed to being accidentally crashed in the process of re-taking the plane from the hijackers. This, despite the number of family members of UA 93 victims who reported that their loved ones had told them of their intention to re-take the plane, and the lack of any confirmation of orders to shoot down the plane.

Remember also that one of Robin Hordon's complaints is the lack of any such order (an absense he feels lends credence to conspiracy theories).

This demonstrates the greatest weakness shared by the entire "9/11 truth movement" -- a myriad of competing, contradictory, and usually far-fetched claims about an event that unfortunately lends itself to shameless sensationalism.


The conference will also feature a collection of social and political commentators, whose area of expertise is related to the consequences of 9/11. This is a much fairer point. There is a litany of concerns shared by citizens of many countries the world over, ranging from US President George W Bush and his War on Terror to the errosion of civil liberties in many countries around the world -- particularly western democracies that are under threat of further attack.

Consider also that an order to shoot down a hijacked airliner is much more likely to be issued today, in the post-9/11 era, than six years ago.

These speakers, such as Ken Fernandez and Connie Fogal, have much more solid ground to stand on. At least they don't need to resort to trying to contradict facts, hide contradictory evidence, or (often) engage in often-vicious anti-semitic rhetoric or counter-factual arguments in order to make their case.

There is a great deal of room to debate the consequences of 9/11. The actual events? Not so much.

The fact is that all too many 9/11 consipracy theorists make it immediately apparent that they don't exactly represent the best and brightest our civilization has to offer. Take, for example, Youtube denizen Dadabase 2006, who posted a video in which he makes the suggestion that people should vote for the embattled Potvin based on his beliefs regarding 9/11 -- essentially turning a Canadian federal election into a referendum on 9/11.

"Dadabase", as well as his bestest-buddy Kevin Potvin, will most certainly be sitting front-and-center throughout this (mostly) perverse conference in Vancouver.

Fortunately, the public at large is more than able to identify these individuals for what they are: politically deranged kooks, looking to distort one of history's greatest tragedies into fodder for their own extreme political views.

In that sense, they really aren't that much different from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his guests at the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Whomever may actually show up to attend their conference, one thing is certain: their minds are made up, and any conclusions drawn from the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference will reflect their predecided conclusions.

An Inconvenient Truth of Kevin Potvin, Elizabeth May

"Benefit of doubt" for 9/11 celebrator

Kevin Potvin, the Green Party’s recently acclaimed candidate for Vancouver-Kingsway, has attracted controversy recently, via an article, ”A Revolting Confession”. Within the article, Potvin refers to an internal attitude he discovered within himself that found the 9/11 attacks “beautiful”, insisting this was a response that many people shared. “Nor was I alone, I know for a fact,” he insists, “whenever I passed a TV or newspaper with a report on the ensuing US war to capture Osama bin Laden, and I secretly said to myself, "Go, Osama, Go!" I am happy he has eluded capture by the Americans. I am in love with those Afghans who, whenever asked, said, "He went that-a-way," and their fifty hands pointed in fifty different directions.”

Potvin has weakly tried to dismiss the article as symbolic. Yet one finds it hard to find the symbolism in rooting for Osama bin Laden. A response published in The Republic, however, is much more telling.

While attempting to invoke Keats, Potvin notes that, on the afternoon of 9/11, “I went home and got out my pad of paper and made notes of everything that I could detect I was feeling. This is one of my journalistic techniques, it’s a form of shorthand. Rather than make notes of speeches at press conferences and other events, I instead pay attention and focus on the speaker, and then afterward make notes of exactly how I feel. Later, when I need to write up the story, I refer to my notes, and by being reminded of my feelings at the time, I remember everything that was said, and what’s more, I retain the meaning.”

In short, Potvin, the “journalist”, doesn’t take any notes or make any records of statements or events. He notes his emotional response, then uses that to remember what happened, or what was said. He also uses this to reconstruct the meaning.

Reconstruct is actually a very appropriate term. The science of psychology tells us that human memory is reconstructive. As such, using emotion as a recognitive tool in the place of any sort of record about what was actually said is a recipe for journalistic disaster. It’s entirely unlikely that mr. Potvin remembers anything as it was said, or as it actually happened. Whether this journalistic technique is an actual form of mental shorthand – as he insists – or if it is simply an excuse to promote his bias within his writing only mr. Potvin will really know for certain.

There are deeper issues here, however, than simply those for Potvin and his publication. There are very deep issues at play for the Green Party itself.

In a blog entry on the Green party website, Elizabeth May reveals that she chose the riding of Central Nova so she could challenge Peter MacKay on the foreign policy portfolio. “By running in Central Nova I will be taking on the Minister of Foreign Affairs, raising the clarity of vision of our international policies versus the “aye, aye, Sir” approach of Mr. Harper,” May insists.

Meanwhile, the Green party website has begun to feature more examples of foreign policy, ranging from the predictable pro-Kyoto stance to “be nice to Iran”.

More so than anything, the Kevin Potvin affair could prove to be the latest in a series of events demonstrating Elizabeth May’s unsuitability as a political leader. As with her recent kowtowing to Stephan Dion ., May risks demonstrating that she cannot ascertain the gravity of her decisions. Even while she sends a crystal-clear message to her party membership that her party will not campaign for a mandate to govern (thus accepting perpetual fringe party status), May has excused Potvin at a time when she wants to run against Peter McKay in Central Nova on the issue of foreign affairs.

A leader who undermines his or her own credibility has no real future in politics – and for obvious reasons. Potvin himself falls prey to this, but mostly through what can only be described as his own hypocrisy.

The masthead for his Republic newspaper reads, “The Republic of East Vancouver supports no party, advocates for no cause, serves no master, and considers problems with no preconceived notions”. Potvin would be able to reconcile this position against his Green Party candidacy if it weren’t for the fact that Potvin has used his publication to vigorously promote his own candidacy. There isn’t necessarily anything wrong this this, but it does break his promise of non-partisanship to his readers.

Furthermore, Potvin’s celebration of 9/11 as an attack on capitalism comes off as disingenuous coming from someone who, as a small business owner, is effectively a capitalist himself.

Furthermore (but not necessarily finally), he dismissed criticism over his comments by saying, “Don't you think the Parliament of Canada requires people that are free thinkers, independent thinkers and people that bring other points of view to the table besides those that are commonly accepted and those that are credentialed by the newspaper columnists?" In short, Potvin, himself a newspaper columnist – if one considers publications such as the Republic to be newspapers – argues that he is a maverick because his views aren’t supported by newspaper columnists. It smacks of an attempt at double-sided populism, and not a very good attempt at that.

Ironically, Preston Manning and the Reform party provided a good demonstration of how to deal with a controversial candidate, also in a Vancouver riding. When Doug Collins, a Vancouver-area radio host who had expressed racially-charged sentiments refused to distance himself from such comments, Manning himself refused to sign Collins’ candidacy. The Collins affair was still used to paint the party as racist, but one can only imagine how much worse this could have been had Collins not been dealt with appropriately.

There is another lesson that the Green party desperately needs to learn from the Reform party – that of not accepting fringe party status. The Reform party always declared its intention to eventually form the government, and as such was able to engineer a fairly meteoric rise to go from having no seats in parliament to being the Official Opposition in only nine years. Having already existed for more than 20 years in Canada, the Green party, particularly under May’s leadership, seems content to accept fringe party status.

This is not the kind of leadership this party needs.