More RCMP dryrot

It had somehow escaped my notice, but RCMP Superintendent Mike Cabana--notorious for his involvement in the Maher Arar affair--subsequently received a promotion. He's now an RCMP assistant commissioner. That's how that discredited organization operates.

This sort of thing gives you the measure of the man:

Cabana remains unrepentant for his role in supplying American security officials with information on Arar, without securing protective assurances.

--

RCMP Supt. Mike Cabana who headed up the investigation in the Ottawa area said Canadian officials were concerned Arar was being abused early in his captivity in Syria, but they exchanged intelligence anyway.

"As appalling as it may sound to you, part of our duties in Canada, in trying to protect the Canadian public, means that from time to time we have to deal with countries that don't necessarily have the same record as we do. And don't necessarily treat their prisoners the same as we do.

"And I would submit to you that if we didn't consider dealing with these countries, the security of Canadians would be greatly at risk," he told the inquiry.

--

"If all my supervisors around the table and all my seniors, people more senior than me, think that it's my mandate and protecting the Canadian public, I will go forward and share the information."

What's a little torture in the grand scheme of things? And, after all, he was just following orders.

Well, Cabana is back in the news today.

It seems that the RCMP is about to kick one of their prized informants out of the Witness Protection Program for doing radio interviews for a "true crime" book. He's a marked man: you don't play a pivotal role in jailing full-patch Hell's Angels and their pals and get forgiven.

But there may be more to this than radio interviews. It seems that, while he was an informant, he gave the RCMP a warning that a hit was about to take place. But despite providing more and more specifics, the RCMP didn't return his calls, and the hit went ahead.

One of his handlers was Mike Cabana. And he certainly had his priorities straight:

Should this matter proceed to court, this information will likely be disclosed, thereby tarnishing the Force's reputation, not to mention any civil liability that might flow from this situation.

Now, for all I know, Cabana is a delightful individual on a personal level. But what we see here, as in the Arar affair, is classic institution-speak, the utterances of a "good company man," the quintessential Weberian bureaucrat who does what he is told and questions nothing.

After Dziekanski, the corporate culture of the RCMP has come in for a lot of scrutiny. It is a defensive organization in which the first rule is unthinking loyalty and the second is to close ranks when mistakes are made--particularly lethal ones. It is an institution pathologically unable to reflect on, much less take responsibility for, the actions of the individuals within it.

Cabana's voiced attitude, replicated endlessly within the force, sums up everything that is wrong with the RCMP today. It is cavalier about the human tragedies that it causes, blasé about civil liberties, and concerned above all with protecting the RCMP image and avoiding liability. But this attitude indicates, above all, a fear of accountability--an accountability, however, that in a democracy, every police service must have to those whom they are charged to serve and protect.

A complete top-to-bottom independent institutional audit of the RCMP is more than overdue. Cabana's perspective on things, in fairness, is a symptom, not the disease itself. But the question in my mind, there for some time now after Arar and the Bush and Dziekanski killings, is--can this organization actually be cured?

Or do we need to build another national police force from the ground up, inoculate it with appropriate values, and build a new corporate culture under functional independent oversight?

Museum workers: from Civilization to War

Ottawa's workers at the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the War Museum have been on strike since September 21, with a 92% strike mandate from the membership. Wages (which lag behind those of other museum workers in the region) and contracting-out are in dispute.

The union position is set out here, and it seems entirely reasonable to me: the workers want wage parity with other museum employees in the region, and improved job security.

But bargaining with the Museums is always a tough slog. Type X managers and HR autocrats rule the roost. Attempts to bargain are inevitably met with irrational levels of employer belligerence.

Intimidation is the order of the day. Speech Warriors™, take note: the Corporation is trying to censor a pro-worker Facebook page. And defaming its employees seems to come naturally to this employer.

And let us not forget the usual public misinformation campaign. A Corporation mouthpiece, Chantal Schryer, boasts that the Corporation has offered to "double" permanent positions at the two museums. She fails to mention that this will create all of 12 permanent tour guide positions--out of 55.

The CEO of the Corporation is one Victor Rabinovitch. He's a person who quailed before imagined public prejudice by cancelling an exhibition of Arab-Canadian art immediately after 9/11--for which he received a parliamentary rap on the knuckles. And he cravenly gave in when some hysterical amateur revisionist historians squawked about an exhibit at the War Museum. But he's tough and manly when it comes to facing down a handful of underpaid museum workers--it's the behaviour, quite frankly, of a bully.

Nevertheless, resolve remains high among the striking workers. When the Museum of Civilization opened a new exhibit, "Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures," the picketers outside opened an ironic exhibit of their own. And as I write this, an intrepid few have occupied Minister Lawrence Cannon's office, demanding that he ask the Corporation to start bargaining in good faith.

Political support (scroll to "the Opposition grilled...") has come the strikers' way. PSAC's sister public service union, the Professional Institute of the Public Service, has pledged its support as well. And the Canadian Labour Congress has asked the 3.2 million members of its affiliated unions to boycott both museums. Meanwhile, Rabinovitch high-handedly refused to accept nearly two thousand postcards signed by museum visitors asking for a fair settlement of the dispute.

This sample letter to Rabinovitch sets out the key issues:

Dr. Victor Rabinovitch
President and Chief Executive Officer
Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation
victor.rabinovitch@civilization.ca

Dr. Rabinovitch,

As you well know, workers at the Museum of Civilization and War Museum are currently on strike.

They are demanding nothing more than the same working conditions as other federal museum workers in the National Capital Region. I am calling on you, as CEO of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, to act responsibly and return to the bargaining table to offer the workers a fair contract. Their demands for fair salaries and protections against contracting out are both just and reasonable.

Last year, the Museum of Civilization and the War Museum had the highest attendance and brought in more revenue than any other museum or gallery in the National Capital Region. What’s more, the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation receives more federal money than any other comparable federal institution.

Why do you refuse to agree to the same protections and wages for your employees as those that are currently in place for other federal workers doing the same work in the Ottawa/Gatineau region?

A decent, responsible employer provides a measure of protection for its employees – including efforts to avoid job losses, recognition of years of service and opportunities for career advancement. You have refused to make any such commitments.

I will not be visiting the museums until the workers get a fair contract. I will be advising my friends and family to do the same.

I call on you to act now and agree to the same protections that are in place at other major federal workplaces in the Ottawa/Gatineau region. This will help end the strike and ensure that the Canadian Museum of Civilization and Canadian War Museum will continue to be sources of national pride.

Sincerely,

Why not send a letter or an email to Rabinovitch, copying it to your MP and to the PSAC? Here's a helpful page. Let's show these workers a little solidarity--after nearly seven weeks, and with the weather getting colder, it would be much appreciated.

"Harper Sales Tax" this Spring?

That's what the federal Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is calling the Harmonized Sales Tax, at least for now--while fellow Liberal Dalton McGuinty is gung-ho to introduce it here in Ontario. But by the Spring, who knows? Ignatieff isn't a leader, he's a weather-vane, and business is blowing strongly on this one. Besides, John McCallum, his finance critic, has stated plainly that the Liberals actually support this regressive tax measure, thus creating plenty of space around the leader for his now-characteristic bobbing and weaving.

Bluntly stated, the HST, like the GST and the PST, is an abomination. All of these consumption taxes are wealth redistribution schemes, but from the poor to the rich. They undermine the very nature of a progressive graduated income tax, which (at least in principle) is based upon ability to pay. Instead they are regressive flat taxes, applied equally to the rich and to those of modest income, eating up proportionately more of the latter's resources.

Introducing this pro-business tax in Ontario will lead to an immediate jump in the cost of living. Not all businesses agree with the measure, either: realtors are worried that a hike from 5% to 13% tax on real-estate transactions will have a bad effect on their profits. The classic response to someone named "Sherlock" is warranted here.

Relatively well-off professors like Queen's University economist Robin Boadway continue to try to dazzle us with bafflegab:

Boadway says the current two-tiered system of a 5% federal GST and 8% provincial sales tax is unfair, inefficient and hurts the competitiveness of Ontario companies.

"A broad-based tax is the fairest tax because it doesn't discriminate between the things consumers purchase," he said.

"If you buy an auto, a TV or some other consumer durable you pay a substantial sales tax" but if you buy services exempted from the PST, you don't. That, he says, is unfair to consumers.

Uh-huh. By analogy, the way to deal with schoolyard bullying is to ensure that the bully delivers the exact-same punishment to everyone.

Other advantages to adopting the HST he points to:

* It could allow the government to reduce taxes. "If a tax is broad-based, you can get the same revenue with a lower tax rate," he says.

* A single blended tax would reduce costs and duplication of effort; with the HST administered by Revenue Canada (as the current GST is) a provincial agency would not be needed.

Governments will now have the ability to reduce taxes. But the Ontario Premier who broke his own promise by introducing expensive health care premiums as soon as he lurched into office is likely to resist that particular temptation.

The second point seems initially attractive. Who wouldn't jump at the chance of dumping an entire provincial agency? But we have no figures to help us here. What savings per Ontarian would be realized by doing that, and how would it offset the rise in everyday expenditures by the average citizen of this province?

The pro-HST argument most frequently heard it that it will somehow save businesses millions by eliminating the alleged expenses they incur in administering two tax systems instead of one. One has the image of furiously scribbling clerks atop high stools, quill pens in hand. What ingenuity does it take to program a computer to keep track? This is 2009, not 1809. Tell us more about these "expenses" under the weight of which Ontario's business sector is presently groaning.

But businesses do like to groan, and governments always rush for the cold compresses and smelling salts when they hear the unlovely sound.

A practical alternative, rather than taxing already-taxed money earned by working people? Increase the personal income tax. (We'll leave corporate tax in parentheses for now, if only to keep the discussion on-track.) Think there's likely to be a tax revolt if citizens were told that their income tax was going to rise by a point or two* in graduated fashion, but that the GST and PST would be abolished in return? We pay income taxes once a year. We pay the other taxes every day.

One final note. I'm not anti-tax. I pay taxes willingly, and I believe in government support of social programmes (if only they'd do more of it). But fair taxes are the issue here. The notion of ability to pay has been around for some time. Flat taxes are inimical to this concept. The HST and its predecessors effectively tax the poor, if not the very poor (the latter qualify for tax credit relief), while the rich barely feel a thing.

The HST proposal places me on the same side of things as the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, and on the opposite side of the fence from progressive economist and former USWA heavyweight Hugh MacKenzie, a long-time supporter of public spending as an economic stimulus, and from some anti-poverty activists, if with qualifications.

That's embarrassing. But for the life of me, I don't understand why opposition to flat taxes is being so easily equated by some with opposing taxes per se. My own politics place me in opposition to tax cuts--I'd like to see tax increases, in fact, to pay for badly-needed social programmes. But why the gusto for raising the revenue in such a patently unfair manner?

Here is Mackenzie, who thinks that consumption taxes are "a pretty good way to pay for public services":

I also think it is nonsensical for the left to come out in opposition to tax increases. I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to how a party of the left is going to benefit long-term from stoking up opposition to taxes. We should have learned our lesson over the GST campaign, the main beneficiary of which was Preston Manning.

The straw men in this statement should be torched. Who on the left opposes tax increases for public services? But why is doing this through personal income tax never mentioned, in favour of a tax that benefits the already well-off?

The floor is open.

[Declaration of interest: I presently charge my consulting clients the 5% GST. If McGuinty gets his way, that amount will have to rise to 13% HST. Yes, my ox is threatened with a goring. But so is yours, every time you go out for a meal, travel by air or get a haircut, to name but three of the many services that will be subject to the new tax.]

*UPDATE: Reader "Punch My Ticket" correctly points out that more than a "point or two" would be involved. But the argument remains: taking less revenue through income tax and more from a regressive consumption tax means shifting the tax burden away from the rich onto the middle class and the working poor. Why progressives would support this remains a mystery to me.

Ottawa life

My old neighbourhood is changing, and changing fast. A place where bungalows like mine are still common is slowly but surely yielding to development pressure.

A large nearby greenspace by the Rideau River, it is rumoured, is slated for a subdivision called "One Thousand Doors" *wince*. And bungalows are being knocked down and replaced with triplices (I know, needlessly pedantic and probably wrong).

That happened right next door last year. Instead of a gorgeous view from the dining-room of open sky and trees, I now have the pleasure of staring at a corrugated stainless-steel wall (post-911 paranoia?) literally six feet away.

Worse, lax planning standards in Ottawa permitted the construction of windows that stare directly into my dining-room--and, worse, into my bedroom. The latter window is a large one belonging to my neighbours' kitchen, and the sink faces one of my bedroom windows directly. I have had to put high-end fake stained glass and a blind on the window, lest, as the limerick goes, curious eye should intrude.

During construction, a window on the second storey opened directly above my chimney. At least a call to the city reduced the size of that window before it was too late.

Now a new triplex is being constructed just across the street by West Hill Homes. Somehow the size of the thing seems more bearable when it's a street-width away. But the building of it has not been without its problems.

A few weeks ago , a subcontractor was employed to lay in new sewer pipes. This involved, as a first step, breaking up the sidewalk in front of the site. Instead of using pneumatic drills, the lamebrains thought it would be smart to whack away at the pavement with a back-hoe for half a day. Wham! Wham! Wham!

My house shook constantly. Cracks in the walls and ceiling that were there before, widened. New cracks appeared. The City of Ottawa, despite having issued the permit, disclaimed responsibility. The subcontractor, too, disclaimed responsibility in a curt letter--and then apparently lied to West Hill Homes, claiming to have been in touch with me personally to discuss the matter.

Giving up on any hope of compensation for the damages, I ended up paying a contractor of my own a cool $2K to do the filling, plastering, resurfacing and repainting required. Some of that, admittedly, would have been payable anyway, because some cracks were there prior to the construction. But a contribution to help fix the widening and running old cracks, as well as the new ones, would have been appreciated.

A representative of West Hill Homes did eventually come to my door. She seemed a pleasant and straight-up sort of person. She was, I think, genuinely embarrassed by the misinformation provided her by the sub-contractor. She asked me to send in my invoices, which I did on September 3, along with my explanation of costs I felt should be covered (somewhat less than the total costs I'd incurred).

A month later (October 2), after inquiring, I received a polite note from the representative, informing me that a decision was hoped for "in the next couple of days." Perhaps needless to say, there has been nothing but silence since then, in spite of several inquiries on my part.

All minor, of course, in the grand scheme of things. Knowing these companies as I do, I can say that the right thing, from a profitability point of view, isn't necessarily the decent or the proper thing, and the right thing tends to prevail. It might have been more professional, mind you, to send a bug-off form letter at the start, rather than temporizing and ducking inquiries for more than two months.

In any case, if poor-quality paper towels can, as Scott Tissue Towels once averred, "breed Bolsheviks," some readers might feel a little (a very little) sympathy for my own state of mind at the moment. Come the Revolution let me chair a People's Tribunal, please: surely I've earned it. And bring forth the developers--in chains.

UPDATE: (November 12) West Hill Homes has contacted me today to offer a very small sum--payable when they complete their project in the Spring. I have counter-offered, and we'll see where this goes.

Another argument for Senate abolition

The insufferably smug, unethical and not-very-bright Mike Duffy, who, in three short months at the end of 2008, guzzled $44,000 in expenses. Beach the lot of 'em, I say, and flense the big ones.

Reform? No. Shut the place down and give it to Kevin Page for an expanded office.

I'm not a great friend of Peter Stoffer--he once had to apologize to me at the mic at an NDP convention for calling me a liar earlier in a debate on Indian rights. He's a peppery sort of guy who can shoot from the lip. But he was all class and calm demeanor during the PaP interview. The Puffster, on the other hand, kept emitting blasts of gas like a pricked balloon. One expected him to start flying around the room at any moment.

Which brings to mind a question that's been puzzling me for a while now: how is it that the "lib'rul media" keep incubating Conservative senators like Duffy and Pamela Wallin?

Christian love

...an oxymoron.

[H/t Enormous Thriving Plants]

And if an unspeakable death from brain cancer won't kill the Kenyan bastard, how about gas?

Our White House is being eaten away from within. We urgently need to throw a "tent" of public remonstration and outcry over that hallowed abode, to cause them to quake and hunker down inside. And then treat the invaders, the alien rodents, to massive voter gas - the most lethal antidote to would-be tyrants and usurpers.

We must clean house - starting with our own White House. [emphasis added]

That would be Christian singer Pat Boone.

Man, these followers of Jesus will just love you to death if you give 'em half a chance, eh?

Margo Somerville smackdown

Old news, but I thought readers might be interested.

The ruling of the Iowa District Court in Varnum v. O'Brien, affirmed unanimously by the Iowa Supreme Court earlier this year, held that a ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.

Counsel for Polk County, the defendant in the original lawsuit brought by six gay couples, called Margaret Somerville, the ethics guru from McGill University, as an expert witness against same-sex marriage. She was accompanied by a team of religion professors from the same university. The lower court, in rendering summary judgement (no actual trial took place), found that they weren't "experts" at all:

[T]he Court concludes that these individuals are not qualified to testify as experts regarding the issues in this matter. Though they may have expertise in certain areas, such expertise is insufficient to qualify Ms. Somerville, Dr.[Katherine] Young and Dr.[Paul] Nathanson to answer the particular questions that they are asked. Though these experts desire to make statements regarding gender, results of same-sex marriage on children and the universal definition of marriage, they do not appear to possess expertise in relevant fields such as sociology, child development, psychology or psychiatry. Ms. Somerville specifically eschews empirical research and methods of logical reasoning in favor of “moral intuition.” She has no training in empirical research and admits having no knowledge of existing social science research relevant to this case. She concedes that her views do not reflect the mainstream views of other ethicists. Dr. Young claims that she pulls together factors from many academic disciplines, including sociological, economic, political and religious factors, though she does not profess expertise in these areas. Nathanson indicates that his methodology involves observing “what people say about religion.” The views espoused by these individuals appear to be largely personal and not based on observations supported by scientific methodology or based on empirical research in any sense. They do not meet the criteria for the admission of expert testimony under the Iowa Supreme Court’s test in Leaf and certainly fail the more stringent test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert. [p.7]

Ouch.

Incidentally, as a superb example of plain-language common sense, the Supreme Court judgement is well worth reading in full. Here is how it demolishes the tired old "but, but...they can't procreate" argument:

Promotion of procreation. The County also proposes that government endorsement of traditional civil marriage will result in more procreation. It points out that procreation is important to the continuation of the human race, and opposite-sex couples accomplish this objective because procreation occurs naturally within this group. In contrast, the County points out, same-sex couples can procreate only through assisted reproductive techniques, and some same-sex couples may choose not to procreate. While heterosexual marriage does lead to procreation, the argument by the County fails to address the real issue in our required analysis of the objective: whether exclusion of gay and lesbian individuals from the institution of civil marriage will result in more procreation? If procreation is the true objective, then the proffered classification must work to achieve that objective.

Conceptually, the promotion of procreation as an objective of marriage is compatible with the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the definition of marriage. Gay and lesbian persons are capable of procreation. Thus, the sole conceivable avenue by which exclusion of gay and lesbian people from civil marriage could promote more procreation is if the unavailability of civil marriage for same-sex partners caused homosexual individuals to “become” heterosexual in order to procreate within the present traditional institution of civil marriage. The briefs, the record, our research, and common sense do not suggest such an outcome. Even if possibly true, the link between exclusion of gay and lesbian people from marriage and increased procreation is far too tenuous to withstand heightened scrutiny. Specifically, the statute is significantly under-inclusive with respect to the objective of increasing procreation because it does not include a variety of groups that do not procreate for reasons such as age, physical disability, or choice. In other words, the classification is not substantially related to the asserted legislative purpose. [pp.59-60]

Do I detect just a hint of humour here?

The definition of leadership

"I never intended to become a leader, just to give this group a voice."

--Ioan Savu, factory worker, just before the "cleanest and purest moment" in his life: his address to the people of Timisoara.

Another reason to abolish zoos

The headlines were real knee-slappers:

"Fuzzy wuzzy was a bear, Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair..." [Globe and Mail print edition]

"Mystery disease leaves bears baring all"

"Who's taken my fur coat?"

"Bears left without hair to spare"

And the reality is that three sad, imprisoned animals, facing a German winter, have lost their fur. Reports differ as to whether stress was involved. Apparently such things are not uncommon.

My mother told me once about a polar bear kept in a very small cage in a park in Montreal. These animals pace endlessly. They are bored, frightened and miserable, and far from their homes (which, in the classic Orwellian way we have of making the concrete abstract, are referred to as habitats).

In the future, our descendants will look at the barbaric practice of caging animals in the same way that we look at our ancestors' fondness for bear-baiting at mediaeval fairs. No society that locks up wild animals to please crowds of free human beings can call itself truly civilized.

Obama drops the hammer on the Internet

Cory Doctorow puts up another explosive post on Internet copyright issues. Pay close attention, peeps:

The internet chapter of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, a secret copyright treaty whose text Obama's administration refused to disclose due to "national security" concerns, has leaked. It's bad. It says:

• That ISPs have to proactively police copyright on user-contributed material. This means that it will be impossible to run a service like Flickr or YouTube or Blogger, since hiring enough lawyers to ensure that the mountain of material uploaded every second isn't infringing will exceed any hope of profitability.

• That ISPs have to cut off the Internet access of accused copyright infringers or face liability. This means that your entire family could be denied to the internet -- and hence to civic participation, health information, education, communications, and their means of earning a living -- if one member is accused of copyright infringement, without access to a trial or counsel.

• That the whole world must adopt US-style "notice-and-takedown" rules that require ISPs to remove any material that is accused -- again, without evidence or trial -- of infringing copyright. This has proved a disaster in the US and other countries, where it provides an easy means of censoring material, just by accusing it of infringing copyright.

• Mandatory prohibitions on breaking DRM, even if doing so for a lawful purpose (e.g., to make a work available to disabled people; for archival preservation; because you own the copyrighted work that is locked up with DRM)

Suddenly the future of the blogosphere doesn't look all that bright.

[H/t]

A note on the gun registry

It'll never be missed, at least not by me.

Does that make me a Tory redneck knuckledragger? I sure hope not.

I had the same knee-jerk response to the registry as any other progressive when it was created. Gun control? Good. Who could oppose such a thing, except ignorant yahoos clutching their guns and religion?

Then I had the chance to talk to some Yukoners who were anything but, one cold and wintry day at the Gold Rush Inn in Whitehorse. At which time, as it happens, I connected with my partner-to-be.

They actually engaged me, these members of the Yukon Employees' Union, rather than dissing the southern city feller for my absurd remarks about surrogate dangly bits. How many of Canada's gun crimes are committed with long guns? (One in ten.) Why do folks in the country have such guns to begin with? (Hunting and predator control.) Has the registry reduced gun crime? (No.)

[Warning: Conservative propaganda masquerading as a government information site ahead. But it's hard to quarrel with the statistics. --Ed.]

• There are nearly 7 million registered long-guns in Canada. Yet of 2,441 homicides recorded in Canada since mandatory long-gun registration was introduced in 2003, fewer than 2 percent (47) were committed with rifles and shotguns known to have been registered. (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics).

• Illegal smuggling by organized crime is by far the principal source of firearms on our streets. Indeed, the Vancouver police report that 97 percent of firearms seized in 2003 were illegal guns smuggled in from the United States, usually by organized crime (Vancouver Police, Strategic Plan 2004-08).

Just in case readers draw the wrong conclusion from the first, ah, bullet, here is a table of interest, tracking gun-related homicides in Canada*:

[Source: Sheptycki, J. "Guns, crime and social order: A Canadian perspective." Criminology and Criminal Justice 2009: 9, p.320.]

Note that long gun crime has been decreasing steadily, well before the registry came into existence.

I know the right wing is gun-happy for all sorts of reasons, with the NRA being a particularly lethal example (my late partner was, however, a member of the National Rifle Association of Canada, a Canadian Ranger and a damned good shot!). But you don't have to be a conservative to see the cynicism and tomfoolery built into the gun registry. Ineffective, grossly expensive--the word "boondoggle" leaps to mind.

As I say--I won't miss it when it's gone, and the good-bye process is likely to start later today.

_____________
*Thanks to reader "forgottobuytinfoil" for prompting me to make Figure 3 a little clearer. "[F]rom about 1991 handguns surpassed long-guns in homicide statistics prevalence in Canada (Figure 3). What this Figure shows, using data available in 2006, is that after three years of increases, the gun-homicide rate decreased 16 per cent to about the same level as 20 years previously. In that year, 190 people (31% of homicide victims) were killed with a gun, 33 fewer than the previous year. The longer-term trend in gun-homicide shows a general decline since the mid-1970s, similar to the trend in total homicides. After the 'cross-over' in 1991 the rate of handgun homicide remained relatively constant while the homicide rate for long-guns continued its historic decline." Sheptycki, J., p.318.

Dalton McGuinty's death panels

I blogged back in 2006 about the way the Ontario government condemns sick people to death. (The drug I mentioned at the time, Velcade, approved in all other provinces and territories to treat multiple myeloma, has still not been approved for use in Ontario.)

Only public outcry, it seems, can divert these assassins from their chosen path.

Extreme language? Consider the following recent examples of calculated cruelty by the McGuinty regime, and judge for yourselves.

• Ombudsman Andre Marin recently blasted the Ontario government for withholding the life-saving drug Avastin from patients dying of colorectal cancer. Friends and neighbours have literally had to hold bake sales to keep them alive, while the government prevaricates and temporizes.
  
  
• Bonnie Cameron had pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), which was being successfully treated by a drug cocktail. Ontario, deciding it knew better than mere doctors, cut off treatment: she would only be covered for one drug at a time, it ruled. That decision killed her. Too bad, so sad.
  
  
• Then we have Pascal Mathurin. To squeeze the father for information, the Ontario government is now threatening his desperately ill son with death.
  

While Dalton's eHealth buddies wallowed in bonuses, inflated salaries and the proceeds of untendered contracts--$1 billion of taxpayers' money flushed down the drain through incompetence, patronage and greed--citizens of this province were, and are, dying by decree.

The bottom line: if those of us not fortunate enough to have a good medical/pharmaceutical insurance plan, as well as OHIP coverage, develop cancer, we are at the mercy of the Ontario Liberal government. And, as we can see, that government has no mercy whatsoever.

CJC-Quebec submission to HUAC North

It gets still worse.

While the CJC submission noted in my last post was relatively guarded in its language, its Quebec counterpart has thrown all caution to the winds in its submission of August 31.

Some quotations from the brief, with my comments:

Anti-Zionism is thus used as a means to mask antisemitism, without assuming its stigma. Automatic, onesided condemnation of Israel’s unsubstantiated “illegal” actions in Gaza and Lebanon has become the mantra of numerous Quebec institutions, especially and most ironically, those that describe themselves as favoring the left i.e. trade unions, academic associations, the Quebec Federation of Women.

Hence, to refer to the completely one-sided body count in both places, including hundreds of civilians; to note the wholesale destruction of Lebanese infrastructure; to cite the war crimes documented in the Goldstone Report--are all instances of masked "anti-Semitism." You can't make things much clearer than that.

Anti-Semites attempt to refute this assertion by pointing to members of the Jewish community that similarly condemn Israel. The criticism of Israel is not in itself antisemitic. However, when it is voluntarily blind to the human rights violations throughout the world and falsely accuses Israel of these same violations; one singles out the Jewish state for differential and discriminatory treatment. Furthermore, studies reveal that, “those who endorse anti-Israel statements tend to endorse anti-Semitic statements,” as well.

Only "anti-Semites," then, refer to the fact that some Jews are also critical of Israel. Even to refer to an organization such as Independent Jewish Voices is proof, therefore, of anti-Semitism. To criticize Israel without mentioning other countries whose violations of human rights aren't even in dispute is anti-Semitic. And anyway, all such accusations against Israel are false.

Please note the last, particularly smelly piece of slanderous, self-serving dreck: "studies reveal that, 'those who endorse anti-Israel statements tend to endorse anti-Semitic statements,' as well." (Only one study is cited, which looked at an anything-but-randomly-selected sample of 197 people.) In other words--well, other words aren't really necessary, are they?

[T]o promote a boycott on Israel is to promote the notion that Jews, or the Jewish state are to be excluded from the international community on the premise that they are dangerous and unworthy of international participation.

Or could it be that such boycotts are a means of bringing pressure upon a nation to behave according to the norms of international law and human rights? But calling for such pressure is "anti-Semitic" too.

In 2004, anti-Israel forces on school campuses began to promote Israeli Apartheid Week, unjustly associating Israel with the apartheid regime that existed in South Africa. Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel as an apartheid state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself. The anti-Apartheid campaign has garnered the support of mainstream labor unions (CSQ) and the Quebec Women’s Federation, to name just a few.

This, like much of the submission, is jaw-droppingly dishonest. South Africa persists as a state, long after the apparatus of apartheid was dismantled. No one called for the eradication of the South African state, but for some fundamental changes in it. Rational arguments, in my opinion, can indeed be mustered to defend the notion of "Israeli Apartheid." But CJC-Quebec wants to stifle any such discussion, heading it off at the pass with cries of "anti-Semitism."

CJC-Quebec goes on to cherry-pick a handful of genuinely anti-Semitic comments from the Bouchard-Taylor Commission hearings on "reasonable accommodation," but noted itself that the Commission received over 900 briefs, and heard from 241 persons at the hearings. The regional forums that it conducted included 3,423 participants, and the province-wide forums, 800. From such a large pool of participants, no doubt a few would have admitted to having been abducted by aliens if the subject had come up.

But all that was to make the point that anti-Semitism is a real and pulsating presence in Quebec, with the implicit suggestion that government intervention, including the regulation of discussion about the Middle East, is necessary. This, even though CJC-Quebec, to its undoubted discomfiture, had to admit that hate crimes against Jews in Quebec have actually been diminishing of late.

CJC-Quebec concludes by endorsing all of the CJC recommendations, plus recommending "greater education of immigrants on matters of human rights, cultural diversity and multiculturalism."

There you have it. More forthright than the CJC proper, CJC-Quebec virtually defines criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic and false. Even to note that some Jews themselves are critical of Israel (the "vibrancy of debate" within Israel, referred to by the CJC in its brief, no doubt includes such voices) is yet more proof of "anti-Semitism." Only silence on the part of Israel's critics, it seems, will do.

And HUAC North has just begun its work.

The CJC's submission to HUAC North

The Canadian Jewish Congress submitted its recommendations to HUAC North on August 20. Its report blends examples of genuine anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel in a long preamble to a series of recommendations, using specious logic (the Nazis boycotted Jews, some call for boycotting Israel, therefore...) and strategically vague concepts ("anti-Semitism," "the new anti-Semitism") to underpin what is in fact a blueprint for regulating discussion of the Middle East in Canada.

Here are the recommendations, with my commentary:

1) That political leaders stress the need for civil discourse, based on Canadian values, among groups in Canada, especially when dealing with contentious political issues.

No problem there. Civility is indeed a Canadian value. Our elected leaders should certainly call for it. But should incivility, short of hatred or incitement, be against the law?

2) That funding guidelines should be strengthened to withhold any form of government funding or other support for NGOs that preach hatred or antisemitism - particularly those involved in integration and settlement of new Canadians where they may influence understanding of the responsibilities and obligations of Canadian citizenship.

This is a direct slap, of course, at the Canadian Arab Federation, recently stripped of a grant that it legitimately applied for and received because its head called Immigration Minister Jason "no Gypsies" Kenney a name.

But in any case, the definition of anti-Semitism is precisely what's at issue here. The CJC defines it, not only as anti-Jewish expression and actions (school bombing, graffiti, assault, vandalism, etc.), which are already covered by Canadian legislation, but as criticism of another nation.

To call France a country of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is permissible. To call for the nuking of Iran, a commonplace on far-right blogsites, is perfectly within the law. But to call for sanctions against Israel for its depredations in the West Bank and its recent assault on Gaza would become illegal. If the CJC gets its way, it might even be against the law someday to circulate copies of the Goldstone Report.

3) That the government move quickly to ratify and/or enact the various international instruments dealing with antisemitism (including international commitments to combat antisemitism and Holocaust denial, including but not limited to, the Berlin Declaration of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and similar UN resolutions) and prepare constructive suggestions and resolutions befitting its role as host for the 2011 conference.

Obviously international covenants to oppose genuine anti-Semitism are to be applauded. And "constructive suggestions and resolutions" should be welcome at any time. But, just as criticism of Israel is said to be a mask for anti-Semitism, as it undoubtedly is in some instances--David Duke comes to mind--so too can such resolutions and conferences provide cover for advancing Israeli foreign policy initiatives.

The blurring here is strategically deliberate: the honest critic, meanwhile, needs to insist upon a distinction between anti-Semitism and criticism of Israel as a nation among other nations, and to hold Israel to the same standards as any other nation.

4) That political and diplomatic leaders take up their special obligation to challenge expressions of antisemitism and threats of genocide in the international arena, including the rejection of such statements by foreign leaders, foreign diplomats and representatives at international forums such as the UN and through international conventions and protocols to which Canada is a signatory.

Obviously any civilized nation should stand up internationally against genocide and real anti-Semitism, and indeed against racism, ethnocentrism and their expression (e.g., "ethnic cleansing") in all of their forms. Given its record of evictions and land-seizures in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, however, Israel may not fare too well under such scrutiny.

5) The establishment of a permanent, adequately funded secretariat within the CPCCA to oversee future Coalition activities, monitor implementation of priority recommendations and ensure compliance and accountability (including annual reporting by each Department on the implementation of Inquiry recommendations and other action items within their jurisdictions).

The intent here is clear: CPCCA is to become a permanent inquisitorial body.

6) The creation of a permanent, publicly-accessible “ambassadorial” position under the auspices of the most appropriate Department (Foreign Affairs, Justice, Multiculturalism) to develop and implement policies, projects and research on combating antisemitism, including the provision of funds to NGOs to further these aims. This office should also table an annual Report to Parliament on progress made and challenges outstanding in combating antisemitism in Canada, triggering a government response.

I'd like to see such a position or positions created to deal with all forms of racism and ethnocentrism in Canada. Why should "antisemitism," even in the unexpanded sense, be singled out?

7) That police departments at all levels of jurisdiction be encouraged to establish dedicated hate and bias crime units with a universal, standardized definition of what constitutes such crimes. They should also be encouraged to establish specialized training to understand, recognize and respond to such crimes appropriately.

This, on its face, is unexceptionable. But we know from the entire thrust of this submission that part of the role of "bias and hate crime units" will be to suppress such events as Israeli Apartheid Week. As a Canadian citizen, I object to using the police to enforce one view of Middle East politics across the country.

8) That a national database of hate and bias crimes be developed to track trends and patterns, and that Statistics Canada update and modernize methodologies for capturing and analyzing such data. Data compilation must be as uniform as possible among all jurisdictions to ensure analysis will use comparable information.

This would, in fact, be a very useful tool indeed--an excellent suggestion in itself.

9) That a comprehensive database of antisemitic content on the Internet be established to allow for better understanding and more effective tracking of contemporary manifestations of antisemitism worldwide and in Canada. Such a database would require international agreement on uniform and objective standards and definitions as well as measurement and reporting techniques, in order to ensure all database users globally are comparing similar information.

Again, the problem of "uniform and objective standards" is what's at issue here. "Anti-semitic," to the CJC, has a very broad and ill-defined scope, including, as noted, criticism of the government policies of another country.

10) That the existing statutory “fence of protection,” both in the Criminal Code and in Human Rights legislation, should be reaffirmed and, where appropriate, strengthened.

For this we need some argument backed up with evidence. If by "strengthened," the CJC means making it explicitly illegal to criticize Israel, then this should be resisted might and main.

11) That regulatory measures, especially in the field of telecommunications, that are consistent with Charter standards for the protection of free expression should be considered. This should include ratification of the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime and the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime.

Of course such regulatory measures are already in place, and the subject of a concerted attack by the far Right for some time. I, for one, would like to see evidence that these measures (such as S.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act) are insufficient. Is it that criticism of Israel is not caught by the current regulatory regime?

12) That appropriate training be provided for members of Federal Boards and Tribunals that deal with hate speech and antisemitism to ensure appropriate application of the law.

Is there evidence that inappropriate rulings have been forthcoming due to a lack of such training, if lack there is? (And as an aside, is "antisemitism," at least in its everyday meaning, not an instance of "hate speech?")

13) That the Security Infrastructure Pilot Project be made permanent with sustainable funding for the Jewish and other at-risk communities to upgrade security at communal institutions in the face of the contemporary threats of violence.

The Pilot Project appears to be a very sound one. But may we have some facts and figures about these "contemporary threats of violence?" The problem is that all we ever seem to receive is anecdotal evidence. In keeping with the CJC's emphasis on uniform standards and data-collection, perhaps such a recommendation requires more than that.

14) That the Government of Canada work with the provinces, courts and police to ensure training and educational opportunities are available within the criminal justice system to help it cope with the unique challenge of hate crimes and antisemitism.

Training and education are always a good thing. But again, much hinges on the working definition of anti-Semitism.

15) That it similarly work with the provinces to develop educational resources to help sensitize Canadian students to the dangers of antisemitism and the importance of joining the struggle against it.

Ditto.

Colleges and Universities are within the provincial sphere of jurisdiction, and are undoubtedly entitled to the respect that is accorded to the principle of academic freedom. Nevertheless, it is on the campuses of these institutions that some of the most troubling and pernicious manifestations of the new antisemitism have arisen. The Government of Canada and the Parliamentary Inquiry can each play constructive roles in helping academic institutions better meet the challenges posed by the new antisemitism. The Inquiry should recommend:

16) That the Federal Government and/or the Inquiry consider offering assistance sponsoring conferences and other similar initiatives, or the issuance of statements of principle to help combat hate on campus.

There is a lot simply assumed here. Besides introducing the undefined concept, "new antisemitism," which, it is fairly safe to say, means criticism of Israel unacceptable to the CJC, campus "anti-Semitism" is simply taken as a given (although students and faculty at universities like York are strongly contesting this.) At the beginning of the submission, this is made abundantly clear:

Antisemitism may now no longer speak of a goal to make a country Judenrein (cleansed of Jews) but instead it may aim for a world that is Judenstaatrein (cleansed of a Jewish State): Israel within the community of nations becomes the stand-in for the individual Jew and anti-Zionism becomes the new antisemitism.

There are those who claim that the linking of anti-Zionism with antisemitism is a misleading attempt to shield Israel from legitimate criticism of its behaviours. This position is incorrect. One has only to look at the vibrancy of debate on Israeli policies and practices that takes place within the Jewish state itself to realize that Israel has no immunity from legitimate criticism. Nor should it. While not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, some criticism does cross that line, and it does so by invoking very specific themes.

This is simply pernicious. Comparing criticism of one nation among nations to the Holocaust is an appeal to emotion and a grossly dishonest tactic--a classic Godwin maneouvre. The indisputable "vibrancy of debate" within Israel is one thing, but the CJC evidently wants no such vibrancy here at home.

Once again, of course, we get the obligatory reference to permissible "legitimate criticism," but no examples are ever provided when such handwaves are made. A straight question to the CJC: are the activities during Israeli Apartheid Week "legitimate" or "illegitimate"? If the latter, should such activities be made illegal?

17) That the Federal Government and/or the Inquiry work with the provinces to help administrators develop suitable tools and structures to deal with this burgeoning problem in an effective and principled manner.

I have no idea what this recommendation means concretely.

*******

What we have in this submission is an unmistakable call for the full weight of the law to be applied against critics of Israel. By suitably redefining anti-Semitism, the CJC is attempting to impose one view of the Middle East on all Canadians.

Unfortunately, the agency would appear to be preaching to the converted.

The CJC has friends in high places. Our Prime Minister has gone so far as to claim that criticism of Israel in anti-Semitic per se, and then goes much, much further:

Some of the criticism brewing in Canada against the state of Israel, including from some members of Parliament, is similar to the attitude of Nazi Germany in the Second World War, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned yesterday. [emphasis added]

And, as readers of my previous post will know, HUAC North has already telegraphed its own conclusions.

Anyone interested in maintaining a "vibrancy of debate" on Middle East issues in Canada has every right to be alarmed at what's going on, right under our noses, and as yet miserably under-reported by the mainstream media. Will the CJC's Maximum Programme for debate control find its way into law, thanks to Harper, HUAC North, and a Parliament cowed into silent support for fear of being called "anti-Semitic" on the hustings?

House Un-Canadian Activities Committee launched

Antisemitism represents a break from Canadian values, which promote the rights of all individuals to practice their religion, educate themselves, and express themselves with security and freedom. --CPCCA

With a flourish of trumpets, the portentously-named All-Party Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism has begun its hearings. And by no coincidence an op-ed piece appeared in the Ottawa Citizen today, warning of the return of the "beast of anti-Semitism," written by one of the Coalition's scheduled first witnesses.

There has never been a fancy-dancy Parliamentary Coalition to investigate anti-gay prejudice, sometimes fatal. Nor does anti-Black or anti-Asian discrimination warrant so much as a passing glance. Ditto for the scrofulous anti-Aboriginal bigotry that is virtually a hallmark of far-right blogs today, and evidently extends into the government itself.

Nope. Only one group in the entire country warrants a House Un-Canadian Activities Committee, complete with hearings across the country. I already posted about this miserable little witch-hunt back in July, while it was unaccountably not deemed important enough to be mentioned by the mainstream media. Better late than never.

If real anti-Semitism were being investigated, I'd have far fewer problems with this, although a question would remain in my mind why Canadian Jews, hardly alone in facing discrimination and hate crimes in this country, were being singled out. But by all means go after the Holocaust-deniers, the graveyard vandals and the schoolburners, although I thought we had laws, courts and police to deal with that sort of thing.

Max Yalden, former head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, makes some sensible cautionary points:

[Anti-Semitism remains] a real threat...though I should have thought a diminished one. ... Of course, the position of the State of Israel in the turbulent events in the Middle East has brought out different critics who are also sometimes accused of being anti-Semites. Doubtless some of them are, but there are others who are critical of Israel on grounds that have little or nothing to do with religious intolerance.

One might say much the same with regard to Canada's Muslim population. This difficult situation is rendered more complex by considerations of race and colour, but some of the indignation on the part of other Canadians clearly relates to unacceptable, violent behaviour outside Canada. The two should not be confused, just as evidence of violence or potential for violence on the part of some Muslims should not be generalized to the Muslim community as a whole.

In any case, the problem is, and anyone who's been around the block more than once knows this, that the word "anti-Semitism" has lost its original meaning almost entirely, and become code for criticism of Israel and too-vocal support for the Palestinian people. The Coalition itself, in fact, has already telegraphed its intent and its conclusions:

While accusations of blood libel, or petty vandalism are still issues for the Jewish community, new fears have arisen especially for those who support the State of Israel. On campuses specifically, Jewish students are being threatened and intimidated to the point that they are not able to express themselves, or are even fearful to wear a Jewish skull cap or star around their necks. [emphasis added]

Let's have the evidence for these very serious charges, or is it too late to request it now that the Coalition has already accepted the claims in advance of its hearings?

Talk about "new fears" to the folks at Carleton University, whose President intervened earlier this year to stifle debate about the Middle East, and sent out veiled threats from her office to every student at the place, including me, to watch our mouths when we talk about Israel. And then fired a professor, Hassan Diab, hours after B'nai Brith complained about him. (His department protested, and for its pains was collectively tarred with the anti-Semitic brush by senior Ottawa Citizen journalist Andrew Potter: "it is hard to interpret the slur against Jews as anything but entirely deliberate."

Lots of intimidation there for sure, but not against Jews.

Of course, we're getting the usual vague assurances about "legitimate criticism of the state of Israel" being allowed:

[D]issent and opposition to individual actions of the Israeli government are both permitted and encouraged in and outside of Israel, just as political dissent is permitted and encouraged with respect to any democratic nation.

No examples of such "legitimate criticism" are ever given, of course. The phrase has inevitably been used as a foil to target alleged illegitimate criticism. And all criticism of Israel seems to fall into the latter category. Here, for example, is what a senior B'nai Brith operative had to say when I criticized Irwin Cotler's publicly-stated pride that his children had signed up with the Israel Defence Forces, given the IDF's dismal human rights record in the West Bank and Gaza:

"Are we not permitted to question a senior Canadian politician's publicly expressed pride that his children have signed up with an armed force that has brutalized the West Bank population for years and recently committed war crimes in Gaza?"

That's it Dawg.

You're an antisemitic asshole.

"Anti-Semitic," once clearly defined, now a floating signifier, at this point can mean anything the accusers want it to mean, like the epithet "Communist" when Joe McCarthy and HUAC were in full swing.

Well, welcome back, Joe. The House Un-Canadian Activities Committee is now well-launched, and will be coming soon to a public pillory near you.

[H/t skdadl]

Monday blahs

Some days are hardly worth greeting.

• I was never an unqualified Obamaniac, as past posts of mine indicate. Indeed, I've remained sceptical from the beginning. But the President's sudden collapse on the Middle East, now giving unqualified US support to Binyamin Netanyahu's aggressive program of annexation settlement of Palestinian land, while demanding that the Palestinians return to the peace table like so many whipped dogs, marks a new low.
  
  What a disappointment. Obama is proving to be a President who just blows with the winds, here, there, everywhere. And obviously AIPAC is a particularly strong and gusty one.
  

• The Krazy Krowd of Kooks at Free Dominion is pooh-poohing the Maclean's retraction of its earlier wild claims that staff of the Canadian Human Rights Commission hacked into a private citizen's Internet account. No direct link will be given to that nest of snakes, but here's an intermediary for those interested.
  
  
• Former General Rick Hillier, always too cocky and political for my taste, is back in the news defending a sweet promotion/pension deal for one Serge Labbé, whose conduct in Somalia during our involvement there was found to be wanting, to put it mildly. (I posted about this at the time the deal was made.)
  
  The Somalia Commission of Inquiry, established after public outcry about the torture-death of a teenaged Somalian national by members of the now-disbanded Canadian Airborne Regiment, was not kind to Labbé, and some of what it said bears repeating:
  
  Col Labbé's cavalier approach to ROE [Rules of Engagement--DD] training amounts to little more than lip service and, in effect, denies the sanctity of human life. It is irresponsible and an affront to the concept of modem military training that a commander of Canadian overseas forces would suggest that such a training method was acceptable.
  
  Although his lack of knowledge of the state of training at the time of deployment and his view of the nature of ROE training are profound shortcomings in a commander, even more lamentable and inexcusable is Col Labbé's failure to take action to determine whether his troops in fact trained adequately on the ROB [sic] developed by the Chief of the Defence Staff and understood them properly. He erroneously placed his trust in the sufficiency of a readiness declaration issued before the ROE were prepared and relied unduly on casual or incomplete comments regarding readiness from his subordinate, LCol Mathieu. Col Labbé performed no independent inquiry to determine whether any deficiencies in training existed and required correction. He failed to ensure that the members of Canadian Joint Force Somalia were trained in the ROE and understood them properly.
  
  It's always good to have friends in high places, and Labbé certainly appears to have had more than his share of those.
  
  
• The Virgin Mary had better ways to spend the weekend than show up to please a credulous crowd of 10,000 pilgrims at Ireland's famous Knock shrine. But some insist that she did manifest her presence when the sun broke through the clouds. (Would that it had done so metaphorically as well.)
  
  Not all the pilgrims, however, were bereft of a bit of scepticism and even humour, if likely unintentional: "I saw the sun spinning," one said. Then: "Who is to know that it isn't climate change or something like that causing that?"
  
  
• Two-tier health care in Canada is even more of a reality now: private clinics have proven to be a means of jumping the queue for the H1N1 flu shot.
  

Tomorrow is another day. May it come soon.

Promoting Islamofashion

In which Kathy Shaidle learns the perils of monetization.