Politic?

To Yourself Be True

2009-11-14T13:46:00.000-08:00

Poor misunderstood Iran. She has no option but to continue on the offensive. In the understandable defence of the authenticity of her Islamist Republicanism, her fervour in guiding Muslims to the way of the light that resides in Islam. That there is so much resistance to the sovereign right of Iran to rule her people in the way seen fit by the clerical-led administration is simply yet another indication of the evil power of Zionist imperialism.

The Islamic Republic of Iran does not disfavour freedom of speech. It regrets the unfortunate loss of life that occurred during the demonstrations urged on by suborned agents of the West, attempting to destroy the credibility of Iran, alleging electoral fraud in Tehran during the June presidential election. Iran's Supreme Leader's appointed representative in Britain, as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's personal envoy, has explained all of this.

Ayatollah Abdolhossein Moezi, as director of the Islamic Centre of England, emphasizes that he reflects the position of the Iranian Republic in lamenting the necessity of the Republican Guard forcefully responding to the opposition to the legitimacy of the election results. The 30-year-old Islamic Republic has no intention whatever of submitting to the demands of a fifth column paid for by malevolent forces in the West, encouraged by the Zionist imperialists.

Furthermore, in advising Muslim servicemen and women to abandon their places with the armed forces in the West for the criminal assaults on Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, he brings them to their senses, for they are engaging in wars forbidden by Islam. And while Ayatollah Moezi condemned the jihadist attack in Texas that took the lives of 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood, he emphasized that event must not be permitted to further blacken the image of the ummah.

The sincerity of Ayatollah Moezi's plea certainly cannot be denied, nor the accuracy of his judgement, in reflection of the true nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a peaceful, god-abiding nation which desires only to take its place in the world of power leaders. Also in Britain currently resides another Iranian, Arash Hejazi, trained as a physician, who then turned to journalism, helping to found a publishing house in Iran.

He no longer resides in Iran, but has sought refuge in Britain. Mr. Hejazi takes umbrage and grave issue with all that spills from Ayatollah Moezi's conciliatory mouth. For it was Mr. Hejazi who had come to the aid of stricken Neda Soltan, fatally shot in the chest by a Basiji militiaman on a motorbike, helping the Republican Guard clear away the presence of protesters in Tehran on June 20. Neda Soltan was beyond medical help and died a martyr to freedom.

Fully comprehending the manner in which the regime would pursue the issue, Mr. Hejani fled back to Britain where he had been pursuing a postgraduate course in publishing at Oxford Brookes University during the time of the presidential election. A business meeting had spurred his brief return to Tehran. Back in England with his wife and children, he described to the international press how he had been an onlooker at the demonstration, and had attempted to restore life to Neda Soltan.

Now, Caravan Books, the publishing house in Tehran that he had co-founded has been censored, and banks forbidden from allowing it loans, placing the employment of 22 people in jeopardy. Mr. Hejani's reputation has been slandered, in an attempt to punish and silence him. His friends and family and colleagues in Iran have been intimidated and harassed. "I told the truth. I just did what I had to do, but there were dire consequences", explained Mr. Hejani.

A scholarship in honour of Neda Soltan has been established at an Oxford college. Which has infuriated and scandalized Iran; the regime has forwarded a letter of official protest. She had been killed, the regime insists, by Arash Hejazi himself, spurred on by the dark forces of Zionism, as a result of an international conspiracy to undermine the Republic of Iran's sterling human-rights reputation.

In Iran, criminal proceedings have been initiated against Mr. Hejazi. He is a wanted man. Regime supporters have threatened his life, insist he is a murderer, a spy and had been a pimp for Neda Soltan. The Basiji who shot and killed Neda Soltan did his urgent duty to the country. The young woman whom Iranians, her family and the West mourn as the wasted life of a promising young woman who aspired to be the best that opportunities would allow her, was, in the description of the Iranian regime, a prostitute.

"Totalitarian regimes always want to cover up their violence and terror but evidence always surfaces to show the world what is really happening", said Mr. Hejazi. "In every person's life there are moments of truth that determine the sort of person you are, that test your beliefs and values. For me, Neda's death and speaking out was that moment and I think I've been true to myself."

Well, Surprise!

2009-11-13T18:40:00.000-08:00

Canadians have been led to believe that the social agony reflected in the reality of our troops' danger-prone presence in Afghanistan as a cohesive and integral part of NATO's ISAF mission to stabilize and support the civil compact, while teaching the country's military and police to fend for themselves in battling the fanatical Islamist insurgents has led to a low response for recruits in the military.

Didn't we read not all that long ago about a campaign to inspire young men and women to join the Canadian military? We have also read about a dire insufficiency of Canadian military personnel. We are, in fact, stretched pretty thin.

Our nation of 33-million has a standing army of 60,000 troops, with 20,000 reserves. With personnel stationed in at least a half-dozen, likely more, missions around the world, including Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sinai, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Sudan. And, of course, Afghanistan, with by far the largest Canadian military contingent; 2,700 troops.

Canada has lost, in Kandahar province where it is stationed, 133 military, two civilians, one diplomat. Proportionally more than any other country installed in the country.

Popular support for Canada's military presence in Afghanistan has declined significantly, and continues to, with each succeeding death, reflecting a like situation in other NATO countries. The Government of Canada has stated its firm intention of pulling its troops out of the country by 2011, when it will focus on other options there to continue practical and humanitarian aid.

Now, who would have believed that despite all that we had thought, Canada's infantry cannot absorb the numbers of would-be recruits eager to join the military. According to Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, "I am 1,600 infantrymen over my establishment ... it just so happens that right now if you want to join the infantry, we're completely full." Simply put, there are more volunteers for duty in Afghanistan than places to put them.

Have we the public been led by inadvertence to believe otherwise? Suddenly the military is exciting, sexy, fascinating, a life-experience not to be missed? Moreover, it would appear that the quality of those recruits so anxious to join the military in Afghanistan is acknowledged to be superior to three decades' worth of their predecessors. The military, it would appear, has learned how vital public relations can be to their mission.

Placing advertisements on television highlighting combat with the armed forces, running them during hockey games and other sporting events. "I find myself in a unique position in comparison to most of my fellow army commanders across NATO", commented Lieut.-Gen. Leslie. It's often been remarked that competitive sport symbolizes and represents as a substitute for the rigours and vigours of waging war. Strictly superficial, needless to say.

But Canada's soldiers appear to be so interested in serving in Afghanistan that the rate of attrition has fallen sharply; down to 8% from 10% over the past year and a half. Amazingly, many of those who have already served in Kandahar are anxious to return. Last chance, before Canada's combat mission morphs into training-mentors. Amazing.

Active combat as a valued, exciting, challenging life-experience. Bloody war?

Area Gang Activities

2009-11-13T18:08:00.000-08:00

This is becoming a problem in the capital city of Canada, just as it is in other cities in the country. Not as egregious, not yet, as say, in Winnipeg, with its 4.32 gang members per 1000 residents, or Saskatoon with 3.86, Regina with 2.57 and Toronto with 1.23. Ottawa's gang numbers statistics come in at a relatively modest 0.53 per 1000 residents. That's one-half a gang member per one thousand residents. Far too many, in actual fact.

In Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Regina, the informed observer, with no malice intended, understands that the large numbers represent for the most part dysfunctional, underprivileged members of the country's aboriginal communities. First Nations youths who cannot seem to fit in anywhere in a society that offers symbolic acceptance, but is involved with the native communities in a syndrome of cause-and-effect.

This disaffected and dysfunctional demographic presents as a huge failure to become absorbed as part of a modern social contract. Absorbed, as in integrated? Totally rejected. Native history, traditions and culture reject absorption into the white man's society. But for a relative brave few who set out to prove that they can do anything they wish to accomplish, and succeed well at it, in any of the elite professions.

Unfortunately there are so many disadvantages heaped upon maladaptions experienced by Canada's native communities, starting from their determined resolve to live as their ancestors did, in isolated communities where there are too few modern, well-equipped facilities, an absence of employment opportunities; where boredom reigns supreme, sending children into the embrace of self-destructive devices, emulating their parents.

Ah, but Toronto is different. In Toronto the street gang members can be readily identified as emanating from among immigrant communities who have been ghettoized by poverty and their own cultural proclivities. So that young, unschooled, unemployed men finding easy profit in the drug trade prowl the assisted housing complexes, brutalizing and frightening the residents, and waging internecine war with complementary street gangs.

And then we come to Ottawa, the nation's capital. Where, to a good degree, the situation pertaining in Toronto is reflected in the gang experience here. Where research has indicated that in the identified problem areas where gangs roam - predatorily involved in profit-driven prostitution and crack cocaine - they reflect another immigrant experience: Youth in those communities lack normal societal benchmarks of attainment.

Lagging in physical health, social competence, communications skills, general knowledge and emotional maturity. Even though in other communities, also reflecting a lag in their children's maturation process and social-educational attainment, no such problems exist. In the problem areas, children between the ages of 6 to 12 are most vulnerably exposed to anti-social, high-risk behaviour to which they invariably respond, hardening into gang members.

These are not innocent gangs of young people looking for amusement, entertainment, things to do to while away the time. These are gangs who intimidate those among whom they live, and they are well armed. In six months' time, the Ottawa Police took possession of 108 handguns. There are violent weekly fights in those areas, and firearms are regularly discharged, presenting as real risks to not only gang members but innocent bystanders.

If, as seems the case, some immigrant communities do not value education for their children, do not come from a tradition and a culture that encourages self-respect and respect for others, along with respect for the law, nor do they feel it incumbent upon themselves as parents and elders to steer their children toward acceptance of the prevailing social mores, they have obviously demonstrated their unsuitability for citizenship in the country.

Better screening, in other words, by immigration authorities, is obviously required, to weed out those members of cultures that do not promote self-enablement, self-pride, respect for law and order, and responsibility toward offspring and society at large. That may indeed be a huge part of the reason for the problems that erupt in Canada's cities, reflected in the experience also of other democracies in North America and Europe, with a hugely migrating world population.

That reflection, however, does nothing valuable to teach us how to deal with the problems that surface so glaringly as a result of lack of due diligence in failing to determine the social suitability of would-be emigrants. How to infuse the culture, traditions, values and allied social imperatives into the mind-set and value-system of those finding it difficult to fit into Canadian society, and in fact, rejecting social mores and responsibilities?

There lies the rub.

Complicating Citizenship

2009-11-12T18:25:00.000-08:00

Oh dear. Who knew? There are obligations to becoming a citizen? Amazing. And here we thought it was all receptive enthusiasm, sweetness and light. Certainly it seems that way, with society bending over backward to prove its collective delight in receiving yet additional influxes of immigrants. It is just so perfectly quaint when migrants bring over their customs, traditions and colourful costumes, dances, songs and grudges. And government at every level is enjoined in the process of offering material support to newcomers who must find their level of comfort in a new environment.

All these developments in welcoming immigrants making Canada such an enviable place to be. Come and ye shall receive. Take what you will, there is more. And feel free to be who and what you are. Don't confuse yourself with the imperatives and values of social mores and civil behaviours if you find it too distressingly arduous to conform. Integration was expected of previous waves of immigrants, and they did very well for themselves, under far less welcome conditions. In the process doing much for Canada, too.

Multiculturalism, however, saves you from the nuisance of having to strain to be too much like those already absorbed in the prevailing culture. And so there are what we can call culture clashes that otherwise complicate matters, when the young run afoul of the law and it's not really their fault, since they come from a different culture and a different tradition. And given that the perpetually-governing political party in this great country saw fit to celebrate diversity without obligation to the need to absorb Canadian values, that's just the way it is.

Was? My goodness, the political opposition now reigning as the Government of Canada put on its thinking cap. Decided to surprise everyone, both the indigenous population and those aspiring to come aboard. Henceforth a far heftier document will be disseminated on the way to helping immigrants become authentic Canadians. Explaining to them the history, culture, society and values of which formerly they had little interest since life is difficult, and they had no need to. They were deemed to be perfectly acceptable as they presented.

So Canada has a surfeit of immigrant-derived street gangs, a kind of culture superimposed on Canadian street culture, as it were. And we have been treated to the importation of grievances against others, of violence directed toward former-and-still-active adversaries; political, racial, social and religious. Sri Lankans who agitated and fund-raised for the Tamil Tigers. Hezbollah and Hamas agents who foment slanderous dissent against others,while incidentally fund-raising.

A few triad-scented gangster activities to liven things up and help the drug trade along. And Sikh separatists who are perfectly fine with the idea that if they intrigue sufficiently air liners will suddenly blow up in transit and distribute thousands of minute body parts over the Indian Ocean - or elsewhere as the case may be. Not to overlook citizens of convenience who insist on mass rescue in times of peril at public expense, then placidly leave when the all-safe rings in.

In response to which this government has devised a new set of obligations and responsibilities inherent in citizenship. Simple little instructions such as that it is incumbent on all newcomers to seek to fit into the society they have migrated into. Learn the language, find paid employment. In your spare time, if you have any, do good work, volunteering. Become knowledgeable about the law, and obey it. If other options fail, join the country's armed forces.

Learn Canadian history. Become familiar with traditions that are meaningful to the country. Respect others as you would have them respect you. Isn't that paramount to good citizenship? Honouring your own traditions, heritage, religion is very nice, and worthwhile. At the same time, however, fit in, won't you? Citizenship, we are informed loftily, is a two-way street.

It's past time it was seen that way, practised that way. You're welcome.

The Genders

2009-11-12T17:13:00.001-08:00

Every living, animate, sensate organism has a mother. Primordially lower organisms excepted. All human beings are born of a mother, critically aided by the sperm contribution of a father. Men and women couple, and of that coupling - recreation aside - the potential for another human being is created.

If we're to believe that human beings are born tabula rasa, with no knowledge other than what they will store in memory through personal experience, social interaction, observing and learning over a prolonged period representing their life span, then we must also believe that misanthropy and misandry and misogyny are learned attitudes.

This is an important distinction; we are not born to detest and abhor and to battle one another, although it is true that we are instinctively given to the herd instinct and take comfort in the company of those most like us. The corollary of which is that those who are unlike us, not of our tribe, those who don't share common practises of tradition and heritage and religion are recognized as outsiders, unworthy of equal consideration. Leaving few compunctions against oppressing those unlike ourselves.

But in a more individualistic view, take the phenomenon of misogyny where, for some reason, sometimes explicable, sometimes not, some males fear, dislike and exhibit aggressive tendencies toward women. These men will not necessarily eschew social contact with women, they will befriend individual women, marry them, have children with them, and through the course of their relationship, brutalize them, insist on controlling them, and oppress them for their own satisfaction.

Some societies encourage these practises through traditional behaviours that accept that women are inferior to men, that women will readily go astray, that women are basically evil creatures whose presence is meant to try men's patience, and that a stiff and steady male hand is required to control women's baser instincts. Women must obey men, and must place the man's interest foremost in their relationship, observing the social constraints that obligate them.

But what about societies which recognize equality of personhood and opportunities between the genders? Why is that recognition of equality so shallow in some men's perception that they constitute a brutal danger to the women who live closely with them? And how responsible for this situation are the mothers that bear these males who view women with violent distaste, and insist on being obeyed, using physical force to ensure the message has been absorbed?

Time and again women in separated situations, who have chosen for one reason or another - and most often because of physical abuse - to distance themselves from their former partners, ultimately become another unfortunate homicide statistic. The vast majority of men are respectful of women as equals, admire and support their female partners, and enjoy a balanced relationship of trust and affection. So what ails these other, aberrant males?

Simmering below the surface of every society is an undercurrent of male aggression toward women, practised by disturbed minds. In Ottawa last week a young man came to the rescue of a woman twice his age who was being repeatedly stabbed by her former common-law husband, in a back alley. The young man, in struggling to aid the woman who was bleeding profusely and crying for help, was himself stabbed, and then the attacker ran off.

A police search for the attacker whose identity was revealed by the critically wounded woman, was launched. The story of yet another dysfunctional relationship between a trusting woman and an abusive man was revealed in a few descriptive sentences by the attacked woman's sister. While the woman, Brenda Van Leyen, 47, was recovering in hospital, it was discovered that the house she owned outside Ottawa had been set on fire.

When firefighters responded, it was too late to save the structure. Shortly afterward the body of her attacker, 49-year-old Claude Legare, was discovered in the smouldering ruins of the house. One instance after another of women being battered, their children harmed and beaten, and ultimately yet another woman found dead at the hands of her former husband or partner, occurs. In this instance, the resulting tableau reversed the plot.

But there are ample other instances of psychotic male rage aimed at women, as when in 1989 the infamous 25-year-0ld Marc Lepine, convinced that his personal failures were the fault of women, strode the halls of Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique, armed and determined and, carefully separating men from women, opened fire on a classroom of engineering students screaming "I hate feminists", murdering 14 outright, wounding others.

What could possibly so contort a human mind with such unreasoning hatred? This man had a mother. Had she withheld from him the reassuring comfort and sensitivity that all children require? Would that be ample reason for the boy to evolve into a seething ball of hatred toward all women? Do not all women have a critical stake in such outcomes? In the recognition that not all neglected children become mass murderers to assuage their fury.

In any event, returning to the recently-enacted theatre of the disastrous dissolution of an abusive relationship, Brenda Van Leyen need have no further fears for her future, nor the young man who rescued her, 21-year-old George Rusu, imagining the demented Claude Legare hunting him down in revenge for his timely, life-saving intervention.

An Honourably, Worthy Judgement

2009-11-12T12:42:00.000-08:00

A culture and a tradition, seeking its guidance from religious precepts that had their origins in a male-dominating, tribal honour system that glorified violence - against other tribes, other ideologies, other religions, other social systems - is one badly in need of a close look at itself. With a view to entering the modern world where the genders are seen to be of equal value, worthy of equal respect and opportunities. Crimes against women, seen as sanctified 'honour' redemptions of tribe and family, are viewed otherwise in Western societies.

And while, in their countries of origin, Muslim men's habits of oppressing women and dictating to them what they may and may not do - expressing without expectation of challenge what is expected of them, and what they may assume will be their fate should they chose the folly of challenging those expectations - are accepted as valid and just, they are simply recognized as crimes in the face of humanity, in the West.

There have been more than enough horror stories of women and girls being murdered by their fathers, brothers and uncles, in response to their womenfolk determining that they have the right to choose their own destiny. That this abhorrent retrieval of a family's honour from the shame of a woman's choosing to defy male authority still finds respect among too many Muslim societies confounds reason. No less the fundamental sentences meted out to women deemed to have transgressed stringent social parameters.

But then, there is nothing particularly reasonable about envisioning a woman's place as that of a virtual slave to the wishes of a husband, a father, a brother; any male relative whatever. So that when a most respectable man, a pillar of his society, a very public community leader such as Yusef Al Mezel, of Ottawa, stands before the Canadian justice system, and is held to account for his behaviour, this is just by the yardstick of acceptable Western expectations expressed by civil law.

Mr. Al Mezel threatened his daughter, 23 years of age, and wishing to be accepted as a fully independent adult, capable of selecting for herself her own passage through life, to discover her own identity in Canadian society, and to make her own decisions with respect to where and how she would like to be comfortable. He repeatedly invoked as cultural law the unappeasable reality that his daughter must submit to tradition.

Independence such as his daughter sought and claimed to be her right as a human being was out of the question for a daughter of Islam. He harassed her unmercifully, threatening violence, and not ruling out the ultimate honour-retrieval mechanism: death. Mr. Al Mezel, 44 years of age, not too old to adopt a more tolerable version of Islam, is president of the Canadian Autoworkers Local 1688, and he also had ambitions to run for a seat on Ottawa city council.

He is not totally unaware of this society's greater culture, nor of the values held dear by Canadians at large. He had, despite the civilizing effect of re-locating to Canada and taking up citizenship here with his family, violently abused his daughter Eman, shoving her into a flight of stairs, threatening to break her legs and ultimately to kill her; in his rage, smashing her computer - an acceptable example of the modern age in which they live.

Eman Al Mezel removed herself from her family home in response to her father's arrangements for her to marry a young Syrian man. Her father experienced internal pressure, anguished by the thought of the regard lost to him by his extended family, aware of the problems he was facing with a daughter refusing to be controlled by her father. She had shamed him, and she was shaming his family by her unwarranted insistence on sovereignty.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Lynn Ratushny sentenced Mr. Al Mezel to a year in jail for threatening his daughter in response to her resistance to his archaic, patriarchal demands. Mr. Al Mezel's lawyer claims it to be a "tragedy when you have a really decent person who has been a contributing member of the community ... going to jail". And she is quite correct; this does reflect a personal tragedy.

Which, however, is the real tragedy, represents the greater assault on human rights - that Eman Al Mezel chose to leave her family home, set aside her hijab and the Muslim traditions that strangled her view of her future, or that her father threatened to kill her to redeem the family's honour?

Plausible Denial

2009-11-11T19:32:00.000-08:00

Seems like it's become a new game, (as in con-) to file suit against the Government of Canada for wrongful detention, wrongful accusations, wrongful due diligence, wrongful action targeting mainly individuals whose connections and/or whose activities and observed predilections point them out as those whose ideologies may be inimical to the country's health and longevity.

Well, of course, there are valid instances of government agencies at various levels failing the test of justice, holding suspects culpable for crimes they did not in fact commit.

And in those instances of wrongful suspicion, detection, accusation, trial and judgement resulting in long, unjust incarcerations, compensation for the torment of wrongful imprisonment, the anguish of isolation from loved ones, lost years of one's useful life, must be paid.

And in those instances monetary compensation truly is inadequate, since cash cannot buy back time lost and forever gone, relationships withered, never to be regained, self-respect injured, psyches forever traumatized.

Here, however, is another case entirely, where a Canadian visiting her country of origin claims to have been failed by the Government of Canada and its agencies. Suaad Hagi Mohamud's interview with a Canadian consular official in Kenya for the purpose of establishing her true identity in a dispute over various officials' belief that she was not the authentic holder of the passport she proffered, did not resolve the issue to her satisfaction.

In that interview, she was unable to respond to questions that anyone in her position, as the original and true passport holder would know and answer without hesitation. The most casual bits of information about the city she lived in, the company she worked for, commonly-shared local site identification were unknown to her. As was the identity of someone who guaranteed her immigration status; her son's birth date, and place of birth.

Yet she claims, and with enthusiastic backing from a demographically-supportive public, that her credibility cannot be questioned, that she is who she is. She very well may be, but it is the duty of a public servant whose expertise is in that area, to determine by simple questions and answers - not totally reliant on the other facts of the case, that she only resembled her passport photo - whether her claims were justified.

It hasn't been entirely unknown that passports are handed to near relatives to be used fortuitously for entry to Canada, whereupon the original passport holder makes a claim for loss by inadvertence of their passport, to be issued a replacement. Illegal entry to the country is a commonplace occurrence, and the sale and/or misuse of passports is also lamentably common.

So, the fact that Ms. Mohamud feels entirely justified in demonstrating her ire with the manner in which she felt she was unjustly treated by a government which owes her much as a citizen, by suing it - us, the taxpayers in fact - for $2.4-million as compensation for "callous and reckless treatment of her while she was abroad", is rather rich for the tastes of most Canadians.

Canada's Dirty Oil

2009-11-11T18:47:00.000-08:00

Even while - and particularly so - the International Energy Agency urged world leaders to move to slash greenhouse gas emissions through pledges at a forthcoming UN-sponsored negotiating session in Copenhagen at the UN Climate summit, it acknowledged Canada's immense petroleum reserves, second only to those in Saudi Arabia. Acknowledged them as a vital reserve that the world will inevitably turn to as an energy resource in coming years.

Provisionally conflicted by irritating realities of world oil consumption and the urgency to discover alternate energy sources in the face of climate change and anthropogenic activities leading same to any degree presumed, the IEA counsels the prime necessity of achieving lower emissions on the one hand, while speaking on the other of energy demands rising 40% within the next two decades.

Making Canada's estimated 178 billion barrels of proven oil reserves vitally critical to the meeting of future energy needs. Supplying those resources is admittedly problematical, since the reserves are held mostly in oil sands deposits which require huge amounts of water to extract, and in the extraction process produce a 20% higher carbon dioxide emission effect. More expensive extraction equates with more costly manufacturing and other uses.

And then, of course, there are the further harmful environment effects, not only to the atmosphere, but the land itself, and the people who live there. Mostly, as it happens, First Nations peoples. Pointing to the recent revelations of the catastrophe that never was. Where the now-Greenpeace-affiliated fly-in doctor, John O'Connor raised the red flag of rare cancers consuming aboriginal communities nearby Alberta's Athabasca oil sands.

The good doctor's revelations have since been entirely discredited as fabrications, having been double-checked by epidemiologists and statisticians for Alberta Health. Fort Chipewyans, after all, do not appear, after an investigation by three Health Canada physicians, to have suffered disastrously deleterious health side-effects from their proximity to the oil sands.

"These weren't misdiagnoses; they were diagnoses that never occurred", according to one of the three Health Canada physicians who filed a complaint with Alberta's College of Physicians and Surgeons, that Dr. O'Connor had caused "undue alarm" in the community. The good doctor has since joined Greenpeace's "Stop the Tarsands" campaign in their effort to halt international investment in the oil sands.

That international suspicion and willingness to drop all interests in Alberta's 'dirty oil' has been manifested in the United States by the current administration's characterization of 'dirty oil' having no place in the machinery of American production and rolling stock, befouling the atmosphere far more deleteriously than the clean, easily-extractable oil from the champions of global fanaticism and militant jihad.

Another instance of there being no quick and easy decisions in this world, because there are no simple answers to all the conundrums that bedevil us.

Israel Alone

2009-11-10T19:31:00.001-08:00

Is it remotely possible that Israel and the Palestinian Authority can ever meet one another across a bargaining table with full intentions to deal frankly with one another? Before we know it a century will have passed and nothing will have been accomplished. But before then the sizzling antagonism will have surpassed anything in mutual violence that has been seen hitherto.

And there's a certain poignant inequality in all of this. Israel has found itself immensely beleaguered in the past with the combined armies of the surrounding Arab countries confronting it. And it has survived. A miracle in and of itself.

Surely the God of Abraham - not the one claimed by Islam, perforce, an interloper, a late-comer, a religion with so little imaginative creation behind it that it found itself adeptly insisting that it too benefited from its predecessors' signal deliverers unto the mysteries of the faith - intervened to save Jews from yet another breach in the trust between God and His chosen. For if the chosen were completely annihilated, who then to be a light unto the world?

After we pick ourselves off the floor, hysterical with insane laughter, we look at the advances made thus far in the intractable discussions and demands between the adversaries, the two solitudes whom geography and the dissonances of fate has thrown together. Two previous prime ministers have related that they were prepared to literally 'give away the shop' for the achievement of peace. A peace that could not be guaranteed, furthermore.

Given the demonstrated propensity in a nod to tradition, of the Arab populations to cling to their detestation of the very thought of a non-Muslim demographic within a geography dedicated to Islam. And that demographic speaking hugely of an ungrateful religious cohort whom the Prophet had compassionately offered to include in Islam, only to have his offer curtly rejected. Which is precisely why Jews are likened to viral agents, monkeys, pigs.

What a bargain. Submit to Palestinian demands - and by extension, needless to say, the demands of the greater Arab community in the Middle East, and extend a little further and include the Muslim entirety - for the surrender of Jerusalem for a Palestinian-state capital. Include the 'right of return', and a diminution of Israel's border, and what have you?

Well, most certainly the demise of a Jewish state. Israel, inundated by Palestinian returnees, representing generations of those in exile, and sans its own eternal capital. This is the greater purpose of the demands, of course. Eventually the very notion that there once existed a quaint "Jewish State" would become dim history, an anomaly of the geography never to be repeated.

The greater Arab collective has been deftly able to exert their influence - thank you, petroleum products - to enterprisingly influence all other countries dependent on their goodwill, assenting to have their UN representatives rubber-stamp condemnations of one sole, smallish country. This is the United Nations, need we repeat, whose purpose is to defend relations between countries, repair what's broken and aid human rights...?

And Israel's great defender in the West, the powerful United States of America, upon whom the tiny Middle East democracy could always depend, is torn with indecision. On the scale of weightiness there are all the countries of the Middle East who resent Israel's presence, along with the weight of the Muslim ummah, and then there is that perennial, bloody-minded, ever-assertive, right royal pain in the arse, Israel.

Truly a conundrum for this new American administration. Delivering a rebuke to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, having him wait, like a lackey, for a word of assent from the White House. Friends, enemies, who can tell which is which these days?

Jerusalem

2009-11-09T18:09:00.001-08:00

"By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres" (137, 1-2).

"If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand wither, let my tongue cleave to my palate if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (137, 5-7).

The ancient city of Jerusalem is a Jewish city. Its ancient history saw it the capital of a Jewish nation under King David and King Solomon, and then the Kings of Judah. This is the biblical Jerusalem. But Jerusalem existed as a city before it was taken to be the capital of the Jews. It is written that the prophet Ezekiel spoke of Jerusalem thus: "Thus says the Lord God to Jerusalem: your origin and your nativity is of the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother was a Hittite" (16:30).

During the period of Egyptian hegemony in the Middle East, Jerusalem was the city of Canaanites, then Jebusites, Semitic peoples who lived in the Judean Hills. It was a small, fortified city with two strongholds, one named Zion, the name later used to describe the Temple Mount and Mount Zion, neither part of the city when it was a Jebusite protectorate. But surrounding the ancient city for two hundred years was a Jewish settlement, allotted to the tribe of Benjamin. Whose first king, Saul, lived alongside Jerusalem, until his successor, David conquered the city and made it his own.

And then came a long succession of conquerors including the Babylonians, Macedonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Persians, followed by Muslim empires, the Crusaders, the Mamelukes, the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Jordanians, and finally - full circle - the Jewish nation again, with the creation of the State of Israel. There is history and there is the incendiary dispute between Arab Palestinians and indeed the entirety of the surrounding Arab populations, resentful of Israel's creation.

This fabled, pre-biblical-era city (albeit named differently) may be three thousand years old, one of the most ancient remaining cities in the Middle East, celebrated by Jews as their eternal capital. Its population is a modest 740,000, and represents the most Orthodox of Jews, as well as Muslims and Christians for all of whom it is a city of faith. It is the walled Old City whose legitimacy as an Israeli possession is largely in dispute after the reunification of the city by modern conquest from Jordan, in 1967.

Under British and later Jordanian rule, Jews were not permitted to visit their most holy of sites, the ancient Temple Mount, nor could they pray at the Wailing Wall, the only portion of the Second Temple of Solomon left after its destruction. Under Jewish protection, all religions have free access to their holy sites. The Muslim Dome of the Rock was built directly over the ancient Second Temple, and it represents the third most sacred site for Islam. Jerusalem's biblical significance for Christians is obvious.

From historical antecedents as well as modern reality - where a Jewish presence was never absent from Jerusalem - present-day Israel, a Jewish state whose purpose was to offer a safe-haven homeland for the world's stateless and dispersed Jews, it seems a reasonable assumption that Jerusalem remain the universally-acknowledged site of the capital of Israel. That presumed reality has found vibrant denunciation in the opinion of Palestinians who claim it to be their capital for a nascent sovereign state.

Despite the historical reality that there never was a Palestinian state, that the original Palestinians were in fact Jews, and Palestine was an unacknowledged homeland for those Jews who had never left their homeland, despite the diaspora inflicted upon Jews by one conquering army after another in ancient times. History and the archaeological science that supports it, along with religious, social and traditional antecedents confirm Jerusalem as a Jewish capital of a Jewish state.

Buy American

2009-11-08T17:58:00.000-08:00

The consuming public has always been proud to purchase products produced in their own countries. Simply because it is a general perception that durable goods produced in one's country are superior than those produced elsewhere. (Exceptions can be made for countries which traditionally, and continue to produce inferior products; the Soviet Union and modern Russia come to mind where consumers would far prefer, for example, to buy foreign vehicles than their own sub-rate products.)

In a global economy, however, with an increasing emphasis on free-trade agreements, with the inter-relatedness of production and the ease of product-transference, sans restrictive tariffs and import fees to favour domestic goods, the international community has benefited hugely from a relaxation of traditional protectionism. Canada and the United States, two huge geographies sharing a major portion of the North American continent with Mexico, had seen the benefits inherent in signing on to free trade.

Internationally, free trade agreements have increasingly been signed between countries whose geographies put them at a great distance from one another. It was also seen as a way in which developing countries, through diminished or no tariffs, could export their goods to their greater economic benefit. Certainly, free trade between Canada and the United States has had its ups and downs, given the propensity of the U.S. Congress to disallow importation of products that would deleteriously impact on U.S. producers, overriding the NAFTA.

But it's when home economies go into a slump that the protectionist elbows get sharp and aim for the soft parts. The United States government's economic stimulus package meant to help the country lift itself out of its economic doldrums through the encouragement of state and municipal infrastructure projects, gave the trade finger to its free trade allies in NAFTA, as well as those outside North America. Only U.S.-manufactured goods could be used with projects funded by the stimulus initiative.

Which is why Canadian manufacturers have seen an abrupt and now steady decline in their traditional business model. In a way this is incredibly short-sighted, given the inextricably-interwound production between the two countries, where American jobs rely on that dual-track-production just as much as Canadian jobs do. In some instances, such as pipe fittings produced in Canada, the metals are purchased and imported from the United States. Cut off the export of pipe fittings from Canada to the U.S. and the market for metals is impacted.

Canada-based brass fittings manufacturers for example, have been advised that municipal projects that used its fittings, have had to transfer to U.S.-produced fittings. At a greater cost to the municipality resulting. For some peculiar reason, when a project administer, warned not to use "Made in Canada" products begins to disassemble a project well underway, tearing out previously installed products, setting back the completion of the project in the process, it is the Canadian manufacturer who will be billed and expected to pay for the extraction of his product.

Canadian manufacturers' products already in the ground through a partially completed project are ripped out, at the expense of the Canadian manufacturer. Who, to remain in business, has the option of closing down Canada-based manufacturing to begin manufacturing in the United States if they wishe to continue supplying American customers. Canadian manufacturers have seen a steep decline in their sales, and have had to lay off employees, in some instances halving their workforce.

Canada, in fact, saw this coming. Conventionally, in their trade relationship, it has always been a Republican administration that has been open to free trade, while a Democratic administration has generally been luke-warm to free trade. With the ascension of the Democrats to power coinciding with the international financial collapse, it was foreseen that the U.S. Congress would likely take this kind of action.

Canada fondles the quaint notion that she has a special relationship with the United States. The kindly-regarded little cousin, type of thing. That, in the greater interests of preserving a friendly relationship, the United States would see its way through to granting special dispensation to Canada, its near-kin in North America. But for Canada, the "Buy American" provision of the U.S. economic stimulus bill has placed matters in their traditional perspective.

To Americans, there's us, and there's them. We're the dispensable 'them'. As for honouring the NAFTA legally-entitled provisions and guidelines; well, that's just the way it is, pardners.

An Unhinged Mind

2009-11-06T18:54:00.000-08:00

Peoples' values and their priorities and their views on life are shaped by the societies in which they grow to maturity. But there are no guarantees that all members of any given society will submit to the general population's values, given the complexity of human nature. All the more so when there are complicating circumstances, when a society is no longer as homogeneous as it once was.

Homogeneity in any event is an oversubscribed concept, particularly in a society like that of the United States (and increasingly everywhere around the world as great masses of people migrate elsewhere than their countries of birth) with its pluralist society.

Enter an additional hugely conflicting circumstance; that of a religion traditionally foreign to the Western world, in and of itself no great barrier to social integration to a degree, but given decades-worth of antagonism and misunderstanding resulting in the radicalization of significant albeit relatively minor numbers of Muslims, a recipe for disastrous culture clashes.

When attacked, respond with a similar attack. The group that initiated the first attack can always anticipate that the counter-attack will be more determined than theirs.

But in the many instances of fanatical jihadist attacks on not only Western symbols, including the heartland of Western democracy in urban Europe and North America, along with moderate Muslim societies in the near and far east, the extent and viciousness of the attacks leave no room for complementary counter-attack and follow-up negotiations.

For there is no negotiating with groups dedicated to delivering death and eagerly anticipating their own in the process.

A deep viral contamination of fanaticism has overtaken the consciousness of a paranoid and aggrieved demographic of mostly young men in the world of Islam. Generations of colonial-status resentment followed by the reality of the West fattening itself on the exploitation of natural resources in developing, dependent countries has left the worm of resentment to ripen to a serpent of hatred.

Mired in a religion that marked an entire way of life from cradle to grave, circumscribed and adored by its followers, Muslim countries stagnated. Leaving development of their own resources to others, while resenting their reliance on the mechanics and science of other cultures.

Totalitarian and autocratic rulers relishing their growing status of wealth achievement made no effort to modernize their countries, to elevate the position of the masses beyond elemental existence. The disentitlement of the ordinary citizen deprived of human rights and hope for the future was prevalent. And their rulers side-tracked popular resentment outwardly, toward non-Muslims and Jews.

Anything that reflected Western customs, interests and traditions, was deemed corrupt and un-Islamic, and that included fashioning a civil society with all the guarantees of freedoms common to democracies and identified as repulsive to Islam. The search for knowledge in the sciences, in industry and mechanics; the necessity to industrialize and produce well-paid employment for the young also was un-Islamic.

In a search for personal attainment, freedoms and opportunities Muslims gravitated elsewhere.

But there is a deep cognitive dissonance between intermingling with Western values and permitting the diminishment of Muslim thought, values and practises. Deeply conflicting to the formidable affect of a closed culture, a disciplined religion, an un-irenic tradition. The impoverishment of freedom of thought and association resulting from Islamic traditions shunning other religions and other traditions, calling the faithful to demonstrate their resolute adherence to Islam encourages jihad.

Little wonder then, that the American-born Major Malik Nadal Hasan, a devout Muslim serving in the United States military was severely conflicted to learn he was to be dispatched to Afghanistan. When he had been attempting, without success, to encourage other enlisted men to resist serving in the counter-insurgency conflict in Afghanistan, in a desperate attempt to prove to himself his Islamic credentials, utterly polarized by his untenable position.

In the end, the psychiatrist who had been entrusted to help heal the traumatized minds of military men and women serving in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, could not heal himself. He surrendered to the escape of violent jihad, in the process slaughtering a jury's-worth of fellow Americans, and wounding three dozen in his attempted escape from his mental turmoil, his religion- and culture-inspired affliction.

The Malaise of Fear, Parnoia, Insecurity

2009-11-05T18:36:00.000-08:00

Where could this be occurring, where social insecurity is at so high a level that an independent-minded country confirmed by its history as a free democracy, dedicated to equality among its citizens, has yet maintained a garrison mentality?

In the historical taming of a wide, wild landscape when the inconvenience of its aboriginal population sitting on the land as though they owned it, and not the white folk who arrived with a view to unobstructed ownership, firearms spoke of settlers' aspirations, determination and tough attitudes toward their personal survival.

Written directly into the Constitution of the United States of America is the uninterrupted status of the firearm as a requisite to citizenship, an honourable nod to the past, and a right to bear arms, enshrined and spoken of as a necessity to the security of a free State. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the fabled Second Amendment right. For at one time, in the wild, wild west - and even in the east - citizens were deputized to uphold the law. As such they could become part of a citizen-militia unit, requiring to be armed to fulfill their duties and obligations. That Second Amendment protects individual rights to ownership, possession and transportation of firearms.

The ferocious lobbying efforts of the National Rifle Association ensures that Members of Congress remember who votes them into office. And a majority of Americans, as it happens, support the right to gun ownership, while a smaller number support gun control. It has now become legal to carry concealed weapons, ostensibly for protection, into wildlife areas of national parks.

When Congress gave approval to legislation on credit-card abuses, there was a little add-on allowing visitors to national parks to carry loaded, concealed weapons. And although President Obama expressed his grave reservations before he even came to the President's office, he understood well that to pass his own legislation he would also have to pass the guns-in-parks law. Quid pro quo.

Advocates for gun control legislation are in despair, seeing the level of their public support steadily eroding.

And in the current state of the economic downturn in the United States - even while unemployment is growing, real estate values still plummeting, retail sales struggling and the country facing an enormous deficit and an immensely crippling debt, the interest on which will put its financial feet to the fire - the public has gone berserk over firearms purchases.

More than the purchases of firearms; the stockpiling of ammunition. Manufacturers are unable to supply enough ammunition to gun shops, to meet the demand. Gun owners have purchased roughly 12 billion rounds of ammunition in the year past, up considerably from previous years' sales. People are even frantically buying up ammunition meant for firearms they don't yet own.

The fears seem to stem from the potential for gun-control legislation under the Obama administration.

With the scarcity of enough stock, prices have tripled, but still gun owners are buying up what they can, and hoarding it against the possibility they may one day not be able to access ammunition.

And the true irony in all of this is that the most recent FBI statistics for crime in the country, indicate that violent crime is at its lowest in twenty years.

Political Priorities

2009-11-04T19:11:00.001-08:00

Things can get pretty miserable when ancient faux pas come to light at the most inconveniently vexing of times. Something like kicking a man when he's down? Sometimes, though some people deserve a good posterior whacking.

It's just that poor old Michael Ignatieff has caught a few too many for his comfort, of late. Things are set to change, however, with the investiture of a proven and able public relations manager. Too late, alas, to alter statements made in the distant past, coming back to haunt him now, however.

But, as one of the Liberal leader's stalwart apologists loftily declaimed, when enquiries about Mr. Ignatieff's previously indiscreet and ungenerous observations about the British Monarchy were put front and centre: "The leader is focused on the issue of H1N1. Right now, Canadians are worried about lines for flu shots, not lines of succession. This is not an issue Canadians are focused on."

Priorities thus having been set, the eye and ear turns dutifully to that top-of-mind-topic. The House of Commons emergency debate on H1N1 revealed some interesting little tidbits. Preceded by hysteria-prone Vancouver Liberal MP Hedy Fry complaining that an H1N1 clinic be set up instanter on Parliament Hill to inoculate parliamentarians because of all that hand-shaking they engage in.

Not to be outdone, Carolyn Bennett, she of the mockingly disgusting flyer intimating body bags, not H1N1 vaccines can be anticipated to solve any health problems for First Nations communities under this Conservative-led government has done her enlightened bit. Doing her leader right proud.
Not to be outdistanced by the distaff side, Bob Rae ventured his august opinion that had the government ensured H1N1 vaccine was available sooner, 13-year-old Evan Frustaglio might not have died; such is the fallout of an uncaring, unprepared, and forewarned government. But then it is understandable that such a horrible event could occur, when you have a government concerned, as Liberal president Alf Apps is quick to explain, that there is "some clinical cost-benefit analysis, premised on the theory that expense could be avoided if demand for the vaccine were suppressed and access to immunization for most was made well nigh impossible."

These statements give slander a good name. Nasty, small-minded and viciously casual with reality. And the truth lies mortally wounded from one stab after another, with Liberals lining up to inflict the final, wrenching, arterial bloodletting. Rational decision making on the part of the Chief Medical Officer along with provincial counterparts agreeing that the country's seasonal flu vaccine had production priority, simply because it kills 4,000 Canadians a year, as opposed to the 101 having perished from the effects of H1N1 to date.

And the unadjuvanted version taking precedence because WHO understood that this was safer for pregnant women and young children than the adjuvanted version ordered by Canada as a more effective vaccine, interrupting the greater production of that immune-boosting vaccine. That interruption has now passed, and production has resumed, ensuring that anticipated amounts of vaccine will be on hand to inoculate all Canadians who wish to take advantage of vaccination against H1N1.

In any event, according to statistics gleaned thus far from eight provinces a mere third of the initial vaccine supplied by the federal government over the last several weeks had been used by week's end. In Ontario alone the Minister of Health confirmed that out of 2.2 million doses received from federal health authorities, a mere 300,000 had been administered to the most vulnerable among the public. How is that a signal of tardy response by the federal government?

And, despite Mr. Ignatieff's stout assertion that Canada has fallen behind other countries such as the United States, the fact of the matter is in the U.S. with its far greater population a mere 25 million doses have been shipped in comparison to about 7 million in Canada. Comprende?

Psychically Abandoned

2009-11-03T18:57:00.000-08:00

Groucho Marx's oft-quoted flippancy in his observation that he would not join any club insufficiently discriminating as to accept his membership actually spoke clearly to a peculiarity in deviant human behaviour. There is a mirror-image to that remark. We see its impact on those who profess to 'understand' and feel sympathy and collegiality with societal outcasts and social malefactors, those rejecting societal norms.

We see it in the Manson cult, the acquiescence of the women of Bountiful, the young teen who felt such empathy with her community's grubs and who, for her effort, was gang-raped outside Los Angeles, and in those Western, previously Christian women who feel sympathy for those they see as the oppressed, and adopt Islam to synchronize their sympathies with their commitments. Invariably we see it in women's responses to men's rejections of values held in common respect.

We see it in the all-too-common syndrome of hardened criminals, including multiple-murderers having been brought to justice and incarcerated as a result of their crimes against society, being contacted by ordinary-seeming women who conceive an attraction to them, befriend them, and sometimes marry them. Obviously, this is an expression of a syndrome, of a frail personality seeking some meaning in life to support their emotional turmoil, and fixating on those who reject society and whom society has rejected.

We see its effects on children who have been abducted, kept prisoners for years, constantly raped by their abductor, covertly bearing his children in dreadful living conditions. Yet to survive the horror that their existence has become, they form an emotional bond, an attachment of psychical need to their captor. This is a symptom named the Stockholm Syndrome, coined in 1973 in the wake of a bank robbery in Sweden, and the hostage-taking of three women and a man over a period of five days.

Even though the hostages were held in the vault of the bank, strapped with dynamite until their rescue, they came out of their ordeal feeling sympathy for the men who had so dreadfully abused them. A few years later, when the American newspaper heiress Patty Hearst was a hostage, she exhibited the same sympathetic attachment to her abductors and joined ranks with them in their later robberies. Psychologists explain the syndrome as one where a damaged psyche results from great trauma.

The British Columbia woman, Beverley Giesbrecht, who found herself attracted to the concept of violent jihad as a justified response by fanatical Islamists to what she perceived as Western hostility toward Islam and Muslims, transformed herself from a functioning, if somewhat unhappily confused adult with a miserable childhood into a fundamentalist, jihad-supporting Muslim. She left her old life behind her, travelled to Afghanistan, and made contact with the Taliban.

She believed that her status as a (converted) Muslim, a supporter of violent jihad would give her immunity from danger at the hands of the Taliban, and lend her a certain measure of respect. Enabling her to interview high-placed Taliban leaders, and perhaps even gain her entry to the presence of Osama bin Laden. And with her background as a journalist, and with the prestige of her jihadist website, she would scoop the media with her insights and authentic videos and interviews.

All for the purpose of advancing the agenda of fanatical global jihad, for she considered herself a supporter of that movement. Like others who had converted to Islam, and who spent their energies and their determination in an effort to better the lives of ordinary, poverty-stricken Muslims in theatres of violence, and who were summarily dispatched as interfering Westerners for their efforts, she too has been abducted and ostensibly held for ransom.

Demonstrating the delicate balance of peoples' ability to forge relationships of meaning and value when confronted by the mystifying (to some) disequilibrium between societies, religions, traditions, and hereditary customs, confounded latterly by the clash of worlds far apart from one another through all of those significant parameters. And while that is an interesting and unfortunate set of circumstances for very particular personalities, it also points at a more generalized failing of society at large.

Where ostensibly intelligent, well educated, secular or religious factions of society see little threat to what they hold dear at the presence within their country of those being singled out by intelligence agencies as adherents to, or supporters of, religious fanaticism. When, in fact, their governments and government security agencies, use their powers to pursue and arrest activities meant to threaten and terrorize, these educated and sympathetic groups accuse the government and its agents of persecution.

That in pursuing the greater safety and security of the country, its people and its infrastructure, let alone its way of life, government and its security and policing agencies are abandoning our most dearly-held values and freedoms by abusing the human rights entitlements of those whom they deem to be innocent of evil intent simply because they are unable to digest reality.

Spin-Doctoring

2009-11-02T18:47:00.000-08:00

It's a special talent, no doubt, to be able to turn around the public apprehension of an individual based on his personal presentation, seen to be inadequate to the task at hand. In this particular case the individual is the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, and the task at hand is the potential to lead the country as its next prime minister. Michael Ignatieff has not mightily impressed the electorate with his political performance as a potential government leader.

His maladroit temporizing, his incautious threats targeting the current Conservative-led government and his pointed criticisms of Prime Minister Harper have been seen as petty and absurd, given the circumstances. Those circumstances being a number of items, not the least of which is the global struggle in the face of the economic collapse, the urgency of government to act in the best interests of the country's recovery, and the obvious ability of this government and this prime minister to meet all expectations.

Michael Ignatieff has struggled with his own inept political moves, many of which reflect on his obvious apprenticeship-state as a politician. His views and statements have not resonated positively with Canadians. His awkward approach to opposition, and his juvenile-appearing adversarial role at a time when all political parties would do well to work together to help parliament function in the best interests of Canada have won him little admiration nor supporters.

A desperate decision to bring aboard a Liberal wizard to alter the choreography of a theatre that hasn't played well to its audience equates with the sincerity of a public relations ploy. Which is, actually what it describes, this move to bring a long-time Liberal party communications professional, Peter Donolo, into the picture. Mr. Donolo helped Canadians to see Jean Chretien as an amusing, unassuming everyman whom everyone could like and trust.

Rather than the mean-tempered and -spirited, contemptuous and overtly corrupt politician that he actually was, who spent the latter years of his time in public office setting the stage for his personal enablement as a high-priced and high-earning shill for corporate interests. Highlighting introductions through Mr. Chretien's contacts in high office for business opportunities. China, in particular, whose position as the next world economic power makes it the place to do business.

So Mr. Donolo will be grooming Mr. Ignatieff, whose popularity ratings have fallen steeply, for presentation as a misunderstood, but sterling-quality, highly-success-reliable candidate for high office. This is a sales job for a skilled professional, whether it be in advertising or public relations, to turn a poorly-regarded candidate into a potential winner. The proverbial sow's ear into a silk purse you can go to the prime ministerial bank with.

A political freshman with various personal and professional liabilities suddenly turned into a saleable product. Reminds me of the full-page advertisement seen in the same section as the story on Mr. Donolo's elevation as the Liberal leader's chief of staff, for the automotive company BMW. JOY reads the top caption of the full-page advertisement. The gullible and the easily-taken will be enraptured by the narrative:

On the back of this three-letter word, we built a company. Independent in spirit, philosophy, and practise. Accountable to no one but the driver. We do not build cars. We are the creators of emotion. We are the guardians of exhilaration, thrills and chills. We are the Joy of Driving. ... This is the story of BMW. This is the story of Joy.

Mr. Donolo can present Mr. Ignatieff as a return to the Canadian public and the office of the prime minister the pleasure the country can take in being steered once again by the Liberal Party of Canada. That very party which in the most recent past, gave us embarrassment on the world stage, and frustrations galore at home. This is the story of the Liberals. This is their story of public passion to rule the country. This is their pleasure.

To be avoided at all costs.

Why Should They Not?

2009-11-02T18:26:00.000-08:00

In the general prevailing atmosphere of public panic over the inadequate supplies of H1N1 vaccine, amplified by sad news of previously-healthy people succumbing to the worst-scenario effects of the virus, followed by the seriously flawed attempts on the part of regional health authorities to set up special clinics to administer inoculations against H1N1 to a target demographic of the most vulnerable, there have been many instances of displays of individual entitlement where none is present.

Individuals not included in the vulnerable groups to be given the initial products to vaccinate the public against the potential of the worst effects of this new viral strain described as a pandemic outbreak. Public health workers, first-responders, pregnant women, children under the age of 12, those with compromised immune systems due to chronic illnesses, caregivers for same, and for infants, have been discovering that they will be turned away from under-prepared clinics incapable of processing as many clients as first proposed.

So that, when members of the public who don't fit into these health-vulnerable categories show up at the clinics to be vaccinated, they are politely invited to return at a later, considerably later date, when it is anticipated that sufficient vaccine will be available, and the clinics are opened to the general public to service anyone that wishes to receive the vaccine. Understandably, exceptions made for elementary-grade and perhaps high-school children, given the unpredictability of the H1N1 onset of complications.

So, are we to condemn the hospital staff of The Ottawa Hospital who have brought along their family members at the hospital's week-end vaccination clinic? These front-line health care workers are needed, to be on duty, and not away ill, nor away from the job in the event that ultimately the health care system becomes completely overwhelmed with those needing to be hospitalized. The distraction of worrying about their families and having to take care of their own ill family members is of no benefit to anyone.

Inoculating family members of medical personnel simply makes good sense. Removing the potential for distractions of worry over the welfare of their own, and leaving them free to practise their professional art of healing with this urgent public need, whose final victim count can only be hoped will not eventuate. In all likelihood, all those struck by H1N1 whose symptoms become dangerous, will remain in a minority. But even that minority will be destined to overwhelm the capacity of any urban hospital, under current circumstances.

For the good of everyone, there is an absolute requirement to ensure that our front-line health care providers remain in good health, in good spirits, confident and capable, To do their professional best to ensure that the effects of the H1N1 influenza - whose reputation has far outrun its innocuous reality in the public mind - will be adequately and professionally dealt with.

Vicious Narcissistic Brutality

2009-11-01T17:05:00.000-08:00

Is it seen as horribly immoral not to care about the welfare of others? Perhaps not in a sub-culture with an abysmal lack of values.

The larger problem is that the sub-culture appears on the brink of contaminating the larger culture. What other conclusion can be drawn when it is known that a vulnerable young person is being horribly physically attacked and this draws peoples' curiosity, not their sense of moral outrage. They gather to witness and impossibly, relish the attack, not to draw the attention of authorities to the scene, or to attempt themselves to halt the violence.

This lack of moral, ethical and empathetic sensitivities, the emotional disengagement from the plight of others emphasizes the emptiness of the self. Self, one's ego, one's entitlements, augmented by a general state of sociopathic desensitization, an absence of obligation toward others, appears to be the new reality. Born of a generation or more of people who think of themselves as different, individualists with a deeply-ingrained sense of self-worth, obsessed with the culture of celebrity.

Young peoples' aspirations gravitate toward emulating the celebrity of pop stars, of rappers with their gangster mentality. Facebook enthusiasts who celebrate themselves and invite strangers to admire them and become their 'friends' and followers. These are people devoted to the entertainment quotient of 'reality' shows, extravagant displays of social dysfunction that are the antithesis of reality in the world we all inhabit. Setting the stage for a hideous anti-social collective of sociopathy.

Which is what was on display on October 24 in a courtyard notorious for acting out, at the Richmond High School Homecoming dance, near Los Angeles, California. A repulsively atrocious scene ensued when a trusting young girl of 15 who aspired to be a social worker and felt sympathy for the school drop-outs and the junior thugs in her neighbourhood tried to be a conscious 'friend' to them. Trusting that her concern for their welfare would lead them to have concern for hers.

Six young men ranging in age from 15 to 21 have now been arrested for the gang rape and vicious beating that took place over two and a half hours of agony perpetrated on this young woman, a church-going honour student. None of which gave her immunity to being treated as a disposable object. It has been estimated by the intelligence gathering of investigating authorities that up to two dozen people casually passing by witnessed the crime, but simply went on their way, not bothering to alert police.

"The younger ones - they mostly just watched, and they are the ones talking and giving up names", according to a unnamed source connected with the investigation. "This was not a gang thing. It was just a mob that got out of control. It was the older ones who led it all."
The girl had left the dance at 9:30, calling her father to pick her up. When she was invited by a young boy she knew to go with him to the courtyard. Where a dozen boys and young men were drinking vodka, and plied her with same.

Despite the girl's refusal, one of the young men began to sexually attack her, and to beat her and he did not lack for help. A gang rape began, and intermittent beating, and continued for the next two and a half hours. Some of the onlookers called their friends by cell phone to swell the body of onlookers who found the scene entertaining and amusing and perfect fodder for photographs.

Around midnight, students from a house not far off, having heard of the situation, called police where the girl was found semiconscious under a picnic table. A young man living nearby who ran over when police arrived said "Her face was purple and blue and she wasn't moving when they finished and ran. I guess those kids thought what they did was tight, was cool. But it was terrible."

After her release from hospital five days later to begin recovery at home, police Lt. Mark Gagan commented: "This was a barbaric crime, and I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that so many watched and didn't report it. That poor girl will have a lot of healing to do."

One of the school's teachers, familiar with both the victim and the arrested, mentioned that the girl was known for helping in conflict-mediation situations. She wanted to join the Police Explorers, a Boy Scouts group that encourages boys and girls to learn about law enforcement with local police. "She's an emotional, deeply caring girl, the type who would care so much if this happened to another girl", said the English teacher.

The girl's family have expressed their hope that public anger will subside and that something positive might come out of the dreadful event. Asking people to "please channel your anger into positive action". Young girls in the area appear to have busied themselves expressing their condolences on Facebook.

Finally: Playing Hardball

2009-10-31T10:52:00.000-07:00

The initial address was replete with mea culpas, an apology by the U.S. Secretary of State for the outcome of the 2000 presidential election and all that befell the world in its wake. As though that election heralded and provoked all that was to come. As though, falling on one's proverbial sword would be the welcomed admission that all that has gone awry in the world is the unfortunate result of a Republican administration's response to world events. But it does reflect the stated humble retractions and beliefs of this still-new Democratic administration.

Careful not to ruffle the feathers of oppositional forces abroad, in an effort to restore some semblance of balance and moderation to world affairs. As though that could thus be accomplished. By sacrificing America's status as the single current world power to the grievances of failed states and non-state adversaries alike, the hoped outcome would be a partnership for co-operation and understanding. As though that were remotely possible between a country with a conscience (however insipid at times) and those conscious only of their sovereign right to abuse their own and threaten others.

Hillary Clinton has finally emerged as a person of potential distinction, someone whose mind is nimble enough to give her the courage and the backbone to respond honestly to her hostile interlocutors in Pakistan, serenely convinced that their nation is beyond reproach, and that the foreign intervention of the United States is responsible for the catastrophic turmoil now existing in Pakistan. As though Pakistan is utterly innocent of fomenting grievances through the deliberate and unforgivable encouraging and funding of violence between herself and her neighbours.

What reason has Pakistan, asked Secretary of State Clinton, to voice complaint that the eyes of the world are upon it as a breeding ground for world-wide terrorism, when the simple fact is that Pakistan has bred within itself that very fertile breeding ground that exists within its geography with utter impunity. (Inviting participation by disaffected international Islamic youth to train in jihadist militancy on Pakistan's soil.) Those groups approved by and supported by its military, and those who now turn against the national government, and its military in the interests of a greater accomplished Islamist Sharia movement shunting aside a nascent democracy.

When the leadership of al-Qaeda along with the Afghan and Pakistan Taliban both find comfort and security within the boundaries of the country, despite protestations of absolute and indignant denial from Islamabad. Pakistan's insistence that the United States should hand over sophisticated drones to its military, to enable it to target border areas hosting the terror groups reflects its rage over the United States' unauthorized incursions over its air space and ground territory. Targeting those remote hideouts where al-Qaeda and the Taliban are ensconced.

"I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are, and couldn't get to them if they really wanted to. Maybe that's the case; maybe they're not gettable, I don't know." Yet she carefully and without malice leaves the indelible impression in the belief of her own administration, one shared by many other countries of the NATO alliance, that there are high-placed Pakistan officials who are complicit with these terror forces, allowing them sanctuary, and defiant of the need to co-operate with foreign forces attempting to uproot them.

Her verbal assault, piercing the innocence of the Pakistan administration and the country's armed forces, does not go down very well; it is a truth that Pakistan feels need not be publicly aired. Ruffling diplomatic feathers in a way that has not quite been seen before. Because most Pakistani civilians believe that it is the presence of the United States in the geography that threatens their country. The vicious attacks upon the institutes of governance, upon military emplacements, upon civilians by the fundamentalist Islamists within Pakistan, attempting to destabilize the country and prevent success of the army's assaults on tribal areas are laid at the feet of the U.S.

It is not the implacable fundamentalists who exist in the formidably-hostile areas of the country and who visit bloody atrocities on the population, destroying schools, attacking and murdering teachers and children, flogging women inadequately garbed, tormenting shaven men, outlawing music and laughter with the rigour of fanaticism - spreading their territory to encompass hitherto government-controlled areas that are at fault. But the presence of NATO and American troops in the neighbourhood, forcing Pakistan into a war it has no gut to pursue.

"Slowly, but insidiously, you were losing territory", she pointed out to one of many accusers at a Pakistan university where she took questions from an obviously aggrieved audience of university students. "If you want to see your territory shrink, that's your choice. But I don't think that's the right choice." As though it were as simple as that. The university students exhibiting such resentment at outside forces - foreign forces, unlike interior malign forces that strive to alter beyond recognition all that they take for granted in whatever freedoms they have - for all their education adamantly refuse reality.

Should Pakistan ultimately and catastrophically fall to the Islamist fanatics battling in South Waziristan it would result in the beginnings of a near-east Caliphate, giving Islamists elsewhere the impetus to strive even more forcefully to achieve their end of the bargain within the Magreb, with Somalia falling to the Islamists, leading the way for other nations to succumb, in Africa. If Islamism could be contained within the traditional confines of Islamic conquest that would be one thing.

But the obvious, and proven intent of global jihad is to conquer all countries of the world. The migration of Muslims to Europe and to North America over the past decades has swelled their numbers to significant proportions of the populations there. And while most Muslims appear to have integrated to a good degree into the surrounding social milieu, accepting Western values, a slowly growing number of young Muslims are rejecting those values, representing a fifth column of jihadists violently dedicated to the overthrow of the West.

All of which appears preposterously improbable, in the length, depth and breadth, not to mention fundamental hysteria of the movement. But there appear many cracks in the solidarity of Western liberal democracies, with ultra-leftist groups implausibly, imponderably professing a certain level of sympathy for those very dedicated jihadists who, in the final analysis, will have no use for these dupes, but whose valuable support at the present helps global jihad in its mission.

Kudos, then, to Hillary Clinton, for what can be hoped to be the first of many future frank admissions, seeming to run counter to President Barack Obama's failing, flailing, game plan.

Oblivious to Terror? Canada?

2009-10-30T18:43:00.000-07:00

So it would certainly seem. We are such well-adjusted communities in Canada, we consider ourselves so perfectly aligned to living in harmony with one another, we simply cannot imagine that ensconced within our communities where freedoms of all kinds are taken for granted, there could be any individuals or groups whose covert actions are meant to violently disrupt our lives. We are, as a country and as a collective of people, fairly blase, not really given to excess of any kind.

We are so fair-minded that we are more than willing to extend the courtesy of doubt toward those whom our intelligence agencies and policing agencies have brought attention as potential, or outright threats to the moderate balance of our lives together, as a pluralist society embracing people from all parts of the world who have migrated here as refugees or immigrants. Who could possibly resent such a country, ready to open its doors to those seeking a new life?

But from experience we now know there are those who resent Canada as a country of the West, a nation allied with others like ourselves who value the freedom of advanced economic activity and the political stability of a liberal democracy. The ire of religious extremists whose grievance against the West is so monumental that they harbour no second thought or self-doubt about the carnage they will unleash on innocent civilians through their intention of violent attack, appears boundless.

Through the easeful communication made possible by use of the WorldWideWeb, militant fanatics seeking to sow terror within countries whom they scorn as degraded societies lacking a fundamental commitment to their vision of the Almighty, sometimes betray their presence through fumbled attempts at violent upheavals. National policing agencies track their presence, apprehend suspected members, gather evidence and seek to prosecute.

And then a hue and cry rises to the heavens about due process of law, (which all agree is crucial to the functioning of any modern society), and the illiberalism seen to be inherent in running counter to individuals' rights under the Canadian Constitution. A left-liberal media, hand in glove with liberal-sensitive NGOs focused on single-issue problems, create their own advocacy on behalf of those suspected and placed on trial for terror-related activities.

We are so functionally mild and mannered that we cannot comprehend that there are those among us, either imported temporarily through visas, or home-born and -bred whose disaffection with our society has led them to plan and attempt to carry out violence against us. And when these suspects are apprehended, and subjected to due process of law - under admittedly special legal precedents to deal with terror - we look askance at those whose mandate it is to protect the nation.

In the words of the newly-installed CSIS head, Richard B. Fadden, there exists a "loose partnership of single-issue NGOs, advocacy journalists and lawyers" in the general population who believe in their collective naivete that "our charm, and the Maple Leaf on our backpacks are all that we need to protect us. Why ... are those accused of terrorist offences often portrayed in media as quasi-folk heroes, despite the harsh statements of numerous judges?

"Why are they always photographed with their children, given tender-hearted profiles, and more or less taken at their word when they accuse CSIS or other government agencies of abusing them?" Accused terrorists, he points out, are etched out as unsophisticated, idealists or too young to be held accountable for the plans they hope to execute; fallen victim to false ideologies, and needful of understanding. And if their plans manage to succeed, what then?

All too often the government itself and its agencies, tasked with the huge responsibility of protecting the population and the country at large from malevolent attacks such as have been seen elsewhere in the world, is held in suspicion. Intelligence agencies' motives are held up to scrutiny, taken to be so maladroit, and themselves evil, in attempting to hold to account innocents who have been wrongly labelled as agents of violence.

"Terror is downgraded to a form of dissent, an act of revolutionary charm rather than a Criminal Code offence and a violation of international human rights standards. Much of the coverage of the trials of those charged in Toronto has reflected this approach. Perhaps this has roots in the belief that Canada is somehow immune from terror, and therefore can't really have any terrorist conspiracies.

"Terrorist offences are the most vile form of criminal conduct. They are abnormal crimes.... They attack the very fabric of Canada's democratic ideals... Their object is to strike fear and terror into citizens in a way not seen in other criminal offences." A large proportion of the public adheres to the liberal-left notion that national security and the security of human rights are consistently in opposition where in fact you cannot have one without the other.

Judicial demands for full disclosure have placed intelligence at a distinct disadvantage. To agree to full disclosure of all details painstakingly assembled as a scaffold by which CSIS and other agencies are able to convince themselves through evidence and interviews, intelligence-sharing and geographic and political data, would be to give away the shop. Leaving such agencies with little option but to demur and withdraw.

In the process leaving those naive elements in society triumphant with the success of the withdrawal of charges by the demanding judiciary against suspects whose activities and background checks have sufficiently incriminated them to render them suspect as terrorists determined to wreak havoc in Canada or using this country as a springboard to terror activity elsewhere.

Like a Massive Earthquake""

2009-10-29T18:50:00.000-07:00

Pakistan has become a reluctant ally with the West, and particularly the United States and NATO, in the 'war against terror'. Accepting American largess with alacrity under the guise of assisting in that 'war against terror', Islamabad had no real intention of putting itself out to extend aid in eradicating the Afghan Taliban they had themselves brought to life, much less al-Qaeda, twinning with the Taliban in their shared purpose.

They little imagined that the monster they encouraged would establish a Pakistan-centered version, to imperil the sovereignty of the nation. The government, through the intervention of their military had, after all, always enjoyed good relations with the tribal chieftains, and signed numerous agreements with them. That the military would leave the Waziristan area to them, and they would in turn refrain from infringing on government-controlled territory.

Now that the Pakistani Taliban have emerged determined to bring fundamentalist Islamist Sharia to the entire geography, the government of Pakistan understands it has little option but to shove back, to restore the rule of law around Peshawar, and extend it to the tribal regions. In the process, defeating the ferocious determination of the Taliban and bring peace to the region.

If they can. Which they claim they can. "Even if we have to die, we'll keep fighting these terrorists until our last breath", bravely declaimed a senior provincial minister on visiting the scene of yet another atrocity visited on the civilians of Peshawar. Where another suicide blast killed women and children shopping in a market because the Taliban find it offensive that women are out in public, shopping.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is utterly outraged at the "appalling loss of innocent lives", and so too is U.S. President Barack Obama, and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Their outrage will not impress the Taliban, whose vision of a future Pakistan is one without schools for girls, with women enveloped entirely in black, and with total censure of music and laughter.

Urged by the United States to hit harder, faster, more deliberately at their now-perceived common enemy, the Pakistan military resents American interference in their country fully as much as the civilians who lay blame on foreigners for the instability that now wracks their country. Adding insult to injury is the aid package stipulating the Pakistan administration gain firm control of their military.

And, above all, that the administration and the military give ample proof of their ability to maintain safeguards for its nuclear facilities. This kind of gross interference in the affairs of the country are not taken with the good grace of those grateful for massive infusions of funding and the handing over of technologically-advanced arms.

This peculiar alliance of dire mutual need is not playing out in a choreography of smooth interplay between trusted allies. Given the adversarial nature of the principals, and the history of the region, throw in the intransigence of the Pakistan military and the leavening dose of religion, little wonder.

Maternal Mentoring

2009-10-28T19:36:00.000-07:00

Is it not every parent's duty to instill in their children sound values? After first imbuing them with the ability to make sensible choices in life. And prioritizing their needs, and leading them toward becoming intelligent adults. Of course this would have to have been preceded by the early nurturing years where the child's emotional needs are recognized and supported, and that child encouraged to learn social and educational-attainment skills. For the greater purpose of achieving success in life.

What a profound failure some children's lives become, as a result of parental indifference. Or ignorance leading to demonstrating for their children how not to value themselves and their futures. With parental values completely defunct, establishing no guidelines of any ethical purpose, no yardstick of achievement, no respect for self. These failures of guidance resulting from parental lack of responsibility are pitiful, and plentiful.

In Ottawa, a mother has reported that her 17-year-old daughter was abducted and raped. The trauma to the young girl was obvious in her having escaped her abductor to appear at her mother's home "screaming and crying". The girl appeared bruised, she said she had been given cocaine, then sexually assaulted, according to the mother and the mother's boyfriend. A social outrage, one that infuriates those who learn of it, and baffles the conscience.

That society, even such a one as ours, that values human connections, purports to care, recognizes the equality of the genders, does its utmost to protect the vulnerable, still grapples with violent crimes against women and girls. But, in fact, violence between men and women is covert and universal, discreet and ongoing. Surfacing to public attention when violent sexual assaults occur and are brought to light.

But this young girl was inebriated, when her mother and her mother's boyfriend decided to take her and another young girl along with them for a night out at a local bar. Arriving at Grace O'Malley's at 12:15, fifteen minutes into another day. The mother confided to authorities that she hadn't realized the girls had been drinking beforehand, that her daughter was "tipsy". What might horrify most mothers, seemed of little concern to this one.

The two adults and the two underage girls were admitted as a group into the bar. The adults noted that a young man appeared to be fixated on the daughter. In response to the attention, the girl left the bar with the man. The mother and her boyfriend discovered the 17-year-old sitting in the man's vehicle, and they recovered the girl, returning to the bar, where the doorman, discerning the state the girl was in, declined to allow her entry.

Nonetheless, the mother and boyfriend entered the bar to retrieve their belongings along with the daughter's friend, and when they returned to the parking lot there was no sign of the daughter. A nearby security guard claimed to have seen a vehicle matching the description the adults gave of the young man's car, leaving the area. The adults informed police, calling from the bar, at about 1:45 a.m.

What kind of future is in store for this 17-year-old girl, under the tutelage of her mother?

Sabotaging Safety

2009-10-28T18:39:00.000-07:00

Adolescent pranks, things that people arrested in juvenile-delinquent mode find amusing can so very often result in grave consequences. Not for the jokesters but certainly for the victims of their 'amusing' little practises. Behaviour that looks like no-brainers for consequences, like dropping rocks off bridges onto oncoming traffic, that kind of thing. Fun and games to the undeveloped intelligence of a prankster, but catastrophe to the driver and passengers when the rock drops through the windshield and the driver loses control of his vehicle.

And what's the allure of using lasers, to shine them at people, temporarily blinding them? Used to be flashlights that feeble-minded youngsters enjoyed lighting up others' faces with. Now there are new, infinitely more powerful toys to play around with. And, of course, the more people know about the practise, the more it gets reported - particularly because sometimes the big joke causes the spectacular to occur, which is presumably what the urge to play idiot is meant to produce.

Transport Canada's Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System keeps track of what are termed by them laser attacks on aircraft. Virtually any strength of laser is capable of causing harm when it is directed skyward into the cockpit of an aircraft. The darker the night, the more dangerously effective the blinding light that shines into the eyes of the unsuspecting victim piloting an aircraft.

If convicted, someone suspected of deliberately flashing a laser at an aircraft could be fined up to $100,000 under the Aeronautics Act. That individual could also face up to five years in prison. Presumably, if the fall-out of such an attack is sufficiently grave, the individual who committed the attack could face both penalties; fine and prison. And should the worst-case scenario ensue, and the offender caught and convicted, that type of penalty is well deserved.

Lasers can burn the retinas of people who are exposed to them. The lesser effect of such exposure can result in temporary damage to the retina, not permanent. But sufficient damage that it would take months for the victim to fully recover normal eyesight. In the case of a pilot that would mean he or she would be effectively grounded as a result of a health impediment to eyesight, obviously vital to piloting a mechanical craft of any kind.

That's one issue. The other is the obvious potential for loss of control of the aircraft, imperilling the lives of anyone aboard the aircraft. In the instance of passenger jets that might result in a catastrophic crash with a huge loss of life. At Pearson International Airport in Toronto, 30 flight crews reported being disturbed by a laser beam while in the process of taking off or landing, in 2009. Fewer such complaints have emanated from other Canadian airports.

People indulge themselves in various types of anti-social and on occasion psychopathic behaviours, revealing their utter lack of concern for the welfare of others. Perhaps in the long run, the situation will require the fashioning of a new type of aeronautical eyewear, goggles with properties that could effectively deflect the beams of laser light. The solution to the presence within society of mentally-deranged and morally-devoid malefactors is another thing altogether.

Establishing A Reputation

2009-10-27T19:28:00.000-07:00

Which was precisely what Robert Bernstein, former president and chief executive of Random House, as chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 2998, managed to establish. A solid reputation as an advocate for basic human freedoms, while supporting political dissenters within closed societies. Human Rights Watch encouraged vigorous public debate in advocating for those struggling to obtain rights and freedoms on behalf of the oppressed. Shining the light of reasoned enlightenment in dark corners of the world.

Somehow, Human Rights Watch appears to have sloughed off its mission for the greater perceived 'good' seen in illuminating the wrongs and misdeeds of an open, free and democratic country with a strong and adversarial press, an independent judiciary, and a national conscience. That same state, surrounded by countries ruled by force of arms, not democratic participation by their citizens, whose human rights are depressed by tyrants, religious thugs, and royal autocrats, is held to a standard they are not.

In its original mandate, Human Rights Watch earned international respect as a voice for the oppressed living in closed societies, and was actively going about its work exposing human rights abuses in 70 countries. In a turn-about of purpose and direction it has joined most other left-leaning, pseudo-humanitarian organizations that see profit in heralding a new mission that they cleave to - the slanderous accusations that can be levelled, with impunity, against the State of Israel.

Israel itself, with its sparse 7.4-million population, one-sixth of which is comprised of Israeli Arabs, has its own human rights organizations, dozens of them, critical of the government at every turn. It has no need of outside critics. It also enjoys the presence of a vibrant free press, one that has no hesitation in criticizing their own government, when they see it to be fit and proper. And the independent judiciary too, has occasion when it rules for a plaintive, against the government.

Arab regimes - and the Iranian Republic, and Muslim societies elsewhere - have much to learn about respecting the human rights of their citizens. Unfortunately, they have no wish to learn anything about human rights, much less those of their citizens, in thrall to the dictates of the state which disdains to consider it might owe certain basic freedoms to its population. Dissent is put down swiftly, brutally. Political adversaries are simply shunted away; prisons are handy for that.

Yet Human Rights Watch is focused on Israel, and Israel alone. Uncritical of the threats posed by, for example, the Islamic Republic of Iran against Israel in its constant threats of annihilation of the "Zionist entity". Despite that this kind of provocation is in direct contravention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In this way, Human Rights Watch is right on cue in partnership with the United Nations and its redoubtable Human Rights Council.

That non-state militias such as Hamas and Hezbollah, acting as subordinate proxies for such dangerous human-rights-abusive states as Syria and Iran, training children in the art of suicide attacks, deliberately using densely populated areas as shields when launching attacks against Israel so that in the aftermath of response, they can crow to the international community about Israel's brutal assaults on minors and civilians, there is no thumping from Human Rights Watch.

So much for a once-vaunted reputation. Human Rights Watch itself has become a willing surrogate for the forces of human relations gone berserk.

Sliding Support

2009-10-26T18:53:00.000-07:00

As though Stephane Dion's feeble performance as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada didn't demonstrate adequately how best not to position the party in a favourable light with the voting public, along came the party's saviour, Michael Ignatieff - the intellectual-celebrity, the self-assured and suave man-about-town who wowed Britain with his brilliant dispatches, and taught ivory-tower human rights in the United States - to match Stephane Dion's mis-steps, one after the other.

Unerringly, blissfully certain of himself, he too, like his predecessor, took great delight in playing the schoolmaster, berating their nemesis, the prime minister of the country, for not living up to their exalted expectations. Warning him, time and again, that he had precious little time left to see the error of his directions, and warm to theirs. Else, they would have little option but to call him out, and inform the electorate that in their elevated opinion, there was little cause to have confidence in the government.

Amazingly, this approach - stated with supreme confidence each time it was expressed, as though they and they alone held the key to successful governance - did not result in the collapse of the government, giving the Liberals the opportunity to resume their rightful place in the hierarchy of Canadian politics, astride the PMO. What ingrates Canadians are, for recalling the contemptuous display of prime ministerly regard awarded them through the auspices of the 'little guy' from Shawinigan.

Who unabashedly took pork barrelling to new heights, and saw no reason to stand down from those heights, nor to defend them beyond the odd quip here and there. Little jokes that, instead of appearing effusively disarming and charming, in the end led his party to oblivion. A much-deserved distance from resuming power. And the electorate has finally come to the realization that the Conservative leader, now prime minister of yet another minority government, has done them proud.

Nothing is perfect, and certainly no government comes even close to that ideal. But the governing Conservatives have done very well for Canada, restoring some level of pride to the country and those who care about how we perceive ourselves, let alone how others perceive us. Now the confidence of the Liberals, in the Liberals, has been sapped by yet another leading failure, and the view in which they are held by the voting public is ever-ebbing.

The hysterical efforts of the Liberals to attempt to blacken the reputation of the governing Conservatives, through finger-pointing, expressions of dismay at unethical behaviour reflective of Liberal governing history, has worn rather thin. As the CEO of Ipsos Reid commented, "The Liberal brand is suffering a bit...", in Ontario no less, the traditional heartland of Liberal support.

Oh, woe!