Leona Aglukkaq Gets Her Audition for Foreign Affairs

Aglukkaq dispatched to important arctic conference

With the government in need of a new Minister of Foreign Affairs since Lawrence Cannon suffered a defeat in the 2011 election.

No decision seems to have been made as to who will adopt that particular role. Former Afghan ambassador Chris Alexander is downplaying speculation that has him bound for the job.

Considering the government's assignment of Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq to attend the upcoming Arctic Council summit in Greenland. The summit will make some important decisions for the future of the Arctic Council, inlcuding the role of non-Arctic countries within that council.

Aglukkaq will presumably be working closely with bureaucrats from the Department of Foreign Affairs in order to guide her at the summit. But some so-called "foreign affairs experts" -- namely UBC professor Michael Byers -- are already counting her down.

"It is a big time," Byers declared, but has seemingly jumped to conclusions about Alukkaq's ability to represent Canada at the conference. "She will be out of her depth."

"It's not perfect," Byers admitted. "But in the circumstances, it's not the worst choice."

He noted that, as Inuit, Aglukkaq is at least a sound "symbolic" representative at the conference.

But counting Aglukkaq down is entirely premature. She's proven to be an excellent Minister of Health, and an excellent advocate for Inuit in Ottawa. Given the right advice, and provided the proper guidance, there's no reason whatsoever to believe that Aglukkaq will represent Canada any less than admirably at the Arctic Council Summit.

Byers -- who is a former NDP candidate, and is now watching his party flirt with contention for government -- would likely imagine himself as Canada's representative at the Arctic Council Summit, as Foreign Affairs Minister of an NDP government.

Which tempts one to chalk Michael Byers' attitude up to professional jealousy.

After all, if Leona Aglukkaq does her job at the Summit as splendidly as those familiar with her performance to date expect, she just may end up with the Minister of Foreign Affairs job Michael Byers so clearly and deeply covets.

Different Pictures on Each Side of the Pond

Aleeza Kahn compares Canada and Britain

Writing in The Tyee, British grad student Aleeza Kahn compares how the Prime Minister is elected in Canada and Britain -- in the process causing some serious concern about the future of journalism.

Drawing from the usual shrill voices of the far-left, she manages to offer some cogent and intriguing comparisons between Canada and Britain. She also manages to pass the far-left Kool-Aid largely undiluted.

The first conclusion that Kahn reaches is that in Britain, a federal election is largely a popularity contest.

"In England, we feel the need to like our prime minister," Kahn begins. "You apparently don't."

Kahn presents British Prime Minister David Cameron as too much of a try-hard.

"'Dave,' well he wants to be your friend -- your posh, privileged ex-Etonian friend, but a friend nonetheless -- who shares your beliefs and understands the modern society you both live in," Kahn muses. "This Cameron, the man who cares about his family and is just like you, is a walking, talking PR machine, and a good one at that. But he's too concerned with being liked and is scared of making a fool of himself, known to choose sweeping principles over hard policy."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, on the other hand, is very different; all business, no nonsense.

"This is something that Harper doesn't seem worried about. His policies are strong and his position is firm," Kahn writes. "Maybe this is why, while he may only have the minority rule, he is still proven to be the most successful candidate in recent years. People in Canada don't seem to be put off by his non-PR'ed persona. And to be fair to Harper he's done well to hold on during the global economic crisis, something that Britain's Labour government in power at the time of the crisis had no hope of doing, especially since [Gordon] Brown's persona, even by his own admission, was decidedly charisma deficient."

Of course, an election is not just a popularity contest. If it is merely a popularity contest -- like the one that unfolded in the United States in 2008 -- something has gone deeply wrong.

Many will consider Canada far better off with Harper's strong and sound policy; although if Kahn is writing off David Cameron's policy, she will yet be surprised at how well Cameron continues to do.

Kahn goes on to offer her next conclusion: "In Canada, the prime minister says coalitions are evil," she writes. "In the UK, the prime minister owes his job to one."

This is, of course, pure rubbish. Even in the height of their historical-revisionist furor, individuals like Terry Milewski have only succeeded in demonstrating that Harper does not object to the idea of a coalition itself.

Even if they're being trotted out as "new discoveries" by the national press, Harper has been on the record several times in the past presenting a coalition government as a constitutional option.

What Harper has been on record opposing since 2008 is a little different: an irresponsible coalition government mortgaging the government of Canada to the Bloc Quebecois, a separatist party. Harper has never been on record opposing coalitions. He's on record opposing a very specific coalition.

Even with this in mind, the broadness of the political views presented in Kahn's article is underwhelming. She relies on UBC professor Michael Byers to present an image of Harper as single-mindedly focused on but a sliver of the Canadian population.

"Remember, he's never been the choice of more than 38 per cent of the electorate," Byers declares. "What has enabled him is that the centre left has been divided among four other parties. If this is the case that means the centre-right wing party who can secure 38 per cent will govern. Their campaign policies are directed at a fairly narrow segment of Canadian society."

Of course Byers didn't seem to consider a very basic fundamental fact: 38% of Canadians is not, by any means, a narrow segment of Canadian society. It's in fact a rather broad segment of Canadian society.

The only way Byers can even justify that argument is with Kahn's third conclusion, but unfortunately they won't do any better a job here.

"In Great Britain, candidates want as many people as possible to vote," Kahn concludes. "Not in Canada."

This is where they resort to claims that Harper and the Tories have attempted to discourage people from voting. The evidence they offer? Their word. And their word alone.

"It has been a tactic to focus on turning people off politics," Byers insists. "If you can keep voter turn out down, which is clearly a strategy of Harper's, then you simply need a small but committed base that ensures you can become prime minister."

Byers' evidence? He offers none. Nothing but his own word.

"Right wing parties actually benefit from a depressed voter turnout," Insists University of Victoria professor Dennis Pilon. "The Conservatives are taking a leaf from the Republican playbook, driving people away from the political process by placing barriers in the way of people participating."

What obstacles does Pilon pretend the Conservatives have placed in the way of voters? He declines to name even a single one.

No need for Byers and Pilon to worry, though. Kahn seems to require no evidence from either professor in order to reach the same conclusion. Bias generally works that way.

Kahn sees fit -- quite fittingly -- to conclude her essay on a suitable note: the issue of youth involvement.

"Back in England, younger people are a lot more politically engaged than here in Canada," she concludes.

Kahn presents an image of David Cameron as appealing to young voters. He's in touch with the newest technology, chilling at home in his blue jeans. Meanwhile, the most informal Stephen Harper seems to get is a Christmas card with him holding a kitten.

Fair enough.

The youth vote has certainly been a hotly-debated issue in the federal election, but Kahn's argument doesn't seem to develop past the point that young people should vote -- and they should. A disinterest in the issues seems just as pertinent to why youths aren't voting as a disinterest in the leaders.

Although if blue jeans and whether or not a leader uses Twitter -- and how well -- is what it takes to attract the youth vote, it's fair to question how serious those voters are. For every youth voter creating a thoughtful "to get my vote" video, there are many more who seem more interested in the most recent Charlie Sheen meltdown.

Some may be tempted to give Aleeza Kahn an A for her effort, but while presenting a refreshing comparison between Canada and Britain, Kahn gets very little done in this essay.

This being said, Kahn's work at least presents a key question at all times for Canadians: would we like Canada to be more like Britain? Perhaps so.

Nightmare Scenario: Michael Byers, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Michael Byers perpetually doesn't get it -- regardless of the issue

When Michael Byers ran for election in the riding of Vancouver Centre, it's tough to believe that the fantasy scenario of an NDP government wasn't percolating in the back of his mind.

As an alleged "top expert" on global affairs, Byers certainly must have imagined himself to be a contender to be Minister of Foreign Affairs in such a government.

Few scenarios could even possibly be more nightmarish for Canadians. If Canada ever needed a Jimmy Carter of its very own to screw up foreign policy to the detriment of the safety of Canadian citizens, Byers would fit the bill.

Byers' recent objection to the Conservative government's decision to spend $16 billion purchasing F-35 Lightning II fighter jets -- a brilliant peace of equipment that is actually far more like the Harrier jump jet than the A-10 Lightning which is its namesake -- is indicative of why Byers would be such an utter disaster for Canada.

Not all of his objections are entirely unreasonable. Some of them centre around the idea that another jet -- perhaps the Eurofighter Typhoon, which has outperformed the F-22 Raptor in head-to-head war games -- may have been a better selection.

There's some merit to this. The F-35 is optimized as a ground-support platform capable of holding its own in the air -- but the Canadian air force could stand to also have a dedicated air-to-air platform as well. The Typhoon would fit that need splendidly.

But Byers seems to have an ideologically-skewed sense of what Canada's needs are in the first place. With Canada's fleet of CF-18 Hornets -- which have met Canada's needs admirably -- meeting the end of their operational lifetime, Byers' peacenick roots, and accompanying lack of priorities, can't help but shine through:

"it's not clear that fighter jets should be at the top of Canada's procurement list. The CF-18s were acquired to intercept Soviet bombers during the Cold War; today, Russia is a member of the G8, the Arctic Council, and a soon-to-be member of the WTO. It's largest trading partner is the European Union, which is made up mostly of NATO states.

Canada's most desperate procurement need is for fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft that could be built in Canada by Bombardier."

Canada could always put some fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft to good use at nearly any time.

However, at a time when CF-18s are very literally falling out of the sky at an increasing rate, Byers' suggestion can't help but paint him to be like the Chretien government, cancelling contracts for desperately-needed helicopters to replace Canada's fleet of Sea Kings, which continued to fall out of the sky for several years afterward.

Not to mention this is the same Michael Byers who became indignant after Canada disrupted diplomatic relations with Iran over the handling of the Zahra Kazemi case -- sending a message to Canadians that, if a Canadian citizen being beaten and raped to death in an Iranian prison doesn't warrant a hiccup in diplomatic relations, that a Canadian passport wouldn't mean a hell of a lot in the most corrupt and tyrannical corners of the world.

Fortunately, with the NDP unlikely to get anywhere near Canada's halls of power -- even if they attempt another coalition -- the prospects of Michael Byers becoming Minister of Foreign Affairs are remote enough that Canadians can sleep without the slighest hint of discomfort at the idea.

That's Right, Michael, We Don't Need to Replace the CF-18

Thank you for regaling Canadians with nearly the exact line of thinking that led to a swarth of Sea King helicopter crashes post-1993.

(That, by the way, came from the producer of "we didn't need to disrupt diplomatic relations with Iran over Zahra Kazemi". Just imagine what a Canadian Passport would be good for if Michael Byers ever became Minister of Foreign Affairs.)

Tony Blair: Wanted Dead or Alive

(By George Monbiot)

If former British Prime Minister Tony Blair thought that the Iraq inquiry mas making settling his legacy uncomfortable, he may have no idea just how bad things can be.

George Monbiot recently offered a reward for anyone who successfully manages to place Blair under a citizen's arrest.

Some would interpret this as essentially placing a bounty on a former head of government. Others, like UBC Professor and former NDP candidate Michael Byers, see it differently.

"Speaking within the British context, with the British police being in most instances quite respectful of citizen rights—including in most instances not carrying arms—yes, I think it is a brilliant idea,” Byers said. “I wouldn’t want to recommend someone in another country with less historic respect for citizens’ rights to try this, because the police might react excessively. But certainly in the UK, George Monbiot has thought this out, and the recommendations I think are quite reasonable.”

"I think there is a strong case against Mr. Blair for the crime of aggression,” Byers continued. “The crime of aggression did not make it into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court because of a lack of agreement among negotiating states, but it is still part of customary international law and exists in the statute books of several countries. So yes, without saying definitively that Blair is guilty, there is a case to be answered. Certainly, from a purely legal perspective, he is open to arrest and prosecution.”

Some, of course, disagree with Monbiot's bounty -- he offers up the first 100 pounds stirling out of his own pocket.

Oddly enough, an arrest of Tony Blair would probably be one of the best things for his party. Facing an election in 2010, Gordon Brown must be thinking that Blair would better serve him anywhere but in the election -- even if that means he's standing trial at the Hague.

New Decade, Old Canada?

Brian Lee Crowley predicts a return to Canada's founding values

Four days into 2010, many Canadians are likely growing tired of predictions for the new decade.

But in the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Brian Lee Crowley offers one that Canadian conservatives should find encouraging, and will likely leave Canadian progressives worried indeed.

"Canada stands at a hinge of history," Crowley says. "Many of the things we have regarded as settled about Canada since 1960 will be called into question."

As Crowley opines in Fearful Symmetry, issues of employment have been key to the rise of a progressive character in Canadian politics, and employment will be key to turning the tide. Writing about the notion of "pseudo-work" -- the implementation of what was essentially part-time work as full-time jobs in order to employ individuals that the government was worried the free market couldn't employ -- Crowley predicts the return of labour shortages, and the need to restructure Canadian policy in order to account for a situation in which a large population of pensioneers will need to be cared for by younger Canadians.

Immigration will provide Canada with the opportunity to fill jobs that would otherwise remain vacant, but a lack of suitable immigrants could force economic retraction.

"Every Canadian who wants to work will be able to do so," Crowley predicts. "Growth in the economy will slow because we won’t be able to find enough workers. Unemployment in places like Nova Scotia will be negligible and we will be desperately recruiting new workers wherever we can find them."

Crowley argues that Nova Scotia will be particularly well-positioned to take advantage of the historical opportunity.

"If we reduce the size of government, make our taxes competitive (as New Brunswick has been working hard to do for several years), discourage premature retirement, and make ourselves more welcoming to immigrants, I think that the region will fare quite well, and the image Canadians have in other parts of the country will quickly change."

"If, on the other hand, we refuse to change our own behaviour, wring our hands, claim that the rest of the country must bail us out from the difficult circumstances headed our way, we will not get the benefits that these changes could bring."

What Crowley says about Nova Scotia will apply to all of Canada's Provinces -- including Quebec and Ontario.

Crowley's words should also temper many of the Canadians who continually provoke hostility toward the United States as an ideological ploy. He suggests that the differences between the founding values of the United States are not so different from the founding values of Canada.

"We have been sold a bill of goods about the nature of the differences," he says. "For our first century, Canada as a society was more committed than America to the ideals of personal freedom and individual responsibility."

If Crowley's prediction comes true, it will end the days in which left-wing ideologues believes they could treat conservative Canadians as if they were less Canadian. Some ideologues like Michael Byers have suggested drastic action in the present to prevent such a re-transformation from manifesting electorally.

"Most Canadians will feel vindicated and encouraged that the things they have believed in all these years in fact have an impeccable Canadian pedigree," he explains. "Returning to those values will make us more Canadian, not less."

The very notion of that could prove to be a nightmare for Canada's varying left-wing demagogues.

Michael Byers: Nutty Professer or Nuttiest Professor?

Byers would be a disaster for Canada

Nearly two weeks ago, Michael Byers fired an ideological shot across the bow of reality.

In an op/ed article published in the Toronto Star, Byers proposed that the Liberal party and NDP combine their efforts to block a Conservative majority government -- by delivering a majority Liberal government.

(This despite the fact that the last thing the NDP wants is a Liberal majority government.)

Byers' piece was widely mocked by those who recognized how unfeasible, politically selfish, and (frankly) stupid it is. It was widely applauded by ideologues willing to overlook these shortcomings.

The Ottawa Citizen's Leonard Stern has since offered one of the better responses to Byers' article:

"Byers is an eminent political scientist in Vancouver (and an occasional contributor to the Citizen's opinion pages). He's well known as an academic-activist, who situates himself firmly on the Canadian left. No pretense of scholarly objectivity from Byers, at least not in his role as public intellectual. In the last federal election he ran — and lost — for the NDP in the riding of Vancouver Centre."

Stern chalks the vehemence of Byers' opposition to Harper up to a Derangement Syndrome:

"Many leftist intellectuals despise Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in no small part because they see him as a traitor to the educated class. Harper — who has a graduate degree in economics — has never identified with the liberal elites who traditionally dominate political life in the major urban centres of Canada. It's one thing to be a conservative if you just got off the turnip truck — liberals can tolerate and even expect that. But a clever, policy-wonkish conservative like Stephen Harper represents a serious threat to the received order. Harper's electoral success drives leftist intellectuals such as Byers dangerously close to madness.

Byers is so disoriented by the prospect of further Conservative victories that he is proposing a radical subversion of democracy. Byers wants the NDP and Liberal parties to collude, whereby they'd agree not to run candidates against each other in the next federal election. He outlined his idea in this op-ed in the Toronto Star. In every single riding across the country, either the Liberals or NDP would agree to not run a candidate, based on which party fared worse in the last election. This is necessary, he says, in order 'to prevent a Harper majority.'"

When Byers' article quickly faded from the public imagination, one would expect that Byers would reconsider his ideas. But, as Stern points out, Byers is as stubborn as any ideologue:

"In a CBC interview Sunday, Byers went on about how a Conservative majority would be a tragedy for Canada. Basically apocalyptic. The end of our country as we know it, he seems to think."

The "disaster for Canada" argument was trotted out repeatedly by ideologues of Byers' ilk long before Stephen Harper ever became Prime Minister. But it's obvious that fewer and fewer Canadians share the opinion of Byers and his fellow fearmongers.

But it's even more interesting to look back at some of Byers' ideas and appraise who would really be a "disaster for Canada".

In a New Year's Day 2008 op/ed column, Byers denounced Harper for -- amongst other things -- recalling Canada's ambassador to Iran and interrupting diplomatic relations with that country.

What Byers failed to mention that Harper recalled the ambassador as a protest over Iran's handling of the Zahra Kazemi case.

Byers is often promoted as a foreign policy expert, and if the NDP were ever able to win government -- either as a majority or minority -- one would have to consider Michael Byers to be a candidate for Minister of Foreign Affairs.

The notion of a Foreign Affairs Minister who believes that foreign countries should be able to beat and rape Canadian citizens to death without so much as a diplomatic hiccup between the two countries is largely self-explanatory. It would lead to oppressive countries -- like Iran -- believing they can do absolutely anything they feel like to Canadian citizens with impunity.

Michael Byers can white and cry about the "disaster" that is Stephen Harper to his heart's content. Canadians who have familiarized themselves with Byers' ideas know who the real disaster for Canada would be.

It's the professor nutty enough to believe that the government should interact unblinkingly with countries who abuse Canadian citizens.

You Can Just Feel That Desperation Mounting

Michael Byers really, really wants that coalition

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party's polling numbers steadily climbing and the Tories even making inroads into Toronto, some of Canada's left-wing ideologues seem to be reaching for the panic button.

For Michael Byers, that panic button is a coalition government.

Writing in an op/ed in the Toronto Star, Byers insists that a Liberal-NDP electoral coalition could put Canada's "centre-left majority in political control". He starts off by insisting that Michael Ignatieff's current difficulties are not his own fault:

"Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points.

The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas."

Of course, in Byers' mind, things like the Sponsorship Scandal -- a product of the Liberal party's arrogant belief that they are the only party worthy to govern Canada -- haven't affected Canadians' respect for politicians one little bit.

Indeed, everything is Stephen Harper's fault.

And it's on this particular note that Byers falls back to what has become his signature argument: Stephen Harper must be defeated, no matter what:

"There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign."

In order to do this, Byers insists that the Liberals and NDP should embrace a proposal Preston Manning, as leader of the Reform Party, tried and failed to pitch to the Progressive Conservative party: an electoral coalition:

"In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one.

Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government."

But the notion that Michael Byers thinks that left-of-centre Canadians would want the Liberal party to win a majority government during a time of economic recession demonstrates that he has a very, very short memory indeed.

When the Jean Chretien Liberals came to power in 1993, many left-of-centre Canadians believed their time had arrived. They believed the Liberals would decline to ratify NAFTA, and that Lloyd Axworthy's social services review would revamp Canada's social programs.

What actually happened was entirely different.

Then-Finance Minister Paul Martin slashed federal funding to health care and education, and downloaded federal deficit to the provinces by cutting transfer payments.

This is Byers at the height of his naivete, and in the depths of his lack of imagination, and it clearly shows.

Byers has even accounted for the Bloc Quebecois in his calculations:

"Based solely on the results from October 2008, the agreement would, in itself, deliver 30 to 40 additional seats to the Liberals and another five to 10 seats to the NDP.

The Bloc Québécois would not be part of the deal but could be expected to win around 40 seats in total."

But while what Byers is proposing is very clearly an electoral coalition, he refuses to simply admit it.

Moreover, Byers clearly has no idea how such an arrangement could actually be made to work:

"Importantly, what is proposed is not a coalition, but a one-time ceasefire between two opposition parties whose combined vote share last time was significantly higher (44.4 per cent versus 37.6 per cent) than the Conservatives.

No effort would be made to coordinate platforms, though the absence of debilitating head-to-head races between Liberals and New Democrats would direct both parties' attention onto the Conservatives.

Nor would the agreement extend to post-election power sharing. If the Liberals were in a position to form a minority government, they would be free to seek support from any of the other parties – including the Conservatives."

Byers seems to have made the assumption that every NDP voter would shift their votes to the Liberals in the absence of an NDP candidate and that every Liberal voter would shift their votes to the NDP in the absence of a Liberal candidate.

Yet the experience of the post-merger Conservative party should be illustrative for Byers. The Conservative party has never attained the total vote total of the PC and Canadian Alliance Parties.

With literally no idea what they're voting for, Byers has no business assuming that Canadians will flock en masse to whatever party an electoral coalition agreement believes they should.

Byers seems to think that voting against Stephen Harper is enough to ensure a landslide vote for the Liberals and NDP under such an agreement. But Byers is so blinded by his disdain for Harper that he thinks the promise that Canadians would never have to consider the possibility of a Conservative government would be enough to ensure its success:

"The only post-election condition in the agreement should be an unqualified public commitment to holding a national referendum on proportional representation within the first year.

The commitment would include the provision of sufficient public funding to ensure in-depth discussion and widespread knowledge of the arguments both for and against the proposed change.

Proportional representation would produce a much fairer allocation of seats than our current first-past-the-post system and boost voter turnout and political engagement by making every vote count.

Many New Democrats might wish to make the immediate introduction of proportional representation a condition of the ceasefire agreement, since a referendum might not produce the desired result."

So Michael Byers, at a time when Harper's poll numbers continue to climb, and that the public outrage that Byers insists should be fulminating over ever single one of Harper's acts fails to coalesce, thinks that the idea of permanently preventing any Conservative from governing the country will be enough to ensure he and his fellow left-wing ideologues success.

It is the height of desperation and naivete. Byers is so distressed by the notion that Canadians may turn away from his ideology that he would demand a permanent ideological lock on the power of the nation.

At least he understands that proprotional representation itself could prove to be a deal-breaker for his glorious coalition:

"However, such an approach would enable the Prime Minister to make proportional representation the principal issue in the campaign, instead of his record and the alternative policies offered by the other parties.

A ceasefire agreement would likely be opposed by some insiders, in both parties, who benefit from the existing system. It would certainly inconvenience some candidates who have already been nominated, and would have to stand down. Most, however, would probably accept that larger, more important interests are in play."

It would also likely be opposed by individuals in the NDP -- the party Byers belongs to, by the way -- who don't think the NDP should simply roll over and hand government -- and especially not a majority government -- to the Liberal party.

Byers even sees a role for the Green Party in the coalition:

"The ceasefire agreement, once struck, could be expanded to include the Green party, which has always sought proportional representation and would benefit substantially from it.

The Greens obtained nearly 1 million votes (6.8 per cent) but no parliamentary representation in the last election. They finished second in five races, though the party's only realistic chance of winning a seat in the next election is in the B.C. riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, where Elizabeth May is running and the Liberal finished second to the Conservative last time.

An arrangement could be made to rectify this lack of representation by giving all five second-place Greens a clear run in the next election, with May having that opportunity in her new riding – in return for the Green party withdrawing its candidates from every other race."

And once again, Byers is assuming that right-leaning Liberals won't simply vote for the Conservatives long before they ever vote Green.

The obtuse naivete is absolutely astounding.

"The chances of the Liberals forming government appear to have slipped away. The future of the country is in the balance. Whether we like it or not, the parties of the progressive centre have reached a decision point.

Will we let an outdated electoral system deliver a majority Conservative government on the basis of the preferences of less than 40 per cent of voters – and less than 25 per cent of those Canadians who are eligible to vote?

Or will we seize the moment, pull together, and put the country back on course?"

For Michael Byers, naturally, putting the country "back on course" means steering it on a left-wing ideological course and then smashing the navigating wheel.

Moreover, he's absolutely desperate to do it before more and more Canadians turn away from that course.

It's the ultimate act of desperation, naivete, and political selfishness. Sadly, that's become absolutely characteristic of Byers.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Dr Roy Eappen - "Desperate Times"

Gerry Nicholls - "Democracy is About Ideas, Not Just Tactics"

Kyle Selms - "Liberals and NDP Tag Team - A Reboot of Politics and Government"

Emily Dee - "A Great Idea to Fight Neo-Conservatism and Restore Democracy in Canada"

Michael Ignatieff: The Say Anything Liberal

Ignatieff makes misleading statements regarding Maher Arar

One sad trait that has become common of many politicians is the tendency to say anything to get elected.

In Canada, many people feel that politicians from the Liberal party are especially prone to this unfortunate affliction. After comments recently made by Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, this will likely become a more popular assessment of him.

Speaking to The Observer in September, Ignatieff suggested that Canada sent Arar to Syria to be tortured.

"Canada sent Maher Arar to Syria, and a court found that he had been subjected to extraordinary rendition, that his claims [of torture] were true and that he had delivered no intelligence to anybody," Ignatieff fumed. "It was a disgrace. So, we don't do it. Ever. Period. Off the table. We don't get other people to do our dirty work for us, and we don't do dirty work ever."

Those actually familiar with the Arar case will immediately recognize the problem with Ignatieff's statements. The problem is that they are categorically false.

Arar was not sent to Syria by Canada. In fact, Arar was sent to Syria by the United States as an act of "extraordinary rendition". They were, however, acting under false intelligence passed along by the RCMP.

Furthermore, no court of law has ever issued findings of fact in regards to Arar's case.

Ignatieff was making the statement in an effort to sweep away questions about The Lesser Evil, a book in which Ignatieff wrote on the topic of torture.

The essential theme of the book is torture as a moral evil. Ignatieff famously suggests that the western world may have to deal in evil in order to defeat the evil of terrorism, although Ignatieff noted the importance of understanding that torture is evil.

Ignatieff also seems to suggest that torture could be considered permissable if it were formally legalized.

Unsurprisingly, the controversy surrounding those comments has followed him ever since his entry into federal politics.

As Michael Byers notes, the Arar affair is a matter on which Ignatieff ought to be knowledgable enough to not make the kind of mistakes he's made in this case. "For him to get the facts wrong on the highest profile case of torture involving a Canadian citizen is deeply worrying," Byers said. "It suggests a certain lack of attention to detail, and perhaps even concern, on a matter that was engaging the Canadian public, a commission of inquiry, and courts in both Canada and the United States at the very same time that he was expressing opinions on torture in The New York Times."

Ignatieff indeed ought to full well know better about the Maher Arar case. On top of the flagrant errors made in his comments on the matter, there's one other thing that Ignatieff ought to have known.

When the United States deported Arar to Syria, the party that he now leads was in power, and governed during the entire time Arar was being held without charge in Syria.


Other bloggers writing about this:

Canadian Sentinel - "TS: Ignatieff Wrong Re Arar"

Victor Wong - "So, Did the Liberals Want Maher Arar Tortured, Mr Waffle?"

Hatrock's Cave - "Iggy the Wrong on Maher Arar"

The NDP By Any Other Name...

...Is still the NDP

As the New Democratic party meets for its national convention in Halifax, many within the party are looking to this convention as a historic turning point for their party.

In a column appearing on The Mark, Layton points to recent provincial electoral victories by the Gary Doer-led Manitoba NDP and the Darrell Dexter-led Nova Scotia NDP as reason for optimism.

"Premier Dexter’s victory is an inspiration to New Democrats from Halifax Harbour to Vancouver Bay. But the road to victory in Nova Scotia – just like Premier Doer’s in Manitoba – was long," Layton writes. "They built slowly with good candidates, sound new policies, and focused discipline. Critics often said they had no chance of winning. They say the same thing about federal New Democrats."

Layton insists that the NDP is pursuing a policy of incremental growth, and that it's incremental growth that will eventually help deliver his party to victory.

It would seem obvious to suggest that a plan stressing incremental growth could be measured by how incrementally the party grows.

As Dan Arnold reveals in a National Post Full Comment blog post, to some it would seem that the NDP has grown very little beyond its days as a far-left socialist party, if one were to judge by some of the resolutions being considered at the convention.

Among these are resolutions to decriminalize recreational drug use, subject banks and insurance companies to "democratic management", guarantee domestic supply and management of energy, repeal the Clarity Act, and institute measures to ensure the media represents the public interest.

In other words, resolutions to decriminalize drugs, nationalize banks and oil companies, regulate the media and repeal the one piece of Canadian legislation that prevents the Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois from conducting a sovereignty referendum under deceptive terms.

It isn't very far from the NDP platform as established in the 1960s, let alone the NDP platform established in the 1990s. In other words, if this party is planning to change incrementally, many Canadians are still waiting to see the first change.

Among these "incremental changes" being promised by Jack Layton, the party is also considering a major one -- dropping the word "New" from the party name, and becoming simply Canada's Democratic party.

Michael Byers describes the proposed name change as "part of a larger revitalization project that focuses on developing cutting-edge progressive policies, engaging youth and minority communities, and strengthening the party's organizational capacity."

Yet as Byers himself later alludes, the name change seems to play much more into Jack Layton's fantasies of being a Barack Obama-esque figure in Canadian politics.

"New Democrats have found particular inspiration in Barack Obama's campaign, first for the US Democratic nomination, and then for the presidency itself," Byers writes. "There are significant similarities between the NDP and the Democratic party. Both work with labour unions and social activist groups that operate in both countries."

Yet Byers overlooks the fact that, while the NDP has bred hostility to conservatives into their party, the Democrats have made use of conservatives whenever it benefits them to do so. The increasing prominence of the Blue Dog coalition -- conservatives who ran as Democrats in electoral districts where Republican incumbents were vulnerable -- puts the lie to Byers' proposed thesis of the Democratic party as an ideological construct.

While the Democratic party has been unashamed to pursue fiscal conservatism, diluted social conservatism, and unembarrassed to embrace religion, the NDP considers all of these things to be anathema.

Unlike the American Democratic party, the NDP very much is an ideological construct. If Michael Byers thinks a surplus of Canadians will be fooled by a name change, he will likely find himself sadly disappointed.

Layton insists that "new policies fuel the work of our team in Ottawa."

Yet it seems that, during a national convention that is being portrayed as a turning point for the party, no new policies are on offer. On the contrary, it seems that the only policies on offer are the same old unelectable ideological drivel, while the only "incremental change" that is really on offer is an ill-fitting name change.


Other bloggers writing about this topic:

Walker Morrow - "The NDP in a Nutshell"

Michael Ignatieff Gets It

Michael Byers probably never will

As the world is momentarily distracted from the events occuring in Iran by the death of Michael Jackson, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff took some time to address a rally in support of the Iranian protesters and protesting the Iranian theocracy's treatment of them.

"The Iranian regime did not anticipate you," Ignatieff told the assembled crowd.

"They thought they could suppress democratic rights and bully, beat and intimidate the people of Iran and the world would not care, the world would not watch," he continued. "They did not anticipate you."

"I'm proud of Canadians who understand that when others cannot stand up we must stand up for them, and when they cannot speak we have to speak for them."

"Canada has known for a long time this was a regime with which we could not have normal relations," Ignatieff announced.

"This is a regime that allowed Zahra Kazemi to be beaten to death in prison. This is a regime that has denied the reality of the Holocaust, that's attempted to develop nuclear weapons, Long before the election we knew this was a regime with which we could not have normal relations."

Ignatieff spoke volumes about the wisdom of Canadians. Indeed, Canadians have long known that we cannot afford our full respect to the Iranian regime.

Well, not all Canadians know this. University of British Columbia Political Scientist and erstwhile NDP candidate Michael Byers doesn't know this.

Some may recall Byers' January 1, 2008 op/ed article in the Toronto Star, in which he criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for recalling Canada's ambassador to Iran.

The reason for the recall was Iran's incredibly malfeasant handling of the Kazemi case. Zahra Kazemi, as many Canadians will recall, as a Canadian-Iranian dual citizen who was beaten and raped to death in an Iranian prison for the grievous crime of photographing a political protest.

Michael Ignatieff gets it. He knows that Canada cannot have a regular diplomatic relationship with this country.

But Michael Byers doesn't. Michael Byers believes Iran should be able to rape and beat Canadian citizens to death, develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of threatening its neighbours, hold Holocaust denial conferences, whip homosexuals while insisting they don't exist, and brutally stamp out political dissent without so much as a hiccup in diplomatic relations between our two countries.

Michael Ignatieff knows better. Michael Ignatieff gets it. Michael Byers probably never will.

Canada Shifts Course on Piracy

But will Michael Byers finally be happy about it?

Speaking on a controversy dealing with Canadian handling of pirates captured off the coast of Somalia, Defense Minister Peter MacKay has announced that Canada is in negotiations with Kenya to secure an agreement that would allow Canadian sailors to turn captured pirates over to a tribunal in Kenya for trial.

Previously, Canada had been disarming captured pirates before releasing them.

Questions had been raised over how seriously Canadian forces take piracy in that region. MacKay stated in unequivocal terms how seriously Canada takes this.

"Let's be clear — this is financial terrorism," MacKay announced. "This is not unlike acts of terrorism that we see in other parts of the world, whether it be kidnappings, whether it be issues related to fanaticism and extremism in places like Afghanistan."

One would wonder how Michael Byers would react to this news. Byers had previously denounced the government policy on piracy as "ludicrous".

"Its ludicrous for the Harper government to claim that it can't arrest and prosecute pirates,” Byers said. “Canada has a legal obligation under the United Nations and international law to bring pirates to justice.”

“The more interesting question is whether we have the authority to release,” Byers insisted.

But one may think back to Byers' stance on another issue -- the alleged torture of Taliban militants by Afghan authorities -- and realize that Byers' attitude toward this issue is actually rather hazardous.

Byers had denounced Canadian troops turning prisoners of war over to Afghan authorities as illegal in the wake of allegations that some of them had been tortured (the Al Qaeda training manual instructs captives to falsely claim they had been tortured, but that's another matter).

One would wonder how Byers would react if Canadian sailors turned captured pirates over to Kenyan authorities who tortured them. Kenya, like Afghanistan, has a history of torturing prisoners.

In fact, negotiating a deal with Kenya similar to the one negotiated with Afghanistan in the wake of torture allegations is actually the right thing to do.

Canadian officials should retain access to any prisoners turned over to any other state so we may ensure that they aren't being tortured. While some claims of torture will naturally lack credibility -- those of aforementioned Taliban or Al Qaeda militants -- they all must be investigated fully. Canada cannot allow itself to be willingly complicit in torture.

However Byers would have reacted to the torture of Somalian pirates by Kenyan officials, one would have to imagine that he wouldn't have reacted favourably. Moreover, one can assume he would have blamed the Harper government for that torture.

Fortunately for Byers, nothing of the like has come to pass. Considering that it's been his stance that Canada must seek the prosecution of captured pirates, he would have been complicit in that torture.

Michael Byers Shows Uncharacteristic Grit

Tough stance on piracy out of step for Byers

Michael Byers either really doesn't like pirates or really doesn't like Stephen Harper.

Despite having previously made comments that seemed to portray Somali pirates as victims, Byers has recently made some comments that suggest he favours taking a much tougher approach to piracy.

Then again, it may not be the priacy that necessarily bothers Byers.

Byers' comments come after news that the Canadian navy is releasing Somali pirates because the Canadian government feels it doesn't have the authority to prosecute them.

"Its ludicrous for the Harper government to claim that it can't arrest and prosecute pirates,” Byers fumes. “Canada has a legal obligation under the United Nations and international law to bring pirates to justice.”

One does wonder how Byers would have the government weigh this obligation against its obligations to UN-sanctioned state building efforts in Afghanistan -- which involves a war against the Taliban that Michael Byers opposes. But that is off topic.

“Catch and release only encourages pirates to grow bigger and bolder,” says Byers, although he notes that prosecuting teenage pirates doesn't help the issue. He doesn't suggest releasing them -- and in fact doesn't seem to have much to say on how to deal with teenaged pirates.

Byers is certainly right about catch and release, and about the Canadian government's ability to turn captured pirates over to an international tribunal established in Kenya.

But considering Byers' earlier take on piracy and his constant take on the Harper government -- that absolutely nothing the Harper government does can be allowed to seem tolerable -- one has to wonder how much of Byers' recent take on the issue has to do with piracy and how much of it has to do with a simple opportunity to denounce the Harper Conservatives yet again.

At this point it's hard to tell with Michael Byers.

The Puzzle of Foreign Intervention

Michael Byers' simplistic views on foreign intervention rears its head again

Running in the 2008 federal election as a foreign policy expert for a party that continues to hold ambitions of governing Canada, there's little question that Michael Byers has ambitions of being Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs.

It's in the revelation of these ambitions that Byers' simplistic views on foreign policy become so alarming.

In an article published in the Winnipeg Sun, Byers speaks about the issue of Piracy in Somalia, insisting that the end of humanitarian efforts in Somalia has led to a desperate situation which contributes to the increases in piracy.

"The Somali people are desperate for survival, plus they have a vendetta against the developed world which sails off the country's waters and seems to have ignored for too long the problems of the disadvantaged country, leaving millions to their fate and premature deaths," says Byers.

"Partly it's symptomatic of failed states and lawless coastal zones that exist in some parts of the world, and in part the failure of political will on the part of western states to expend the resources and sometimes the military personnel necessary to do the hard work of rebuilding hard states," he continues. "When we abandon countries like Somalia, we will eventually pay a price."

Byers' words tend to ring rather hollow when one considers that he's one of many activists who insists that the western world should abandon Afghanistan, equally a case study in the international peril of ceding state to regimes that foment internal instability and don't respect international law.

But even beyond that, Byers seems to overlook the devil in the details.

For one thing, the humanitarian mission in Somalia had a troubled history. This in part began when the Red Cross refused military escorts in Somalia.

The vulnerability of aid organizations in Somalia has led to a history of them being treated as easy targets by armed bandits in the country. Both the Red Cross and Red Crescent have been the subject of attack in Somalia.

Clearly aid organizations cannot operate in Somalia without armed protection. Somalia was the first example of such a dangerous operation, one that has led to the more muscular and aggressive peacekeeping model and has led to the demise of the Pearsonian model of peacekeeping -- a demise that has left many individuals like Byers evidently confused.

Those familiar with the Somalia peacekeeping mission are well aware that a United States-led, UN-sanctioned task force had to first forcibly establish peace in Somalia before a peacekeeping mission could really begin. When American forces were ambushed in Mogadishu it became obvious that the peace was fragile at best.

The general security environment in Somalia has even led to organizations like the Red Cross rearming, carrying their own armed security with them -- in a war zone this is an act that certainly carries the risk of being mistaken for combatants.

In order for aid missions to be able to safely operate in countries like Somalia requires a muscular and aggressive peacemaking mission to subdue beligerents and enforce peace through armed force afteward. This is precisely the kind of mission that "peace" activists like Michael Byers -- who have demonstrated an awfully bizarre notion of what peace is and is not -- have tended to oppose in recent years.

If Michael Byers expects aid missions in countries like Somalia to continue, he must support providing a safe environment for those missions to operate. By necessity, this means that Byers will have to re-think his attitudes on foreign intervention, and the ideology he has allowed to dominantly influence them.

You Know You're In Trouble When...

You're a left-wing prof whose students are sick of you

Even if the conclusions he sometimes draws are extremely dubious, one can very well assume that Michael Byers' position at the University of British Columbia is fairly safe.

But even if he wasn't worn out his welcome with the faculty or administration at UBC, apparently Byers has worn out his welcome with the editorial staff of the University newspaper, the Ubyessy:

"Last week, UBC political science professor, failed NDP Candidate, and media gadfly Michael Byers went on a hunger strike as part of the 2010 Homelessness Hunger Strike Relay. When we heard the news, virtually every member of The Ubyssey editorial staff winced. And not just because it was a self-serving media stunt that reeked of martyrdom and did little to serve the actual cause of homelessness. Since he arrived on campus in 2004, we’ve seen, heard, and written more about Byers than is merited given his accomplishments—how­ever impressive they might be. He’s written many a book, comes off as incredibly thoughtful in interviews, and people who take his classes generally have nice things to say. That’s the case with a lot of academics though—and we don’t see many thrusting themselves into the public spotlight with the gusto Byers does.

But Byers isn’t an academic at this point; he’s a politician. He ran for the NDP last election, he plans to run again for them in the next election and he’s ready to criticize the Harper government about anything at the drop of a dime. Except he—and reporters who use him for his good quotes and pretty face—still refer to him as an “in­ternational law expert,” even when he’s talking about the Olympics, the economic crisis, or any other subject that has nothing to do with international law. An academic imparts his learned knowledge on an issue, and a politicians promotes himself and his particular views. With Byers, the line is certainly blurred. At this point, whenever he publicly promotes a cause, it’s difficult to tell: is he promoting an important issue, or is he promoting Michael Byers and the NDP?
We know that even though his actual job is a UBC professor, UBC students aren’t exactly his first priority. After all, this past semester plenty of graduate students signed up for his class on global politics, but when they got to their first class, he told them that due to the upcoming election the class would be cancelled. He then proceeded to tell them why he was running, why students should vote for him, and, by the way, if anyone wanted to volunteer for him, that would be super awesome. Not exactly a humble display from the socially conscious professor.

All of which has led us to conclude the following: we’re tired of Byers; tired of talking about him, tired of hearing about him, and tired of his pseudo-self promotion. Michael Byers, we’re taking a cue from Stephen Colbert: you’re on notice."

Ouch.

One would have to think that this isn't exactly the kind of treatment Byers would want from the Ubyessy.

But it's interesting to note the distinction the newspaper has made in this particular case: Byers is no longer an academic, according to the Ubyessy editors. He's now a politician.

Certainly, Byers is not alone in this regard. University of Calgary professor Tom Flanagan has taken leaves of absence to work as a strategist for the Conservative party -- including during the 2008 federal election alluded to in this editorial. Flanagan, like Byers, hasn't been shy about his political views either.

The Ubyessy editorial raises an interesting question: should seeking a political career preclude an individual from continuing to work as an academic?

Some may be tempted to say "yes" to this question. But those who would do so need to consider the obvious implications of such an answer. Many academics take leaves of absence from their universities or think tanks in order to run in elections. If they were to be precluded from doing so the ranks of potential political candidates would shrink dramatically.

It would also deprive our political system of vast quantities of expertise on a variety of topics, including Byers' purported area of expertise, international law.

Certainly, this doesn't make Byers any less insufferable. Nor does it make Tom Flanagan any less insufferable to those who disagree with him.

But the Ubyessy editors would be very amiss if they were to suggest that academics should be denied the opportunity to run for politican office, even if it means they might become -- gasp! -- politicians.

Fortunately, they don't really try to argue that particular point.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

The Canada-Afghanistan Blog - "Check and Mate"

Small Favours

Big questions at root of Khadr issue

With Barack Obama set to come into office in one week, one should be less than shocked that leaders around the world -- including in Canada -- are lining up to do him favours.

Case in point: with Omar Khadr's trial in the United States slated to begin on January 26, Liberal Senator Romeo Dallaire is eager to see Canada take Khadr off of the new President's hands. In fact, Dallaire insists, it would be doing Obama a favour.

"If we take Omar Khadr back, we take one of his problems away. We alleviate a situation for him where he doesn't have to look at a case of a Canadian child soldier being prosecuted in a process that is considered to be inappropriate, if even legal in international law," Dallaire announced. "So I think the opportunity is there to assist the new president in moving down the road of human rights and applying the international conventions like the Geneva convention."

Feeling that he's exhausted his options within the Canadian political system to bring Khadr back to Canada, Dallaire has taken his show on the road to Washington, DC, where he directly lobbied the American government to deport Khadr.

For his own part, Michael Byers seems to believe that Obama is eager to be rid of Khadr, but that political interference north of the border is preventing it.

"The Obama team may be discovering that the reluctance on the part of certain allies to take Guantanamo detainees is actually causing some delay in their plans," Byers noted. "Obviously, one of those allies who could and should be helping the Obama team is Canada, in terms of requesting and accepting the repatriation of Omar Khadr."

But while Dallaire insists that judicial proceedings are inappropriate against Khadr -- who he quite accurately describes as a child soldier -- Byers quite properly notes that Khadr should undergo a psychological evaluation upon his return to Canada. The question to be decided by that evaulation, according to Byers, is whether or not judicial proceedings are appropriate.

But whether Dallaire likes it or not -- and the reasons why he doesn't like it are understandable, valid and even commendable -- this is an important question to answer. And whether or not Byers likes it -- and his reasons for not liking it would be perfectly valid as well -- there remains a possibility that the United States would prefer that this question be answered in one of their courts.

The question could turn out to be pivotal in the war on terror: whether individuals such as Khadr should be treated as child soldiers, criminals, or as prisoners of war.

The implications of each are fairly obvious. If Khadr is treated as a child soldier, the proper course of action is to keep Khadr in custody while giving him psychiatric care and counselling. If Khadr is treated as a terrorist, he will fall into a very nebulous area of international and criminal law. Whether terrorism suspects should be treated as criminals or prisoners of war has never been absolutely clear because it has never been clear if terrorism is better treated as a crime or as an act of war.

At stake could be the issue of whether or not individuals like Khadr could, in future, be treated as assets in future terrorism investigations and how far investigators -- be they law enforcement or military intelligence officials -- can go in regards to interrogation.

It also has obvious implications for the kinds of rights that individuals such as Khadr would have under each circumstance. As child soldiers, individuals such as Khadr have the right to treatment and, eventually, freedom. As criminals, they would have the right to a speedy trial. As prisoners of war they would enjoy the full protections of the Geneva Convention.

What is absolutely clear is that the legal definition of "enemy combatants" will no longer cut it. While those in favour of prosecuting the war on terror under the most vigilant pretences certainly loathe to admit it, the detention of such individuals in full denial of any rights whatsoever is as contrary to international law as it gets.

Even Obama himself -- with his own keen interest in the war on terror -- may prefer that the answer to this question be decided in American, rather than Canadian, courts.

If Canada accepting Khadr is a favour to Obama, it's certainly a small one. Considering some of the larger questions at play in the matter, it may also be a favour too small for Obama to accept.




Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Mike Oldham - "Omar Khadr"

The City Gal - "Senator Romeo Dallaire on Khadr"

Archiblog - "Obama's Flip Flop and Child Soldiers

Not Nearly So Simple

After Khadr comes back to Canada, what's next?

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.


Other bloggers writing on this topic:

Connie Crosby - "Continuing Efforts to Bring Omar Khadr Home"

Toni Inst - "A Child Soldier or Just a Child?"

Intent For a Democracy

Byers misunderstands democracy

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.

Quelle Fuckin' Suprise!

Could this have anything to do with this?

Some times, the conclusion of a big election can put a few things in perspective.

For example, Michael Byers seems to have had a change of heart regarding the United States. Byers, who typically doesn't like Americans very much, suddenly seems to think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper should re-connect with the United States.

A week ago today, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix reported on an address Byers delivered at the Canada Trade Summit in Saskatoon.

"On a formal level, Mr Obama needs to receive an invitation to Ottawa ASAP, and also an expressed willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to travel to Washington, again on a formal level, as soon as possible," Byers remarked. "I would want to see Canadian diplomats reaching out to members of Mr Obama's team within a few weeks of the election result."

Naturally, that wouldn't have happened if John McCain had won the election. But now that Obama has officially emerged victorious, one can only hope, like Byers, that it would happen soon.

But one would have to wonder what Byers would be suggesting if George W Bush were winning a third term.

...Oh, yeah. Byers doesn't like Bush very much.

One can only wonder if Byers would be so eager to see a renewal of relations between the United States and Canada if John McCain had somehow won this election.

Byers' known antipathy to the United States doesn't, however, change the fact that he's correct -- if only incidentally. Barack Obama's Presidency is a crucial opportunity to redefine relations between the United States and Canada.

It seems that the federal government seems to have recognized this as well. And not merely the bureaucracy, either: it seems the Conservative party is eager to get down to work with Obama.

"Most [of us] are leaning towards Obama," one unidentified Conservative staffer told CTV. "But still the general overall thought, I think for us, is that either [one] is better than George W."

"I'm a solid Republican myself," admitted the staffer. "But there really is this Conservatives-for-Obama thing going on."

It seems that the Conservatives are actually optimistic that a bilateral accord on greenhouse gas emissions can be reached between Harper and Obama -- neither are proponents of the Kyoto protocol.

Beyond this, however, the Conservatives stand to reap a distinctly superficial benefit from Obama's victory.

"We can't play the Bush card on them anymore," admitted what CTV describes as a "prominent Liberal".

But Michael Byers clearly underestimates the importance of the relationship between the United States and Canada if he honestly believes he can reduce the entire relationship to shallow cross-border partisan parochialism.

It's unsurprising that Byers is eager to re-connect with the United States following Obama's election. What is surprising is that the Conservative party seems especially eager to do it, too.

Back to the Drawing Board for Michael Byers

Michael Byers fails to bring down Liberal giant

Among the official results available this evening: Michael Byers has lost his bid to enter the House of Commons, coming in third to incumbent (and victor) Liberal Hedy Fry and Conservative Lorne Mayencourt.

Fry took home just under 35% of the vote. Mayencourt slid in at second with just under 25%, and Byers claimed 22%.

It seems that Byers just wasn't able to swing voters in Vancouver Centre with his promises to shut down the tar sands and to shut down the evil private health clinics.

Byers has already blamed his electoral loss on the financial crisis.

In the end, the excuses will count for very little. Byers just isn't ready for federal politics, pure and simple. At the very least, this particular candidate -- who really has offered very little aside from ideology -- wasn't well situated to win in a riding with strong competition from a fellow left-of-centre candidate.

So it's back to the drawing board for Michael Byers. Sometimes being a self-proclaimed foreign policy expert just doesn't cut it.