9/11

This anniversary snuck up on me. I happened to mouse over the date/time display on my computer and noticed that midnight had passed and suddenly it was that awful date – 9/11.

Strange to think that such a day could sneak up on you. But see, even for the people whose loved ones and friends died in 2001, life goes on. Not much of a life, perhaps. A vastly changed one, certainly. But still, it goes on.

The world undoubtedly changed forever that day seven years ago, and not for the better. 9/11 is the day we began our walk through the valley of the shadow of death. Unlike the words of Psalm 23, however, we do not “fear no evil”, for we have entered into the Age of Fear. The world has become a fearful place. No more fearsome, I think, than it ever was, but we are more fearful. At least, some of us are.

Fear can manifest in many ways. Anger and aggression are common responses, and that's the way the US chose to respond. By a fatal twist of history (some might say a fraudulent theft of an election), it just so happened that the White House was populated by George W. Bush and his band of refugees from the first Gulf War. These men were quick to seize the circumstances and whip the fear of the Murrican people to feverish heights. That fever has not yet entirely abated and the worldwide psyche has suffered because of it.

As I think of it now, isn't it a little odd that a nation as God-smacked as the US purports to be could not "fear no evil" and be comforted by the knowledge that the Lord was with them and had his rod and staff. Unfortunately, the US did not spare the rod, and the staff turned out to be the General Staff.

Whether the actions of the Bush administration were truly sincere I can't begin to guess. But they certainly were wrong-headed. And here we are in 2008, a mere seven years since the atrocity of 9/11, and the real power and prestige of the US has never been lower. Not even Viet Nam brought the US into such disrepute.

And lest we forget...the Murricans were the victims! Sad to see that the recovery process has not gone well. But then again, I see hope in the kind of enthusiasm that has been engendered in this presidential election year. Maybe it was hard to think about recovery while Bush was still in office. Maybe a change of president will bring a change of heart.

On this day seven years ago, my heart went out to the Murrican people. Today too.

How Many Photos Are "Enough"?

I mean, I'm just curious...

Credit: Doug Mills/New York Times

Iraq War Turns 5

I hope I never have to use the headline: Iraq War Turns 50.

I have only one other thing to say, since there is not much that is original which can be said. Some of us foresaw from the beginning what a travesty this would be. Some of us sensed the lies without having any way of confirming our intuition.

This is what I have to say, after five years: The Murrican media should hang their heads in shame.

Black Day in Pakistan

I heard the news of Benazir Bhutto's assassination this morning with a heavy heart and a terrible sinking feeling. I don't suppose anyone was very surprised that this happened. And yet, it was quite a shock. I guess it demonstrates the difference between surprise and shock.

As far as I'm concerned, this should signal the end of Pervez Musharraf's regime. Was Musharraf directly responsible? We'll never know. The real truth of this will be buried in official bullshit. But everything that has occurred since Bhutto announced her decision to return to Pakistan points to his tacit approval, at the very least. His apparent inability to protect the nation's main opposition leader, a woman with a great deal of legitimate support, clearly demonstrates his incompetence. Or malice, whichever you prefer.

What's the point of marshal law, if it doesn't impose law and order? The fact that it was lawyers who first demonstrated against the government in this latest round of chaos in Pakistan is a telling point. Likewise Musharraf's dismissal and arrest of the Supreme Court judges. It shows that he is an outlaw. And if the leader of the country is a lawless scoundrel, how can you expect the citizens to behave any better?

It's time that the west, and the US in particular, stop coddling Musharraf. He has no control over his borders with Afghanistan. His efforts in the so-called war on terror have so far been ineffectual, and I'm not convinced that he doesn't prefer it that way. Ostensibly, his government's aid in the war on terror is the reason for the west's support of him. Once again we find ourselves supporting a miserable dictator because we think it's a better choice than the alternative. I wonder.

I suspect that Musharraf is actually thumbing his nose at the US. It was the Murricans who pressured him to come to some sort of agreement with Bhutto. It was the Murricans who pressured him to step down from his military position. I don't think he liked that too much, so he decided to show everybody who was boss. His condemnation of the assassination and appeal for calm ring hollow in our ears. No, not hollow...rather, brimful with hypocrisy.

As for Benazir Bhutto, I confess I have rather mixed feelings. In the last few months, especially, she skillfully positioned herself as the beacon of democracy in Pakistan. But let's not forget that she was ousted as Prime Minister...twice...for alleged corruption. Again, we'll never know the truth of that either. It's a sad comment on the state of Pakistan that such a person would be cast as the democratic alternative. This is it: her democracy would have been more legitimate than what is there now. And it's entirely possible that her handling of indigenous terrorists would have been more effective. This is what made her a target: she threatened the terrorists, and she threatened Musharraf's meal-ticket (sham-fighting terrorists...)

I am often perplexed by, or critical of, the US in this blog. I suppose I can be critical of the US now for propping up this jerkoff for so long. Another case of the US backing the wrong dictatorial horse. But I have to say, I believe the Bush administration really did try to set Musharraf on a more acceptable path this time around. And the jerkoff jerked them around.

I will say one more thing. I know the US has had its share of political assassinations, but the degree of domestic political terror has never reached the level seen in Pakistan. I'll be smug for a moment. In the western democracies we have learned, by and large, to share power, to transfer power, to distribute power, without the need to shoot people. (OK, relatively speaking...of course, we all know that the common people even in western countries are pretty much shut out of the real decision-making processes...) But we are also pretty much assured that George W. Bush will relinquish the presidency when the time comes without having to impose marshal law. Same for Canada. And Britain. And Germany. And France. Even the Ukraine!

Which makes me think that maybe Pakistan is nearly ripe for revolution. You know, no matter how loyal an army is to its ostensible political masters, it can be swayed by the determined opposition of citizens. Soldiers can think as well as anyone else. They have eyes to see. They know, ultimately, when they are being manipulated for evil purposes. And history shows that the army has been a powerful force in Pakistan. When it decides to vote for democracy, tinpots like Musharraf had better beware.

Iran & World War Three? Pt.II

I hope the NY Times don't mind. I'm including this image of its front page from Nov. 15, 1969:

As you can see, on this day 38 years ago a quarter of a million people gathered in Washington to protest against the Vietnam war.

Oh, how times have changed!

Now, I ask myself, what's the difference between then and now.

I come up with really only one answer: fear.

The quarter-million Murricans (and many others) of 1969 feared neither the Vietnamese nor the Communists nor their own government. Such is not the case today. Murricans now fear Muslims (and that's a whole lot of the world's population these days) whether they live in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. They fear Mexicans. They fear their own government.

It's possible that this is not simply paranoia, I admit. Sometimes fear is the "rational" response. But if you allow the fear to rule you, then the logical consequences of that response become irrational.

There is some reason to fear the government. The Bush administration has made a concerted effort to feed that fear, to restrict the rights of US citizens (all in the name of security...and is there any as a result?...) I think most westerners (and that includes the Murricans) believe that they live in freedom. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most, gazing off into the distance of the Middle East or Africa or China, don't recognize the repression in front of their noses.

Of course there is government repression in the US. In western Europe. In Canada. We may admit that it is relatively milder than so-called dictatorships in other regions, but it is repression nevertheless. Just ask those who do attempt to protest or demonstrate their opposition to unwarranted or unrepresentative government actions. Ask the people who protest against the Security and Prosperity Partnership right here in North America. (And some of these people are not even saying "Don't do it!" They're just saying, "Tell us what the hell's going on, tell us what your plans are!" Is this not anti-democratic? Is this not repression?)

The usual response to demonstrations and protests in the West is not so far different from what has outraged us recently in both Burma and Pakistan. The police (let's call them "security forces" as the media like to do for other countries) let it go on for a while (as long as it's not too rowdy) and then at some point determine that things must be shut down...for security. If anyone objects to being shut down, they are pepper-sprayed, tasered, arrested, beaten, charged and convicted. But of course, that's OK, because they're our police. They're not those brutal riot gangs in Rangoon.

A few years ago, former Premier Mike Harass of Ontariario put up barricades outside the Legislature. He didn't like the idea of people protesting there. At the figurative House of the People! He essentially instigated riots by trying to suppress the voice of the citizens of Ontariario. I had a hard time convincing some of my friends that the sight of police on horseback with riot sticks in front of our Legislature was something to be alarmed about...that the state was committing violence against its own citizens.

The people of 1969 may have been hippies and so-called radicals. But there is no doubt they had courage. They pushed back against a regime that did not seem to have their best interests at heart. Of course, many of those people are still around. But I wonder, have some of them become the people who need to be pushed back against?

As for the rest of us, I fear too. I fear that we have become hypnotized by technology, by media, by bland repetition of the Big Lie, by trivial pursuits, the latest iPod, the latest iPhone, the latest XBox, the latest celebrity scandal, the latest Hummer. And I lament. I lament that we have been cowed by fear. By complacency. By surveillance. By corporate power. By government power.

And I dread. That we have become sheeplike in our acceptance of authority.

Iran & World War Three?

OK, I'm a little behind here, but I see by the NY Times of Oct.17/07 that President Bush warned that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to World War III. Of course, Mr. Bush referred to wild and threatening statements made by Iran's Prime Minister Ahmadinejad. As if the Resident of the Excited States of Murrica hasn't ever made wild and threatening statements.

But let me get this straight. Which nation's leader is talking World War III? Which nation actually has nuclear weapons? Which nation's leader has adopted a policy of pre-emptive war? Which nation's leader only took the "nuclear option" in Iran off the strategy table at the insistence of his own military advisors?

Quoting the NY Times: "Mr. Bush sought in the news conference to make clear that his pressure tactics, including economic sanctions, were aimed at persuading the Iranian people to find new leadership."

Does this not sound eerily familiar? Is this not déjà vu all over again?

Ordinary Murricans wouldn't fall for this again, would they?

The Original 9-11 Conspiracy Film

If you're interested in watching this, prepare yourself for the long haul. It's nearly 2 and a half hours long.

Support Our Troops

There has been a great deal of debate in both Canada and the US about "supporting the troops". People who are opposed to the war in Iraq or who, like myself, are ambivalent about Canada's presence in Afghanistan, have some difficulty making the nuanced argument about what "support" means. This statement by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic is the most succinct I've seen so far:

Obviously, the way you support the troops is contingent upon your analysis of the war. If you think the war is succeeding, then supporting the war is a way of supporting the troops. If you think the war is doomed to failure, though, proposing that more troops die in vain is not a way of supporting them.

Now that I think about it, though, even this presents difficulties. Telling the troops that they're dying in vain is demoralizing. Saying a war is "doomed" to failure is demoralizing. It means you're losing. The soldiers don't want to think they're losing. Losing is not an option.

So, I guess you need even more nuance. "We, your political leaders sent you into a war that didn't have a chance right from the start. Sorry. All the shame and blame belongs to us. Now the best we can do is get you out of there as soon as possible."

Update Aug.31/07 11:05am: And in a related item, Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com discusses how even political journalists cannot seem to disentangle the concept of "supporting the troops" from the idea of continuing the war.

Cheney Says No to Invading Iraq

This video comes courtesy of grandtheftcountry. In this, our lovely Internet age, we wonders, yes we does, whether people/politicians/public figures are suffering from some sort of deficiency (as a learned friend of mine is wont to say.) Surely they must know that their words and actions are recorded and observed and then splashed all over electronic cyberspace. (Surely I know that my words and actions here achieve some sort of immortality, ethereal as it is...)



What changed Cheney's mind between 94 and 02? Did he, perhaps, have a lobotomy we don't know about? All I know is, the word "quagmire" was on every thinking person's lips long before George W sang "Heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to war we go!" with Mr. Charm Cheney prodding and poor foolish politically inept Colin Powell enabling.

Mr. Cheney, take your gingko pills faithfully. It might keep you out of the quagmire some day.

A Quarter for Your (Paranoid) Thoughts

Really, this is too much!

AP reported yesterday that some visiting US Army contractors spotted an outlandish coin while travelling in Canada, and they considered it to be so suspicious that they filed espionage reports about it.

The suspicious coin turned out to be the one shown here, the famous (only in Canada, you say?) "Poppy" quarter, the first colourized coin in the world.

It caused quite a sensation (only in Canada, you say?) when it was issued in 2004, because the government chose TimHo's to be the main distributor of the coin...proving once again that Canajuns really are all TimHoes.

I don't like to be too critical but sometimes you just have to shake your head. We Canajuns are often astounded at the appalling ignorance of our Murrican neighbours to the south. You know, the home of Mom, apple pie and a Commie under every bed.

Especially if it's a Canajun bed. (Didn't some Yanqui senator call us the Republic of Canuckistan or something like that? Clever enough, and lots of Canajuns got a laugh out of it, but it was deliberately inflammatory. But never mind, quite a few loose-mouthed Canajuns are also guilty of that form of idiocy with regard to our Friendly Giant neighbours.)

The poppy is the symbol (only in Canada, you say?) of war remembrance and it is inspired by this pome, written by a Canajun, and proclaimed by the Arlington National Cemetery as "one of the most memorable war poems ever written". Arlington National Cemetery is, I believe, one of the better-known institutions in...where was that, now?...oh yeah, the Excited States of Murrica. (So that must mean that not all Murricans are appallingly ignorant, praise the Lord! and pass the ammunition...)

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army

IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Now, I don't expect the average Murrican to know this pome was written by a Canajun, or to know the pome at all, for that matter. It's a Canajun institution, for sure, and most Canajuns don't know all the words. But neither do I expect Murricans to come to Canada and proclaim, "Hmm, that's a mighty suspicious pome! We better test it to make sure it ain't gonna blow up!"

Which is what the US Army contractors did. (Or, rather, the Defense Security Service.) They suspected nano-technology! I suspect that nano-technology represents the size of the intellects involved.

What I want to know is: What the hell are US Army contractors doing in Canada anyway? I thought the war was somewhere else. What? Were these maybe a coupla Blackwater Boys on vacation in Niagara Falls, spending the combat pay they earned protecting VIPs in Baghdad? One of them buys a pack of gum and gets the quarter in his change? And, we Canajuns being so friendly (he wasn't being shot at by desperate Iraqis), he didn't realize he was in a furrin country where the money might be different?

And then, to compound the stupidity (and the arrogance) they label this coin a secret weapon that was somehow planted on them. In Canada. Which is the country that has had the longest-standing friendship with the US and is, in fact, an ally in that other adventure in Afghanistan. I ask you, should we be surprised when the US gets a bad reputation around the world? A nation that has considerable difficulty distinguishing between true friends and enemies.

Then again, maybe it was just four guys from Detroit on a weekend jaunt to the casino in Windsor who decided to play a practical joke on the Defense Department, just to see how far it would go...

CBC 5th Estate: The Lies That Led to War

OK, be prepared. This video is about 45 minutes long...

Meanwhile, How's It Going In Afghanistan?

Harper's tells us that the UN announced on March 6 that the yield of heroin poppies rose by 25 percent last year.

Well, at least something is being reconstructed.

And in a not-directly related question: what is NATO doing so far from the North Atlantic which is part of its name? General Motors scrapped the Oldsmobile when it had outlived its usefulness. Get my drift?

Update #2 on Anti-Terrorist Laws

Well, well, the Supreme Court of Canada made waves in the New York Times. An editorial on the 27th praised the Court for its decision to limit the sweeping powers of security certificates.

Ok, so not everybody thinks the NY Times is such a big deal, but you all remember what Frank Sinatra said..."If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere..."

First of all, the editorial reminded me that the Court was unanimous in its decision. (But it also wasn't completely dismissive of the concept of security certificates.)

Secondly, the editorial compared the legal situation in the US unfavourably to that in Canada:

The contrast with the United States could not be more disturbing. The Canadian court ruling came just days after a federal appeals court in Washington ruled that Congress could deny inmates of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp the ancient right to challenge their confinement in court. The 2006 military tribunals law revoked that right for a select group who had been designated “illegal enemy combatants” without a semblance of judicial process.

In late January, Canada created another unflattering contrast with United States policy when it offered a formal apology and financial compensation to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was a victim of Mr. Bush’s decision to approve open-ended detentions, summary deportations and even torture after 9/11.

And thirdly, it gave high praise to the Court at the end:

Lawmakers have only to look to the Canadian court for easy-to-follow directions back to the high ground on basic human rights and civil liberties.

Canada is not the US. It is not Australia. It is not France or Germany or Great Britain. Thank God, too, it is not Iraq or Saudi Arabia, oily as they may be.

Meanwhile, tomorrow is the day the other two laws lapse, having been defeated in the House of Common Bawdy Houses a couple days ago. There was an enormous degree of politicking going on around this, which I find rather distasteful. It just seems to me certain laws or principles are beyond muckraking politics and civil liberties is one of them (or group of them...civil liberties are...a group of them...how the hell do you say this grammatically?)

Related to this, I'm embarrassed to see the tone of the commentary I've been reading on the Net, on blogs and in comments and on public sites. I'm beginning to think the more I read these sites, the less I like the people who read them (or comment on them).

Oops! What did I just say? I don't like people who read and comment on blogs? (But am I not one of them? If you prick me, do I not blog?)

Let's say, certain sites. As I mentioned a few posts ago, I signed up with Digg. I've been on there a few times since, and some of the people commenting on submitted articles are real jerks. Downright rude. Clever sometimes, but rude in the process, even abusive. Same goes for some of the conservative political blogs I've been on. And the jerks come from all sides of the spectrum.

As with many things in life, the readers of these sites most often go there to reinforce the views they already hold. If someone with a different point of view or even a more nuanced one wades into the fray, he/she is liable to be pilloried and called all sorts of unspeakable names.

A little civility please!

In our blogosphere. And in our civil society. It seems to me that Canada is coming back to its senses (a little) since the orgy of fear created by 9/11. In other words a more civil civil society.

(Then again, we did throw a little girl off the soccer field for wearing a hijab....)

PS. I have a copy of the Supreme Court's decision, but it's something like 80 pages and my reading list is already too long. I'll let you know if I dig anything out of it...

Security Certificates No Longer Secure

It's a damn good thing I'm not a journalist cuz I probably would have been fired before now. Here I've been on about security certificates in the last couple of weeks, and I didn't even know that there was a case before the Supreme Court. (Or maybe I knew, once, but forgot.) Anyway, I didn't hear about this until the day before the decision came down.

(Interesting, that phrase "came down" as in "coming from on high" as in "someone above us" as in "Supreme" as in "highest court in the land" and the decision tumbles down to us lower humans willy nilly...which is another interesting expression originally rendered, I think, as "will he, nill he"....but enough digression...)

This was no minor decision. It made the top of NY Times headlines. In large measure, the court agrees with what I think...(and a good thing too! otherwise, the court woulda been wrong...) Quoting from the Times (cuz I forgot to bookmark a Canajun page):

“The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the ruling.

Well, duh! You wouldn't think it would take the Supreme Court to figure that out.

I must remind people, however, as I had to be reminded, that these cases centre around non-citizens who were actually ordered deported. So, for Canajuns, the question is: how did these people get into the country in the first place, and why were they not simply deported when the appeals process was done? It seems to me that any country has the right to decide who gets to stay and who doesn't, and they don't even really have to give a reason. "Entry Refused" stamped on the passport. Done.

There should not be any circumstance, really, like the one these men have been in...confinement, secret hearings, secret evidence, no right to defend oneself. I'm still baffled as to why they were/are being held. The whole matter should have been expedited.

But then, I'm not CSIS. I'm not the RCMP. I'm not the Minister. I'm not the Supreme Court.

At least now the guvment has some direction and a clear statement that the way it's been going about things is not kosher. (Again, I say, we should not need the Supreme Court to tell us this.)

According to the Times, this is quite a departure from the Murrican headspace:

The decision reflected striking differences from the current legal climate in the United States. In the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress stripped the federal courts of authority to hear challenges, through petitions for writs of habeas corpus, to the open-ended confinement of foreign terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

A federal appeals court in Washington upheld the constitutionality of that law this week, dismissing 13 cases brought on behalf of 63 Guantánamo detainees.

And a good thing we're not following that lead, sez this Canajun. I would think the poor Murrican eagle, symbol of liberty, is suffering a severe case of whiplash from the way its civil rights neck has been twisted in the last five years. Leave it to Canajun beavers to gnaw away at the worry lines on the eagle's brow.

Not everyone agrees with me, tho. I read comments on the Hawgtown Grope & Flail report about the court's decision. A lot of people cursing Pierre Elliott Trudeau for saddling us with the Charter of Rights. (No mention that the first Charter was actually introduced by Diefenbaker...) A lot of people hysterically predicting terrorist doom. As far as I'm concerned, a lot of people being downright ignorant and abusive on both sides. Which is why I don't spend a lot of time reading the comments on public sites like that. (Unlike here, of course, where the discourse is highly civilised and unfailingly thoughtful.)

So, there we go again, wandering off from the Murrican way. In some ways, tho, we're not straying too far. Parliament has a year to get its act together, ie. its new Security Certificate Act. Security Certificates will not disappear. But at least these issues will be dealt with in a more open, fairer, and much more timely fashion.

Update on Anti-Terrorist Laws

The acrimoniousness of the debate about these laws (including an attempted low blow on a Gliberal MP by Prime Minister Stephen Harpie in the House of Common Bawdy Houses) is a clear demonstration of the essential dichotomy our (western) society has experienced since 9/11. The pendulum has two ends: preservation of civil liberties; and maintenance of security.

Proponents of extending the laws say these extraordinary powers are necessary -- just in case we need them.

Opponents point to the fact that we have never yet used them, that good ordinary police work is sufficient, and therefore they are not necessary.

I say nothing at all justifies the abrogation of fundamental civil liberties such as the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right to face one's accuser, the right to know the evidence against one, the freedom from torture.

To contemplate the possibility that such fundamental rights can be by-passed even temporarily (and what is temporary? Five years, as is the case with some of those held under security certificates?) is to admit that Canada is no longer a democratic state.

Of what use is security if our civil liberties are not secure?

Has the pendulum swung too far? I think it has. What do you think?

As for the political elements of this. The Gliberals are taking a bit of a beating about this, because they're opposing the extension of the laws...laws which they themselves introduced. If I remember correctly, they opposed the sunset clause at the time. Now they're trying to take advantage of it. I'm inclined to let the Gliberals get away with this (cuz I oppose the laws). The so-called sunset clause was included for a reason. These are extreme measures and should not be allowed to stand unexamined. Now it's time to examine them, and thoughtful, conscientious MPs are allowed to change their minds about whether they are necessary.

Anti-Terrorist Laws

The Hawgtown Mop & Pail* is reporting that our "new" Constipated government wants to extend two controversial anti-terrorist measures that were passed by the former Gliberal government after 9/11.

One, called preventative arrest, lets police detain terrorism suspects without warrants. The second, called investigative hearings, allows police to force individuals who may know about a terrorist plot to share their information in a closed-door court.

The way I sees it, Western governments went thru an orgy of paranoiac legislation in the aftermath of 9/11 -- predictable, I suppose, but regrettable. (Regrettable is not nearly a strong enough word, but I can't think of another at the moment.) The US had Patriots One & Two. Britain beefed up its Beefeaters. And Canada too, fearing the possibility of fences on the border and recriminations about our leaky security measures, (see my previous post on CSIS) decided to get tough on terra.

But all for naught, really. It's been shown repeatedly that extraordinary security, detention and arrest measures are not what gets the job done. In fact, the two measures under consideration have never been used. What is effective is standard, meticulous, determined police work. All the recent arrests, in Toronto, London, the US have come about in this way. Thus, the extraordinary measures are exposed as gratuitous, fear-driven assaults on civil liberties. Besides, it isn't as if we don't already have draconian techniques, such as security certificates, under which citizens can be deprived of all their civil rights without even knowing why.

Unfortunately, Mr. Blockwell Bray, our National Minister of Insecurity and Goofy Photo-Ops,** has resorted to outright fear-mongering:

“People were arrested who allegedly were planning to blow up this building, to behead the Prime Minister and to destroy people in the Toronto area.”

Mr. [Br]ay, who is responsible for Canada's national-security agencies and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, cited the example even though police arrested the 18 Toronto men last June without using those sections of the anti-terrorism laws.

Opposition parties (even the Gliberals who introduced the measures) are opposing their extension. Which proves that the insistence on a review process when they were first passed was actually a good idea. Measures like these are more likely to produce another Maher Arar than a bona fide bomb-toting terrorist.

***

*Footnote: I am forever indebted to Richard J. Needham, the former columnist who, in fact, coined the name Mop & Pail and indirectly gave me permission through books such as Needham's Inferno to comment satirically on the foibles of Canajun society and to mess around with the names of people and institutions. He helped to set me on the path of teenage speling rebeling and probably is partly responsible for my current incarceration in the Yoni School for Wayward Poets.

**Footnote 2:

A Maher Canadian Event

Talk radio! Yechh! Sometimes I think the dregs of the earth call into talk radio shows. Unfortunately, I've done it once or twice myself. Of course, I think the hosts should thank God they get the occasional intelligent commentator like me. But mostly, it's feeble-minded chatter, faulty logic, unfocused meandering, inability to stand up to an argument, ubridled envy and uncontrolled rage. And that's just the hosts! The callers are several rungs below that.

What brings this rant on? Maher Arar, that's what.

I begged the powers that be at the Yoni School to bring me a radio so that I might follow the proceedings in Ottawa as Prime Minister Harpie extended his heartfelt apology to Mr. Arar and his family for the unspeakable ordeal they've suffered. And they did! Wonders never cease. A radio appeared and I avidly flipped the dial for outside news.

Actually, the apology itself was a rather banal event, and afterwards Mr. Harpie took all manner of questions, some of them even related to the Arar affair. I'm not going to get into the details of that. What do I look like? A reporter? A journaliste? No! Suffice it to say that Mr. Arar will be paid $10.5M (Cdn) for his troubles, plus legal expenses. Go here for a factual report. Go there for another one. In fact, the most powerful moment of the day was the statement made by Arar's lawyer. Quite impassioned, it was.

After the Prime Minister's press conference, (and actually for a while before) I got to listen to call-in radio shows. And the big topic of conversation was this Maher event. Then there was Mr. Arar's press conference. Then there was more blather on the call-in shows. Now, I'm not big on outrage. Annoyance, yes. Righteous indignation, most certainly. But today, I am positively outraged. I never thought I would use this word seriously, because I find it comes to the lips of Canadians too easily, but I am appalled, utterly appalled, at the attitude that some of the callers took in regard to the settlement with Maher Arar. In the space of a few minutes, Maher Arar was transformed from a cause célèbre and Canada's most famous (recent) wrongfully accused into a greedy, suspect, overpaid, self-serving possible terrorist (torture victim...)

One man called in to 570News this morning and suggested that he would like the opportunity to be tortured if he was going to get $10M. ! I repeat: ! And the afternoon host, Gary Doyle, repeatedly mentioned that this apology from the government was politically beneficial for the Constipated Party and Canada's "New" Government. Then! Later on I heard callers to the afternoon drive show on CFRB. One man, a Canadian serviceman no less, insisted that Arar would not have been put on a watch list for no good reason. Indeed, that there was much more to this than we have been told (because the Murricans still don't trust Mr. Arar....! I repeat: !) and that some day we would all discover (presumably when Mr. Arar succeeds in blowing up the Parliament buildings) that we have been duped.

Right. The RCMP admitted there was no good reason. Mr. Justice O'Connor stated unequivocally that there was no good reason. The government has just declared publicly there was no good reason, and apologized for it. But the supposedly reasonable, fair-minded, intelligent citizens of Canada can't believe there was no good reason for it. After all, he's a Muslim ain't he?

Talk radio typically overflows with vitriol, but really, this is too much. Bewildered and bedeviled, I ask myself, "What is with these people?" I put it down to several causes:
1. Envy. Pure envy. "How come I don't get ten million bucks?" these niggardly souls complain.
2. Laziness. Intellectual and emotional. Many of the callers didn't even possess the basic facts about Mr. Arar's case. Too lazy to find out. Too lazy to imagine what his life must have been like then, and now.
3. Faulty logic. Some people wanted to know why this one man should get so much money when there were so many other worthy causes crying for government aid. As if it were a zero-sum game. As if one worthy cause negates another.
4. Stupidity. Sad, but true. Some people are unrelievedly stupid.

Wake up, people! Maher Arar is, and was, INNOCENT! It's not a case of not guilty, or let go on a technicality. He was INNOCENT! From the very beginning. As determined by a two and a half year national commission headed up by a well-respected judge. His rights as a Canadian citizen were abused and his personal safety jeopardized by the calculated actions of a few individuals in authority. People who should have known better but were too absorbed in their own little high-security top-secret worlds to pay attention to something as abstract as inalienable rights. Canadians should not be quibbling over a few million dollars (out of a surplus of billions). On the contrary, Canadians should be expressing massive concern that our collective values of freedom, justice and respect could have been so easily subverted.

In effect, Maher Arar was abducted by the United States, aided and abetted by the Canadian government, his own government. And subjected to torture. For anyone to suggest that the amount is too much, let them think of what it might be like to be tortured for a year. Not just physically. Mentally and emotionally too. Now, I don't like to admit this, but I've been known to cook bacon now and then without a shirt on. You all know what happens when you cook bacon. Sputtering fat, that's what! And it hurts like hell to get just one little drop of hot bacon fat on my oh-so-sensitive belly. I have difficulty imagining what it must be like to be tortured every day, not knowing when the fat will hit the fan, not knowing whether you might live or die, not knowing if anyone at all cares...Anyone who thinks they might like to trade places with Mr. Arar, for any amount of money...well, they're clearly more than one brick short of a full load.

Far be it from me to praise Stephen Harpie, but he and his government did exactly the right thing. Whether it's politically expedient or not makes no difference. And it's not necessarily the easiest thing to do either, apologizing for someone else's behaviour when you had no control over it and it happened several years ago. Think how you would feel if you had to do that.

To tell the truth, I'm practically struck dumb by the idiocy of some of those people. It almost calls for yet another apology to Mr. Arar. If people want to be outraged, they should direct their attention to the people in authority, members of the RCMP and their overseers, who committed this most grievous error and in the end made it necessary for the government to apologize and spend 12 million dollars worth of taxpayer money to try and make it right.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

That was the title of a lecture sponsored by the Campbell Baptist church in Whimsy, ON, that lovely border town nestled cheek by jowl against Motown. It's part of their Winter Theological Conference called The Deadly Threat of Islam.

Mothercorp was blasting away on this today. The man who gave the lecture is named Zachariah Anani, a Muslim who converted to Christianity (and then found his life threatened.) He is a former member of a Lebanese militia group called Ali's Youth and one way or another claims to have killed more than 200 people in the course of his career of rebellion. Before the age of 17. He decided to give that up and came to Canada as a refugee, and now he's a Canadian citizen. Anani's lecture was intended to inform people of the violent underpinnings of Islam and the Koran.

The second session in the conference is apparently called Could Jihad Be Coming to Your Neighbourhood? Nice, eh? Very neighbourly. Friendly neighbourhood Baptist Church.

Needless to say, the content of the lecture and some of the discussion that took place has caused some stir in the state of Whimsy. Hate speech, some are calling it. Jihad coming to your neighbourhood? Well, maybe not hate speech, but certainly a healthy dose of hyperbole. Fear-mongering. Just what we all need to sleep better at night.

The reason I bring this up is because I had an experience with this sort of thing a few years ago. I don't remember exactly when, but it was after 9/11. (As a matter of fact, I just remembered that it was around Nov. 11, Remembrance Day.) Now, I don't want you to think I'm picking on the Baptists, but it just so happens that this occurred at a Baptist church in Arnprior. (I could never make up a better name...) The sermon that day was about Islam. How "their" God is not "our" God. How they worship a black stone that resides in Mecca. How they were trying to fool us by claiming it was the same God. Infidels! Beware! All done with PowerPoint, no less! PowerPoint. Talking Points. Pamphlets for further perusal. Investigate the stranger in our midst!

The whole thing made me extremely uncomfortable. I did not feel as if I were in Christian surroundings. And though it may not have been hate speech, it was definitely (but subtly) inflammatory. And the congregation was encouraged to study up on this dangerous foreign religion. Ordinary whitebread Arnprior townsfolk being spoonfed bitter pablum by a nominally Christian pastor...and unfortunately, I could see that a number of them swallowed it.

Reminds me of a song by Steely Dan...Third World Man:

Johnny's playroom
Is a bunker filled with sand
He's become a third world man
Smoky sunday
He's been mobilized since dawn
Now he's crouching on the lawn
He's a third world man

Yep, I'll be out patrolling the quadrangle of the Yoni School every afternoon now, just in case Jihad is coming to my neighbourhood.

Why Didn't I Think of That?

It seems that Joshua Holland, a staff writer for AlterNet has coined a phrase: War on Terra. That's brilliant. Why didn't I think of it? It's so obvious once you see it. Damn! Now I'm going to have to go back & change all those labels I've been so busy making. Get ready Ebenezer!

Larry Breaks His Rule About On-Line Petitions

I know I said I don't participate in online petitions. MoveOn.org is a group that I've known and known about for several years. I trust them, as far as that is possible in an entirely electronic/internet relationship. This is not to say that I have any special faith in the effectiveness of this type of action. But maybe...

Dear friends,

Just when we thought the war in Iraq couldn't get any worse—it has. Last night, President Bush rejected reality, spurned the American people's verdict, and announced his new policy: military escalation in Iraq.

The newly elected United States Congress has the power to stop this madness, but it's critical to show immediate, unified opposition from the international community.

So MoveOn is helping launch Avaaz, a new international partnership to mobilize progressive global voices. We're starting with an emergency worldwide petition to the U.S. Congress and a powerful full-page ad in "Roll Call"—the Washington DC newspaper read by every member of Congress and their staff.

Click below to see the ad and sign the petition:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_campaign_jan_2007/

After years of failed occupation, it's clear to everyone but George Bush that the US cannot solve this civil conflict through force. As Bush's own top military advisors and commanders in the field have said, sending tens of thousands more American troops will only fan the flames of this war.

World opinion matters: The American people understand the US can't police the globe by itself. That's why, before the original invasion, Bush worked so hard to promote the involvement of Tony Blair and a few other select world leaders to win over reluctant members of Congress.

Today, Bush stands completely alone—but it's our job to bring this point home in Washington. The ad in Roll Call highlights Tony Blair's decision to withdraw troops in direct opposition to Bush's proposed escalation. And the petition will help show where the global public stands.

http://www.avaaz.org/en/iraq_campaign_jan_2007/

The Bush administration is already twisting arms and doing everything it can to push this escalation through. Congress may yet find the courage to resist—if we help them—but there's no time to lose.

Add your name to the petition. Spread the word to your friends. The Iraq crisis is a global problem. Together we have the power, and the responsibility, to help change course.

Sincerely,

–Eli Pariser
MoveOn.org Political Action
January 11, 2006


PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION, http://pol.moveon.org/
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.