Facebook Group Protesting Harper Dictatorship Now Has More than 20,000 Members

I mentioned in several of my posts a new

Facebook group: Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. (there are now 24,139 members) Make sure you join this group if you haven't already.

I have been tracking their progress, from when I joined at 500 members to 10,000. Today they have more than 20,000; so maybe there's hope for democracy yet.

They have planned rallies for the dates when Parliament should open and are encouraging everyone to become active in this.

Stephen Harper has set a very dangerous precedent, by simply proroguing Parliament every time he's under investigation. From the "In and Out" to war crimes to the Cadman affair, he answers to none of them.

We can't allow this. It's that simple.

It's interesting that the pollsters are claiming victory here, but we have to remember that most pollsters are now becoming obsolete. They only call lan line phones, so the opinions are based on those of the older and more conservative mindset.

Most young people now use cell phones or other forms of communication, so their views are rarely sought. I think this is something these people need to think about.

This works good for the Conservatives because they get to direct the questions and the press will always be accommodating in providing the answers. So the next time a lan line phone is polled those being polled go with the status quo. And remember this pooll came out when people had not really understood the implications of 37 pieces of legislation simply being erased.

But what I'm sensing is a grassroots democratic revolution, that could very well change the nature of Canadian politics. The call for a progressive coalition are becoming louder, and we may very well see a uniting of the left to combat Harper's tyranny. It may be the only way we can get rid of him and get this country back on track.

20,000 join anti-prorogation Facebook group
January 5, 2010
CBC News

More than 20,000 people have joined an anti-prorogation group on Facebook following Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament for two months until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Christopher White told CBC News that he was upset by the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament until March 3, and decided to create the Facebook group, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, urging people to contact their MPs to get back to work.

The group, which began last Wednesday, now has 20,312 members.

"My first reaction was anger," said White, on learning last Wednesday morning while still in his pajamas that Harper would suspend Parliament. "And then this time I was like 'okay I should do something about it instead of going and having cereal.'"

But Pierre Poilievre, Harper's parliamentary secretary, said a recent poll suggests Canadians are indifferent to the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament.

According to a Harris/Decima poll, 46 per cent of Canadians polled were indifferent, 34 per cent were unhappy with the proroguing decision and 15 per cent were happy with it.

The poll of 1,000 Canadians, which was conducted between Dec. 17 and Dec. 20, 2009, has a margin of error of 4.1 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Legislation in LimboANALYSIS: Proroguing Parliament delays review of bills
Several pollsters and observers say social media groups have given people the opportunity to make their views known but they downplayed the group's importance.

"But the question is ultimately who are these people?" Bruce Anderson of National Public Relations told Power & Politics with Evan Solomon. "Are they representative of the broader community and polling can help us answer that question."

"The mass of the population has become quite disengaged from what's going on in Ottawa and we have slices of the population on either end of the spectrum that are highly engaged and highly active in using social media to make their views known. But that doesn't give us a perfectly balanced and representative view."

National Post columnist John Ivison told the show, "This is not a groundswell of public opinion." (He's hoping)

Regardless, the Facebook group is encouraging Canadians to hold rallies in cities across the country on Jan. 23, two days before Parliament would have resumed had it not been suspended.

Jim Prentice and John Baird Team up to Create a Possible Nightmare

I posted before about two environmental groups who were taking the government to court because they decided without consent from Parliament to forgo environmental assessments on new projects.

As I stated then, '... many people will say that they were being forced to get the money out the door as soon as possible, so didn't have time for any studies. However, they spent a great deal of time studying how they could direct the stimulus money into improving their political fortunes, while ignoring any notion that the money should go to communities who suffered a greater impact from the downturn.'

Now we learn that the environmental assessment panel has not even met since 2008, and even then conducted no business, so it's pretty clear that that this government has no intention of doing any assessments at all.

And since it would appear that the Canada Action Plan was little more than a PR campaign, by leaving the study to the provinces, if projects get turned down, they will have someone to blame.

They produced the big cardboard cheques and demanded the provinces and municipalities erect huge and expensive signs in their honour. Their job was done.

Tories have ignored environmental assessment panel, member says
By Mike De Souza,
Canwest News Service
January 3, 2010

OTTAWA - A federal panel that advises the government on the environmental impact of new economic development has been left on the sidelines for nearly two years, Canwest News Service has learned. Throughout this time, sweeping changes to regulations have been passed, effectively exempting thousands of projects from mandatory evaluations. `We haven't had any notice that the minister has dissolved the committee, but it's kind of awkward to have a committee that doesn't meet,'' said Gary Schneider, who sits on the panel.

Schneider, the co-chairman of the Environmental Coalition of Prince Edward Island, said the last meeting of the Regulatory Advisory Committee was in the spring of 2008. But, he said, no consultations were held with the panel in 2009, as the government introduced a series of exemptions for new infrastructure projects ...

Rona Ambrose Has Been a Disappointment But is Still Cause For Concern

Rona Ambrose is the Reform-Conservative member of Parliament for Edmonton–Spruce Grove, and currently Minister of Labour.

Her riding was created in 2003 and she was it's first MP. Mind you, she spent a lot of money to get that seat. In 2008, a total of $94,219; five times more than the Liberal candidate and ten times more than the NDP.

However, that doesn't mean she isn't deserving of the job. She's extremely bright and well educated; not that we ever really get to know that.

As a Harper Reformer, she only gets to speak when spoken to.

Instead, he places her to his right, and more often than not, when he is speaking; we will see her sitting over his shoulder, looking bored, and wishing she was anywhere but there. I don't blame her.

As a Libertarian, she promotes an economy unfettered by government regulations. This is not a good thing for Canadians, because we saw a sample of what this means with the Listeriosis outbreak.

I also have trouble with her pro-corporate stance. Promoting Canadian industry is essential, but all Canadians should benefit from this country's vast natural resources, not just a chosen few; especially when many of those 'chosen' are not even Canadian.

And I'm concerned with her participation in the controversial Trilateral Commission, which has links to the pro-military Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR does not have the scary religious overtones of the Council for National Policy, but they can be just as secretive and disturbing.

Ambrose will probably win the next election, and everyone after. Her riding is very white bread, with an average annual income of almost $100,000 and a less than 4% unemployment rate.

But we can put her on the other side of the room, in opposition, and out of government; by highlighting the horrendous actions of the Harper government.

More Postings on Rona Ambrose:

Rhona Ambrose Failed Us. John Baird Failed Us. Jim Prentice is Failing Us! Are Canadians now Happy With Failure?

New Concerns About Harper's Social Conservative Agenda

Now that Stephen Harper has a dictatorship, there is a lot of concern about him pushing through his neo-conservative agenda of dismantling Canada's social safety net.

This includes all of the things he campaigned against for decades; like public health care, Canada Pension and Old Age Security.

But there is something else that we should be concerned with. His social conservative agenda.

It had been put on the back burner when he was trying to fool Canadians into thinking he was moving to the centre, but it no longer matters now.

And if in fact, if he does plan on forcing an election in the spring, as many anticipate (before the Liberals thinker's conference, which would probably get a lot of media attention), will he still try to silence the extremists in his party, or allow them to focus on social conservative issues again?

When you look at his actions in the past few months, there is definitely something going on. He's brought on an awful lot of Christian fundamentalists, who are now writing his speeches and directing policy.

This will guarantee that the Religious Right will bleed money for him, but what will it mean for a once progressive country like Canada?

Jason Kenney's new citizenship booklet, pretty much erased women's roles in the country's development. In fact, if you didn't know better you'd think it was written in the 1950's. I'm sensing something here that I don't really like.

I thought I'd revisit a posting on Buckdog's blog, written soon after the homophobic Nigel Hannaford was hired to write Stephen Harper's speeches. He shared an article from The Sasquatch, Briarpatch.

Harper's New Speechwriter Is A Strong Social Conservative And Gay Rights Opponent
Jenn Ruddy

It probably won’t come as much of a shock that the Prime Minister’s Office has hired a gay rights opponent to write speeches for Stephen Harper.

Former Calgary Herald columnist Nigel Hannaford is the latest — but certainly not the first, and probably not the last — social conservative to join the upper echelons of Harper’s government.

Hannaford, who was a member of the Calgary Herald’s editorial board until recently, has argued against gay rights in his column Slings & Arrows and scoffed at the legitimacy of human rights commissions. He once referred to human rights tribunals as “communist show trials, not courts” and implied that human rights advocates are “whiners.”

If you think that’s bad, here’s what he had to say about gay rights: Referring to former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau’s 1969 decision to decriminalize homosexuality, Hannaford wrote in 2005, “Fine, said lots of people. Leave gays alone? Fair enough. But, let ’em be Boy Scout leaders? Have each other’s benefits? Adopt kids? Marry each other? Ridiculous.

Anybody seeking political office who suggested it would have been laughed off the hustings. Yet, the Liberals are ready to legalize gay marriage. How did we get to this point?”

Of the 1998 Delwin Vriend Supreme Court ruling, which required that Alberta add sexual orientation to its human rights legislation, Hannaford wrote in 2003, “So much for democracy.”

And when Elsie Wayne, former deputy leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, was excoriated for saying in 2003 that gays should “shut up” about marriage and that Canadians shouldn’t have to “tolerate” gay pride parades, Hannaford wrote in her defence: “Wayne gets my vote. ... Canadian society has been turned upside down in the past 35 years and things regarded as sin in 1965 have special status in 2003.”

As recently, as his May 8, 2009 column, Harper’s new speechwriter lamented that Section 3 of Alberta’s Human Rights Act makes it difficult to prevent Albertans from bringing the same kind of “creepy curriculum” to the province that B.C. has allowed, “in which gay advocates design class material promoting their persuasion right down to kindergarten.”

Hannaford’s appointment troubles longtime gay activist and former Edmonton city councillor Michael Phair.“

Much of what Mr. Hannaford writes and has indicated in his work as a journalist, I suspect, reflects Prime Minister Harper’s and his party’s position on what they would like for Canadian society to be, and I think it harks back to a 1950s approach,” says Phair.

He worries that the Harper government will continue to look for back-door ways to reduce equality for the queer and other marginalized communities, as well as women.

Hannaford’s hiring is the latest in a string of appointments that place social conservatives in high-ranking positions of the Harper government. In July 2008, one of Canada’s most prominent Christian conservatives, Darrel Reid, was appointed director of policy for the Prime Minister’s Office and later moved to one of the top political posts in the country when he was promoted to deputy chief of staff in February. Another Christian evangelical, Paul Wilson, replaced Reid as director of policy.

NDP critic for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual and Transgender Issues Bill Siksay says he’s not surprised to learn of Hannaford’s appointment.“We know that there’s still — within the Conservative Party and within the Conservative caucus — lots of folks who don’t support the full human rights of gay and lesbian Canadians, who are not friends of the queer community, and so in a sense it’s not surprising,” says Siksay.Some of those folks Siksay refers to within the Conservative caucus can be found right here in Saskatchewan.

In July, Saskatoon-Humboldt Conservative MP Brad Trost was critical of his government’s decision to fund Toronto’s gay pride week and pandered to anti-gay sentiment. Speaking to the right-wing website LifeSiteNews.com, Trost reassured the pro-life community, “The tourism funding money that went to the gay pride parade in Toronto was not government policy, was not supported by — I think it’s safe to say by a large majority — of the MPs.”

Shortly thereafter, Saskatoon-Wanuskewin Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott wrote a letter to his constituents supporting Trost’s comments and reassured them that their tax dollars would be used for more “suitable purposes.”

In 2003, the then MP for Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Larry Spencer was suspended from the Canadian Alliance caucus for saying that homosexuality is a conspiracy theory to seduce and recruit young boys. Spencer said he would support any initiative to criminalize homosexuality.

And who could forget the media scandal last year in which Regina-Lumsden-Lake Centre Conservative MP Tom Lukiwski was caught on videotape saying in 1991: “There’s A’s and there’s B’s. The A’s are guys like me, the B’s are homosexual faggots with dirt under their fingernails that transmit diseases.”

“There is a very one-sided message coming from the Conservative Party,” says Nathan Seckinger, executive director of the GBLUR Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity in Regina. “What we hear are a lot of anti-queer statements being made by individual politicians under a conservative banner. What we don’t hear are any pro-queer statements.”

Statistics Canada revealed in 2004 that gays and lesbians are nearly twice as likely to be the victim of a violent crime, including sexual assault, robbery and physical assault, and bisexuals are four-and-a-half times as likely, compared to heterosexuals.

In 2007, 10 per cent of police-reported hate crimes in Canada were motivated by sexual orientation.“What we’re really talking about is a sin of omission,” says Seckinger. “The concern for me isn’t so much the fact that Conservatives are shooting their mouths off about having anti-queer positions, because politicians say dumb things once in a while. My concern is more that they say them frequently and that they don’t have anybody saying anything else [about queer issues], and that’s what tells me that there’s a problem.”

When the Lukiwski scandal broke out last year, GBLUR, under the leadership of Seckinger, took the high road: it accepted Lukiwski’s apology and called for co-operation across political divides. GBLUR’s goal was to shift the debate toward the health and safety crisis facing queer people in Canada and away from the media’s sensationalized coverage of the scandal.

“The reality of it is that Mr. Lukiwski had been campaigning against same-sex marriage for years and nobody gave a damn,” says Seckinger. “The reason everybody got angry about that issue is because he used a dirty word. He got caught on tape using the word ‘faggot’ and it got put on TV and so, really, what people were upset about wasn’t the fact that the man is homophobic, because that should have been common knowledge already. What people were concerned about is the fact that he was being impolite about his homophobia.”

Seckinger says there’s no doubt that the Conservative Party panders to homophobic voting bases. But when the media lend coverage to, say, Harper’s new homophobic speechwriter or to the blatantly homophobic remarks of an individual politician, the pressing health and safety concerns of the queer community get ignored.

And the general homophobic discourse in government, which cuts across party lines, sneaks under the radar.“A question to ask yourself is, ‘how often do queer specific concerns get put forward in the form of bills?’” says Seckinger. “The mental health problems for the GLBT community are epidemic in Canada. Why is that not being dealt with?
---------------------------------------

And let's not forget Stockwell Day: Press reports revealed recently that Mr. Day, who is the Conservative Party’s foreign affairs critic, refused to send condolences to the Palestinian people on the death of President Yassir Arafat. Why? Because of Mr. Arafat’s support for armed struggle against Israel? No. Because he might have died of AIDS. In a November 16 email to his Conservative colleagues Mr. Day stated: "Some of you have asked why I have not released a statement of condolence or sympathy. As you know, there are two sides to the Arafat story. You pick...." He then included in the email an article by David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush, indulging in unfounded speculation about the cause of Arafat’s death. Frum suggested that Arafat’s symptoms “sounded AIDS-like.” (BTW: David Frum is a Harper insider and former speech writer of George W. Bush. He was the one who coined the term 'Axis of Evil')

Or Jason Kenney recently appointing an anti-gay activist to the Refugee Board, who will determine which of those claiming refugee status on the grounds of sexual orientation, will be given safe haven.

Or Pierre Poilievre and his shot about sex changes, declaring that the federal government should hold back any health fund transfers used for this purpose, ignoring health concerns.

And we know how many of them are anti-abortion. Will a woman's right to choose be abolished, as suggested by Dean Del Mastro?

Harper is certainly getting his ducks in a row.

Remember When Canada Was a Democracy? Ah, the Good Old Days

I was taking a little trip down memory lane today, remembering when Canada was a democracy. Ah, the good old days. Was it really a week ago? Time sure flies.

Prince Edward Island misses democracy. Prorogation means that motions to push the government to assist their hog and beef industry have been destroyed.

Oh well. It's all about Steve now.

The Guardian
Prince Edward Island
January 2, 2010

Once again, Parliament is prorogued It seems like a waste of time, effort and money to see committees folded, bills die and debate muted.

Only in Canada could the direction of the federal government be so closely linked to the success or failure of our sports teams, or specifically in this case, hockey.

It had been speculated for months in some circles that Prime Minister Stephen Harper would prorogue Parliament during the Christmas recess, wait until the Vancouver Olympics end, and ride the successes of our top athletes into an aggressive throne speech and tough budget in March. Then he would hope for defeat in the Commons on a key budget measure, and go to the polls to achieve his cherished dream of a majority government.

What the prime minister did Wednesday, then, was not likely a surprise to those who subscribed to this speculation.

But was there a specific reason behind the timing of the prorogation decision? The roster of Canada's men's Olympic hockey team was being released at noon local time Wednesday in Ottawa. The prime minister did not make the prorogation announcement in person, nor did he meet face-to-face with the Governor General to ask for a formal prorogation.

Rather, he made that request over the telephone and released it through a press release.

While the hockey-mad nation's attention was fixed on who would make the select 23-man roster, Mr. Harper's prorogation decree flew under the radar screen.

There is a lot of pressure on our Olympic athletes to bring home a record medal haul. Anything less than gold in some key sports like hockey, curling and skiing would be unacceptable. The miserable seventh place finish for the men's hockey team in Turin four years ago left the nation reeling.

Probably no one will be more interested than Stephen Harper in the successes or failures of our athletes in Vancouver. Is he banking on a national euphoria following the Olympics as a key plank in his re-election campaign?

Is Mr. Harper counting on general public apathy in Canada towards terrorism suspects being mistreated in Afghanistan, the lack of success at the Copenhagen climate summit, or the record federal deficit?

Did the prime minister really have to prorogue Parliament? It does seem like a waste of time, effort and money to see committees folded, bills die and debate muted.

Why should Islanders care? Prorogation means that all the work of the parliamentary committees is lost and in the case of the Agriculture committee, motions to push the government to assist the hog and beef industry have been destroyed.

A year ago, a chastened prime minister prorogued Parliament to avoid meeting an Opposition coalition which was about to seize power. This year's prorogation, however, is puzzling because his government doesn't appear as vulnerable to defeat.

Nova Scotia is Concerned With the Death of Democracy in Canada

Right across the country Canadians are expressing concern with the death of democracy in Canada. Mass rallies are planned and a Facebook group; Canadians Against Proroguing of Parliament is growing in number.

When I joined there were a mere 500 members, now there are almost 10,000.

Monster Harper declared his dictatorship so that he wouldn't have to face charges of possible complicity in war crimes. But they won't go away. We can't let them.

He may have destroyed our international reputation, but he's not going to destroy our honour.

Harper should respect Parliament: Brison
December 31, 2009
CBC News

Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia aren't buying the Conservative government's line that suspending Parliament was needed to give the Tories time to consult with Canadians about their economic plan, says Kings Hants MP Scott Brison.

"[Prime Minister] Stephen Harper is not interested in consulting with Canadians," Brison said Thursday. "If he was really interested in the views of Canadians, he would respect the Parliament that Canadians elected last time."

On Wednesday, the Conservatives shut down Parliament for two months, until after the Vancouver Winter Olympics.

Harper's spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, said the government sought the suspension to consult with Canadians, stakeholders and businesses as it moves into the "next phase" of its economic action plan amid signs of economic recovery.

"This is quite routine but it is also important to give Canadians an overview of where we will be taking the country over the next little while," Soudas told CBC News from Ottawa.

But Brison said the prime minister is simply trying to avoid having to answer his critics in question period and in parliamentary committees.

"Stephen Harper is operating more like a dictator than a democratically elected prime minister," Brison said. "This is an abomination of Parliament and of democracy. This is a prime minister who doesn't like Parliament, does not respect the democratic institutions that govern our country."

Brison not alone

Fellow Grit MP Geoff Regan says Harper simply wants to stifle criticism.

“The means by which the public exercise their control is through the House of Commons sitting and challenging the government,” said the Halifax West MP. “That's what question period, committees and other work of the House of Commons is all about.”

Regan says the governing Conservatives will face a backlash for ending the work of Parliament early for the second time in just a year.

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer doesn’t accept the argument that the government needs a break to consult Canadians. He said the Conservatives get plenty of feedback when the Commons is in session.

“There are 308 members of Parliament representing 33 million Canadians,” said the MP for Sackville–Eastern Shore. “That’s what our job is — to take opinions from Canadians and go back to the House of Commons and tell the government what we have been hearing.”

Parliament is to resume March 3 with a speech from the throne.

Proroguing Parliament also means shutting down government committees, such as the one examining the controversy over the treatment of detainees transferred to Afghan custody by the Canadian military.

Harper Announces Cuts to the Military to Help Pay for His Lavish Lifestyle

I suspect now that Harper is pretending to care about the economy, while putting his neo-conservative agenda into overdrive; we will be treated to these little tidbits over the next two months.

Starting out with cuts to military spending. What a farce. Only to the forces, and no reduction in money being wasted in Afghanistan.

He has already claimed that the war there has been lost, so why are we putting in time?

Bring our soldiers home today. We have sacrificed too many and should not risk any more.

And preaching restraint, the way these guys waste our money? Now that's rich.

Canadian armed forces to cut $182 million
United Press International
December 28, 2009

OTTAWA, Dec. 28 (UPI) -- Canadian armed forces are planning cuts of $182 million to meet a strategy set by the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, military officials say.

The Defense Department said the Canadian Navy will reduce the amount of training offered to reservists and will cut back on maintenance, while the air force will reduce its flying time and hold off on non-essential repairs, The Ottawa Citizen reported Monday.

The newspaper said the army has already said it will reduce some training and limit the number of reservists who are employed full time.

The cuts are coming as the Conservative Party government has signaled public services will face cuts in a bid to reduce the $53 billion federal deficit. The air force will be forced to cut $56 million from its budget while the navy is looking at $50 million in cuts and the army must find $76 million in reductions, the Citizen said.

Report: Canadian military spread too thin
United Press International

OTTAWA, Aug. 25 (UPI) -- Canada's military forces are spread too thin to maintain current operations and also staff the upcoming Winter Olympics, the Toronto Star reported Tuesday.

Defense Department documents seen by the Star's Ottawa bureau indicate Canada's NATO role in Afghanistan could be outsourced and peacekeeping missions in 14 other international operations could be scaled back or terminated.

Military planners expressed concern about the strain of providing 4,000 soldiers for security at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver in February and a similar number for the Group of Eight summit of world leaders north of Toronto in July.

"We ... are now at the point where some requests that would seem to be minor ... are, in reality, difficult to source initially and impossible to sustain over the 2010 timeframe," a memorandum to chief of defense staff Gen. Walter Natynczyk said.

The documents said by next year, 32,000 troops, or half of the country's military, would be involved in the Afghanistan mission, the Olympics or the G8 summit.

Aside from the Afghan combat duties in Kandahar, Canadian troops have been running a military college for Afghan army officers, which may have to be outsourced to civilian contractors or retired soldiers, the Star said

News of Canada's end of Democracy Gone International

I read this piece in the New York Times and thought I'd share it.

They knew exactly what was going on. You'll notice many of the articles linked as related stories deal with Richard Colvin, Harper, and potential war crimes.

The U.S. experienced the same dictatorship under George Bush. Now they are laughing at us.

They refer to Herr Harper as Premier, but I suppose the office formerly know as the PMO has yet to give direction as to what we should call him now. I have no idea. Canada's never been a dictatorship before.

I'm just going to call him 'monster' until we are instructed otherwise.

The article also refers to Libby Davies as the leader of the NDP. Jack Layton is going to love that.

Canada's premier shuts down Parliament again
For the second time in just over a year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper temporarily shut down Parliament on Wednesday, evoking accusations...
By IAN AUSTEN
The New York Times

OTTAWA — For the second time in just over a year, Prime Minister Stephen Harper temporarily shut down Parliament on Wednesday, evoking accusations from opposition politicians that he was abusing parliamentary tradition for political gain.

Normally, governments take such a step only after several years in power, often as a prelude to an election. The shutdown killed all legislation in progress, including bills championed by Harper's Conservative government.

It also shut down all parliamentary committees, including one raising embarrassing questions about policies on Afghans detained by Canadian troops. Human-rights groups and a Canadian diplomat say the detainees were abused after being handed over to the Afghan government. Harper's government denies that.

In a statement, Harper suggested that he shut down Parliament to introduce a new economic plan in the spring.

The change means Parliament will return from its break March 3 rather than Jan. 25.

Ralph Goodale, the Liberals' House leader, called the move "a shocking insult to democracy." Libby Davies, leader for the New Democratic Party, called it a "political scam."

Diplomat: Canada handed over Afghans for torture From Seattle Times Nation & World
Canadian ex-official: Afghan prison claims known From Seattle Times Nation & World
Canada faces allegations of torture complicity From Seattle Times Nation & World

And more International News

Uproar over Canadian parliament shutdown
Dec. 31, 2009

OTTAWA, Dec. 31 (UPI) -- Canadian opposition parties ended 2009 with anger Thursday at Prime Minister Stephen Harper's decision to suspend Parliament until March.

A day earlier, Harper spoke with Governor General Michaelle Jean by phone and received royal assent to prorogue, or suspend Parliament, to allow time to further prepare the country's economic recovery plan, the Canwest News Service reported.

He made no public appearance, issuing a short statement saying the House of Commons would sit again March 3.

Opposition leaders blasted Harper and accused his minority Conservative government of trying to mothball an inquiry into allegations Canadian troops in Afghanistan turned over prisoners to Afghan authorities knowing the captives would be tortured.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff issued a statement condemning the move.

"Harper is showing that his first impulse when he is in trouble is to shut down Parliament," Ignatieff said.

New Democratic Party leader Jack Layton told the Toronto Star he was angry. "This kind of thing can't happen in the United States or most other parliaments -- it's the kind of thing you hear of in dictatorships," Layton said. "It's a slap in the face and it's a denial of the democratic process."

My New Years Resolution for my Blog: I'm Going Techno

Well, that's the plan anyway.

I bought myself a video camera and got Photoshop 8 for Christmas. I've also ordered a copy of YouTube for Dummies.

You'll notice my blog will look a little jumbled for awhile, but it's because I'm trying to sort all of my archived posts.

Once that's done, I'll reduce my sidebar, with single titles that will link to subtitles, and so on.

I want to sort them by topic, so that I can create videos, and on-line ten percenter style flyers.

I'm a gal on a mission ... just try and stop me.

I may even start to Twitter. I just have to figure out what the heck that is.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Good News, Bad News, and Worse News on the Economy

Recent economic forecasts are a little unsettling.

If we had a fiscally conservative government, I might feel a little more comfortable with their handling of the recent economic crisis.

But we don't.

They are Neo-Conservatives and that's a whole different ballgame. In fact, our massive deficit and enormous debt is a good thing to them. There's no way in hell they're going to do anything to reverse that.

So instead of making decisions that will strengthen our economy and create jobs, the current situation will simply be exploited to further their agenda of dismantling the country.

As disciples of Leo Strauss, the lower class can fend for themselves. They believe that if you're poor you are genetically predestined to be, or just lazy. Don't expect any help from neo-Cons. You're the enemy, and they'll just crush you with their heel.

I don't know if many of our country's top economists realize the difference. I'm sure they do but are reluctant to say so.

Eugene Lang, a former senior economist at Finance Canada, and Philip DeMont, an economist, veteran financial journalist and former Ontario government adviser, are co-authors of the book Turning Point: Moving Beyond Neoconservatism; and they know the difference.

In a piece written for the Toronto Star, entitled Big-spender Harper true to his neoconservative roots, they outlined clearly the Harper/Flaherty agenda.

The Harper government has ... remained very true to its ideology. But that ideology is not "conservative." Rather, it is "neoconservative," and this makes a big difference on the question of deficits and fiscal policy. For neoconservatives – the denomination that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s – balanced budgets are not a first-order priority. The overriding objective is to cut taxes; balancing the books comes a distant second or even third on the to-do list. Most neoconservative governments have never gotten around to balancing the budget."

And:

" If we view the Harper government through a neoconservative lens – where tax-cutting and reducing government fiscal capacity are the paramount objectives – then the Harperites are operating in a manner entirely consistent with neoconservative economic philosophy, not to mention the track records of their forerunners in other jurisdictions.

So don't be fooled. There is nothing "liberal" about the Harper government's fiscal and economic policy. They remain true to their ideological roots, and can walk proudly in the footsteps of trailblazers like Ronald Reagan."

Remember when the economic crisis first hit? Harper downplayed it, then dismissed it. Flaherty's first budget, post crisis; had nothing in it to fight the recession, but instead was just partisan homicide. It backfired and they shut down Parliament rather than deal with it. Fortunately the Bank of Canada dropped interest rates to help with the crisis, while Jim Flaherty went skiing.

Now on to Plan B: Spend, spend, spend. See how big they can get the deficit, then drop the hatchet.

This way, they can justify their original plans to cut social programs, and have a little fun doing it. And of course, use up as many taxpayer dollars as possible for Reform-Conservative advertising. This was like Christmas come early.

It's now a year later, and the Reformers continue to exploit the economic crisis, even suggesting that's why they closed down Parliament so they can focus on stage 2. I better not see any of them hanging out at the Olympics when they're supposed to be doing their homework.

Some notes on the newest predictions.

Recession is over, but the future is still grim: experts

The great recession of the decade is behind us now, according to top Canadian economists. But Canadians are being warned there's little relief ahead. A report put out by TD Economics on Dec. 17 predicts the world economy will expand by about 4 per cent by the end of 2010 ....

Google This Trolls of Dean Del Mastro

When I read recently that Reformer MP Dean Del Mastro's staff google his name every day, looking for new posts on 'their boss', I thought I'd have a little fun.

I might actually start typing 'Dean Del Mastro' on every page and link it to a big 'BOO!' sign. It'll freak them out.

Mind you now that Del Mastro's 'boss' has given him a two month vacation, I'm sure his staff will be laid off until he has to go back to work, right? Ha ha ha ha. Yeah, right.

I came across an article that made me think of Dino, about an attempt by a Texas Senator to help end abortion ... or slow it down ... I don't know ... the guy's nuts.

Senator Dan Patrick is the perfect little Promise Keeper though.

Rolling Stone journalist, Matt Taibbi went undercover at Pastor John Hagee's ministry and discussed this new phenomenon.

"The grown macho man unashamedly breaking into boyish tears in public is one of the weirder features of the post-Promise Keeper Christian generation, and [Philip] Fortenberry -- himself a Promise Keeper, incidentally -- had it down to a science ... there is something very odd about modern Christian men -- although fiercely pro-military in their politics and prehistorically macho in their attitudes toward women's roles, on the level of day-to-day behavior they seem constantly ready to break out weeping like menopausal housewives... "

And of course at the top of the agenda for their 'macho attitudes toward women's roles', is their desire to end a woman's right to choose. They call themselves pro-lifers, but their pro-military attitudes suggest otherwise. They are just anti-abortion.

I can envision Dino's eyes lighting up as we speak. And poor little Cheryl Gallant is trying to get Dan Patrick on the line, but can't find the number for 'Idiots are Us'.

Dan Patrick and the Abortion Issue:

Just as you hear Del Mastro above, vow to continue fighting, so too does Dan Patrick, a 'macho' sportscaster and Senator from Texas. But rather than just spouting rhetoric, this clever senator has a plan. He wants women to sell him their babies. OK, not him personally, but the state of Texas.

Apparently, he drafted a proposal suggesting that Texas buy the babies from women who would have otherwise chosen to abort; for $ 500.00 a pop. Just when you thought you'd heard it all from these Religious Right Kooks, they always manage to come up with something dumber.

Of course, now that Harper is the official dictator of Canada, he won't have to buy them. He'll just close up the abortion clinics, and shackle all pregnant women, until the big day; then send them back to the kitchen where they belong.

Chris Kelly, blogger for the Huffington Post says it well:

Make Big $$$ By Selling Texas Your Baby
Huffington Post
Chris Kelly

Texas state senator Dan Patrick has a bold new plan to reduce abortions. It involves legalizing the slave trade, and putting it in the hands of big government, but hear him out.

Here's how it works: If you're a U.S. citizen, Texas resident, pregnant, and you want an abortion -- and you can prove you really want it -- you may be entitled to $500. All you have to do is carry the fetus to term and sell it to the state.

It's kind of like those ads where Art Linkletter says you can get a tax break for donating your car. Which raises an interesting question: Isn't he dead?

Anyway, five hundred dollars is (almost by definition) five hundred dollars. Which seems like pretty good money, compared to my shifts at Waffle House, and I'd make and sell fetuses to the State of Texas in a second... but there seems to be a lot of paperwork involved.

And what about my older kids? What'll Dan give me for them?

Dan Patrick (nee Dannie S. Goeb) is the author of S.B. 1567, a bill that was referred to the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee on Wednesday. It calls for the health department to "develop a program to encourage pregnant women to place their children for adoption rather than have an abortion... The program must include a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion."

And who could object to that? Sure, it sounds like social engineering. But at least there's money involved, so it's also creepy as shit. And the stuff about proving you're not Mexican gives it a nice nativist edge, too. Here's the problem: How do you make sure the pregnant woman you're screwing with isn't just in it for the money? Goeb is way ahead of you:

Sec. 50.002. APPLICATION FORM.

(b) The department may only distribute the application forms to abortion providers.

The only people who can get the money to have a baby are those who've proven -- by going to an abortion clinic -- that they don't want a baby. If you don't want to have a baby, you can get $500 to have a baby, but only if you don't want it. That's some catch, that Catch 22.

Another way to think about it is like the popular game show Deal or No Deal. Only with human lives.

Of course that's not what this is really about. The $500 offer is just more paperwork to make terminating a pregnancy as unpleasant as humanly possible. Because otherwise it would be such a lark. Texas law already says the doctor has to tell his patient: The risks of infection, hemorrhage and future infertility, the risk of breast cancer; that counseling is available, that adoption services are available, and that the father can be legally compelled to pay child support.

Time he'd otherwise just waste asking about her symptoms.

He also has to tell her that Jesus sees everything and cries easily.

Yes, it sounds sort of onerous, but it's not as if privacy is a really important right. It's not like she's buying a gun. (I think the breast cancer link has been pretty thoroughly debunked, too, but what the hell. It's Senator Goeb, not Doctor Goeb.)

(Although he did run for office warning that illegal aliens spread "tuberculosis, malaria, polio and leprosy.") (Malaria can only be spread of mosquitoes. So not only do we need to build a wall; we could also use some screen windows.)

There will be some unintended consequences if the bill passes. There are about 77,000 abortions in Texas every year, and at $500 a pop, they'll run the taxpayers $40 million dollars to buy off. (A small price to pay, when you're doing the lord's work, by creating unwanted children.) Also, passing the law will require vacating another Texas law, the one about not buying and selling people. And, I guess, the emancipation proclamation. But that may turn out to have its upside and downside. That's for history to judge.

Now, Dannie Goeb is obviously just a hateful street corner crank, and he'll get his in hell, but if the law passes, there's a way it can actually help people: If you want to have a baby, move to Texas. Pretend you want to abort it, get $500, put it up for adoption, and then adopt it back.

More Postings on Dean Del Mastro:

1. The Dean Del Mastro Story: Tax Payer Abuse, Corruption & Scandal

2. Dean Del Mastro Might Want to Change the Record

If Obama Can Exorcise Bush's Evils We Need to Exorcise Those of Kenney and Van loan

In June of 2009, I posted a story on Peter Van Loan and Jason Kenney, who had teamed up to create our own home-grown Gestapo, in dealing with immigrants and migrant workers.

Gerald Keddy recently suggested that migrant workers were necessary because Canada's unemployed were "no good bastards"; and this tyrannical twosome are making sure these migrant workers behave or else.

To top off this (Jason Kenney's) vicious policy shift, immigration enforcement teams (Canada Border Services) carried out the largest workplace raids in Canadian history in Southern Ontario on April 2-3, 2009.

... A worker who dropped out of status when she left the employment of a sexually abusive boss was arrested in the raids. Though she is part of a pending criminal investigation against her employer, the fact that she was working outside the terms of her employer-dependent visa means she was scheduled for deportation on 19th April which was only stopped by community and labour mobilization.

In an illegal move, 41 of the nearly 100 arrested were tricked into signing waivers that removed their right to a PRRA hearing and a chance at protection from deportation, ... These workplace raids target temporary foreign workers who have now become the new majority in the Canadian immigration system ... Just as they want other workers to accept concessions around job security, this government wants to force people looking to come to Canada for precarious employment to work under the slave-wage temporary worker programs.”

Pierre Poilievre may have turned to U.S. Republican Jim Sensenbrenner to learn how to pretend to have an accountability act; and Stephen Harper may have turned to Republican James Inhofe to learn how to make a fool of himself with climate change denial; and Jason Kenney may have learned how to wrongly accuse the opposition of being anti-Semitic from Joe Lieberman; but this kind of sadism, is pure George Bush.

Fortunately, President Obama has called in a political exorcist and this was one of the first evils eradicated south of the border. I'm going to call him up and get the name of his exorcist.

Obama Quietly Changes U.S. Immigration Policy
The New American Media
by Edward Alden
December 30, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO - The Obama administration quietly announced last week that it would overturn one of the harsh immigration enforcement measures enacted by the Bush administration following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Beginning next month, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said, those who arrive in the United States fleeing torture or persecution abroad will no longer automatically be welcomed with handcuffs and months in a jail cell. Instead, many of those seeking protection will again be permitted to live freely in the country while their applications for permanent asylum are considered by an immigration judge.

The measure is the latest in a string of little-noticed initiatives by the Obama DHS to reconsider some of the most controversial enforcement policies of the past decade. The administration in August launched an overhaul of the immigration detention system, which had grown out of control as the number of detainees doubled in just five years to more than 440,000 annually. Some of those were simply lost in the system, while others fell ill and died due to poor medical care, and the administration has pledged to stop such abuses. That same month, it moved families out of the notorious T. Don Hutto immigrant detention facility in Texas, which had become a national disgrace after revelations that pregnant women and small children were being held there in prison-like conditions.

The administration has also largely halted workplace raids that resulted in jailing, deportation and even criminal charges for many unauthorized workers, and is focused instead on in-depth audits of companies suspected of hiring those workers. And DHS has curbed the authority of state and local police forces to demand immigration documents from anyone stopped for minor offenses like traffic violations, saying that such checks should be done only for those jailed on criminal charges, particularly for serious criminal offenses. To drive home the point, DHS in October stripped the notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona of federal authority to make immigration-related arrests.

The administration is walking a narrow line. The White House believes it must hold tough on enforcement if there is any hope of assembling a political coalition in Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform next year. Janet Napolitano, the DHS secretary, says the administration has done what Congress sought on everything from the U.S.-Mexico border fence to the E-Verify system for authorizing workers, and that the time has come to enact other elements of reform, including a legalization program for many unauthorized immigrants. If Congress does not believe her claims on enforcement, the rest of the package will likely be dead on arrival.

But at the same time, the administration wants to demonstrate that it's possible to be tough without being unfair and inhumane. The treatment of asylum claimants is just one example of where the United States had gone awry. Under guidelines enacted in 1997, once an arriving individual had shown immigration officials a "credible fear" of persecution or torture back home, he could be "paroled" into the country to await a judge's decision on his application to remain, which could take many months.

But after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began to clamp down, arguing that those released might simply disappear, remaining as illegal immigrants and perhaps even posing a terrorist threat. According to a recent study by Human Rights First, about 40 per cent of those asylum seekers were still being paroled in 2004; by 2007 that number had dropped to just four per cent. Senator Patrick Leahy, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, called that figure "an affront to our ideals as a nation that aspires to be a beacon of light to persecuted refugees."

The Obama administration's new policy, which will end such routine incarceration, had been urged by everyone from the bipartisan United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. And there is no reason to believe that the risks will rise significantly. There is considerable evidence, for instance, that alternative programs to monitor those released will ensure that they comply with whatever ruling a judge finally reaches.

Other initiatives show this more nuanced approach as well. The workplace raids, which were intended to send a warning to companies that hired unauthorized workers, mostly just hurt the workers themselves. Last year, only 13 companies were prosecuted for hiring undocumented workers. Now, the Obama administration is instead focusing on expanded audits of the paper trail that companies must keep on their workforce.

Arrests and deportations of workers are down, but hefty fines against the companies are up, providing strong incentives for them to maintain a legal workforce. This is hardly a benign approach - ask the families of the 1,800 immigrant workers who were fired from American Apparel in Los Angeles following an audit - but it marks a departure from the Bush policy of summarily jailing and deporting any unauthorized workers arrested in the raids.

The recent initiatives are only first steps, and the administration is still facing criticism from its own liberal allies that it is simply continuing the Bush administration's enforcement policies. Indeed, by any of the hard measures - detentions, criminal prosecutions, deportations, the number of Border Patrol agents - there has been no softening of the toughest immigration enforcement campaign in recent U.S. history. Still, the changes in the last year are significant, even if they are as yet little recognized. Indeed, the Obama administration itself has not made much effort to advertise the new measures. With the tough fight looming ahead next year on comprehensive immigration reform, it is easy to understand why.

Now That Canada is Officially a Dictatorship, Will we Get Uniforms?

I've never lived under a dictatorship before so I'm not sure what happens next. Will we get uniforms? Will there be a curfew? Will they paint a big blue 'C' on our foreheads to identify the malcontents?

I just have so much to learn.

I don't even know how we are to address the dictator. Do we call him 'Herr Harper', 'Your Majesty'? 'Your Holiness'? 'You scum sucking dirt bag dictator monster rights denying SOB' ... oops ... did I say that out loud?

Andrew Coyne leaves us with no doubt about what just happened in this country.

What’s at stake
by Andrew Coyne
MacLeans
December 31, 2009

Just to reassure anyone who might be in any doubt: I am not actually calling for civil war. What the government has done is not illegal. It is merely wrong: an abuse of process, an insult to Parliament, another step on Parliament’s long slide into irrelevance. Those of us who worried about the precedent set by the last prorogation of convenience, during the coalition crisis a year ago, must now worry about the even worse precedent this sets.

Prorogation the last time sailed close to the wind of unconstitutionality — the government had not actually lost the confidence of the House (as it had in May 2005, when Paul Martin’s government barricaded itself in office for nine days), but was almost certainly about to — but could be justified, perhaps, by reasons of state: namely, to avert the far more destabilizing consequences if the coalition, Bloc and all, had been allowed to seize power. I rather think that’s why the Governor General acceded to it, as the least bad option. I said at the time that she gave the right answer to a question that should never have been asked ....

I've Been Practicing my Goose-Step But I Keep Kicking Things.

I hope Herr Harper will be patient with me. This is not as easy as it looks.

My first march across the living room, I kicked my dog in the head. While he was yelping, I did an about face and nearly kicked over the Christmas tree.

Undaunted, I continued goose stepping while doing a Nazi salute. Don't try this at home.

But as soon as I'm out of traction, I promise I'll get back to it. (Do you think he's watching?)

Heather Malick weighed in and gave her impression of our new dictatorship, for the UK Guardian.

Shafting democracy in Canada
The prime minister's suspension of parliament has created angry voiceless citizens whose votes have become meaningless
Heather Malick
January 1, 2010

If there was a gold medal for shafting democracy at the Winter Olympics, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper would win it. Just before the games open in Vancouver, he has halted parliament in its tracks, suspending it for the second time in little more than a year.

Canada will not have a House of Commons until March 3. Instantly, we are a part-time democracy, a shabby diminished place packed with angry voiceless citizens whose votes have been rendered meaningless. Harper didn't even visit the governor-general of Canada for the formality of asking permission as he did last Christmas. Instead, he phoned her and got his PR man to send out an announcement to the nation ....

Elizabeth May Weighs in on Harper's Dictatorship

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, weighed in on Harper once again abusing his power to avoid allegations of criminal activity.

This time it was war crimes, that risk being heard at an international court, if he doesn't smarten up.

Cynicism and Calculation
December 31, 2009

The Prime Minister's latest move, to pick up the phone and ask the Governor General to shut down parliament until early March, proves once again his extreme cynicism and mastery in political calculation.

As commentators, from Jeffery Simpson, to John Ibbitson, to Andrew Coyne have pointed out, there is no excuse for this affront to democracy. But as Ibbitson noted, Harper is probably right in guessing that in the week between Christmas and New Year, on New Year's Eve, not enough people will be outraged.

As Kady O'Malley pointed out, you cannot even dream up the talking points for this one.

Parliament gets in the way of Olympic games? Athletes will find Question Period an artificial performance enhancer?

There is no precedent for this. Amazingly other nations have managed to have government continue during the Olympics.

PMO flak Dimitri Soudas, last seen in Copenhagen haranguing and wrongly accusing Stephen Guilbault of a prank that embarrassed Canada, announced that prorogation was necessary as the government's economic approach required "recalibration."

"Recalibration"-- there's a word to conjure. Obviously having Parliament in session would exude vibrations interfering with the total stillness required for recalibration. As Coyne said, this is "bilge."What now? We need to expect the unexpected.

We need to kick and scream at this insult to democracy -- because that is what it is.

We need to support each other, efforts by other parties, non-political leadership. Wherever a clear and compelling call for democracy emerges, that voice must be supported.

When I wrote my last book ("Losing Confidence- Power, politics and the crisis in Canadian democracy") I thought we had seen the most outrageous abuse of our system of government.

But this is worse.

Harper's move this week is premised on the assumption that enough Canadians simply do not care about democracy or the role of Parliament. It presumes that Parliament can be shuttered for trivial political reasons; that legislation, committees, government accountability, a climate plan, progress on pensions, the investigation of the alleged cover-up in the treatment of Afghan civilians and other detainees --- that none of that matters enough to have consequences for Mr. Harper.

In the interests of democracy, let's hope this time his cynicism has miscalculated.

And an editorial in the Globe and Mail was right on the Mark

Globe Editorial
Democracy diminished, accountability avoided
The Canadian Press
Globe and Mail
December 30, 2009

For the second consecutive December, Stephen Harper is putting Parliament on ice. In the act, the Prime Minister is turning prorogation, a sometimes sensible parliamentary procedure, into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians.

Proroguing stops committee work and makes all legislation pending before Parliament vanish.

Historically, it has been used when a government has implemented most of its agenda. Until Mr. Harper's innovation, it was not an annual occurrence; the last minority government to use it more than once was Lester B. Pearson's Liberal administration in the 1960s.

Today, the Conservative agenda remains unfulfilled. More than half of all government bills – 37 of 64 – introduced since January, 2009, have yet to be passed into law. Eleven of these are justice bills, dealing with such weighty matters as elimination of the faint-hope clause (which still needs to be taken up by the Senate) and tougher sentencing for white-collar criminals and drug traffickers.

These can be re-introduced when the new Parliament resumes in March, but they will need to go through the legislative process anew. In any case, Mr. Harper's decision means Parliament will lose more than 20 days: time that could have been used debating, amending and passing these bills.

There is a tactical political advantage to prorogation. The government temporarily eludes an issue of national importance that is particularly inconvenient: its knowledge of torture of Afghan detainees. Government members have already acted as truants when Afghanistan committee hearings are called. The government failed to provide documents to committee members, and implied it will disregard a parliamentary order to produce those documents.

Prorogation is the logical extension of such thinking: shut down parliamentary debate entirely.

Prorogation would also allow the government a freer hand in the Senate: five vacancies need to be filled, and committees can be reconstituted after prorogation, giving Conservatives a “governing majority.”

Political calculation is clearly behind the decision to prorogue. The Conservatives are hoping to bask in the glow of Olympic glory while dodging the mess and scrutiny of lawmaking, Question Period and an outstanding, unprecedented order from Parliament to provide transparency and truth on the detainee file. Then, they hope to return in March, stronger in the Senate and ready to reclaim, they hope, the public agenda.

Canada's democracy should not be conducted solely on the basis of convenience for the governing party. If the debate over detainees cannot be carried out in Parliament, then it should continue among Canadians at large. On this and other important issues, the government cannot delay accountability forever.

Irwin Cotler Working Diligently to Induce Trade Sanctions on Iran

With Jason Kenney gone completely off the deep end, and Herr Harper in hiding; it's nice to know that someone is being responsible with the threat from Iran.

Things are very volatile in the Middle East right now. The Iraq war has made that country unstable, and many resources are tied up in Afghanistan.

We also have to be very careful not to give Charles Mcvety or John Hagee any kind of power. Those fruitcakes just want war at any cost.

But Irwin Cotler, is working to find a peaceful solution, and while no one can rule out war, all other measures must be looked at first; starting with trade sanctions.

Unfortunately, with Parliament closed down, the motion he's working on won't see the light of the day until March, unless someone can restore democracy to Canada. But at least Mr. Cotler is doing his job.

Cotler heads drive to stop Iran threat
By DAN IZENBERG
December 31, 2009

Canadian human rights activist and former justice minister and attorney-general Irwin Cotler revealed at a Jerusalem press conference on Wednesday a petition he is spearheading that calls on governments and the UN to take immediate and massive diplomatic and economic action against Iran. Cotler accused the Iranian government of violating international law regarding nuclear weapons development, incitement to genocide, state-sponsored terrorism and human rights.

Other speakers at the press conference included Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, who spoke from the US, British MP Denis MacShane, who spoke from London, Bassam Eid, executive director of the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group and Prof. Suzanne Stone of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. All have signed the petition, which includes documents and eyewitness testimony describing Teheran's violations in all four areas, according to Cotler. It also includes a "road map" of sanctions and remedies that the world should apply against the Iranian government to force it to cease its alleged violations of international law ... .

More Postings on Irwin Cotler:

1. Jason Kenney Says "It's So Noisy in Here I can Hardly See" But Irwin Cotler Wins

2. Irwin Cotler Deserves an Apology From the Reform Conservatives for Their Disgusting Behaviour

The War in Iraq Has Made Democracy There Less Attainable

We don't talk about the Iraq War much in this country anymore. In fact, we don't really talk about anything of importance.

The wonderful Helen Thomas, who covered every U.S. president since JFK, discusses her disappointment with the White House Press Gallery, and if you didn't know better, you'd think she was discussing our own non-existent press gallery, who seem more concerned with what MPs are wearing, than what the most secretive government Canada ever had, is doing in our name.

A few are coming out of their coma, but sadly not many, and I'm afraid our involvement in Afghanistan is going to create the same mess that we are now seeing in Iraq. Billions of dollars and so many lost lives for absolutely nothing.

Maxime Bernier stated that this war was about control of the drug trade. Others suggest it's for oil and military contracts. They're probably right on all counts, but it sure isn't about democracy, because we've just seen the end of democracy in this country. How can we hope to spread it anywhere else.

The only thing being spread these days is pure shite.

Journalist and author of “The Death of the Grown-up: How America’s Arrested Development Is Bringing Down Western Civilization”, Diana West, discusses the chaos that now rules the day in Iraq, and how much more difficult it is for Christians in that country, and indeed all citizens.

Victory? Really?
By: Diana West,
The Dickinson Press
December 29, 2009

There’s at least one more aspect to consider when appraising the past six years in Iraq climaxed by the “surge.” This would be the indirect effect of “reflected glory,” if such a quaint term applies, and has to do with the sort of state the U.S. helped create in Iraq.

I don’t know how to candy-coat reality: Post-surge Iraq is a state of increasing repression, endemic corruption, religious and ethnic persecution and encroaching Sharia. Recent media reports flag just some of these glaring truths that American elites, civilian and military, seem to shy away from.

In October, from AsiaNews, came the latest news of, to quote the headline, “Sharia Slowly Advancing in Najaf and Basra, for Non-Muslims Too.” Here, the Sharia (Islamic law) is invoked to ban alcohol sales and consumption by non-Muslims — namely, Christians, given the eradication and dispersal of Iraq’s ancient Jewish population — “on the grounds that Iraq’s constitution,” as Ahmad al Sulaiti, deputy governor of Najaf, notes, “bans everything that violates the principles of Islam.’’

In November, Reuters highlighted the government crackdown on the media via lawsuits against criticism, and laws enabling the government to close media outlets that “encourage terrorism, violence,” and — here’s a handy catch-all — “tensions.” There are new rules to license satellite trucks, censor books and control Internet cafes. “The measures evoke memories of ... the laws used to muzzle (journalism) under Saddam Hussein,” Reuters writes.

In December, the British paper The Observer reported that hundreds of Iraqi police and soldiers descended on Baghdad’s 300 nightclubs where they “slapped owners’ faces, scattered their patrons and dancing girls, ripped down posters advertising upcoming acts and ordered alcohol removed from the shelves.” The official reason? No licenses. But, the paper reports, “the reality is that a year-long renaissance in Baghdad’s nightlife may be over as this increasingly conservative city takes on a hard-line religious identity.” As one club owner said: “This is a political decision with a religious agenda. (Prime Minister Nouri al-) Maliki needs the votes of religious parties ... They (the government) supported us and gave us incentives to reopen the clubs, then when it suited them, they sold us and themselves out to the fundamentalists.”

There’s a lot of that “selling out to the fundamentalists” going around post-surge Iraq, where, it must be faced, one particularly shocking, unintended consequence of U.S. involvement has been the religious “cleansing” of Iraq’s ancient Christian populations. In 2003, 1 million Christians lived in Iraq. Six years later, after successive waves of violence and intimidation largely unchecked by either Iraqi government action or U.S. intercession, more than 500,000 Christians have fled the country. It is a crisis that inspired Christian leaders to assemble in Baghdad in December for a conference piteously titled: “Do Christians Have a Future in Iraq?”

This anti-Christian persecution is a large part of why the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended in December 2008 that the State Department name Iraq a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) — its dread Saddam-era designation. (Recommendation denied.) In May, to strengthen human rights in Iraq, the commission’s Iraq report included suggested amendments to Iraq’s constitution, which, not incidentally, boil down to abolishing the constitutional supremacy of Islamic law. (And yes, U.S. legal advisers helped write this same Sharia-supreme governing document.)

For example, the commission suggested deleting the line in Article 2 that says no law may contradict “the established provisions of Islam.” It suggested revising the “guarantee of ‘the Islamic identity of the majority’ to make certain that this identity is not used to justify violations” of human rights. It also suggested that “the free and informed consent of both parties (be) required to move a personal status case to the religious law system,” and “that religious court rulings (be) subject to final review under Iraq’s civil law.” Another suggestion was to remove “the ability of making appointments to the Federal Supreme Court based on training in Islamic jurisprudence alone.”

Good ideas — if religious freedom is the objective. But it is not the objective in Iraq, or in other Islamic countries. Which should make the United States, founded and defined by such freedom, look before nation-building, and ask: Do we really want Americans to “surge” and risk death to build nations such as this to stand as monuments to “victory?”