Says Pat Robertson: "She's Asking For It"

What is she asking for? Why, divine retribution, of course.

Watch. Learn. Repent!

UPDATE: Lest We Forget

Brutality against women can come from those whose duty it is to protect and serve:

A Winnipeg woman said this week that she had filed a complaint after an officer beat her in her own home as her 8-year-old son watched.

Lana Sinclair told CBC that Winnipeg police officers showed up on Halloween night to investigate reports of “yelling.” One officer spoke to her son, while another officer talked to her.

“He came up to me and poked me,” Sinclair recalled. “I was sitting on a chair in the kitchen and I jumped up and said you don’t need to touch me.”

The officer pulled out a baton, and beat her with it, she explained to CTV. She said he then smashed her face into a work table, and into the floor.

UPDATED: Many thanks to Inse for providing this link to a very disturbing video showing physical brutality by a London Metropolitan police officer. In this case, unlike the vast majority in Canada, the offending officer was charged and terminated.

A Sobering Remembrance Day Reminder

I have to confess that all of the extra 'enthusiasm' for this year's Remembrance Day makes me uneasy. Poppy sales are at an all time high. Special and protracted ceremonies are planned. Government propaganda is being churned out incessantly.

While I fully respect the fact that many people fought and died to protect our increasingly fragile freedoms, the reflexive reaction of a wide swath of citizenry to the military, especially since the events of last month, should be cause for some concern. It suggests to me a willingness to suspend critical faculties when they are most needed, given that we currently strain under the yoke of probably the least democratic domestic regime in our history.

Two Star letter writers address these concerns effectively:

Re: ‘I know Hitler will destroy Germany,' Insight Nov. 8

I have read, with fascination, David Halton’s story of his father’s reporting on the early days of the Nazi era in Germany. Glorification of the military; rush to war at the first opportunity; rigorous control of the media message; muzzling of dissent; demonization of certain groups. Remind you of anywhere?

People everywhere must constantly be vigilant or live to regret it.

John Simke, Toronto

Matthew Halton, in his 30-part German series for the Star, provided an intersting description of Gleichschaltung, in which Germans served the state rather than the other way around after the Nazis wrested control of Germany in 1933.

To Halton, Gleichschaltung “was ‘bringing into line’ every aspect of German thought and activity, the Nazis’ rationale for suppressing “political parties, trade unions, independent churches, even long-standing provincial governments whose powers were stripped away.”

Call me crazy, but wouldn’t Gleichschaltung somewhat describe Harper Inc.’s end-game?

Alan Pellettier, Scarborough

H/t Operation Maple

No Surprises Here: The Fraser Institute Shows Its Biased Incompetence

Of course, right-wing groups like the Fraser Institute never let facts and data get in the way of a rabid ideology:

Kinder Morgan: Message From Ralphie

This is my mad face:



Kinder Morgan wants him charged with assault.

UPDATED: The Mighty (Pol)Oz Speaks

But his message is not being well-received. No, not at all.

UPDATE: With their usual perspicacity, Star readers also weigh in on the bank governor's pontifications.

Thank God I'm Safe

In our household, we don't 'hold' with energy drinks, so I guess our immortal souls are safe. But I'm not quite clear what that Great Deceiver, Satan, gets out of peddling such beverages:

I Feel Better Already

....knowing that Mr. Harper's fight against ISIS hasn't distracted him from an even greater threat to all that is holy and good:

UPDATED: Reassuring Legislation For Xenophobes and Bigots, A.K.A. The Harper Base

I don't know who composes the names for government bills these days, but they are blatantly selective in their intended audiences. The latest proposed piece of Harper legislation leaves little doubt that its target audience is the red meat supporters of our current regime: the Zero Tolerance for Barbaric Cultural Practices Act (Bill S-7).

Hmmm, interesting title. Cultural - can't be referring to Canadians, since we are reputed by many to have no culture. Barbaric - outside of cultural outliers like Luka Magnotta and Paul Bernard, no barbarism amongst our native-born. And clearly the ex-soldier who attempted to blow up a downtown Calgary skyscraper that houses a Veteran Affairs Canada office was disturbed, not a barbaric ideological warrior/terrorist.

This bill is transparent in design and intent, guaranteed to ensure that our equanimity, so recently roiled by the Parliament hill attack, is not too quickly re-established. In his column today, Thomas Walkom points out that the bill has merit only in three aspects:

One would explicitly outlaw forced marriages. Another would clarify the general provincial practice that sets 16 as the minimum age for marriage. A third would make it illegal to transport a child under 16 abroad for the purpose of marriage.

The rest, however, goes over ground already covered in the Criminal Code:

Polygamy, for instance, is already illegal in Canada. Governments have the power to arrest and charge polygamists. Yet as the long-running, Bountiful, B.C. polygamy saga shows, Canadian government have not been anxious to do so.

But the new federal bill does not address the barbaric practices of established Canadian polygamists in B.C. Instead, it focuses solely on immigrants.

Immigration Minister Chris Alexander claims there are hundreds of immigrant engaged in this foul practice. The bill would allow for their deportation.

And then there is this,

... the section dealing with honour killings that is the most curious. Bill S-7 would rewrite the Criminal Code to preclude a defendant in a murder trial from arguing that an insult to family honour provoked his action.

Such a clause might be necessary if Canada’s courts were routinely soft on honour killers. But they aren’t.

Alexander himself

cited the case of Mohammad Shafia, an Afghan immigrant who, along with his wife and son, killed three of his daughters and the girls’ stepmother.

What the minister didn’t point out is that all three killers received the maximum sentence — life in prison.

So it remains clear that the Harper regime is continuing to do what it does best: sowing fear, suspicion and hatred, emotions sure to appeal to a certain segment of the population that is largely responsible for the debasement of politics that has been ongoing since their election of Dear Leader.

I just thought of a better name for Bill S-7. How about The Shameless Manipulation of the Canadian People By a Corrupt Government Act?

UPDATE: Click here to see Press Progress' definitive ranking of the most ridiculous and misleading Conservative names for bills.

A Pity They Don't Practice Such Restraint Domestically

Those paragons of virtue and restraint, the business elite, have given us direction for successful relations with China.

Guy Nelson, who makes amusement park rides and was tapped as one of the businessmen to accompany Dear Leader to the Orient, is also freelancing as the Harper regime's foreign policy adviser. He has proclaimed that Canada should stay out of Chinese politics:

Nelson sees China as a huge opportunity for his company, noting theme parks planned by Walt Disney Co and Universal Studios in China, but said bumpy relations between the two countries hurt business.

"Canada has to not try to impose our values excessively on this country," he told reporters on the sidelines of the business conference.

"How China chooses to run its country is their business.

One cannot help but wonder where we poor befuddled peons would be without such unsolicited guidance from these Masters of the Universe.

Russell Brand On Homelessness

Oh, how the right wing must hate him. Read this and watch the accompanying video to find out why.



I especially like this from Brand:

“There’s a prevailing idea,” he continued, “that there’s something ethically wrong with being poor, and that America’s run according to Christian values. But when people are practicing genuine Christian values, they themselves are directly prosecuted.”

“Clearly,” Brand said, “what Jesus was really into was having guns, and not having abortions, and not being gay. Those are his main priorities. But after he made sure that everyone had a gun, no one had an abortion, and nobody was gay, he had a little think about the poor people and whether they needed anything.”

“Sharing is one of the most important Christian values. Looking after each other is a Christian value.” But, he added, American businessmen use “Christianity and morality of all kind to protect their own corporate interests.”

'Nuff said.

This Explains A Lot

The above picture helps to illustrate why industrialized nations seem so cavalier about climate change. Click here for details.

Meanwhile, Stephen Harper's climate soul mate, Australia's Tony Abbott, has just extended a giant middle finger to the world's developing countries:

Australia is resisting a last-ditch push by the US, France and other European countries for G20 leaders at next week’s meeting in Brisbane to back contributions to the Green Climate Fund.

The Green Climate Fund aims to help poorer countries cut their emissions and prepare for the impact of climate change, and is seen as critical to securing developing-nation support for a successful deal on reducing emissions at the United Nations meeting in Paris next year.

Such stellar leadership. Such monumental selfishness. Such compelling reasons to despair.

Beware The 'Great Men' In Our Midst

Were he perceived throughout the country as the legendary Canadian he is in his own mind, I'm sure that former New Brunswick premier Frank McKenna would be lauded far and wide for his insights and advice. Yet the current Deputy Chairman of The Toronto Dominion Bank, board member of Canadian Natural and shill spokesman for the oil industry does the interests of neither Canada nor the larger world any benefit when he extolls the virtues of the Energy East pipeline, as he does in his platform of choice, The Globe and Mail.

Entitled Energy East is truly in the national interest, his piece enthuses over the impending evolution of our country's economy, thanks to the Energy East pipeline, which will transport untold barrels of Alberta tarsands crude to the east coast for refining:

At its core, Energy East intends to transport up to 1.1 million barrels of Western Canadian crude to Eastern Canada per day. It means the conversion of 3,000 kilometres of underutilized natural gas pipe and the construction of 1,600 kilometres of new oil pipeline, primarily in Quebec and New Brunswick.

But wait! There's also untold prosperity accompanying tarsands bitumen down that pipeline:

In fact, according to a report by Deloitte, it’s estimated that the oil sands will create $2.1-trillion in economic benefits across Canada in the next 25 years, including more than $780-billion in taxes paid to the federal and provincial governments.

Had Globe subscribers not yet had the opportunity to don their Depends, I hope they took a few moments to compose themselves before continuing on:

In fact, Energy East changes the game for the entire oil-and-gas sector in Canada. It’s good for Alberta, opening up access to domestic and world markets. It helps Eastern Canada rid itself of its dependency on foreign supplies of oil that often come from countries with considerable instability and values that are not ours. In addition, there are significant benefits for all provinces in terms of job creation and badly needed tax revenues.

The one thing missing from this ad for unbridled development, of course, is any acknowledgement of the catastrophic consequences that any further exploitation of fossil fuels will bring, as outlined in the latest UN Climate report.

Perhaps this Globe online commentator best puts things into their proper prospecitve:

It is truly shameful that the Globe and Mail in running this op-ed did not disclose that Frank McKenna is a member of the Board of Directors of (and presumably receives compensation from) one of Canada's largest tar sands companies.

And as for his thesis. Sure, the tar sands may bring $2.1 trillion in benefit to some Canadians. But as long as the destination for the carbon in those 175 billion barrels of tar is the global atmosphere, the costs to the world (of which Canada is still part) will be immeasurably greater. How our so-called leaders in the corporate sector and media can be incredibly selfish and besotted with short-term wealth defies belief.

Or to put it even more succinctly: When you cut through all his rhetoric, former New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna winds up being nothing more than a shill for Alberta tarsands and one gravely inimical to the world's prospects for long-term survival. Hardly a Canadian icon, no matter what he may think.

Some Days, It Is Very Hard To Resist The Demon Of Despair

Gordon Klingenschmitt, a.k.a. Dr. Chaps, as unhinged a 'reverend' as you are ever likely to encounter, has been elected to the Colorado House of Representatives. A man who brags of having once tried to rid of woman of the "foul spirit of lesbianism" through an exorcism, you can click here to read about a few of his more 'colourful' observations.

Or perhaps you might like to watch this video in which he offers a novel interpretation of Martin Luther King's famous speech:



Or maybe this will be more to your liking:



I suppose there are many in Colorado very thankful for the fact that they can now legally purchase and use marijuana. Everyone deserves respite from the madness that now engulfs them.

There Wasn't A Moist Eye In The House

With the exception of that maudlin master of emotion, the disgraced Dean Del Mastro, Members of Parliament seemed strangely unmoved by the self-proclaimed victim of injustice as he announced his resignation yesterday.

For a full display of 'Mr. Peterborough's' emotive and rhetorical range and a recounting of his 'legendary' achievements for his home riding, you can watch this 15-minute performance from C-Pac. (Check out the 2:40 mark when he tearfully apologizes to his mom and makes reference to his deceased father.)

For a truncated version that proves how cheap talk can be, you can watch the video below.

For a frank assessment of their erstwhile wayward representative, Del Mastro's Peterborough constituents offer these observations:

The Harper War Against Unions Continues

So what else is new? In today's Star, Tim Harper tells a tale of the ongoing indefatigable contempt Canada's putative prime minister has for unions.

Like another Conservative entity, C-377 refuses to remain dead. The bill, proposed by a private member, Russ Hiebert, who is actually a front for Harper and Merit Canada, was actually severely amended/gutted by the senators (including 16 Conservatives), but when Harper prorogued Parliament,

instead of going back to the Commons in amended form, [it] remained in the Upper House, restored to its original form, where it is now up for second reading.

The bill would require unions and employee organizations to give the Canada Revenue Agency details of all transactions over $5,000, along with the salaries and benefits of union officials over $100,000 and a detailed breakdown of spending on political and lobbying activities. It would all be publicly posted on the revenue agency’s website.

That the game was rigged from the start is evident by what Tim Harper has uncovered. Terrance Oakey, the Merit lobbyist with a long association with the Conservatives, has been given preferential treatment and access to the upper echelon of the government:

As Merit’s man in Ottawa, Oakey had 117 meetings with public officeholders on the bill since November 2011, but it’s his level of access which sets him apart.

He had 13 meetings with [backbencher] Hiebert, but also 12 meetings with Harper’s (since departed) director of stakeholder relations, Alykhan Velshi, as well as a meeting with Rachal Curran, Harper’s director of policy. Harper’s former chief of staff Nigel Wright attended one of the meetings with Hiebert and Velshi. Oakey also had a separate tête-à-tête with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird.

Contrast that with labour's access:

[T]he Canadian Labour Congress says the closest it got to Harper’s office in lobbying against the bill was an early 2013 phone conversation between then-president Ken Georgetti and Wright. Georgetti raised it briefly with the prime minister in an unrelated meeting.

The CLC was told there was no time for a face-to-face meeting.

Senate opposition leader James Cowan perhaps best sums up the Machiavellian intent behind Bill C-377:

“Bill C-377 is an anti-union bill,’’...“It is designed to bury labour unions in so much paperwork that they will not be able to represent their workers as fully and capably as they do now.’’

Unions are being punished for opposition to government measures, ... and “this is a message that if you disagree, then the heavy arm of the law can and will be brought down upon you.’’

Yet one more of the countless examples demonstrating the illusory nature of democracy under the Harper regime.

UPDATED: Stephen Harper And Dean Del Mastro: The Bromance Continues

I think this video amply illustrates their relationship:



UPDATE: How surprising - despite his continued proclamations of innocence, the big boy from Peterborough has resigned his seat. In what was described as an emotional announcement (is there any other kind when Harper's former parliamentary secretary speaks?) he articulated the 'noble' reason for his decision:

Del Mastro addressed some of his comments to Conservative Party MPs, [who were soon to begin voting on suspending him from the House] the party he was a part before he was charged in 2013. The party has been eager to distance itself from him since the guilty verdict.

"I told you that I would not put you in a position where you had to vote against me," he said.

"Stay united. I will not divide you. I will not be the one that divides you. I believe too much in what you do."

Oh, by the way, despite his conviction, he gets to keep his pension, which he will be eligible to begin drawing when he turns 55.

I Guess It Will Only Encourage Them

Sayis Arnold Abbott, a 90-year-old homeless advocate: “One of police officers came over and said ‘Drop that plate right now,’ as if I was carrying a weapon”.

Why? The city of Fort Lauderdale has made it a criminal offence for groups to feed the homeless in public.

A Broken Model Of Capitalism: The Latest Poster Child

Despite being on track to meet its 2014 financial objectives, Scotiabank, with a total $5.57 billion of net profit in the first three quarters of 2014, has announced it is cutting about 1500 jobs, two-thirds of them in Canada.

Said CEO and president Brian Porter,

“Today’s announcement is a result of making some difficult but necessary decisions to support our long-term goals”.

Lest you think he forgot 'the little people' who are losing their jobs in the banks's quest for even greater profits, Porter did acknowledge them, saying that

“everyone impacted by these changes will be treated with fairness and respect and deserves our thanks for their important contributions to Scotiabank.”

I guess that will put to the lie the stereotype of the heartless banker.

UPDATED: In The Outer World

...no one can hear Dean Del Mastro scream his innocence despite his conviction on three counts of overspending in his 2008 election campaign. In Del Mastro world, however, his guilt is just a subjective matter:

The judge's ruling "was not a final decision," Del Mastro said. "I've in no way broken any of the laws governing elections."

"I know what the truth is. That's her opinion. My opinion is quite different."

The delusional soon-to-be-former Conservative MP from Peterborough is now engaging it what seems best described as a 'Hail Mary pass':

MP Dean Del Mastro is filing to reopen his defence against allegations he spent too much in the 2008 election and covered it up.

Del Mastro, in an interview with Rosemary Barton on CBC News Network's Power & Politics last Friday, said there was a debate until the last few days of the trial whether they should bring a motion to present additional evidence. In the end, however, he and his lawyers did not.

"We were confident that the ruling was going our way. We felt that we had put forward a very strong case, we thought that we had not just Elections Canada precedent but actual statements and evidence provided by the chief auditor at Elections Canada that entirely supported our case, but ultimately we didn't hear that considered in the ruling."

His faint hope to escape his fate, one hopes, will be quickly quashed by the sentencing judge. But until that sentencing, it appears he will be hanging on to his seat. Let's pray that the poor man's grip on reality, despite what is implied by his recent pronouncements, is less tenuous.



UPDATE: Mr. Del Mastro has also said that he won't resign because he got a strong mandate to represent the people of Peterborough. Apparently, the good folks of that community disagree with his stand. The Peterborough Examiner offers a sampling of constituent comments:

"Very arrogant of DDM to insist the judge got it wrong, that 'He knows the truth.'"

"Wow, the hubris of this guy is really unbelievable. He is a convicted criminal, yet in lieu of any sort of apology or even an acknowledgement of his wrongdoing, instead he offers 'that is her opinion.' Yes, Dean, it WAS her opinion. And it is the ONLY "opinion" that matters. Step down now."

"I think that Dean will just have to accept that he was fairly tried and convicted and deal with it just like anyone else found guilty of a crime would have to.

Another reader had these suggestions for riding association president Alan Wilson, who continues to express support for the convicted Del Mastro:

"First, apologize for Dean as he won't. Second, completely separate and disown Dean. Third, demand his immediate resignation. The time you Cons are taking to make a stand is going to have a price tag on it. If you don't take a solid stand quickly you risk going down with this sinking ship."

Thus far, there is little indication that planet Earth has succeeded in making contact with the errant former beloved of Mr. Harper, or those who aid and abet him.

You Can Never Be Too Careful

...I guess.


H/t Toronto Star

All Along The Watchtower

"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief,
"There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth,
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth."

"No reason to get excited," the thief, he kindly spoke,
"There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke.
But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate,
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

-Opening lyrics to All Along The Watchtower, by Bob Dylan

I couldn't help but think of this iconic song after reading the latest U.N. Climate Report, which can perhaps be best summed up in this excerpt:

Pointing to the solution, the IPCC said the costs associated with mitigation action such as shifting the energy system to solar and wind power and other renewable sources and improving energy efficiency would reduce economic growth only by 0.06 per cent annually.

And [IPCC chairman Rajendra] Pachauri said that cost should be measured against the implications of doing nothing, putting “all species that live on this planet” at peril.

Here is a soulful and slowed down version of the Dylan classic for your discernment:

More On The Walking Dead

My friend Dave in Winnipeg is always urging me to subscribe to Frank magazine for its unforgiving political assessments, the kind of commentary that rarely, if ever, finds its way into the MSM. It is advice I should heed.

Not one to show respect for the politically deceased, Frank offers its latest on the ignoble career of Dean Del Maestro, the once up-and-coming parliamentary secretary to the great one himself, Stephen Harper. Enjoy.

It's Hard To Keep A Dead Man Down

Even though it is a day past Halloween, don't let your guard down just yet. The dead still walk among us.

Was Nathan Cirillo A Hero? - Part 2

Yesterday's post revolved around a column by The Hamilton Spectator's Andrew Dreschel in which he questioned whether the circumstances of Nathan Cirollo's death qualified him as a hero. I predicted that he would likely be subject to a barrage of criticism, given that the young man's death was so recent, and a state funeral had essentially been accorded him.

Today's piece by editor-in-chief Paul Berton confirmed this. While some comments were supportive, others were not so complimentary:

An online petition urged The Spectator to have Dreschel fired. Others wanted us to remove the column, which was apparently "going viral" on social media, from thespec.com.

Another said,

"How can you print one day that he's a hero and the next day that he is not?"

I was glad, however, to see that Berton is standing his ground:

I acknowledge the timing of the column may have been premature and insensitive, and I take full responsibility for that. But a newspaper should not refuse to print opinions simply because they may offend.

As devastated — and as proud — as so many of us were in Hamilton this week, does wondering what it all means in the modern scheme of things take away from that?

He goes on to say:

But isn't that the nature of any good newspaper — to reflect all opinions, no matter how popular or unpopular?

Isn't that the nature of a democratic community? To make sure we can learn from all events?

The funeral brought this community together — and enlightened us. Might not a frank conversation do the same?

I wonder if the irony is lost on all those thousands who lauded Cirillo for his protection of our freedoms who now seem, through their intolerance, to value it so little?

Was Nathan Cirillo A Hero?

As I noted on this blog previously, it is always a tragedy when a young person loses his or her life, whether to accident, disease, or mayhem. The lost potential is incalculable. Like me, however, I suspect many found the mythologizing of Nathan Cirillo's murder, his passage on the Highway of Heroes, and what amounted to a state funeral, attended by an array of dignitaries, including the Prime Minister, a little much. And as a cynical observer of the political landscape, I cannot escape the notion that all of the ceremony will prove to be of great benefit to the Harper regime's propaganda machine and its ongoing efforts to reduce our civil liberties.

This morning, a friend of mine alerted me to a piece by the Hamilton Spectator's Andrew Dreschel. It is a frank and honest assessment of this past week's spectacle. It is also brave, as I suspect it will earn him a barrage of hate mail.

While in no way detracting from the loss of this young man, Dreschel offers an unsentimental assessment of what happened:

The 24-year-old Hamilton reservist was murdered in cold blood by a homeless crack addict with terrorist notions while he was ceremonially guarding the National War Memorial in Ottawa.

Cirillo's death was tragic and senseless, but in no way was it heroic.

Dreschel then goes on to talk about what constitutes heroism: those who display remarkable courage,

by performing brave deeds and daring feats — risking or sacrificing your life to save others, valiantly defending a position, boldly destroying the enemy.

But Cirillo never got the chance to show the stuff of which he was made:

He died unprepared and unarmed, the unlucky victim of a seemingly deranged killer who was himself gunned down after storming Parliament.

All of the subsequent coverage gave this tragedy a life of its own, culminating in what the writer describes as secular canonization.

Dreschel ends on this note:

Through no action of his own, the accidental victim had become an accidental hero. But sadly, like all accident victims, he just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Unsentimental and accurate, the column raises some disturbing issues that we should all be honest enough and brave enough to confront. Of course, it is right to feel grief and empathy in tragic situations; obviously it is part of what makes us human. But we should also be keenly aware that those very human responses can work to our detriment if they are not leavened by the knowledge that those in positions of trust with far darker motives may try to exploit them to their own advantage.

A Dystopian Present And Future

Those of us who consider ourselves progressive bloggers are well-aware of the dystopian nature of the world we live in. It is a world where black is often white, white is black, and deceit abounds. The perpetrators of environmental degradation and climate change offer us commercials showing pristine landscapes to ponder; the moneyed elite tell us that their success is our future success, and those who wage war tell us of their commitment to peace.

Sadly, Canada is not exempt from this madness. Now that the Harper regime has seized the narrative following the attacks in Quebec and Ottawa, almost immediately labelling them as acts of terrorism, it is wasting no time in pursuing measures that will diminish, not protect, all of us.

Consider this:

A 30-year-old assault-rifle collector from Pakistan has been arrested on allegations that he is a terrorist threat to Canada. The Ontario resident is in jail, charged under immigration laws that would allow him to be deported, just one year after he avoided prison on different charges.

The accused, Muhammad Aqeeq Ansari, a Karachi-born software designer who has lived in Ontario for several years, was arrested on Oct. 27. Last year, as part of a plea bargain for illegal storage of legally-acquired firearms, he surrendered them. There was no suggestion of terrorism at that time.

Now, however,

federal officials allege Mr. Ansari has ties to terrorists in Pakistan, that he had amassed “a small arsenal” of guns; and that he has expressed extreme opinions on Twitter.

What were those opinions?

On a Twitter account that has not been updated since the day of Mr. Ansari’s arrest, @aqeeqansari appeared to suggest at least one of last week’s attackers was framed.

“#MartinRouleau … Seems like the cops shot the guy and placed the knife,” the account says, referring to one the suspected terrorists.

Those who know Ansari have a more benign view of him, describing

him to The Globe as a firearms enthusiast and a strict Muslim. But they doubt he is capable of violence. “I think he was just a shooting hobbyist who didn’t follow the regulations,” said Ed Burlew, who represented Mr. Ansari in the criminal case.

Despite that benign assessment, he is now facing deportation. And despite what some would describe as a gross overreaction by authorities, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson is

urging Parliament to make it easier for police to get search warrants and to seek restrictions on the movements of suspects in terrorism investigations.

Equally worrisome comes a report that the regime is looking at ways of suppressing freedom of expression on the Internet, a fool's errand if there ever was one, but a measure that could have many second-guessing themselves lest they run afoul of the authorities for 'wrong thinking.'

'Justice' Minister Peter MacKay (a constant reminder that a mind is a terrible thing to waste) is now seeking measures that

could include tools to allow for the removal of websites or Internet posts that support the “proliferation of terrorism” in Canada.

His desire is to interdict materials that, as he puts it, contribute to the poisoning of young minds.

Being either benighted or disingenuous, MacKay says,

Such measures risk infringing on free speech but Mr. MacKay said he believes it’s possible to set “an objective standard” with which to judge what constitutes promoting terrorism.

And there, of course, is the crux of the matter. What is terrorism to a government might very well be considered fair comment to others. In a Canada where a man is facing deportation in part because he questions a police report on Twitter. the dangers to all of us should be readily apparent.






...

As a Canadian, You Can't Help But Feel Proud Here

Let's hope this kind of integrity and decency is enough to combat the fears that the Harper regime is trying to stoke after last week's tragic events.

A Response To Russell Brand

Yesterday, I posted a video of Russell Brand excoriating the absence of any real choice when it comes to the vision offered by various political parties. His argument is that they are all essentially cut from the same cloth.

A theme close to The Mound of Sound's heart, he offered the following comments:

Thanks for posting that, Lorne. I watched it three times and was struck by why so many of us fail to see these views as obvious. Why are we not turning on this system that has so ruthlessly turned on us? Here's something to try. Russell Brand's delivery can come across as inflammatory or brash but, reduced to writing, it's actually a lot more sedate.

We have to come to grips with the fundamental truth that government that suppresses the public interest in favour of private interests is a form of government that is, at best, a degraded illiberal democracy or, at worst, fascist.

Young people especially need to discover that they're coming up in an era of neoliberalism in which free market capitalism is too often permitted to flout public interest. It's both a chronic and progressive disease that will become increasingly problematic for them in the decades to come.

When the free trade era was ushered in, I fretted over the surrender of national sovereignty to free markets. I hoped I was wrong. I wasn't. Naomi Klein illustrates this in her new book citing examples where trade regimes have been used to crush attempts to deal with climate change.

I got into a brief but nasty pissing contest with Montreal Simon a couple of years back when I criticized him for constantly, obsessively attacking Harper when we also need to focus on something within our power to achieve, the reformation of our own political movements. I'm convinced the Liberals are truly in the bag and, despite his latter-day pretensions toward progressivism, I suspect Mulcair isn't that far off either.

The thing is, we cannot hope to recover our sovereignty that has been yielded for the benefit of so few and the expense of so many without standing our political parties back on their feet. I haven't a clue how that would ever happen.

I replied:

As soon as I saw the video, Mound, I thought of you, as Brand addresses a theme that I know concerns you greatly. I find myself thinking about it more especially of late, with the reflexive (Pavlovian?) response of nation-wide patriotism on display after the gunning down of Nathan Cirillo. As I have said on this blog before, it is surely tragic when a young person loses his or her life, but I worry a great deal about all of the trappings of state that have ensued from his demise. The attendance at his funeral of Harper, for example, to me doesn't so much indicate respect as it does a willingness to manipulate the population through the construction of a narrative about a soldier who fell protecting our freedoms. This does not augur well for the future of our civil liberties, and I have little faith that either Mulcair or Trudeau will get in the way of the juggernaut.

A Word to The Wise

Given our current sensitivity to alleged domestic terrorism, it might be wise to avoid this kind of freedom of expression on your next flight:

Russell Brand's Latest

This one is for my friend The Mound of Sound who, I think, would agree with the sentiments expressed. One thing you can say about Russell Brand - whether or not you agree with everything he says, he always gives us something to think about.

Post by Educateinspirechange.org.

As Canadians, We Should All Be Deeply Ashamed Of Our government

This report, which places Canada dead last among industrialized nations in a new climate change performance index, should make us all deeply ashamed.

"Canada still shows no intention on moving forward with climate policy and therefore remains the worst performer of all industrialized countries," says the report released by Germanwatch, a sustainable development advocacy group.

Another Reason Not To Subscribe To The Globe and Mail

As I noted recently, we are currently receiving a free three-month subscription to the Globe, one that we will not be renewing. My last post on the subject dealt with one of the reasons. Here is another.

In its 'wisdom,' and despite widespread evidence to the contrary, Canada's self-proclaimed 'newspaper of record' insists, in its Monday editorial, that the Harper regime is not muzzling scientists.

As with so many other efforts by The Globe to extol Dear Leader, the piece starts off deceptively, seeming to suggest there is a basis for concern:

The Conservative government only undermines itself by restricting the ability of federally employed scientists to communicate freely with the public and the media. It feeds suspicion, suggesting that Canada has something to hide, for example, on such controversial matters as the oil sands – wrongly or rightly.

So far, so good. Then:

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists, an American organization, and the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada sent Prime Minister Stephen Harper an open letter strongly recommending that Canada no longer insist that government scientists get the permission of a media relations officer before they speak to journalists. Fifteen thousand or so researchers are said to be affected by such rules. There were 800 signatories – Canadian government researchers themselves did not sign it.

Hmmm. Even better. Has the self-titled 'newspaper of record' finally seen the light?

The PIPSC rhetorically exaggerates when it repeatedly says that government scientists are “muzzled.” But in November, 2007, the Conservatives did lay down a rule that any media interview with Environment Canada scientists would be “co-ordinated” by communications staff.

And then we get to the 'exculpatory' heart of the matter, at least what passes as exculpatory in Globeworld:

David Tarasick of Environment Canada and others wrote a paper in 2011, which appeared in one of the world’s most respected scientific journals, Nature, saying there had been an extraordinary loss in the ozone layer over the Arctic. Nobody in government got in the way of its publication, so it cannot be said that Dr. Tarasick was silenced. This was not a case of Galileo, the motion of the heavenly bodies and the Inquisition.

The paper then reveals what the 'real' problem is.

Nonetheless, “media relations” did get in the way of direct, effective engagement with reporters who might have been able to translate scientific language into news stories adapted for the general public.

So you see, it is just a bureaucratic problem that has created a 'bottleneck.'

It is one thing for cabinet ministers and MPs to work with communication staffs in order to keep the government’s messages consistent and coherent, in accordance with cabinet solidarity. It is quite another to insist that thousands of researchers communicate through legions of flacks. That inevitably creates bottlenecks.

So, the message from the Globe, obviously labouring under the delusion that it still has real influence on public thinking, is simple: Nothing to see here. Move along. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Telescope vision is one thing. Patent dishonesty is quite another.

The paper is right about something, however. When it comes to The Globe and Mail, there really is nothing to see there.

In Which Pastor Pat Discusses 'Safe' Investments

God love Pastor Pat Robertson. Few others can:

Too Good To Resist

H/t Don Gravelle

The Harperian Concept Of Justice

I don't especially feel like writing today, so I offer you this from Walt Heinzie:

Tragedy Must Bring Out The Best In All Of Us

That is the sentiment expressed by Craig Wellington of Brampton in this fine lead letter from this morning's Star:

Let’s tone down the hate rhetoric. A tragedy occurred Wednesday and a good man, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo lost his life. Let us use that as a catalyst to illuminate the best, not the worst of us.

Much of the U.S. media and political pundits have shamelessly exploited this tragedy to use as a launchpad for a stream of bigoted, vicious, rhetoric based on innuendo to feed an ongoing narrative of hate. Their apparent delight at this tragedy is disturbing.

CNN and FoxNews have filled their round-the-clock coverage with conjecture and inflammatory innuendo. Bill Maher continued his tireless “us against the Muslims” crusade by tweeting: “Turns out the attacker was Islamic — what are the odds, huh?” Sadly, this type of knee-jerk bigotry, posing as considered, intellectual punditry is far too common. And the public is increasingly unable to discern the difference between considered journalism (disappearing faster than the northern white rhino) and reckless conjecture.

In April of this year, Ft. Hood Army Base in the U.S. was attacked by an armed gunman and multiple servicemen lost their lives. What religion was the shooter? In the mass shooting at Sandy Hook school in which 20 children and six teachers lost their lives, what religion was the shooter? When congressman Gabby Gifford was shot, what religion was the shooter? What about the shooter who fired an assault weapon in a U.S. movie theatre in 2012, killing over 20 people? Timothy McVeigh?

Armed gunmen attacked Capitol Hill in 1998 (killing two police officers) and 2008. What religion were they? What religion was the man who shot Ronald Reagan? Some 84 U.S. policemen have been killed in the line of duty thus far this year. What was the religion of the perpetrators? We don’t know. It wasn’t relevant. The only thing we do know, is they werent Muslim, because if they were, it would have been the headline.

Canada has recently agreed to join the U.S. in a war in the Middle East, a region now rife with sectarian conflict. There is blame all around for that. It’s no coincidence that the epicentre, Iraq, is the country in which the U.S., under the pretense of non-existent weapons of mass destruction, removed Saddam Hussein (a former ally of the U.S. who was armed and funded by them) who was keeping these sectarian forces in check.

Years later, with over 500,000 Iraqis and thousands of U.S. servicemen killed, the area is far more of a global threat than it ever was under Saddam. That has nothing to do with a religion. That’s a convenient excuse and criminal obfuscation.

At the time of the Iraq invasion, Canada refused the U.S.’s call to join them because we did not think it was wise and did not believe the allegations of WMDs and the link to 9/11. Now after the poop has hit the fan, Canada is being asked to help the U.S. clean up their mess. But we are there and not turning back now.

There are potential ramifications to Canada’s joining this war, for Canadian citizens. When England and Germany were at war, both nations anticipated rightly that their heads of state would be assassination targets for agents or sympathizers of the other. That evil is a consequence of war. You send bombs to kill people, some of them are likely to respond.

The Canadian Harper Prime Minister has been asked numerous times in the house to outline the extent of what we have committed to, the duration, the objective of the mission, and the implications in terms of security for Canadians. He has refused to do so.

Clearly there are consequences in terms of our security, especially for Canadians traveling to certain regions, and clearly for our government officials. Wednesday’s incident outlines that not enough steps have been taken to ensure such protection is in place. That needs to change and the Prime Minister needs to have an honest dialogue with Canadians.
But what cannot change is that Canadians cannot devolve from the tolerant, socially progressive nation to a segregated society rife with paranoia, bigotry, finger pointing and hatred as is fast becoming the U.S.’s brand.

Let us honour our fallen soldier by honouring what he served and fought for — a free, open and tolerant society. #Canada

"Something's Not Right, Mr. Harper"

While Mr. Harper would have us all believe he is working to make Canada safe from terrorism, there is a far more insidious problem that he is choosing to ignore. Watch as 12-year-old Tori Metcalf rebukes the Prime Minister for his negligence:

We Could All Be Joseph K.

"Someone must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."
- The opening sentence of Franz Kafka's The Trial

Having read The Trial many years ago, I remember being initially struck by the patent absurdity of the novel's premise, that a man could be under arrest, allowed to move about with certain restrictions, and yet never learn the nature of the charges against him. The story does not end well for Josepsh K.

After reading it, of course, I realized that it was a metaphor for the totalitarian state, a state in which the innocent are swept up by the state after a murky process by which they are identified as enemies of the country.

Without wishing to be melodramatic, we are clearly moving closer to that state.

After the events of last week, tragedies that at this point appear to have been perpetrated by mentally disturbed individuals and not organized terrorism, the Harper regime seems to be edging closer towards measures that would allow for a much wider definition of 'preventative arrests,' already toughened up last year, as well as a shielding of the identities of those who accuse others of being terrorists, neither of which would likely have prevented the deaths of two Canadian soldiers. Limits to freedom of speech, as noted yesterday, are also being considered.

Today, The Globe and Mail reports:

Measures now under consideration include changing the so-called threshold for preventative arrests and more closely tracking and monitoring people who may pose a threat, such as requiring them to check in with an officer regularly even without any charges against them. Being looked at, too, is potential legislation that would make it a crime to support terrorists’ acts online, says a senior government source.

Perhaps most ominously, a measure that brings us closer to the nightmare world of Joseph K., is the fact that

legislation giving the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) the ability to better hide the identities of its informants (italics mine)...is to be tabled in the House of Commons as early as Monday or Tuesday, according to a senior government source.

Warns security expert Wesley Wark:

“Let’s be sure we know everything that was done and everything that was missed before we come up with fixes.”

Mr. Wark said that he “would be very cautious about deciding that the real fix is in extending legal powers or the real fix is in let’s go and use those preventive arrest measures … I would hesitate to advocate for that until we know what really went wrong.”

Secret trials, anonymous accusers, mass surveillance: strange ways indeed to protect our sacred democracy.

I'll leave the final word to Star letter-writer Brigitte Nowak of Toronto:

The authorities have not yet stated whether the attack in Ottawa was made by one of the 90 or so “radicalized” persons under surveillance by authorities, but already, there are calls for “increased security.”

Average Canadians are already being videotaped wherever they go, subjected to demeaning scrutiny before accessing public buildings, airplanes, etc. Any more security, reduced freedom, additional surveillance, and the “jihadists,” bent on changing our way of life, will have won.

And Thus It Begins

One of the misgivings I expressed in yesterday's post seems to be a little closer to reality today.

The National Post headline reads:

Conservatives mulling legislation making it illegal to condone terrorist acts online.

Says John Ivison,

The Conservatives are understood to be considering new legislation that would make it an offence to condone terrorist acts online.

There is frustration in government, and among law enforcement agencies, that the authorities can’t detain or arrest people who express sympathy for atrocities committed overseas and who may pose a threat to public safety, one Conservative MP said. “Do we need new offences? If so which?”

Sources suggest the government is likely to bring in new hate speech legislation that would make it illegal to claim terrorist acts are justified online.

The Prime Minister told the House of Commons on Thursday that Canada’s law and policing powers need to be strengthened in the areas of surveillance, detention and arrest. He said work is already under way to provide law enforcement agencies with “additional tools” and that work will now be expedited.

Hopefully, even the naive and guileless will want to ask themselves, after reading the article, if it is wise to let government decide what constitutes unacceptable speech?

I assume no further comment on my part is needed.

Some Much-Needed Perspective

Although this will probably get lost in the jingoistic rhetoric sure to follow yesterday's tragedy, this story from the Vancouver Sun is well-worth reading:

"His behaviour was not normal," said David Ali, vice-president of the Masjid Al-Salaam mosque, adding Zehaf-Bibeau used to trip the mosque's fire alarms by trying to enter through the wrong doors. "We try to be open to everyone. But people on drugs don't behave normally."

A Very Impressive Lady

Every time I hear Elizabeth May speak, I am struck by the balance and wisdom of her words. A very impressive lady, she clearly has real leadership qualities:

Something We Should All Keep In Mind

H/t Michael Nabert

Thursday Morning

H/t Toronto Star

The events of yesterday were undeniably tragic. A young man, Nathan Cirillo, died. As I noticed on a Facebook posting by my cousin's wife, Nathan was a friend of their son with whom he played organized hockey. Six degrees of separation and all that, I guess.

Nonetheless, I have to confess that when I heard the news on CBC radio, my first thoughts were twofold: how these events could work to Harper's electoral advantage (I could immediately envisage the attack ads juxtaposing Harper's "strong leadership and stand against terrorism" against Trudeau's talk about searching for the "root causes" of terrorism), and how this could very well provide a pretext for further erosion of our civil liberties. Like frightened mice, many people aid and abet anyone or anything to ensure the comforting illusion of security.

Fortunately, I found a measure of balance in two Star columnists this morning, Martin Regg Cohn and Thomas Walkom.

Cohn's words bring some much-needed perspective to terrorism:

For terrorists, killing people is merely a means to an end. By far the bigger objective for terrorists is to terrorize — not just their immediate victims, but an entire population.

A soldier lost his life Wednesday. And parliamentarians lost their innocence.

But the nation must not lose its nerve.

Public shootouts or bombings are carefully choreographed publicity stunts that require audience participation to succeed: If the public gives in to fear, and the state succumbs to hysteria, then the shootings or bombings have hit their mark. If the audience tunes out the sickening violence, the tragic melodrama is reduced to pointlessness.

And he quickly gets to what, for me, is the heart of the matter:

The risk is that we will overreact with security clampdowns and lockdowns that are difficult to roll back when the threat subsides.

Terrorists will never be an existential threat — our Parliament and our parliamentarians are too deeply rooted to crumble in the face of a few bullets or bombs. The greater risk is that we will hunker down with over-the-top security precautions that pose a more insidious menace to our open society.

Thomas Walkom, while acknowledging that events such as yesterday's have a very unsettling effect, reminds us that Canada is not exactly in virgin territory here:

In 1966, a Toronto man blew himself up in a washroom just outside the Commons chamber. He had been preparing to take out the entire government front bench with dynamite. But it exploded too early.

Other legislatures have had their share of trouble, most notably Quebec’s national assembly, which was attacked in 1984 by a disgruntled Canadian Forces corporal.

He shot and killed three as well as wounding another 13 before giving himself up.

In 1988, another man was shot after he opened fire with a rifle in the Alberta Legislature building.

And no one who is of a certain age can ever forget the FLQ crisis of 1970 which led to Pierre Trudeau imposing The War Measures Act, which effectively suspended civil liberties across the country, a measure that was widely embraced at the time.

Walkom ends his piece on an appropriately ominous note:

We seem headed for another of those moments of panic. The fact that the gunman attacked Parliament has, understandably, spooked the MPs who pass our laws.

It has also spooked the media and, I suspect, much of the country.

The government wants to give its security agencies more power over citizens. The government wants to rally public support for its war in Iraq.

On both counts, this attack can only help it along.

If we are not very careful and vigilant, the real threat will come, not from terrorist attacks, but from our putative political leaders.

Breaking News: Shooting In Parliament

Reactions To Michael Harris' Book On Harper

Star readers weigh in with their usual perspicacity as they reflect on the message of Michael Harris' new book, Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover, discussed previously in this blog:

Is there a despot in the House? Insight Oct. 19

As journalist Michael Harris’ book points out, Canada has already undergone a sea change under Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s secretive, dominant rule. Soon the attack ads will try to convince us that we would be mad to trust anyone other than Harper’s steady hand at the tiller.

That he is leading us straight over a waterfall, especially in areas like climate change and biological sciences denial (think of the need for research in non-petroleum areas such as water pollution or the collapse of bee colonies) doesn’t concern us nearly enough.

Nor did Harper ever ask us if we wanted a 100-fold increase across the country in hazard fuel shipments, or, for that matter, American-style gun control. He just patiently escalated the former and whittled away at the latter.

The twin tragedies of Lac-Meganic and Moncton will be as much a part of his legacy as his accidental tightfistedness with expenditure. I say accidental, because he was intending to blow the wad on 65 F-35s and indenture us to American arms maker, Lockheed Martin.

Could it be that the Republican-style fear tactics used by these Tories will scare us off for voting for progressives at both the national and municipal level?

Ron Charach, Toronto

This book brings to mind the story: if a frog is placed in boiling water it will immediately jump out; but if it is placed in cool water and the heat slowly raised, the frog will sit there and die as it cooks.

This book brings to our attention that we Canadians are that frog and that the temperature of the water is rising. It is time to jump.

David Kister, Toronto

The Harper government’s narrow political agenda acts like a deaf, dumb and blind juggernaut ruthlessly wielding its power as if we Canadians and our democratic parliamentary system of governance are simply obstacles to be overcome.

Under Mr. Harper’s leadership we have witnessed the relentless erosion of our democracy, of our civil rights, our cherished reputation for fair and open elections, our influence as leaders on the world stage and most insidious of all, our belief in ourselves as citizens and the efficacy of civil participation.

His aggressive brand of partisanship ominously appears to have no bounds, nor his willingness to constrain or silence those not in agreement with his policies or initiatives. At risk are the institutions and values that are the very heart of who we are as a nation.

We cannot be side-tracked by our political differences or our disgust with politicians behaving badly or even fear of reprisal. Our silence is the Harper government’s greatest ally.

June Osborne, Camrose, Alta.