"They Didn't Get Back To Me"

For those who follow such things, I think it is well-known that when a Canadian runs into problems while abroad, the statement "Canada is providing consular support" is often a euphemism for "We really aren't doing much of anything."

Problems seem to multiply if one holds dual-citizenship. The case of Mohamed Fahmy, the Egyptian-Canadian journalist imprisoned in Egypt for seven years on bogus charges of terrorism amply attests to this, and reputable news gatherers have openly pondered this issue:

Al Jazeera, the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression and other media supporters ... question whether Fahmy's dual citizenship is working against him.

"The government's position at this point on this case has been shameful," Tony Burman, a journalism professor and former managing director for Al Jazeera English, said in a news conference Thursday.

"The issue of dual citizenship, the issue of perhaps Al Jazeera, any mention at all in the trumped-up charges by the Egyptian military of the Muslim Brotherhood -- these are all things that... could intimidate and inhibit government officials in this country from moving," he said.

Is it possible that those of foreign, especially Arabic origin, face not only indifference but malice from the Canadian government? There is, of course, the infamous case of Maher Arar who, with Canadian complicity, was sent to Syria to be imprisoned and tortured for non-existent crimes.

The case of Omar Khadr is in a category all of its own, but one that once again demonstrates the selectivity with which the government protects Canadians' rights, as is that of Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik, who was smeared by our government as a terrorist and imprisoned in the Sudan and then abandoned by our government for many years; it is another case that should make all Canadians ashamed.

The most recent case of government indifference/malice, and one that is ongoing, is that of eight-year-old Salma Abuzaiter. It is especially disturbing, in that it deals with threats to the life of a child. Salma and her parents have been Canadian citizens for five years, and this summer the little girl accompanied her father, an emergency room doctor specializing in pediatrics, to Gaza, a chance for the young girl to spend time with her cousins and grandparents. Unfortunately, a few weeks after their arrival the present bloodshed in Gaza began, and now the girl is trapped there.

Salma's mother, Wesam Abuzaiter, has been told by authorities the only way her daughter can leave Gaza is to travel by bus, alone, for five hours, crossing the border into Israel and Jordan. Wesam says that is impossible for such a young child. Instead, she has asked the Canadian government to make arrangements allowing a relative to escort Salma to Egypt where she would board a plane to Canada: “I just asked them to communicate with the Egyptian side and let them know about that not more than that. I didn’t ask for more than that.

The Canadian government's reaction to that request:

"They didn’t get back to me."

How Not To Answer A Question

Texas Governor Rick Perry provides an expert technique lesson in the following video:

The New Logo For The Canada Revenue Agency?

CRA protests notwithstanding, it works for me.

H/t iPolitics

Harper's Reign Of Terror - Part Six

The latest installment of this series illustrating the Harper regime's subversion of the Canada Revenue Agency to punish nonprofits for opposing government policies also demonstrates its pathologically secretive nature.

The following was recently reported in The Globe and Mail:

Since Ottawa first started cracking down on political activities among charities in 2012, Pen Canada has filed a series of access-to-information requests seeking, among other things, the criteria auditors use to determine what, exactly, constitutes political activity.

The Harper cabal has refused to release this information, offering only a heavily redacted CRA training booklet that listed “Specific Audit Guidelines,” as well as a document entitled “Reminder Letter Guidelines” that was redacted where it explained, in three parts, when a letter might be issued. In other words, they refuse to tell people the criteria used in deciding whether or not to initiate political-activity audits.

Such a response seems more like an excerpt from a Monty Python sketch than one from an agency of a democratic government. Pen Canada executive director Tasleem Thawar had this reaction:

“The CRA claims that revealing the criteria their auditors use to determine political activities would make it easier for charities to avoid being caught, but if we don’t know which activities the CRA considers problematic, how can we ensure we’re following the rules?”

And of course Pen Canada now finds itself in audit hell because of their persistent inquiries.

But what the government refuses to admit, journalist Dean Beeby, from The Canadian Press, reveals in a compelling timeline that leaves little doubt about the regime's motives. I reproduce the entire piece below:


OTTAWA - Timeline of key events surrounding the Canada Revenue Agency's launch of political-activity audits of charities:

Jan. 9, 2012 — Joe Oliver, then Natural Resources minister, issues an open letter denouncing "environmental and other radical groups" who "threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical agenda."

March 21, 2012 — EthicalOil.org, founded in 2011 by Alykhan Velshi, who currently works in the Prime Minister's Office, files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Environmental Defence Canada Inc., an environmental charity.

March 29, 2012 — Federal budget announces new restrictions on political activities by charities, including more disclosure of funding by foreign sources. The Canada Revenue Agency is also provided with $8 million over two years largely to establish a new political-activity audit program, with 10 such audits planned for the first fiscal year. Funding later increased to $13.4 million over five years.

April 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 — First wave of 10 political-activity audits includes at least five environmental charities, including Environmental Defence Canada, Tides Canada Foundation, Tides Canada Initiatives Society, Ecology Action Centre, Equiterre. CRA will not itself release list, citing confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

April 24, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the alleged political activities of the David Suzuki Foundation, an environmental charity.

May 1, 2012 — Peter Kent, environment minister at the time, suggests Canadian charities have been illegally used "to launder offshore funds for inappropriate use against Canadian interest," that is, by obstructing the environmental assessment process.

July 23, 2012 — CRA issues a warning letter to the publisher of Canadian Mennonite, a monthly magazine, saying the Canadian Mennonite Publishing Service risks revocation of its charitable status for publishing recent pieces "that appear to promote opposition to a political party, or to candidates for public office." The agency later identifies several problem pieces, including one criticizing then-Public Safety Minister Vic Toews.

July 24, 2012 — CRA concludes an audit begun in 2004, revoking the charitable status of Physicians for Global Survival because the group's work is "inherently political." The audit was not conducted as part of the new political-activity program, but under the standard financial audit that also examined political activities wherever necessary.

Aug. 8, 2012 — EthicalOil.org files formal complaint to CRA about the political activities of Tides Canada Foundation and Tides Canada Initiatives Society, two related environmental charities.

April 1, 2013 - March 31, 2014 — Audits slotted for second year of the political-activity audit program appear to broaden targets to include more groups fighting poverty and human-rights abuses, and promoting international aid.

Feb. 12, 2014 — Then-Finance Minister Jim Flaherty responds to a question about why the CRA is auditing charities that oppose oil-pipeline projects by saying "charities are not permitted to accept money from terrorist organizations."

April 9, 2014 — Pen Canada, a Toronto-based freedom-of-expression charity, receives call from CRA saying the group is to undergo an audit that will include a review of its political activities. Three auditors show up at their offices on July 28, 2014.

April 10, 2014 — Canadian Council of Churches sends letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper raising concerns about the "chilling effect of threats to revoke the charitable status of organizations that draw attention to policies that harm our world."

May 27, 2014 — Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada sends letter to UN Human Rights Council raising a "particularly troubling trend ... the selective targeting of organizations by Canadian revenue authorities to strip certain organizations of their charitable status."

June 2014 — Gareth Kirkby, graduate student at Royal Roads University, completes master's degree identifying "advocacy chill" resulting from the political-activity audits of 16 charities he examined, after offering them anonymity. Kirkby cites evidence indicating three charitable sectors singled out for CRA attention: environmental, development/human rights, and charities receiving donations from labour unions.

July 16, 2014 — NDP sends letter to Kerry-Lynne Findlay, national revenue minister, calling for an independent inquiry into whether CRA is conducting its political-activity audits at arm's length and free of political interference. "These targeted audits are effectively muzzling public interest groups," say MPs Murray Rankin and Megan Leslie.


Sure sounds like a witch hunt to me.

Canada's Searing Moment of Clarity

I hope you didn't miss it. The events of the past month in that distant corner of the world, the mid-east, shone a light of fierce brilliance on our own Canada that exposed an ugly side of our country for all to see who would not look the other way.

What was laid bare was the extent to which neo-liberalism has captured our politics. What we were shown was how the governing Conservatives lead and, worse yet, how the supposedly progressive alternatives meekly fell into line. We witnessed the Liberals and New Democrats fecklessly abandon the very principles they once proudly upheld in decades past, the better time.

While Trudeau and Mulcair weren't sure exactly what the people of Gaza had done to warrant the wholesale ransacking of their fetid little territory by the powerful Israeli military juggernaut, they simply fell back on the old sop about Israel's "right to defend itself."

Yet, as Israel pretended to defend itself from some hapless Hamas rockets by taking down Gaza’s water and sewage system and, finally, its electricity plant, not a peep of protest, no call for restraint crossed the lips of wee Justin or the curiously retiring Tommy Boy. As Israel barraged schools and hospitals, as it put women and children in their hundreds to the sword, our leaders - those who seek to lead Canada in our name, yours and mine - turned their backs.

What do those hundreds of corpses have to do with Hamas or its alleged rockets? How does that river of blood help defend Israel? How does the collapse of a besieged territory's water, sewage and electrical system make Israel more secure? What was the military necessity for laying waste to civilian Gaza? What legitimate casus belli existed and, if there was such a thing, why did Netanyahu tie the war to seeking revenge against Hamas for three murders in the West Bank, not Gaza, that Israeli authorities knew Hamas did not commit?

Trudeau and Mulcair can rely on the fact that few of their supporters have even a passing acquaintance with the laws of war that were so grievously trampled underfoot by Israel in its blitzkrieg on Gaza. We don't understand notions of proportionality or military necessity or the duty to avoid attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure. Our political leaders count on the fact that they can mutter "right to defend itself" and avoid all the awkward details of fact and laws.

If you're a Liberal or New Democrat, you've been conned (in every possible sense of that word) by your party of choice and its leader. You've been had, you've been done over. This time it was foreign policy, a murderous butchery that will soon be a distant memory. What will it be next time? What principles will be on the block tomorrow or next year or far beyond that? When you shift to neo-liberalism, principles must yield to the will of the corporatist state.

What about the subversion of democratic freedom by our corporate media cartel that now serves the political classes instead of we the people? What about a balancing of the ever-conflicting interests of labour and capital? What about a direct frontal assault on growing inequality of income, of wealth, and of opportunity? What about the plague that will curse our children and grandchildren - the environment and climate change? What will a pair of avowed fossil fuelers like Trudeau and Mulcair do for Canada and the world to decarbonize our economy and our society? Nothing, they're petro-pols, wake up!

If opposition leaders can't stand up for what is right, can't uphold principles and our traditions from the better time, you can be damn sure they'll have even less courage if they ever get the reins of power. You can be sure they will carry on Harper's work of incrementally transforming Canada into an increasingly illiberal democracy. Support these characters if you must but at least free yourself from any delusion of the peril that poses to our country and to our children.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Harper's Reign Of Terror: Star Readers Respond

Stephen Harper's attack on those charities that refuse to hew to the regime's dogma and ideology is becoming increasingly recognized for what it is: the wanton, immoral, unethical and likely illegal actions of a martinet who will brook no opposing views. Lacking even a modicum of subtlety, his purpose is to send an unequivocal message to induce a pervasive chill in nonprofits.

Yesterday, I took special delight in reading a series of letters from Toronto Star readers who are almost uniform in their condemnation of this unfit subversive who is undermining the democratic traditions of our country and the Canada Revenue Agency that is allowing this perversion to occur. I hope you will visit the Star site to read all of the letters and consider sending the link to anyone you think might benefit from the insights offered therein.

Here is but a small sampling of those letters:

There can be little doubt that the “Harper government” is indeed attempting to silence charities that have criticized its policies. This is, after all, the same government that has a long and distinguished history of viciously attacking any and all individuals or organizations that have dared to question or criticize its policies or its vision for Canada.

From Richard Colvin and our scientists to environmental charities and now PEN Canada, any and all forms of criticism of the “Harper government” have been met with a very belligerent response from the federal Conservatives.

The rights and freedoms that all Canadians enjoy were hard won some 70 years ago. It is distressing to witness our right to free speech and open discussion of government policies being systematically eroded.

What is even more distressing is the apparent willingness of so many Canadians to permit this to happen. As the lyric to Joni Mitchell’s song Big Yellow Taxi warns, “You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

Lyle Goodin, Bowmanville

First, it seems that only those charities that disagree with the policies of the Harper regime are the targets of these audits. I also note that the Harper government would like to force charities to reveal who there donors are, no doubt to cause them to have second thoughts about donating to certain charities.

Just last week I received a request from the CRA to submit all the charitable receipts that I claimed on my taxes. They claim that the request was made so that they could gauge their self-assessment tax system. I don’t believe them. It’s just another example of the Harper government lashing out at all those who don’t agree with the direction he is taking the country.

If my grandparents were still alive, I’m sure they would be dismayed to see that the country they came to from Eastern Europe morphing into a pale imitation of the Putin government under Stephen Harper. The only difference is that Harper hasn’t resorted to having his detractors beaten or killed. Otherwise, there is not much difference between the two.

Chester Gregorasz, Cambridge

I am not a writer — oh I do write to the Star and sometimes they honour me by publishing my thoughts on the Harper government — but I have lived in countries where this simple act that we take for granted could land a person in jail our worse.

In Canada we are not there yet but I think the motivation for censorship is the same as in these non-democratic countries where they did not have the will of the people and they knew that to stay in power it was necessary to have the silence of the people.

The Harper government does not have the will of the people therefore it follows that every dissenting voice, MPs, scientist, researchers, charities, and so on must be silenced.

So, Canadians, let’s not be silent. As for me I going to keep writing to the Star, if they will have me, because nothing says democracy louder than the printed word in a newspaper. (emphasis added)

Keith Parkinson, Cambridge

Mr. Harper is relentless at silencing any voice contrary to his “vision for Canada” (God help us). Statistics Canada, followed by such others as Environment Canada, government scientists and the CBC, over whom he can exercise budgetary and ministerial censorship were first. Now the voices of countless charities (and their numerous donors) with concerns and views about poverty, justice, censorship, the environment and the like are being extorted by tax audits by the Charities Directorate.

Might I suggest that people contact Revenue Canada, Charities Directorate, Compliance Division and complain about the highly partisan “charitable” activities of the Fraser Institute. Let’s see if they are measured by the same standards. I filed my complaint yesterday. (emphasis added)

Robert Thorpe, Toronto

Wouldn't Smothering Have Been More Humane?

America loves her capital punishment, she's just not very good at it. In fact, the process of state sanctioned murder has a richly deserved reputation for being barbaric and routinely botched.

As Joe Wood writhed on the executioner's gurney, Arizona prison officials realized their lethal cocktail wasn't performing as expected. The experimental combination of midazolam and hydromorphone was a failure and so, over the course of nearly two hours, executioners administered the "lethal" dose something like 15-times.

The director of Arizona's prisons department denies the execution was botched.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

The Truth No Amount of Propaganda Can Hide

The following pictures of the devastation in Gaza wrought by the Israeli onslaught are all from Al Jazeera:

Is the Washington Post Even Trying Anymore?

My brother sent me a link to a photo-essay in The Washington Post said to depict an Israeli airstrike in Gaza.

It's a nice story as these things go. The homeowner receives a friendly call from Israelis telling him to get out of the building immediately as it's about to be attacked. The fellow gets all his family and relatives out to safety. No one killed, no one injured, building destroyed. No harm, no foul - sort of.


Except, if you look carefully at the photos, something isn't right. This looks doctored, staged. Photo 1, shown here, is said to show a bomb just before it hits a house in Gaza City.



Photo 2 is captioned, "Residents of central Gaza watch as an Israeli bomb drops on a house."



Photo 3 is said to show a strike by a missile fired by an Israeli F-16.



Photo 4 is said to show smoke rising from the demolished building.




What do you see in those pictures? Photo 1 shows what appears to be a laser-guided bomb, a 500-pounder, just a second before impact. Look at the street scene. Find the lightpost on the left side with a tire on it and use that for your frame of reference. Notice the off-white van and the yellow car in the street.


Photo 2, the van and car have disappeared. In their place are two rows of tires apparently blocking the street. There appears to be a crew on the sidewalk to the right with another tire, apparently unconcerned.



Photo 3, a wider street scene shot from a safer distance showing the fireball of the missile. Again the tires are in place.



Photo 4, the tires are gone but that van and yellow car are back.



How did the tire crew know that this particular house was going to be targeted? The owner said he had a matter of minutes from the warning call until the arrival of the first bomb. How do you get the tire crew and the tires deployed on site with no advance warning?



Why did they have to use the same prop van and prop yellow car, posed side by side, in the before and after photos? That just beggars belief. I think what we're seeing here is second-rate propaganda intended to further the narrative that Israel isn't targeting Palestinian civilians. Close, but no cigar.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Urban Camouflage for Canada's Soldiers?

The past dozen or so years have left most of us familiar with the pixelated camouflage pattern, pioneered in Canada, and worn by many nations’ soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Americans are now going back to a more traditional camouflage for their combat uniforms. Canada, however, is not. We already have three variants of the pixelated pattern – a rich green pattern for temperate forests, the desert tan we see so often and a white/grey winter-Arctic camo.

It turns out there’s a fourth pixelated pattern under development, an urban camouflage that our warriors can use presumably in our cities. The pattern is supposed to emulate conditions in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal.

It’s called CUEPAT, Canadian Urban Environment Pattern, and it’s designed so that your little warfighter can be concealed in our cities.

The requirement is to have an urban pattern which works in the unique requirements of Canada’s three major metropolitan areas, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal. The current CBR (Chemical Biological, Radioactive) individual protective equipment (IPE) used by the Canadian military is provided in a woodland or desert camouflage. A camouflage suited to the Canadian urban environment is required when the military operates in urban terrain.

The military issued this specification: “Determine design parameters for an advanced Canadian urban environment camouflage patter (focus on Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal urban settings). Consider ...unique colour blends that would improve the users concealment in a range of urban environments.”

Do we really want our own military to be focusing on concealing our soldiers in our cities? To what end, exactly? What’s the threat that they perceive warrants an urban camouflage capability? Northern Gateway, perhaps? Like the American military, do they foresee mass uprisings and civil disobedience that will have to be countered with military intervention? I don’t think I’m okay with this, are you?

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

U.S. Military Takes Steps to Ensure There'll Never Be Another Disaster Like the F-35

As far as the US military is concerned, the F-35 has broken the bank. With the American people on the hook for what is estimated to be up to 1.5-trillion greenbacks for a warplane, a gimmicky bomb truck, that keeps failing to live up to expectations, the military is determined to see that something like the F-35 fiasco never happens again.

A new US Air Force report, "...paints a future of the Air Force that resembles an innovative 21st Century company as opposed to a traditional fighting force. The document says that it's now impossible for the United States to build a strategy advantage with large, expensive programs that take years — in the case of the F-35, 14 years and counting to complete.

'"We believe rapid change is the new norm and has serious implications for the Air Force," the document states.' The pace at which disruptive technologies may appear and proliferate will result in operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived. Dynamic and increasingly frequent shifts in the geopolitical power balance will have significant implications for basing, posture, and partner capabilities that may favor flexibility over footprint.'"

The F-35 isn't mentioned by name in the forecast, but the program's greasy fingerprints are all over it. The Air Force is apparently concerned that it is pricing itself out of the weapons market because it is spending so much time and money on large programs.

"Large, complex programs with industrial-era development cycles measured in decades may become obsolete before they reach full-rate production," the authors added.

"Operational advantages that are increasingly short-lived." That's Air Force code for the F-35's supposed stealth invincibility. The very adversaries for which the F-35 is said to be needed have already knocked the snot out of the stealth threat. They know its weaknesses and they've developed sensors, weapons and tactics to defeat it. What's more, they're already fielding their own stealth fighters, warplanes the F-35 was never designed to combat. Even Israeli defence planners gave America's stealth advantage a mere 5-year shelf life.

Return of the Dogfighter

The July 7 edition of Aviation Week focuses on a new emphasis on air-to-air combat capability instead of the air-to-ground focus that western nations have had for the last couple of decades. The shift is the result of Russia's intervention in Ukraine and its overall superiority in air combat capability.

Bomb trucks, like the glorified F-35, are great when you're taking out ground targets or blowing up wedding parties disguised as insurgents but they're seriously compromised against a state of the art fighter.

The F-35 is even more compromised because, unlike leading multi-role fighter-bombers on the market, it lacks super cruise. That means it can only go fast in fuel-guzzling afterburner. This is a huge disadvantage when you're trying to intercept a distant target and an even huger disadvantage when you're trying to evade pursuers. This is what caused the RAND Corporation to conclude that the F-35 won't out turn, out climb or out run its potential adversaries.

But the F-35 has stealth cloaking, right? Sort of but it's only frontal aspect stealth. Enemies approaching from the front will have a harder time finding you. That does not apply, however, to fighters scanning you from the sides, above or below, or from behind. They can see you just fine. So, in the turning, climbing, diving world of air-to-air combat, the F-35's strength is gone and its weaknesses shine through.

Will the CF-35, as the USAF warns, be obsolete before it ever appears in a Canadian hangar? Yes, quite possibly. Will it remain a mediocre warplane with degraded performance? Likely. Will that be enough to make Harper steer clear of it and find something more suitable to Canada's actual needs? Hell no. Buying the F-35 is a political decision. It's American politics that has kept it on life support for so long. Canada's military wants a nice pat on the head from their American big brothers and that means flying American hardware. That means the F-35. Harper too wants to remain a member in good standing of America's aerial foreign legion. The Brits are in. Australia's in. America's in (over its head). We're in. It's what we do.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Harper's Policy On Gaza: The Canadian Toll

While the cost of the Israeli invasion of Gaza is almost incalculable in turns of human suffering and loss of life, there is another casualty in all of this, one that is far less obvious and, in the eternal scheme of things, I suppose, of lesser consequence: Canada's psyche and reputation, both of which have been perhaps irremediably scarred.

The Mound of Sound has written a great deal lately on the ongoing carnage, and he has been hard-hitting in his condemnation of the leaders of all three major Canadian federal parties. All have either overtly or implicitly consented to the slaughter of the innocents, and for the worst of all possible reasons: political expediency.

And by that complicity, they have compromised all Canadians as they invite us to share their warped perspective that Israel is committed to peace, and that the casualties in Gaza are solely the fault of Hamas's rocket fire. Of Israel's grossly disproportionate response to those rockets, nothing is said. "Harden your hearts" seems to be the message, one that will be received with gratitude by some and confusion by others.

As well, of course, our long-reputed neutrality and honest-broker reputation is in tatters internationally.

Earlier this week The Star's Thomas Walkom offered this evaluation of the Harper regime's position on the bloody conflict:

Canada’s bully-boy approach to Gaza may be politically expedient for Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

But in terms of bringing peace to the Middle East it is not helpful. If anything, it makes matters worse.

To this Canadian government, events in the Palestinian territory are black and white. On one side are those that Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird calls Hamas “terrorists.” They are uniformly bad.

On the other is the state of Israel trying to protect its civilians from Hamas rocket attacks. It is uniformly good.

There is no room for nuance and little for history. The Canadian government approach does not take into account the bitter war that led so many Palestinians to flee the newly created state of Israel in 1948.

Nor does it contemplate Israel’s equally bitter occupation of the West Bank since 1967, an occupation carried out in defiance of the United Nations Security Council.

Walkom, I believe, accurately and concisely gets to the heart of Harper's motivation:

This prime minister has two types of foreign policy. Both are short-term. Both focus on immediate, domestic political goals.

His first approach is to favour countries useful to Canadian resource companies. Resources explain Harper’s otherwise inexplicable free-trade deal with Colombia, a country of little importance to Canada except for the fact that Canadian mining companies operate there.

Not to mention, of course, Columbia's abysmal human-rights record, a pesky detail of no apparent consequence when it comes to Harper's promotion of mining interests.

It also explains Ottawa’s decision to focus foreign aid on Mongolia. Vancouver-based Turquoise Hill Resources (formerly Ivanhoe Mines) is majority owner of a gigantic copper and gold mine in that Central Asian nation.

Harper’s second foreign affairs strategy is to take hardline positions that will win favour with specific voting blocs in Canada. This explains his vigorous support of Israel. It also explains his equally vigorous opposition to Iran.

And so the Canadian people have become pawns and victims in Harper's unholy quest to bolster his sagging popularity and movtivate his base to turn out at the next election.

Domestically, you will be hard pressed to find another such transparent example of true evil than that.

Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair - Soft on Terrorism

Let's begin with the definition of "terrorism." Merriam-Webster offers up a fairly standard definition: "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal."

That sounds exactly like what is going on in Gaza right now. That is exactly what is going on in Gaza right now. It's terrorism. Deliberately planned and precisely executed terrorism. And our prime minister and his government and our opposition Liberal and New Democrat leaders and all their parties are just fine with it. Trudeau even praises the terrorist government for its "commitment to peace." Thanks, Justin, now sit down.

Israel tries to mask its terrorist campaign as "self defence." Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair parrot that line. The Gang of Four - Netanyahu, Harper, Trudeau and Mulcair - maintain that Israel is going after Hamas, not targeting Gaza Palestinians.

They don't want to connect the dots between Israel's attack on Lebanese civilians in 2006 and its working over of Palestinian civilians in Gaza in 2008/2009 and the sequel now underway. Yet they're all the same, all straight from the same IDF playbook. There's even a name for it, the Dahiya Doctrine. It was named after the Beirut suburb that Israel demolished in 2006.

This technique deliberately targets civilians. They are the intended victims - the old and the young, women and children, those least able to get out of the way. The attack on the civilian population begins by taking out their essential services - water plants (check), sewage plants (check), electricity plants (check). Then you go at the civilians directly by bombarding their homes (check), hospitals (check), schools (check), and markets (check). You really work them over and you just keep at it all the while pretending that you're really targeting someone else.

The steady reduction of Gaza is blatant, deliberate terrorism. Or maybe not. Maybe it’s something even worse. Maybe what Netanyahu has in mind this time is enhanced terrorism, 'terrorism plus', - ethnic cleansing. Maybe he wants to render Gaza uninhabitable. Already some 90% of what passes for freshwater (it's actually a mild brine) is unfit for human consumption. The destruction of the sewage system almost guarantees there'll be a cholera epidemic before long. Taking down the power grid is the icing on the cake. It's positively medieval.

If you're a Liberal or a New Democrat, this is on you too. It's your party that is supporting this, absolving Israel of its campaign of terrorism, condoning the reduction of Gaza that will lead, must eventually lead to the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population from the Gaza strip.


MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Dahiyeh - It's How Israel Wages "Peace"

“We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction. This isn’t a suggestion. This is a plan that has already been authorized.” - Major-General Gadi Eisenkot, IDF.



That was Israeli strategy in the 2006 invasion of southern Lebanon. It's Israeli strategy today in Gaza. Disproportionate power.. immense damage and destruction... by plan. It's a strategy not targeted at an armed opponent. This is a strategy targeted directly at civilians - the young, the elderly, women and children - the cannon fodder that are least able to get out of the way when you come calling.

C'mon, Justin. Remind me again about Israel's "commitment to peace."

There's even a name for it. It's called the Dahiyeh Doctrine, named for the Beirut suburb that Israeli warplanes carpet bombed.

It's all about inflicting civilian casualties, destroying their homes and depriving them of essential services - electricity, water, sewage plants - hospitals, schools - all of which Israel has destroyed in the past month in Gaza as part of its "commitment to peace."

Israel waged this sort of peace in Gaza before and it became the subject of the 2009 Goldstone Report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council. I expect our parliamentary greaseballs - Steve, Justin and Tommy Boy - never got a copy. That the very same doctrine is happening again - today - according to the very same game plan - is no coincidence. It's also a war crime unless, that is, your name is Harper, Trudeau or Mulcair.

MoS, The Disaffected Lib

Harper's Reign Of Terror - Part Five

As in the previous installments, this post examines the Harper regime's unrelenting attacks on nonprofits that in any way oppose or criticize its agenda. The latest target is CoDevelopment Canada (CoDev), whose website lists the following as its mission:

CoDevelopment Canada is a B.C.-based NGO that works for social change and global education in the Americas. Founded in 1985 by a group of activists who wanted to go beyond financial aid, CoDev builds partnerships between like-minded organizations in Canada and Latin America to foster learning, social change, and community empowerment. These partnerships educate Canadians about Latin America and allow them to directly support the region. Such connections build solidarity, mutual understanding and ultimately improve prospects for a fairer global order.

For most people, those would seem to be commendable and progressive goals. For Stephen Harper and his cabal, they are reflective of a subversive organization that needs to be frightened into silence.

As reported in today's Star, CoDev has passed its two recent CRA audits, one in 2009, its first in 25 years and one last year, the latter conducted by three auditors — two of them political-activity specialists. Both appear to be part of the pattern discussed in previous posts:

Many of the charities under audit have been critics of government policy, including CoDev, a trade union-funded group that has raised questions about Canada's free-trade deal with Colombia, among other issues.

Indeed, on its website, CoDev offers a trenchant critique of Canada's free-trade deal with both Honduras and Colombia entitled Honduras deal: Another example of Canada’s poor record on trade and human rights

So is CoDev in the clear, after passing two audits? Not at all. Here is the latest cudgel from the Harper toolbox of intimidation as it continues its direction of the CRA investigations:

[CoDev] faces the crippling prospect of translating every scrap of paper it receives from 17 partners in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras and elsewhere from Spanish into either English or French.

The demand, set out in a January compliance letter from the CRA, will start to bite this fall as the tiny four-person shop begins to receive banker's boxes full of Spanish-language documents from its Latin American projects, including taxi chits and bus fare receipts.

The group's executive director, Barbara Wood, says the newly imposed requirement will drain away scarce resources, yet must be carried out or CoDev risks losing its charitable status.

The CRA demands suggest the vexatious nature of the persecution:

Among CRA's new demands: the official CoDev mission statement had to be rewritten to cite each human rights law in all 11 Latin American countries that CoDev's partners try to uphold. That meant a lengthy four-page annex to the statement, in English translation.

But the most onerous condition, Wood said, is the major translation project ahead, which involves thousands of receipts.

“The amount of work is unbelievable,” she said. “The rules seem to have been applied differently in 2009 than they were now . . . We're a really small team and this is a huge amount of work.”

Typically, the CRA has turned aside inquiries, citing the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Act.

For anyone following the Harper pattern of harassment and intimidation, no further explanation is needed.

The Blinkered Worldview of Stephen Harper

Recently, I wrote a series of posts on Stephen Harper's misuse of the Canadian Revenue Agency through the orchestration of audits on nonprofits that criticize his policies. For Dear Leader, life is uncomplicated: you are either with him or against him, and if you fall into the latter category and have a certain public prominence, the knock on the door may not be far off.

One of my readers, Troy Thomas, made the following comment:

You know, this is how First Nations have been treated for decades, so I'll share what usually happens to First Nations.

Audits aren't the end. They're a means.

A First Nations band which is getting uppity, i.e. publicly complaining about not getting properly funded or complaining about interference, will get audited.
The auditor, that bribe-able one from the USA, Delasomething, [Deloitte] will find in its report what the government asked for it to find.

The government, using the fictitious audit as an excuse, will force the uppity First Nations band to take on the expense of the audit, and then force the uppity First Nations band to take on the expense of a private for-profit third-party firm, which will do what the band used to do for a third or a quarter of the cost.
So, from experience, expect more than the audits. Expect the government to slide its own people into these charities, by using the audits as its reasons: "Oh, these charities are improperly run! They need experience from the private sector in order to do as they're supposed to!"

Something like that.

It now appears that Mr. Harper has yet another weapon with which to further undermine opposition and divide Canadians even further: the new First Nations Financial Transparency Act, which, as reported in The Toronto Star, requires First Nations communities across the country to publish a range of annual business and financial records, including salaries and benefits.

The communities were previously only required to submit these records to the government without sharing them with the public.

While the average remuneration reported is quite modest, there are exceptions:

- the Snuneymuxw First Nation in B.C., revealed that Eric Wesley, a councillor, received $307,201 in contracts for construction related services in the last fiscal year from his own community.

- Chief John Thunder of the Buffalo Point First Nation in Manitoba earned $129,398 for the year in salaries and benefits. The community he represents is made up of less than 200 people.

So what might be the strategic value of making this information public, as opposed to simply making it available to band members?

Given the government's distasteful paternalism toward aboriginals, vilification of their leaders will create even greater disharmony than already exists within their communities; the greater the disunity, the less chance of speaking with one voice.

Given First nations' concerns over Harper's pipeline obsession and his total disregard for environmental concerns, undermining aboriginal leadership will work in favour of the Prime Minister's monomania.

And how have First Nations' people reacted to this latest attempt to discredit them?

“Everything points to (an attempt) to build on the propaganda that aboriginal governments are dishonest,” said Ghislain Picard, interim chief of the Assembly of First Nations, in an interview. “That’s the thinking that’s out there and that’s what they keep building on.”

Picard said the government is always trying to find ways to discredit First Nations people in Canada.

“It reflects the ideology of this government since 2006,” said Picard. “They’re already working very hard to find that one community that might be outside what they would (describe) as the model First Nation and then just pass that brush over to all First Nations.”

While Stephen Harper insists it is all about transparency, about the only thing really transparent here are his motives.

A New Update: I Felt A Chill As I Read This

A week ago came the report of a giant crater in the Siberian permafrost discovered by a Russian helicopter crew. Russian scientists concluded the crater, about 80-metres across, was not the result of a meteor strike but probably was caused by a sub-surface methane explosion.

At the time I speculated whether this was a fluke or whether we'd be seeing more of these things in the high north before long. We didn't have to wait long for the answer.

The Siberian Times reports that reindeer herders have come across two more of these craters.

No word yet on whether anything similar is happening in the Canadian north.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib







UPDATE: Here's an update from Scientific American


A NEW UPDATE: Large spikes of methane being released into the atmosphere above Siberia may be tied to the mysterious craters which have appeared in the landscape, according to a US scientist.

Dr Jason Box, a professor in glaciology at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, has highlighted increased levels of methane above the landscape.

The geologist's blog links the craters to climate change, as the melting Siberian permafrost is allowing the greenhouse gas to escape and create the enormous holes.

Using data from a ground-based climate observing station in Tiksi, a small town in the Sakha Republic on the Arctic Ocean coast, Dr Box discovered "high end" levels of methane. The readings were backed up by data from similar stations in Alaska and Canada, according to News.com.au.

The spikes, which Dr Box calls "dragon breaths", may well be connected to the unusual holes that have appeared in the Siberia landscape over the last month.

Three craters have been discovered so far. The first 80m-wide hole was spotted 1,800 miles east of Moscow in a barren permafrost stretch of the Yamal Peninsula, an area that translates as "the end of the world".

If All You Had Were Useless Rockets, Would You Be Firing Them?

A timely and invaluable reminder of what it means to be a Palestinian in Gaza under the yoke of the Israeli military. This is a report of a calculated and brutal murder of a 13-year old Palestinian girl by Israeli troops outside a refugee camp in 2004. As I recall, the officer who finished off the girl with two shots to her head was never punished for the murder.

How would you react if this girl was one of ours?

As for today another UN school, this one designated a refuge for Palestinian civilians. 15-dead, 90-wounded as three artillery rounds slam into the shelter.

You're dead on, Justin. That's some "commitment to peace."

MoS, The Disaffected Lib

Zionism Does Not Excuse Gaza

There are some self-identified Liberals (and New Democrats) who proclaim their support for Israel in its current butchery in Gaza and they tend to do it in the name of Zionism.

Zionism comes in many shapes and flavours, so many that its meaning is often unintelligible.

The New York Times' Roger Cohen is a proud Zionist but he sees the Gaza tragedy a little more clearly than some of our Liberal friends:

I am a Zionist because the story of my forebears convinces me that Jews needed the homeland voted into existence by United Nations Resolution 181 of 1947, calling for the establishment of two states — one Jewish, one Arab — in Mandate Palestine. I am a Zionist who believes in the words of Israel’s founding charter of 1948 declaring that the nascent state would be based “on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel.”

What I cannot accept, however, is the perversion of Zionism that has seen the inexorable growth of a Messianic Israeli nationalism claiming all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River; that has, for almost a half-century now, produced the systematic oppression of another people in the West Bank; that has led to the steady expansion of Israeli settlements on the very West Bank land of any Palestinian state; that isolates moderate Palestinians like Salam Fayyad in the name of divide-and-rule; that pursues policies that will make it impossible to remain a Jewish and democratic state; that seeks tactical advantage rather than the strategic breakthrough of a two-state peace; that blockades Gaza with 1.8 million people locked in its prison and is then surprised by the periodic eruptions of the inmates; and that responds disproportionately to attack in a way that kills hundreds of children.

The Israeli case for the bombardment of Gaza could be foolproof. If Benjamin Netanyahu had made a good-faith effort to find common cause with Palestinian moderates for peace and been rebuffed, it would be. He has not. Hamas is vile. I would happily see it destroyed. But Hamas is also the product of a situation that Israel has reinforced rather than sought to resolve.

This corrosive Israeli exercise in the control of another people, breeding the contempt of the powerful for the oppressed, is a betrayal of the Zionism in which I still believe.

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Is There Anything Wrong With This Picture?

The Obama administration’s $225 million request to aid Israel during its war with Hamas may not be enough, warned Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday afternoon.


So far, no word about humanitarian aid for the Palestinians, who so far have suffered over 1000 civilian deaths.

They're Buzzards, But You're Their Carrion.

We all know that average Americans have been reeling financially since the Great Recession. We know that the post-recession recovery has gone mainly to the richest of the rich and, this time, it's pretty clear there's been no 'trickle down' to the plebes.

A new study by the Russell Sage Foundation in conjunction with Stanford University shows the hit ordinary American families have taken since the recession. In 2003, the median American household wealth stood at $87,992. A decade later that figure had plummeted to just $56,335. In other words, ordinary Americans (the median family) became 36% poorer in the span of just 10-years.

Taking a longer view, from pre-recession 1984, wealth for the 95th percentile has doubled while for the 75th percentile it increased by a third. Median family wealth, however, has dropped 20% from 1984 levels while the 25th percentile has seen their wealth evaporate by a staggering 60%.

Two weeks ago, I wrote: The game today is for one select group of people to employ its considerable advantages to mine the remaining wealth out of everyone else. We've become the last, best natural resource and the system has been rigged to effect the greatest unearned transfer of wealth ever.

Thomas Pilger observed: "'Austerity' is the imposition of extreme capitalism on the poor and the gift of socialism for the rich: an ingenious system under which the majority service the debts of the few."

The rich are getting richer and they're doing it on the backs of everyone else. The poor are indeed getting poorer and the very poor are becoming economically eviscerated. Here's the thing. This isn't going to stop on its own. It's going to continue worsening until someone makes it stop. That's you. Don't expect any help from political parties that have already embraced neoliberalism. They're not in your corner. Clinging to them is like clutching an anchor while you’re trying to tread water.

Mos, The Disaffected Lib

Gaza - A Suggested Solution

Further to that piece Friday on how Israel’s radical rightwing shift is brutalizing Israeli society, I stumbled across this:

http://forward.com/articles/202558/israeli-professor-suggests-rape-would-serve-as-ter/

And I found this insightful and well footnoted piece from The Nation on AlterNet debunking Israel’s (and our own) narrative on the Gaza invasion.

http://www.alternet.org/world/five-israeli-talking-points-gaza-debunked?akid=12060.103986._jtkpX&rd=1&src=newsletter1013185&t=5

When an Israeli, of all people, can openly call for a “final solution” to the Palestinian problem, well...

Netanyahu calls upon Palestinian civilians to “leave Gaza.” How exactly? And go where?

I have a solution to this unbearable mess. This would be a perfect opportunity for NATO to do something useful for a change instead of babysitting an unresolved civil war in Afghanistan or haplessly bombing Libya while al Qaeda snuck in the back door to spread through North Africa. What I have in mind is a 40-year peacekeeping mission along the lines of what we did successfully in Cyprus.

NATO forces re-establish the pre-67 borders between Israel and the Palestinians. Yes, that means the Israelis leaving the illegal settlements on the West Bank. Jerusalem is reconstituted as an “open city.” A buffer strip, extending at least five miles into the Palestinian and the Israeli side of the border is occupied by NATO personnel armed to the teeth and with the latest surveillance technology.

The Palestinians would be assisted to re-establish a functioning government and economy in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s blockade of the Palestinian coastline would be lifted. NATO naval forces would patrol Gaza’s coastal waters. NATO would also be responsible for securing the airspace over Palestinian territories and reopening air transport corridors into the West Bank and Gaza.

The idea would be to give the Palestinians their own homeland and statehood. Give them a viable, secure and peaceful place to again live and work freely, relieved of the yoke of generations of occupation. Allow them to rebuild their homes, their farms and their cities. Let them discover a way other than armed resistance.

Why 40 years? That’s roughly two-generations which I figure would be the minimum needed to breed the worst of the mutual hatred out of the Palestinians and Israelis. It would also allow both peoples and both governments to very gradually establish something approximating normal relations.

I’m convinced that extremism and violence are not traits inherent to any people and that, given the chance, we all would choose security, stability and peace, not only for ourselves but especially for our children.

Mos, The Disaffected Lib

Massaging The Message: How A Republican Has Helped Israel Justify Its Invasion Of Gaza

The Independent reports on how an American Republican pollster and political strategist has helped Israel sell its recent invasion of Gaza, drawing upon a

playbook [that] is a professional, well-researched and confidential study on how to influence the media and public opinion in America and Europe. Written by the expert Republican pollster and political strategist Dr Frank Luntz, the study was commissioned five years ago by a group called The Israel Project, with offices in the US and Israel, for use by those "who are on the front lines of fighting the media war for Israel".

The strategy, which relies heavily upon an understanding of psychology, advises tailoring one's message according to one's audience. Among the gems is this:

For example, the study says that "Americans agree that Israel 'has a right to defensible borders'. But it does you no good to define exactly what those borders should be. Avoid talking about borders in terms of pre- or post-1967, because it only serves to remind Americans of Israel's military history. Particularly on the left this does you harm.

For the pesky journalist who asks uncomfortable questions, such as those involving the right of return for Palestinian refugees who were expelled or fled in 1948 and in the following years, and who are not allowed to go back to their homes, the person being question should respond this way:

They should call it a "demand", on the grounds that Americans don't like people who make demands. "Then say 'Palestinians aren't content with their own state. Now they're demanding territory inside Israel'."

An in situations where widespread destruction and loss of life results, as in the current situation:

Dr Luntz says that Israeli spokesmen or political leaders must never, ever justify "the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children" and they must aggressively challenge those who accuse Israel of such a crime. Israeli spokesmen struggled to be true to this prescription when 16 Palestinians were killed in a UN shelter in Gaza last Thursday.

To show empathy, Luntz advises this "effective Israeli sound bite":

"I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child."

As the article suggests, the 112-page booklet should be must-reading for all journalists and, I would think, anyone else interested in truth over propaganda and public relations.

The Climate Change Debate Lives On

The science on the theory of climate change is not settled. There is a powerful, scientific consensus that anthropogenic or man-made climate change is real, here now and worsening. There is a powerful, scientific consensus that man-made climate change is already triggering natural feedback mechanisms that eventually can become "tipping points" beyond which we will have runaway global warming. Runaway as in all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to stop it.

For all of that, the science isn't settled. That much is obvious from the tsunami of research studies that keep pouring in from a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines such as geology, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, atmospherics, physics and chemistry, biology and marine biology, epidemiology, botany, meteorology, climatology and others. The science isn't settled because we're constantly uncovering new information, new pieces of a puzzle that give us a clearer picture of what we're up against. It may not be good news and it usually isn't but it's all important information that we ignore at our increasing peril.

Now, having said that, what about this climate change "debate"? It does exist but the important point is not that it exists but where it exists. It lingers on amidst the far right in magazines such as Forbes, in papers such as the Washington Post and Times, on TV networks like FOX and on open-mouth radio shows that appeal to the slack jawed, tea party crowd such as Limbaugh. It exists within any media outlet owned by Aussie news mogul, reptilian Rupert Murdoch.

What they're debating, however, isn't the reality of anthropogenic global warming. They can read the science as well as anyone or at least they can pay people to give them that information. What they're debating is the question of how much longer they can get away with sowing doubt and outright denialism before their pants burst into flame and their audience walks.

And then there's the debate among the political crowd, the sort-termer "Friends of Rupert Society." That would be people like Stephen Harper, Tony Abbott and David Cameron, most of the Republican caucus and an unseemly segment of the Democrats too, and camp followers such as Sarah Palin. Yeah, that's right. Sarah Palin and Steve Harper are on the same page. These types debate how much longer they can fudge and obscure and block any meaningful action.

Maybe the worst, though, are the pols who say they accept the reality of global warming but continue to act as though the debate was real and the science wasn't settled. Here I'm talking about the closet neoliberals who lead our opposition parties - Trudeau and Mulcair. Just like Harper, they're all for ramping up bitumen production and export. They're merely quibbling about transportation options which creates the false impression that there are any good options. They'll cajole you out of your vote on the promise that they'll be "less worse" than Harper and they'll dress up that claim with a tweaked policy here and there and then, if they convince enough of you to let them in, it'll be business pretty much as usual.

How can you tell they're closet neoliberals? Easy. Just like anyone else in a closet, unwilling to reveal themselves for who they are, they tread very lightly. They avoid getting drawn into certain conversations and they're adept at distraction. They bob and weave away from discussions that link things like the highest carbon oil on the planet and climate change tipping points. Much as Harper is vulnerable on it, they won't attack him for establishing Canada as a global pariah on climate change lest they find themselves hoisted on the petard of their own hypocrisy.

Look at it this way. Their foreign policy is neoliberal. Their policy on Israel is neoliberal. Their energy policy is neoliberal. Their economic policy is neoliberal. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck and lays duck eggs - it's a f__king duck! Makes no difference if it's labeled Liberal or New Democrat. Names simply don't mean much any more. They're false flags.

And now understand this. Fighting climate change is progressivism at its very best. Fighting inequality lies at the heart of progressivism. Leaving a better world for our grandkids is progressivism. Neoliberalism, however, is antithetical to progressivism. Neoliberalism is the grease on which corporatism quietly slides into our lives. Neoliberalism, no matter what sort of happy face you slap on it, eventually smothers progressivism.

It could be fairly argued that the 2015 general election will actually be a referendum on what form of neoliberalism we prefer. Some like it hot, hard and spicy. Most of us just hold our noses and swallow, hoping we don't gag. As for me, I'll be voting progressive and in this fetid milieu that can mean only one party, Green.


MoS, the Disaffected Lib

It Wasn't Hamas - And Israel Knew That From the Get-Go.

We all know that Israel used the kidnapping/murder of three Israeli teens, that it blamed squarely on Hamas, to whip up support for its brutal invasion of Gaza. It's been claimed that Israeli intelligence knew the teens had been killed shortly after they were kidnapped but withheld the information to stoke anti-Hamas sentiment.

Now, with over 1,000 Palestinians dead at Israeli hands, word is out that Israel knew Hamas had nothing to do with those three murders. An Israeli police spokesman is said to have confirmed to BBC reporter, Jon Donnison, that the killings were not the work of Hamas but a "lone cell."

This suggests that the west, especially our own Harper and Baird, were duped by Netanyahu. No need going at length into what this does to Justin's praise of Israel for its "commitment to peace."

MoS, the Disaffected Lib

But Then Again ...

S.E Cupp does not agree with the New York Times recommendation that the federal ban on marijuana be ended:

End Prohibition - The New York Times

The editorial board of America's "newspaper of record" has called for Washington to repeal federal laws prohibiting marijuana. The New York Times says it's time to end America's second prohibition:

It took 13 years for the United States to come to its senses and end Prohibition, 13 years in which people kept drinking, otherwise law-abiding citizens became criminals and crime syndicates arose and flourished. It has been more than 40 years since Congress passed the current ban on marijuana, inflicting great harm on society just to prohibit a substance far less dangerous than alcohol.

The federal government should repeal the ban on marijuana.

There are no perfect answers to people’s legitimate concerns about marijuana use. But neither are there such answers about tobacco or alcohol, and we believe that on every level — health effects, the impact on society and law-and-order issues — the balance falls squarely on the side of national legalization. That will put decisions on whether to allow recreational or medicinal production and use where it belongs — at the state level.


MoS, the Disaffected Lib

Our Monochromatic Political Leadership

The images are graphic and heartbreaking - buildings reduced to rubble, maimed and dead children strewn among that rubble, families fractured, lives broken beyond repair. Were it not for the distancing effect that television news inevitably brings, the pictures would be overwhelming, leaving room for nothing but despair.

Thus is the reality of the ongoing Israeli assault on Gaza, a seemingly insoluble situation aided and abetted by a West that offers nothing but the staunch bromide of Israeli's 'right to defend itself,' an assertion with which few would disagree.

And therein lies the problem. That reflexive cliche whenever Israeli 'excesses' make the news relies on an uninformed and unsophisticated mode of thinking that sees the world only in terms of absolutes, where things are right or wrong, where you either stand with Israel wholeheartedly and unequivocally, or you are an anti-Semite who stands with the terrorists.

This is certainly the position of the Harper regime, and it is one held by Thomas Mulcair as far back as 2008, and by Justin Trudeau as well, as noted by The Mound of Sound on this blog.

Taking, as they say, a more 'nuanced' public position takes courage for the political risk it entails, and all three leaders of the major parties have shown themselves extraordinarily risk-averse. Unfortunately, their decision to play a safe and defensive game carries with it stakes far greater than their own political ambitions.

It is that cowardice that invites a withering assessment by Haroon Siddiqui in this morning's Toronto Star:

Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau and, to a lesser extent, NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair have fallen in line with Stephen Harper’s support of the Israeli onslaught on Gaza.

None question the Israeli killing and maiming of hundreds of civilians, including women and children.

All echo the formulation that, given the barrage of (ineffective) Hamas rockets, Israel has a right to retaliate (bombing by air, shelling from the sea, mounting a ground invasion, levelling houses, hitting hospitals, mosques and schools run by the United Nations, and disrupting electricity, water and sewage systems).

Siddiqui suggests there is great room for a genuine discussion that all three 'leaders' have no interest in initiating:

Our federal leaders do not ask whether there could have been a less lethal response to the rockets than a wholesale war on Gaza, the third in six years.

Indeed, they hew closely to the official narrative, refusing to allow facts to interfere with expediency:

They studiously avoid mentioning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands, now in its 47th year. They never mention the Israeli blockade of Gaza that entered its eighth year last month, leaving its 1.7 million inhabitants destitute.

Nor is the writer impressed by their blanket absolution of Israel for the mass destruction its actions have wrought:

All three suggest that Israel bears little or no responsibility for what’s happening. It’s all the fault of Hamas, the terrorist entity. They ignore a parallel narrative that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu provoked this war in order to derail a recent unity agreement between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, an accord that he saw as a threat to the status quo that he prefers.

Siddiqui disabuses those who hold out hope for change under young Justin Trudeau:

Trudeau issued a statement July 15 that “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.” He made no commensurate call for Israel to show restraint.

He condemned Hamas for rejecting an Egyptian ceasefire proposal and commended Israel for accepting it “and demonstrating its commitment to peace.” He did not say that the Egyptian military junta is not a neutral party, that it considers Hamas an extension of the banned Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood whose elected president Mohammed Morsi the army toppled in a coup last year. Hamas’ conditions for a ceasefire were rejected. It wanted, among other things, an end to the siege of Gaza.

There is much more in Siddiqui's column that merits reading, including the pushback from 500 prominent Canadians condemning the Harper regime for its uncritical stance on Israel, and condemnation by Canadians For Justice And Peace In The Middle East of all three federal parties because they have betrayed Canadian values.

All in all, much to disturb our Sunday equanimity.

How To Stop Stephen Harper's Use of The CRA As An Instrument Of Terror: The Beginnings Of A Plan

Lately I have been writing some posts on Stephen Harper's reign of terror, his relentless attacks on charities that oppose his agenda. Groups as diverse as the United Church of Canada, Oxfam, and PEN Canada have fallen victim to this vindictive miscreant, undergoing audits thanks to the Prime Minister's misuse of the CRA as his chief weapon. The more I read and learn about this egregious and contemptible misuse of power, the more upset and angry I become, given that this strikes at the heart of one of our most treasured freedoms, the right of free speech. I have been thinking about ways to try to combat this reign, but that is perhaps the subject of another post.

For now, let me direct you to a piece written by Professor Edward Jackson of Carleton University. Entitled Why The CRA Is No Longer An Effective Instrument of Public, the essay offers an effective overview of the arrant hypocrisy of the regime that claims to be ensuring the sanctity of taxpayer dollars through its zealous mission of ferreting out 'abuse' by nonprofits holding charitable status:

Its campaign of vexatious audits of the political activities of progressive charities has created a chill in political dissent, and is a new low even for the Conservative regime.

At the same time, CRA's Minister is musing about requiring charities to provide lists of their donors (in fact, this information is already available in the system, but you get the drift of the political messaging here). And there are even reports that, under the cover of the courts, the CRA can't qualify poverty reduction as a charitable objective. At a time of high unemployment in many parts of the country, rising income inequality and more, what could be more preposterous than disqualifying poverty reduction?

But that's not all.

Around the time of the ramping up of the campaign against the NGOs, the CRA actually cut hundreds of auditors who had been working on criminal investigations, special enforcement and voluntary disclosure programs.

What encourages me about Professor Jackson's article is that he goes on to suggest some specific measures we can all participate in before this hateful and vindictive regime is ousted:

1) Express solidarity with the charities that are targeted for political audits by taking out memberships and making donations.

2) Support the building of a coalition against the political audits and for a court challenge to the government.

3) Prepare questions for the Minister and leadership of the CRA as to who made the critical decisions over the past few years, and why -- on the charities issue, and also on the criminal investigations issue.

4) Develop a plan for completely overhauling the unit that deals with charities.

5) And work with the opposition parties on a detailed, post-2015 plan for rebuilding Canada's tax agency into an institution of which Canadians, including its own staff, will once again be proud.

As he says, at least it is a start, and we can well imagine that with the participation of enough Canadians of goodwill and passion, it could well gain momentum just in time for Harper's rendezvous with the electorate next year.

Your Saturday Smile

A bit of a busy morning ahead, so for now, enjoy: