Reflections, Observations, and Analyses Pertaining to the Canadian Political Scene
Friday, August 4, 2017
Thursday, August 3, 2017
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
UPDATED: Will It Be All Talk And No Action?
There will always be those who see Justin Trudeau only through the public image he has so assiduously cultivated. Others, however, refuse to suspend their critical faculties despite the Prime Minister's fine hair, sunny rhetoric and public earnestness. They demand that his 'sunny ways' be met with the kinds of actions a leader with character and integrity takes in difficult situations.
The latest test for Mr. Trudeau comes with the apparent proof that Saudi Arabia is using the Canadian-made armoured vehicles we sold them against their own citizens.
For the first time, video footage and photos have surfaced on social media allegedly showing the Islamic kingdom using Canadian weaponized equipment against Saudi civilians – a development that spurred calls Friday for the Liberal government to halt defence exports to the oil-rich nation.The Canadian government is now investigating, but it is a move I take little reassurance in, given that allegations of misuse of the vehicles have been around for quite some time.
I am reproducing the editorial in today's Hamilton Spectator, as it addresses the implications of this issue well:
When Justin Trudeau's Liberals were elected, they inherited an odious legacy: a 2014 deal to sell armed military vehicles to Saudi Arabia. The deal, worth $15 billion, rankled many because it meant Canada would become a major arms supplier to a regime that has a record of brutalizing its own citizens in the name of quelling dissent.Photo-ops are fine, but it is time that Mr. Trudeau start acting with resolve and integrity in this urgent matter.
Trudeau acknowledged he didn't like the deal, but he felt compelled to honour it for the sake of preserving Canada's reputation as a reliable business partner. That didn't satisfy the most strident critics, but many people could at least see the logic in his rationale.
However, all through that controversy, there was a hard stop. Reasonable people, and the government, could tolerate the deal-with-the-devil provided we could be guaranteed the Saudis wouldn't turn the armed might against their own citizens.
Now, credible media reports from the region claim Saudi Arabia has deployed Canadian combat hardware against civilians. There are photographs showing a vehicle that looks exactly like the Canadian product, called an 'Armoured Gurkha.' Military experts, including a retired and anonymous Canadian general, have verified the claim.
The company that makes the Gurkha says it can't comment. The government is aware and investigating. The Globe and Mail reported a statement from the office of Minister of Foreign Affairs Chrystia Freeland which says: "If it is found that Canadian exports have been used to commit serious violations of human rights, the minister will take action." It also says: "The end use and end user of exports, as well as regional stability and human rights, are essential considerations in the authorization of permits for the export of military goods from Canada."
If these reports are true, the worst fears of peace advocates and others critical of such deals will be realized. Canada will again be supplying lethal military equipment to be used against civilians.
Those advocates, as well as opposition parties, are already calling on the government to halt further exports. Obviously, the government won't act on media reports alone, so if a moratorium is necessary it won't happen overnight. But it shouldn't take months, either. And the government had better not rag the puck on this. If the reports are true, the government needs to stop further shipments, kill the deal and tell Canadians in no uncertain terms it has done so and will not support new deals that carry the same risk.
Justin Trudeau was elected on wave of optimism and idealism that looks naïve in hindsight. Trudeau can restore some bruised credibility by doing the right thing in this case. We may not be able to stop tyrannical foreign governments from slaughtering their own people, but we don't have to supply the bullets.
Howard Elliott
UPDATE: Former federal Liberal cabinet minister Irwin Cotler says,
... Saudi Arabia’s apparent deployment of Canadian-made combat vehicles against Saudi citizens demonstrates why Canada should end all arms sales to the Islamic kingdom.You can read the full story here.
“I am not saying we shouldn’t be trading with Saudi Arabia. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be engaging with Saudi Arabia. I’m just saying we shouldn’t be selling any more arms to Saudi Arabia”.
Tuesday, August 1, 2017
Parsing Conservative Lies
Recently, newly-selected Conservative Party leader Andrew Scheer wrote a column condemning the compensation awarded to Omar Khadr for the violation of his rights as a Canadian citizen. Not only did his piece send a message to his base that the animus so regularly cultivated by the party's former overlord, Stephen Harper, is alive and well, but it also attested to the Tory tendency to fabricate and conflate 'facts.'
Fortunately, ever-sharp Toronto Star readers are giving him no quarter:
Re: Justin Trudeau had a choice on Khadr settlement, Opinion, July 26
In answer to federal Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer’s emotionally overwrought attack on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to make a payment to Omar Khadr in respect of the heinous behaviour of several Canadian governments responsible for his illegal incarceration at Guantanamo Bay, I can find agreement with one statement: “Principles are worth fighting for.”
Principles set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to all Canadians. That is indeed a principle worth fighting for.
Sadly, Mr. Scheer and his like-minded followers believe they have a right to apply those Charter rights selectively. This emotional response is the same as that exhibited by the government of the day’s delegitimization/incarceration of Japanese Canadians during the Second World War, and the denial of entry to Jewish refugees prior to the war, to name just two examples of demonizing, hate-mongering behaviour of Canadian governments.
Nevertheless, there are many Canadians, I believe a majority, who reject that past behaviour and agree with the current government’s payment to Mr. Khadr.
Indeed, the former Conservative government led by Stephen Harper approved a similar payment to Maher Arar. I do not recall Mr. Scheer sanctioning interviews to discredit the Harper government with U.S. news outlets or writing columns to the Star to evoke hatred against Maher or Harper.
That he engages in this behaviour now reveals his need to mimic the political rants so disgraceful south of the border. It demonstrates that he will make self-serving political decisions that benefit only some Canadians, but not all. Who is next to lose their Charter rights? Be careful, it could be you.
Liz Iwata, Pickering
Andrew Scheer says the Supreme Court ruled that Omar Khadr’s rights were violated and that the Conservatives recognized and accepted that finding.
His inconvenient truth is that the Supreme Court issued its finding in January 2010, and Khadr was repatriated in September 2012. It appears to have taken the Conservatives 2-1/2 years to accept the finding. Khadr then spent a further 2-1/2 years in prison before being finally released on bail in May 2015, after the government failed in a last-ditch attempt to deny bail.
Yes, the settlement was a Liberal decision. But the actions of the Conservative government were a large part of the decision.
Cheryl Adams, Toronto
Although Andrew Scheer has some counterpoints to the Omar Khadr debate worth discussing, he unfortunately leaves out one pressing detail to his entire argument: Khadr was a child soldier and his rights as a Canadian were violated, period.
No matter how much the Conservative Party spins this debate, it’s a strong and valid point that will always rise to the surface.
Bobby Leeson, Brampton
Monday, July 31, 2017
My 15 Minutes Of Fame (Or Infamy) Gets An Unexpected Extension
Originally, I had no intention of writing about this story, since it pertains to something I became involved with over a year ago. Some readers may recall that last year, I wrote a letter of complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council about a Superior Court Justice, Toni Skarica, over a t-shirt he was wearing extolling Donald Trump. You can read the background here.
My concern was, and still is, the issue of judicial impartiality. How can a man extolling a demagogue who advocates against the Mexican, the Muslim, the transgendered and the gay be trusted to judge impartially any such individuals who may come before him in court?
In any event, last week a Star reporter called me to discuss the issue. I was surprised, given that the events unfolded over a year ago, but apparently, in response to a request by a lawyer, the Judicial Council only recently published its decision on its website, a decision that saw no sanctions against Skarica, who offered an interesting explanation for his terrible lapse in judgement.
The interview resulted in a story, which unleashed a measure of online fury and vituperation directed against me, some of which involved physical threats, but most of which offered assessments of my character, none of which were flattering.
So why am I writing this post? Primarily to show the rabid and insensate 'free-speech warriors' that their pathetic attempts to bully into silence those who hold views contrary to their own are just that - pathetic. While the issue of online bullying is not something to be dismissed lightly, it is misdirected at people who are mature adults and reasonably sure of themselves. Silence in the face of such attacks is just not in keeping with my nature, and it would send the wrong message to the intolerant that I have been coerced into submission.
This morning, I received an 'endearing' message on Facebook by one Edward Louis Guy Shea who, in response to a Star column link on Omar Khadr that I posted, wrote:
"EH LORNE GO FUCK YOURSELF". Judging by the all-caps, I would hazard a guess that Edward is mightily exercised. Edward then kindly supplied a link to Rebel Media, with which I will end this post, except for this final observation: The rabid-right, either by choice or intellectual incapacity, seem unwilling/unable to grasp the concept of judicial impartiality, as evidenced in the following video:
My concern was, and still is, the issue of judicial impartiality. How can a man extolling a demagogue who advocates against the Mexican, the Muslim, the transgendered and the gay be trusted to judge impartially any such individuals who may come before him in court?
In any event, last week a Star reporter called me to discuss the issue. I was surprised, given that the events unfolded over a year ago, but apparently, in response to a request by a lawyer, the Judicial Council only recently published its decision on its website, a decision that saw no sanctions against Skarica, who offered an interesting explanation for his terrible lapse in judgement.
The interview resulted in a story, which unleashed a measure of online fury and vituperation directed against me, some of which involved physical threats, but most of which offered assessments of my character, none of which were flattering.
So why am I writing this post? Primarily to show the rabid and insensate 'free-speech warriors' that their pathetic attempts to bully into silence those who hold views contrary to their own are just that - pathetic. While the issue of online bullying is not something to be dismissed lightly, it is misdirected at people who are mature adults and reasonably sure of themselves. Silence in the face of such attacks is just not in keeping with my nature, and it would send the wrong message to the intolerant that I have been coerced into submission.
This morning, I received an 'endearing' message on Facebook by one Edward Louis Guy Shea who, in response to a Star column link on Omar Khadr that I posted, wrote:
"EH LORNE GO FUCK YOURSELF". Judging by the all-caps, I would hazard a guess that Edward is mightily exercised. Edward then kindly supplied a link to Rebel Media, with which I will end this post, except for this final observation: The rabid-right, either by choice or intellectual incapacity, seem unwilling/unable to grasp the concept of judicial impartiality, as evidenced in the following video:
Sunday, July 30, 2017
Something Wicked This Way Comes
Although hardly the greatest peril to come about as a result of climate change, the following is likely to get many people's attention.
What is it The Bible says? "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
If the above is too sedate for your sensibilities, take a look at this American report which has, shall we say, a more 'visceral' quality to it:
What is it The Bible says? "As ye sow, so shall ye reap."
If the above is too sedate for your sensibilities, take a look at this American report which has, shall we say, a more 'visceral' quality to it:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)