Not extinct enough!

A new low for the Blogging Tories, now apparently in freefall. Stephen Taylor, who maintains the blogroll, has always seemed like a reasonable fellow to me--does he simply lack any notion of decency?

Shakeup at CSIS?

There was the murky role played by CSIS, Canada's secret police, in the case of Canadian exile Abousfian Abdelrazik. The then-head of CSIS, Jim Judd, indignantly demanded an inquiry of his agency, protesting its innocence--and promptly resigned.

Since, there have been revelations that CSIS had deliberately withheld evidence in two high-profile court cases.

And now the almost toothless watchdog to which CSIS is nominally accountable, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, has had enough. Referring critically to the interrogation of child soldier Omar Khadr by CSIS agents in 2003, the Chair of SIRC, Gary Filmon, said this morning: "The time may have come for CSIS to undertake a fundamental reassessment of how it carries out its work, and to shift its operational culture to keep pace with recent political and legal developments."

Filmon added: "[It is] vital for CSIS to demonstrate that it has the professionalism, experience and know-how required to make the difficult decisions that arise when conducting operations abroad--particularly if confronted with situations similar to that of Mr. Khadr."

This is as clear a statement as we are likely to get from a competent authority on our out-of-control spy agency. Just as we have seen in the case of the RCMP, thanks to the Braidwood Inquiry, CSIS too has not been held accountable to anyone until recently for its excesses. There are no built-in mechanisms to call it to heel when it rides roughshod over the basic human and civil rights of Canadians.

Now the spotlight is on, full glare. I hope the CSIS brass are fidgeting, because unless I miss my guess it's a hard rain's a-gonna fall.

[H/t buckets, b/c]

The Zerb vs. Kathy English: are we being had?

OK: we're all familiar at this point with the sickeningly prissy, obsequious, condescending tone of the now-infamous column by the Toronto Star's "public editor," Kathy English. And on both sides of the blogospheric aisle, we've blasted considerable scorn in her direction.

Now I'm scratching my head. Indeed, that head-scratching began last evening over wings and beer with my co-blogger.

Are there wheels within wheels here?

Let's quickly sum up the events from July 1 on:

There was the Canada Day column by the Zerb that started everything off. Then, six days later, manufactured outrage by Bernie Farber: all of us, except those born without a brain, know that the "Bernie Farber is gay" comment was sarcastic, right down to the Seinfeldian echo. But it became a juicy "gotcha" moment for the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Farber, who enjoys a surfeit of social capital, called a meeting of the CJC's Executive Committee, which was followed by calls to the Star brass. A lot of kneeling, kowtowing and forelock-tugging ensued--and a public scolding of one of the Star's best journos and columnists by the "public editor."

Ironically, the July 1 column mentioned initiatives by various pro-Israel organizations to shut down debate in Canada. Subsequently, we've been watching a living example unfold, attempted this time by indirect means.

But English is no tyro. She's been in the journalism game for more than three decades, and has taught journalism at Ryerson for one. Yet her column looked like the overwrought, earnest, sententious work of a fresh-faced intern.

What, I asked myself and Marie-Ève, if this colossal flub on her part was deliberate?

Read that truly dreadful screed once again. Is there not something parodic about it? Something almost self-consciously schoolmarmish?

Look what she actually conveys. First, the Star's publisher, John Cruikshank, is quoted at length in the column--it becomes pretty clear, from that, that she had been given an assignment. And we are also informed in her piece that she had at least one direct conversation with Farber, although we aren't told who initiated the call.

Then check out the results she managed to achieve. With one over-the-top fawning, priggish, patronizing article, English pressed nearly everybody's buttons, Left, Right and centre. Everyone from Mark Steyn and Kathy Shaidle to Mattt, Stageleft, rabble and a horde of others, were up in arms. Frankly, anyone who can bring together Kathy and the Zerb should be sent to the Middle East forthwith to broker a peace deal.

And cui bono (and malo)? Farber ends up looking ridiculous, the Star's publisher, cowardly, the CJC, censorious yet again--and Antonia Zerbisias like the straight-talking, humorous, independent-thinking heroine she is. She's probably doubled her traffic, and has certainly expanded her fan base.

Not half bad for one column. I bet it's the last time English is asked to do the publisher's dirty work.

Jason Kenney's anti-Roma roots?

On Foreign Affairs Minister Jason Kenney's desk is a picture of a convicted pro-Nazi war criminal, Cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, whom he considers one of his heroes.

During World War II, Stepinac collaborated with Ante Pavelic, the head of a pro-Nazi puppet state called the "Independent State of Croatia," run by a murderous gang called the Ustaša. They set up the notorious Jasenovac concentration camp, where an estimated 13,000 Jews, 48,000 Serbs--and 10-20,000 Roma--were slaughtered. [p.327]

Not even the Nazis had a concentration camp exclusively for children--but Stepinac's friends did: they killed thousands of kids as young as three, frequently poisoning them with caustic soda.

"Hitler is an envoy of God,"declared Stepinac, in a letter to the Croatian Sentinel on January 1, 1942. The good Cardinal, then a mere Archbishop, was promoted by Pope Pius XII and beatified by Pope John Paul II.

Kenney, it seems, has learned well from his hero. He has now instituted visa requirements for Czech nationals, with the explicit aim of keeping Roma, persecuted in the Czech Republic, from seeking refuge here. As weaselly as ever, Kenney has relied on a recent report prepared by the Immigration Review Board to state that Roma do not suffer state-sponsored discrimination in the Czech Republic.

What he somehow failed to mention is that the state is doing little or nothing to prevent discrimination on the ground--at the hands of police, the school system, and neo-Nazi mobs. And the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, has blocked anti-discrimination legislation. Amnesty International has been all over this. So has Human Rights Watch.

But none of this cuts any ice, perhaps not surprisingly, with Minister Kenney. So we've shut our doors to the Roma, as we shut our doors to the Jews during World War II--another black eye for Canada on the international stage. And, once again, the agenda of the Conservative government has become a little clearer--and a little scarier.

[H/t Pushed to the Left]

The Queen is senile

This proves it.

Honours for an autocrat whose career was marked by venality, scandal, coverup, assault and the crushing of dissent.

Not the award I would have chosen for this dreadful little man.

Your daily bureaucrat

This could cost me my final ethics clearance for some interviews I have to do to complete my thesis. But I can't resist.

I have received conditional clearance for my project. Amongst other niggles large and small, I was rapped on the knuckles for not using my university email account when communicating with the university ethics board. I expressed a little surprise, given that I was, in effect, voluntarily surrendering my own privacy, but I tried to comply.

Perhaps needless to say, my university email account subsequently crashed like a stone. So I emailed back to explain, as well as to provide clarification (not enough, as it turned out) of other issues raised by the Board.

I shan't print the entire official response I received, but George Orwell would have loved the first paragraph, which I hereby share with my readers:

First, about the need to use your Carleton email account (which I hope my email to the CCS Service Desk will facilitate its functionality): It is advisable from a representational viewpoint, when conducting university business, to use the email from that business entity, and, we, as an institution, have negotiated with the Ontario Privacy Office that we will conduct business from our Carleton email accounts because email is not a secure medium. So, the requirement that a researcher use their Carleton email account is a matter of best business practice on a number of levels.

And there you have it. Whatever "it" is.

Starving the little woman

Remember that rape law (to be more precise, the law legalizing marital rape) that Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai tried to pass earlier this year?

It's been amended. But most of the media haven't delved beyond that. The Independent, however, which broke the original story, has done so.

Husbands may no longer rape their wives. Instead, they may now starve them into sexual submission.

The ethicists among us will have to explain the fine distinctions here. But while we're having that discussion, may we please bring our troops home?

[H/t Antonia Z.]

"The operation ... is showing signs of success"

Too bad about all those dead patients.

The Flying Rodent offers Gordo an alternative strategy.

Sunday crackers

• 'nuff said:
  Did our normally cocksure PM waffle over the wafer and put it away to think about? Did he swallow it later? And what if he didn't - or did? One senior priest said it was insulting if Harper didn't swallow, while another said it was wrong if he did - because he's not Catholic.
  

• Dusky exiles: more heat on the Harper government.
  

• BC: RCMP runs amok.

• The infamous Singaporan homophobe Thio Li-ann has been invited to New York University to teach a course--on human rights. Next up: Ian Paisley, on comparative religion. Ben Stein, on palaeontology.
  

• Jay Currie's comment purgatory. And he knows whereof he speaks.

• Mainstream conservative racism. Who knew? [H/t LuLu]

There can be only one

Great minds think alike, as the old adage goes. Inevitably greeted by the antiphonal retort: and fools seldom differ.

So what's going on with the Blogging Tories?

Balbulican has a theory.

Hell freezes over again

I find myself in agreement with Kathy Shaidle today. Does she ever have that "earnestness" thing right. John Cruikshank, who in a previous incarnation went after Heather Mallick for being unkind to Sarah Palin, slaps down another uppity broad today through his "public editor." At least I read it that way. Shorter Kathy English: "Antonia Zerbisias was unfair to Bernie Farber, and our publisher agrees!"

Let's take us a closer look. In her comments here (amazingly enough not deep-sixed like Mallick's column--Cruikshank must be mellowing), the Zerb said the following, cited here in context:

the CJC marched in the Pride Parade.

So unless I missed a source (even heard Farber on CBC's the Current...no call for banning) you may have got it wrong or worse put your own spin on it.

Posted by: Susan Cardikan | July 07, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Yes, Susan, imagine my surprise when I saw Bernie Farber identifying himself as queer by joining a pro-Israel gay rights group in the parade. Funny because I had never seen him in the march before. Funny because I didn't know he was gay.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Now the wider context here was pressure from various interest groups to ban a group called "Queers Against Israeli Apartheid" from the Gay pride march in Toronto. Zerb was obviously being sarcastic, suggesting that his presence in a pro-Israel gay contingent might conceivably have had more to do with the "pro-Israel" part than the "gay" part. She could well have been wrong. But the reaction to her throwaway comment was astonishing.

Farber was not amused (but when, in all honesty, is he ever amused?) His response, in fact, was to do a little shuffle, as described by the "public editor":

I think Zerbisias's ambiguous words forced him into the awkward position of having to make clear that he is not gay, while also affirming that "I take no offence at being misidentified as gay. I am offended, however, at the fact that a professional journalist would simply make up information of any sort and post it publicly."

Why, if there is nothing wrong with being gay, is Farber "forced" to state publicly that he is not? Why all the Sturm und Drang? What does it matter, one way or the other?

And then a Star editor and the publisher go into full damage-control mode--except that I can't, as noted, discern any damage. Not, in any case, unless Farber, despite his protestations, thinks that the "gay" label is a stigma, and the Star brass agrees with him. Blogs by Star journalists, says English, "may not put the Star in a negative light." An ironic comment about someone being gay does that?

Tempest. Teapot. And possibly a wee bit of homophobia disguised as hand-wringing concerns about fairness and accuracy? You decide.

(I'm with Shaidle on the "house blog" thing, too--a blog that isn't really a blog, but a bit of extra supervised pasture within which journalists are permitted to roam. But as for the blog-traffic issue, here we part ways and I find myself in more congenial company.)

Saturday snacks

• Impolitical is on the medical isotope crisis like a pitbull. Keep chewing! (Buckets has thoughtfully provided an index.)
  

• Robert Fisk has a good take on the Dead Sea Scrolls non-controversy within the precincts of the Royal Ontario Museum: the Ottawa Citizen, meanwhile, believes that the International Anti-Jewish Conspiracy is at work again.

• My perennial sparring partner Jay Currie goes way out on a limb in his continuing vendetta against CHRC head Jennifer Lynch. I'd advise readers to go read her words--and the comments--for themselves. Shouting "Liar!" in a crowded theatre isn't exactly a refutation, Jay. Even the dense Blazing Cat Fur showed up @4:34 PM to admit that there's no evidence that CHRC employees posted hateful comments on the Internet.
  
  The comments on the Lynch piece--mostly namecalling and bad spelling--are a different story, and say far more about the mindset of the Speech Warriors™, in fact, than anything I could write myself. I see, by the way, that I have to take back my statement yesterday about the CHRC abandoning Dean Steacy to the libelers and defamers--Lynch did rise to his defence in her article, if not in a particularly spirited fashion.
  
  
• Kat-fight! Ritual cannibalism, after all, is no laughing matter.
  

Freedom!

[*]

Another day, another brown Canadian is exiled [updated]

I blogged about this a few days ago, but matters appear to have escalated.

A young Canadian citizen, Suaad Mohamud Hagi, remains stranded in Nairobi, Kenya. She wants to come home. The Canadian government is refusing to let her. Sound familiar?

The picture in her passport, four years old, doesn't look like her, says Kenyan officials. But she has a citizenship certificate, an OHIP card and a driver's licence to prove her identity. She also has something even more conclusive--fingerprints. They were taken when she made an application to become a Canadian citizen. She has offered to have them taken again.

No dice, says Foreign Affairs officials:

Following an extensive investigation, officials at the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi have determined that the individual arrested by Kenyan authorities is not Ms. Suaad Mohamud Hagi.

Fingerprints? We don't need no stinkin' fingerprints. Her ex-husband, her 12-year-old son, a pile of neighbours and her local MP, Joe Volpe, have all vouched for her, but the suave creeps at Foreign Affairs are having none of it.

She now joins Abdihakim Mohamed, who has been twisting in the wind for two years. And Bashir Makhtal. And Omar Khadr. And God only knows how many more, who haven't yet come to the attention of the media.

The only question that remains in my mind at this point is why the government is marooning its beige citizens one unfortunate at a time. Wouldn't it be more efficient for this odious gang of Conservative racists to round up every brownskin in the country and deport them en masse?

[H/t Kateland b/c]

UPDATE: (July 10) Canadian officials have finally deigned to take Hagi's fingerprints. They'll "get back to her." Meanwhile she still faces trial--it seems that a helpful consular official informed the Kenyan government that "conclusive investigations" proved she was an impostor, and sent along her confiscated passport to assist in her prosecution.

Brother Steacy, it's time to sue

I knew Dean Steacy when he was a PSAC local president at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and before he lost his sight.

This conscientious public employee has been libeled, defamed and grossly insulted by our Speech Warriors. He has been mocked, amongst other things, simply for being blind. Can't do much about the last--boorishness is not illegal-- but plenty about the first two.

Exhibit 1: Maclean's magazine and the odious Mark Steyn. A classic libel, actionable as it gets.

Exhibit 2: Conservative troglodytic backbencher Russ Hiebert. Ditto.

As far as I can tell, and I'd be happy to stand corrected, Steacy's employer has not lifted a finger on his behalf. Time for the private sector to lend a hand.

I hereby promise to kick in $1K to launch a libel action, if Steacy is agreeable. I hope and expect others will contribute as well. It's high time to call these verbal hooligans to account.

[H/t Buckets, BCL]

UPDATE: A correspondent has already offered to match my $1K if Steacy decides to go for it.

Republicans for Ignatieff

I smell a hoax. But get a load of this.

George W. Bush, human rights champion. Who'd a thunk it?

Our Prime-Minister-in-waiting, for one, who evidently failed to tour Abu Ghraib during the palmy days of the Bush administration.

Dark justice

I followed the murder trial of Ottawa resident Wahab Dadshani and five others, partly because I might have been on the jury. But I had blogged about one of the police witnesses some time ago, felt compelled to let the judge know, and was duly excused.

In a nutshell, two rival gangs of hard men met in a children's park and one person was slashed to death--a lurid tale, but it's not what's preoccupying me at the moment.

It turned out that Dadshani did a heck of a job defending himself against a first-degree murder charge. He had no fool for a client: his measured questioning of witnesses drew the admiration of defence lawyers who attended the trial. In fact, he was applauded when his acquittal for murder was announced, although he was found guilty of manslaughter. And lawyers did pretty well for his co-accused, getting every last one of them off.

Dadshani had spent more than six years behind bars before his trial, and it was widely expected that, with the usual two-for-one policy (receiving credit for twelve years served), he would do little if any time. Manslaughter convictions do not, as a rule, attract twelve-year sentences, as defence lawyers in the case point out. For example. Etc. Etc. Etc.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, Justice Hugh McLean sentenced him to another five years.

Let me note that Dadshani, a grim and burly man with a tough past who used a sword on his victim, is not a person with whom I would be likely to socialize. But there are a number of disturbing aspects to the judge's sentence, besides the fact that it amounts to a seventeen-year stretch, one more appropriate to a second-degree murder conviction, as one of the lawyers noted.

The judge cited a number of "aggravating factors," including the location of the attack (a children's park), Dadshani's pursuit of his victim even though he had been fatally wounded, being told to stop by a park employee and his brother during the course of the attack, bringing weapons to the scene, and being on release conditions at the time for a previous murder charge.

Clearly there is no argument here that serious jail time isn't warranted. But looking a little more closely at this, Dadshani was actually acquitted of that previous murder charge for lack of evidence. Why, then, would that be an "aggravating factor?"

And the location of the attack was out of Dadshani's control. The jury found that he had been lured there by his victim, Charbel Chaar, and was ambushed by a friend of Chaar's who blasted away at him with a handgun.

Of more concern is the reason given by the judge for abandoning the "two-for-one" formula: Ottawa terrorist Momin Khawaja wasn't given two-for-one credit. Yet the cases had nothing whatsoever in common, other than that both men had what a right-wing blogger might call "funny names." Strange that the judge couldn't seem to be able to distinguish a terrorist from a common-or-garden street thug. And the street thug, in this instance, got a substantially longer sentence than the terrorist.

Justice McLean's decision is being appealed. Quite right. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.

Aryan honour

The video is on YouTube. I watched it last night with growing pleasure. Three young Aryan hoodlums decided to take on a fit Black man: he showed he could handle himself, to their growing discomfiture.

The only time things got serious for him was when at one point he hit the ground--of course the three brave Aryan warriors chose that opportunity to move in and stomp him. One-on-one isn't the Aryan way.

But the target got to his feet and went after them. They fled in a pick-up truck (natch), shouting racial slurs as they bravely drove away. The warriors are all under arrest now: despite the quite audible and frequent use of racial epithets, the RCMP is still investigating whether or not the attack was racially motivated.

Bravo, Jay Phillips. The only way to deal with this trailer* trash is to take it out and leave it at the curb.

___________
*Reader nitangae has a point. In fact he is entirely right. Mea culpa.

Jackson's farewell concert

I've been watching all the Jackson foofaraw out of the corner of my eye with mild alarm. Today, reading about his upcoming gala performance, that alarm is rapidly turning to panic.

100,000 people are descending upon downtown LA for the big event, due to start in an hour or so. The fans having been lining up since before sunrise. "Some people are coming in from around the world to be part of it," a First Assistant Police Chief said. "They just want to be close to it." There was a ticket lottery for the actual performance in the Staples Centre, and, while the tickets were originally free, vast sums of money have changed hands in a global bidding war.

Backing Jackson on vocals will be some huge names: people like Stevie Wonder, John Mayer, Jennifer Hudson, Maria Carey, Queen Latifah, Smokey Robinson and Usher. While the featured performer will not be doing his trademark moonwalk, that doesn't seem to have deterred his fans in the slightest:

"I spent $700 to come here," said Mr. [Donte] Zierway, who works for a collections agency. "I just came. I entered my name, I prayed, and I got on a plane. Then I found out today that I had a ticket."

Joey Daniel, 22, said he had considered selling his tickets but could not pass up the memorial. "This is a part of history," Mr. Daniel said. "We could probably sell these for a lot of money, but it wouldn’t be worth it. I’m going to tell my children and grandchildren that I was there."

What brings out such numbers for this sort of event? What is the "it" that people so desperately want to be a part of? Self-mutilator, dancer, babysitter, singer: no question that this fellow has it all. Yet he's only an entertainer: not a saviour of the masses or a crazed dictator (if you'll pardon the possible tautology).

In any case, the upcoming communitas event will no doubt generate a lovely collective effervescence, not to mention substantial revenue for business owners in LA. It promises to be such a wild success, in fact, that I find myself idly wondering: why only one show? Why not take the thing on tour?

Honduras: hypocrisy as an art form

Did you know that ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya threatened democracy by trying to get rid of presidential term limits? Already this is gaining the status of a meme.

It's not only the usual crazies, who will support any coup so long as it's against the Left, and are happy to have the people ruled by unelected dictators and the army to preserve democracy. Now it's the mainstream press as well. The Globe & Mail weighs in this morning about the advisability of term limits--it's for them in Honduras, and against them here.

First, what did the deposed president actually do? Canadian Cynic did a little digging, and this is what he found:

The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read “Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d’etat underway in Honduras, spread the word.” It’s a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversy is today’s scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.

Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration’ s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras’ Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occurred, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today’s scheduled poll was not binding by law. In fact, several days before the poll was to occur, Honduras’ Supreme Court ruled it illegal, upon request by the Congress, both of which are led by anti-Zelaya majorities and members of the ultra-conservative party, National Party of Honduras (PNH).

Well, let's also add that, according to various opinion polls, President Zelaya had a public approval rating of about 30%, or so we are told. The reference is probably to this CID-Gallup poll that shows him at 34%, although, on closer inspection, all is not what it seems. Nevertheless, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that this result is accurate: recall that Zelaya won his 2005 election with just under half of the popular vote.

What, then, do we have? A president who doesn't simply declare that he's staying on, but wants to go to the people to see what they think about constitutional change. The referendum, after the Honduran Supreme Court made some noise, would have been legally non-binding. It was not about term limits specifically, but about the advisability of convening a constitutional assembly to mull over constitutional reform in general.

All very rule-of-law-ish, or so it seems to me. And if term limits were to be abolished as a result of those deliberations, Zelaya, at 34% in the polls, wouldn't exactly be going into the next election with a huge head of steam.

In the event, in time-dishonoured Latin American fashion, soldiers entered his residence firing rifles, and he was ejected from the country. But there were important differences: he wasn't shot dead on the spot, like Chile's President Salvador Allende, and the US actually opposed the coup, joining in the near-universal chorus of denunciation.

Er-r, hold on a moment--what do we have here? The Organization of American States has suspended Honduras. But:

Canada and the United States worked closely together to moderate OAS actions in regard to the coup. According to the [New York] Times, the two countries dissuaded the hemispheric body from adopting sanctions and persuaded it to settle for a milder resolution encouraging member countries to "review their relations" while diplomatic efforts continued.

Oh-oh. Is that wheels within wheels I see before me? We'll all cluck with disapproval for a while, but heaven forbid we actually take any action to force Honduras back onto the democratic path. I almost missed that, way down at para. 16 on page A9 in the Globe, although it was, admittedly, front and centre in the New York Times. In Bush's day, leftish Presidents were bundled onto planes and exiled. Under Obama, we'll just let diplomacy do the trick.

Back to the sinuous arguments in today's Globe editorial. Zelaya, shrieks the editorialist, used "machinations" (beware of those, as any kid with a Transformer knows) to attempt to insert a "generalissimo clause" in the Honduran constitution. Since the point at issue was abolishing term limits, which means removing a clause, this allegation makes no sense. But then, propaganda doesn't really have to.

Asking the people what they think, possibly convening a constitutional assembly to look at the constitution as a whole, and all this with a 34% approval rating, is a "return to authoritarianism," a "blow against the rule of law," "Chavez-style lifetime rule." Zelaya wanted to "extend [his] rule indefinitely," but of course we aren't reminded that it is the lukewarm Honduran electorate who would or would not be doing the extending. Bursting into his house with guns blazing and kicking him out of the country was simply a response to all these threats and menaces. Maybe a little extreme, mind you:

Mr. Zelaya should be restored to office, but if that happens he must also make explicit that he will uphold the constitutional provisions on term limits. The principle he was toying with changing is fundamental to democracy in executive-style presidencies.

Term limits are admittedly quite common around the world, but Honduras' single four-year term stands alone. Canada, however, has no such thing; nor Britain, nor Japan, nor India.

Of course we don't have an "executive-style presidency": it's far too inefficient. Obama, poor man, is not only restricted to two terms: he can't even put a cabinet together without congressional approval. Or pick a Supreme Court justice. Here Stephen Harper picks his cabinet and appoints whomever he likes to the bench and the Senate and fires supposedly independent agency heads at will. He's not the head of state, although he seems to think he is, but the Governor General, by tradition, takes his advice.

The Prime Minister of Canada, in other words, is far more powerful than most of those executive-style presidents, and he doesn't have pesky term limits standing in his way, but the Globe & Mail has nothing to say about any of that. It dares, however, to set out the terms and conditions for the return of Honduras to democracy: the president must not try to bring about constitutional change, says the editorialist, even by democratic means.

Not that he's likely to get the chance, of course. Which is really the whole point of the politicking and counter-politicking currently going on--not to mention the drafting of countless hand-wringing excuses for a classic South American coup.

Monuments

It seems that this self-satirizing government of ours is planning a memorial to the victims of Communism. I suppose there's nothing wrong with raising the consciousness of those who have not experienced the excesses of Stalinism first-hand, but it does seem oddly selective.

I was a member for some time of the Friends of the Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, the latter being volunteers who fought on the side of the Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The FBI had a wonderful term for these men--"premature anti-fascists." You only get to be anti-fascist, you see, when the government says it's OK, and at the time of that war a lot of governments weren't sure. Some battle-hardened veterans of the Mac-Paps weren't even permitted to join up when the Second World War was declared. National security or some-such.

Our group tried--in vain--to have these veterans recognized officially by the Canadian government, so that the dwindling number of them could qualify for benefits--and, more importantly, recognition. We were unsuccessful. At least we managed to have a memorial put up near the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2001. By that time there were scarcely a dozen of these brave people alive. Only three--of the original 1600--were able to attend the unveiling. The then-Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson, participated unofficially.

The struggle in which these volunteers took part was thus remembered. A monument against fascism? One, I would say, of many that do, or should already, exist. But it has specificity, a place and time: it commemorates real people with real names. It's not a memorial that lacks all human reference, in spite of its claims, and becomes just another abstract, ideological weapon of war.

It's pointless counting victims and saying that one form of totalitarianism is worse than another. One wrongful death is too many. All totalitarianisms are a perversion of the human spirit. But the National Post and the Harper government are picking and choosing. One must wonder why this would be the case. Don't the millions of victims of the Axis powers count?

And what, as my fellow-blogger Chrystal Ocean rightly asks, about the millions more victims of neoliberalism, a doctrine not officially recognized as totalitarian, who died because of deep slashes in social services demanded of Third World nations by the IMF and the World Bank in various "restructuring programs?" What of the countless victims of imperialism--two million Vietnamese alone, for example, killed during the Vietnam War?

I'd be first in line to support a monument to all the victims of twentieth-century political inhumanity--and the many lessons we failed to learn. But that's not what's on the horizon.

Here's what the chief proponent of the memorial, one Zuzana Hahn, has to say:

The Jews have been so verbal, and would not let us forget. But when you talk to people about communism ... many feel, 'oh, it wasn't so bad.'

Why, those pushy Jews! And for Ukrainian nationalist Lubomyr Luciuk, about whom I've written before, even a memorial is insufficient--nothing less than a museum will do.

Needless to say, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney, who wears his politics on his sleeve, is hot to trot on this one. Why not have another run at the ethnic vote?

In the meantime, an important truth is being lost. Easy explanations of the human condition kill people. Lots of people. There is nothing inherently murderous in the Marxist notion of equality and class struggle, as there is, almost by definition, in the fascist view of humanity. But even the vision of the Communist Manifesto, in the hands of malign, grotesque boobs like Josef Stalin, can be turned into its opposite: national chauvinism, mass slaughters on a formerly inconceivable scale, mind control, amoral bureaucracy.

And neoliberalism, a doctrine of the privileged First World that has wreaked havoc upon the peoples of the Third World, was not intended to kill. Not all of its progenitors were cynical and ruthless: they believed in capitalism and its oh-so-wonderful benefits, and then they discovered what they had done. Some of them, anyway.

Perhaps a healthier discussion might focus on learning from mistakes--vast, monstrous mistakes--and figuring out how we might move ahead with humane values and new and genuinely accountable forms of governance. Fighting the long-dead Cold War with ideological memorials to nameless victims is not only anachronistic: it intercepts a debate whose time has surely come, and seeks to co-opt it for crass partisan purposes. Can we not think about building new forms of democracy at this point in our history, rather than erecting blank gravestones?

Godwin Sunday

Gosh. There seems to be some pushback from regular readers at the very suggestion that Stephen Harper has the authoritarian tendencies made infamous by Il Duce and his early supporter F. T. Marinetti.

A private portrait gallery and taking himself for the head of state are symptomatic, but, no, it really can't happen here. I thought my hed gave the game away, but obviously not.

If fascism were to come to Canada, to paraphrase Halford Luccock (not Huey Long), it wouldn't be marked by a swastika or even called fascism, but would be entirely Canadian. Yet, like "liberal fascism," that oxymoronic (and I add "oxy-" only out of courtesy) conservative diversion that has already jumped the shark, "Canadian fascism" is somewhat of a contradiction in terms. In case it needs to be said, it takes more than one jumped-up Calgarian to establish a corporate state and build death camps. Even some of Harper's red-meat base might be heard to mutter if such things were mooted. And anyway, Bernie Farber simply wouldn't have it.

So let us leave, then, the alternate universe in which Canada, somehow struggling out of its winter clothes, its diverse national identities, its history of compromise and moderation enforced by countless civic watchdogs, becomes One Empire and One People, under One Leader. This one:





















Let's turn, instead, to professional car racing. Quite a different story. Rife with fascism.

No, I'm not making a snide reference to NASCAR and its fan base. I'm referring, of course, to the elite ranks in the world of speed, Formula One.

Once again, F.T. Marinetti had it taped a hundred years ago. Here are points 4 and 5 of his Futurist Manifesto:

4. We declare that the splendor of the world has been enriched by a new beauty: the beauty of speed. A racing automobile with its bonnet adorned with great tubes like serpents with explosive breath ... a roaring motor car which seems to run on machine-gun fire, is more beautiful than the Victory of Samothrace.

5. We want to sing the man at the wheel, the ideal axis of which crosses the earth, itself hurled along its orbit.

And today we have Formula One's President, Bernie Ecclestone, saying that Adolf Hitler, whatever his peccadillos, was a go-to guy, a fellow who "got things done." (Hard to argue with that, actually: the most destructive war in history, the Holocaust, the humiliation and division of Germany, second-rate watercolours...the list goes on and on.)

Apparently Ecclestone--who once said that women should dress in white "like other domestic appliances"--believes that democracy "hasn't done a lot of good for many countries--including this one [Britain]."

"In a lot of ways, terrible to say this I suppose, but apart from the fact that Hitler got taken away and persuaded to do things that I have no idea whether he wanted to do or not, he was in the way that he could command a lot of people, able to get things done," he said.

"In the end he got lost, so he wasn't a very good dictator."

Bernie Farber was so taken aback by this that he sounded for all the world like a Speech Warrior™: "I think sometimes when you hold people up to the glare of public attention and let the people decide for themselves once they see what a person is all about, that sometimes is more than enough."

Ecclestone went on to express his preference for strong leaders. Margaret Thatcher. Saddam Hussein. Max Mosely, whom he thinks would make a great British Prime Minister.

Max Mosely?

He's the current president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile, which regulates sports racing. He is also--I am rubbing my eyes as I write this--the son of Oswald Mosely. Yup, that Oswald Mosely. And, come to think of it, that Max Mosely, too.

Need I go on? Never mind old gaffers staggering around Latin America, and the current resurgence of the ultra-right in Austria and Italy. When fascism truly rises again, it will be driving a Maserati.

[h/t LuLu for reminding me of Max's unconventional pleasures]

Godwin Saturday

Why not? Let's juxtapose:

Projected costs of our war in Afghanistan 2009-2011 (bypassing the military censors and going straight to the newspapers): $2.981 billion.

Library and Archives Canada freezes purchases.

As Stephen Harper, taking a salute on July 1 reserved for the head of state, might opine: Wenn ich Kultur höre ... entsichere ich meinen Browning." How soon before we see this strutting nonentity in a faux-military uniform resplendent with gold braid and a chestful of self-awarded decorations?

Back to the future? Here are points 9 and 10 from F.T. Marinetti's "Futurist Manifesto," 100 years old this year:

9. We want to glorify war - the only cure for the world - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of the anarchists, the beautiful ideas which kill, and contempt for woman.

10. We want to demolish museums and libraries, fight morality, feminism and all opportunist and utilitarian cowardice.

Ah, well. First time as tragedy, second time as farce.

Brad Wall's Saskatchewan

...where the borders are straight and the ruling party is straighter.

If the Saskatchewan government get its way, certain public employees, whose salaries are paid by the residents of Saskatchewan, will be able to refuse to serve you if you're gay.

No word as yet whether Saskatchewan members of the Dutch Reformed Church will be permitted to refuse marriage to mixed-race couples.

Love, hate and the whole damned thing

Right-wingers have been having a bit of a time with a brash 22-year-old's Facebook comment, "F**k Canada Day." That raises a number of questions, for me at least.

How many Facebook throwaway lines are coughed up by smart-ass university students? How many of them get noticed? Why did this one get noticed?

Well, Omar Shaban is one of those Canadians with funny names. And he was, until a day or two ago, a Vice-President of the Canadian Arab Federation. The endlessly self-promoting Tarek Fatah, who knows his way around Facebook, pounced on Shaban's entry and sent it around to his media contacts, and the fat was soon in the fire.

The fact that it was a personal opinion didn't matter a damn. There were two strikes against this native-born Canadian from the start: his ethnicity and his public role. On the Web, the line between personal and public can admittedly get blurred, but in this case there was little question that he was acting on his own: the CAF reacted sharply, distancing itself from the comments in no uncertain terms, and a day later it had his resignation.

Didn't matter. The CAF was now the target. "Damage control," sniffs Rod Breakenridge. "To bite the hands of one's benefactor on the most symbolic day of the benefactor's year is a provocation that must not go unchallenged," shrieks the National Post's Barbara Kay. "Love it or leave it," howls the Calgary Herald.

The logic here escapes me, but the racism doesn't. The CAF hasn't exactly been shy about making controversial public utterances in the past. If Shaban had been speaking officially, we would not have witnessed this immediate response. Clearly he was not. But he gave the xenophobes an opening that they simply couldn't ignore. Shaban was no longer one callow youth with flapping lips, but Islamism, jihad, terrorism and birthrates all rolled into one.

Freedom of speech? That's for real Canadians. As far as people like Kay are concerned, the little brownskins should kiss the hand of their "benefactor" and just shut up. As for the aboriginal Canadians that Shaban was on about, many of whom might indeed find sorrow and not joy in Canada Day celebrations, Fatah says that was just a ruse. Why would he give a damn about aboriginals? Nobody else does.

A few years ago I recall being offended by hateful comments made by a gaggle of Islamist comeres on email. Canada was frequently referred to as "this filthy country." Vicious homophobic sentiments were uttered. "We hate Canada," said one sweetheart.

And then someone--Robert McClelland?--pointed out that this sort of thing is common-or-garden on the right side of the blogosphere. And, re-framed that way, he was absolutely right, of course. Squeeze out the ethnic aspect and you've got boring old conservative whinging.

Why aren't the Usual Suspects outraged by this, for example?

"I hate my country. Just in time for Canada Day!"

But that's different. And we all know why.

News from the mother of democracy

How the modern English constabulary deals with protest.

Hint: Don't go asking for a cop's badge number, dearie. That'll get you roughed up, jailed for four days and bogus charges into the bargain.

At least the victims weren't summarily executed on the spot. Or beaten to death.

[H/t Bob Thomson, Ottawa Witness Group]

In a mill with slaves

Thought I'd look in today on one of the world's more notorious open-air prisons.

• No building supplies permitted: people are living in rubble. Check.
  
  
• The kids need shoes, but shoes may not be imported. Check.
  
  
• Shampoo with conditioner held back--conditioner not allowed. Check.
  
  
• The prison population, 1.4 million people, get 60% of the food they need. Check.
  

The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees has issued an alarm. But Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor isn't impressed:

What truly defies logic and rationality is the stubborn insistence of UNRWA to turn their back on reality by repeatedly refusing to call things by their real name and indicate the heavy responsibility of Hamas' belligerence in bringing about the current situation. [Emphasis added.]

OK, I'll play. Let's "call things by their real name."

It's six months now since the Israeli attack on Gaza took place. Amnesty International has now released a comprehensive report on the conflict, in which 1400 Palestinians were killed, and 13 Israelis.

How does "war crime" sound? Or "on-going violations of international law?" (Articles 33 and 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to be exact.)

Last word to Gideon Levy:

The mass experiment on human beings has failed miserably; two years is enough time to determine this. Not one of the siege's aims have been achieved and the damage is only piling up, perhaps for all eternity. Folly and malevolence, a fairly common combination, have melded into one of Israel's most fateful mistakes. Even if we leave aside the moral aspect of the inhumane and illegal siege, it is no longer possible to ignore its stupidity as a policy. Shalit has not been released - no siege is going to free him. Hamas has not fallen - the group is only more firmly establishing its regime. And above all, a new reality is developing before our eyes that is worse for Israel than all its predecessors.

The siege has splintered the Palestinian people even more. This is not the first time Israel has split up the Palestinians: Since 1948 it has been systematically separating Palestinians from Palestinians, dividing and ruling. The diaspora abroad, the refugees in the Arab countries, the inhabitants of the territories, the Arabs of East Jerusalem and the Arabs of Israel - sometimes members of a single family - are developing into separate splinter peoples.

Now the next splintering has come along, the most stupid of all: the split between Gaza and the West Bank. While Israel is preventing Gaza from having any connection with the West Bank, it complains that there is no Palestinian partner. While we are strengthening the Hamas regime, thanks to the siege's hardships and the wrongs of Operation Cast Lead, we are lamenting "the Hamastan in Gaza." And what would happen if Israel were to lift the siege, enable the reconstruction and bring Gaza and the West Bank closer together? A huge disaster; a chance for moderation.

Leave aside, then, the moral aspect - it doesn't have any takers in Israel. But what about good sense? What is Israel getting out of the siege, apart from the enjoyment of the other side's suffering and another stage in its disintegration? Yasser Arafat was too strong, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is too weak and now there is a new ray of hope for all the spoilers: The Palestinians are split and there's no one to talk to.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch

...the cowboys are up to their usual tricks.

CSIS is in the dung again for withholding information from the courts. Another day, another brown Muslim. Haven't we seen this movie before?

Damn. I wanted to stay positive this day.

But here's yet another citizen encountering passport difficulties. Suaad Mohamud Haji, jailed and now stranded in Kenya for weeks. Consular officials dragging their feet. Guess what colour and religion she is?

I love this country. But its governance at present is quite a different story.

[H/t Amir Attaran and Croghan27]

The best Canada Day ever

...and it's only the afternoon.

A picture of two immigrants on Canada Day, each, in his own way, feeling fortunate to be here.

Lunch with Abousfian Abdelrazik, his pro bono lawyers and other supporters, including MP Paul Dewar and Project Fly Home activists. Bringing him back was a collective act of citizenship at its finest.

Yavar Hameed, a key lawyer in the case, was born on Canada Day. Abousfian came up from Montreal to help him celebrate it, and brought in the cake, with lit candles, and a vast smile on his face, as we sang Happy Birthday.

How many traditions were so easily intertwined in this one event?

Later Yavar picked up the guitar and showed us that he could, if he wanted, give up his day job. :)




In Montreal, since he arrived back home, Abousfian likes to go for long, long walks.

Happy Canada Day, everyone.

Happy Canada Day

I expect to have a longer post this afternoon after a rather special lunch, but in the meantime, what could be more quintessentially Canadian than this Globe & Mail headline?

Canada at 142: We're Inferior No More.

Good grief.