Will Harper's Red Scare Become the Pink Blush of Embarrassment?

"The development of mutually advantageous and constructive relations with Israel in the political, economic, humanitarian and other fields was and will remain the priority of Russia's foreign policy." -- President Vladimir Putin

Journalist Jered Feldschreiber wrote recently of the friendly relationship between Russia and Israel, despite the fact that Putin was selling arms to nations that were hostile toward The Jewish state.

In fact, Israel has maintained neutrality in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and was absent for the March 27, UN vote, that called on members not to recognize Russia's annexation of Crimea.

Cautious of the new Ukranian government, that includes members of the anti-Semitic Svoboda Party, Feldschreiber states:

Deep-seated anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe, particularly in Ukraine, has marred Jewish history. Neo-Nazi elements have seeped into contemporary Ukrainian politics, a notion largely ignored by Western media. The rise of the Svoboda Party, for instance, founded in 1991 as the Social-National Party of Ukraine, and seen as a populist proponent of nationalism and anti-communism, remains a dangerous presence.

Israel had more friends in the government of Viktor Yushchenko, whose Communications Director, Yevgeny Chervonenko, held an Israeli passport and was vice president of the All-Ukraine Jewish Congress. In 2004, in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Chervonenko warned of "anti-Semites" in the opposition coalition, and spoke of how he had accosted one of them, Vassily Chervoni, in a washroom in the Parliament building. "I put his head in the sink and told him, 'One more bad word about Israel and I'll really mess you up'".

Besides the fact that there are over one million Russians living in Israel, the mutual friendship goes beyond that.

In late June 2012, President Putin attended a special ceremony of the Victory Monument in the Israeli town of Netanya. The Victory Monument is a commemoration to the more than half a million Jews who fought for the Red Army in World War II. Netanyahu proposed the idea to President Putin, and it soon became a joint initiative between the two countries.

Despite his posturing with Russia, and often maniacal support of Israel, Stephen Harper cannot erase their shared history and mutual respect.

Now Putin is hoping to broker a peace settlement between Russia and Palestine. The cease fire proposal, rejected by HAMAS, gave no consideration to justifiable grievances. Will the Russian proposal work to satisfy both sides? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Netanyahu first has to rein in members of his own Party, like Moshe Feiglin, who is calling for nothing short of genocide.

"After the IDF completes the ‘softening’ of the targets with its firepower, the IDF will conquer the entire Gaza, using all the means necessary to minimize any harm to our soldiers, with no other considerations,” ... Following the reconquest, Israel’s army “will thoroughly eliminate all armed enemies from Gaza. The enemy population that is innocent of wrongdoing and separated itself from the armed terrorists will be treated in accordance with international law and will be allowed to leave... "

“Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever,” Feiglin concludes. “Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.”

When Canada's Independant Jewish Voices protested Feiglin's visit to Canada, Jason Kenney suggested that it would be an attack on free speech.

Canadian citizens should be afforded the same right to free speech, when we suggest that Israel needs to stop the senseless killing and horrific mistreatment of the Palestinians, without being branded as anti-Semites.

And the Canadian government should be seeking a peaceful solution to this conflict, if for no other reason than to not allow Russia the opportunity to challenge Harper's statement that they are a threat to world peace.

Benjamin Netanyahu is Just a Politician. Get Over It.

Headlines today reflect comments made by President Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, in a private conversation at the G-20.

Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "a liar", while Obama expressed frustration with having to deal with him and his supporters every day.

Many believe that there will not be peace in the Middle East until the West gets over its addiction to oil, but these two leaders, also feel that Israel is a stumbling block to peace.  They are right.

Stephen Harper will always choose Israel over Canada.  He has said as much.  But for him the alliance is political and partisan.  The careers of Harper and Netanyahu have been choreographed by the same people.

Top Republican pollster, John McLaughlin, takes credit for both in his bio.

However, the best connection is Arthur Finkelstein, former political guru of Richard Nixon.  Finkelstein spent 16 years at the National Citizens Coalition and taught Stephen Harper everything he knew about liberal bashing and playing loose with the truth.

He also worked directly with Netanyahu, making the "liar" comment absolutely believable.

He rode the campaign commercials of Finkelstein, one of the most sought-after Republican strategists, to victory in the 1996 election.  Finkelstein created the message that instilled fear in Israeli voters that Netanyahu's opponent, Shimon Peres, was soft on terrorism and would divide Jerusalem. Commercials with Peres and Yasser Arafat walking hand in hand followed by scenes from suicide bombings in Tel Aviv were credited with swaying the vote to Netanyahu.  And throughout his tenure as prime minister Netanyahu has relied on Finkelstein ... 

I realize that Israel has a holy purpose for many, but when it comes to foreign policy, they are a nation, like any other nation, except that they have nuclear weapons.  Lots of them.  I can understand Obama's frustration, though the conservatives will have a field day with this.

Funny thing though when Wikileaks revealed that U.S. diplomats thought that Stephen Harper was a blowhard and suggested that if his so-called Canada Action Plan didn't work, he had no idea what to do next, there was barely a murmur.  But attacks on the Israeli prime minister are akin to blasphemy.

He's just another politician created by Republican strategists, like our current leader.

Get over it.

Democracy Netanyahu Style

Licia Corbella tries to draw a comparison between protests at an Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address, and another in Saudi Arabia.

Two young women protesters — one in the United States the other in Saudi Arabia. One disrupts the most powerful people in the world during a joint session of Congress in the midst of a live televised speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the other disturbs no one, she simply drives her family in a car. One is merely ushered out of the gallery, the other is arrested and held in jail.

And yet both events serve to perfectly punctuate the truth behind Netanyahu’s eloquent 45-minute speech.

Corbella doesn't get out much, because while Netanyahu called the protest "real democracy", some people in Israel might like to see a bit of democracy themselves.

A demonstration against the settler takeover of East Jerusalem was held in the neighborhood of Ras al-Amud yesterday afternoon. The demonstration was organized by members of the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity group, an Israeli led nonviolent protest movement based in Jerusalem. Days before the demonstration, a new and illegal Jewish settlement was inaugurated in Ras al-Amud with name of Ma’ale HaZeitim.

Yesterday’s demonstration was a nonviolent exercise of the right to protest the illegal Israeli act of creating new settlements in occupied East Jerusalem. Israeli police reacted with excessive and violent force against the chanting Jewish protesters. For the first time, police used electronic stun guns against protesters who, locked arm in arm and sitting peacefully, refused to move from the entrance to the settlement.

And even if the Israeli PM missed the stun gun attacks, surely he saw what happened at the G-20 in Toronto, when Canadian citizens faced some of the worst human rights abuses this country has seen in a long time.

And maybe he might like to answer to why he thinks it's OK to kidnap children. Or beg our own PM to ignore the American president's call for peace.

There's a real double standard here when it comes to "democracy".

Jack Layton's First Big Test

With President Obama talking tough with Israel this week, Harper and his new international bully John Baird, made it clear that they would be standing with Israel.

No surprises there.

The gist of Obama's remarks were that the United States should only respect the original boundaries of Israel, laid out in 1967, as they move toward a two-state solution to peace. I think many Canadians would agree.


But the real test here is for Jack Layton. Does he, as a social democrat, support the Democrat president, or stand with Stephen Harper?

If he really wants to present a clear choice to neoconservatism, this is a perfect opportunity. Maybe he'll wait for poll results, or maybe he'll simply remain quiet, given tensions within his own party on the subject.

That was his first test on the issue and he failed.

Today, Tuesday June 15, is a day the NDP‘s Jack Layton will face a leadership test. He is poised to make a decision to punish one of his MPs and it could stain his leadership for a long time to come.

As reported yesterday in the Vancouver Sun and other Canwest papers the party is in a state of near hysteria over what should have been a minor flap ... In this case Vancouver East MP Libby Davies got bushwacked by a pro-Israel activist posing as a neutral -- if not pro-Palestinian -- blogger. After a rally for the Palestinians criticizing Israel's deadly assault on the aid flotilla, a man approached Libby asking for an interview. As she always does, because she never hides her views, she complied. He immediately set her up with what he called a "background question." He asked when the occupation began, 1948 or 1967.

Libby hesitated then said 1948. She made the point that the date was not important -- that whatever the date the occupation was the longest in the world -- and far too long.

The next day the interview appeared on YouTube. But in 24 hours it had gone nowhere -- just 28 views. Then the most vociferous supporter of Israel in the NDP caucus, Thomas Mulcair, got wind of it and it escalated out of control. He went on a relentless campaign to punish Libby. The spin he helped create was that if Libby believed the occupation began in 1948 then she, ipso facto, believes that Israel has no right to exist. Libby has always gone to great lengths to make it clear that she supports Israel's right to exist and the two-state solution endorsed by the NDP. But suddenly Jack Layton was in full-panic mode. He apologized to the Israeli ambassador. He hung Libby out to dry. He forced her to issue a public apology.

She had absolutely nothing to apologize for, and yet he made her apologize anyway.

As leader of the official opposition, however, he will be expected to say something. Does he risk division by challenging Mulcair or take a strong stand against Israeli Apartheid?

Blustering about the Liberals now, would only make him appear weak and indecisive.

He could just issue a statement awash in ambiguity, enough to keep the media at bay, but it would not be enough to separate himself from Stephen Harper.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Stephen Harper, Eric Cantor and High Treason

Treason is the crime of the betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor. High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's government.

When then prime minister Jean Chretien opted to keep Canada out of Iraq, Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day wrote a letter to the Americans which was published in several U.S. newspapers, including the Wall Street journal.

Make no mistake, as our allies work to end the reign of Saddam and the brutality and aggression that are the foundations of his regime, Canada's largest opposition party, the Canadian Alliance will not be neutral. In our hearts and minds, we will be with our allies and friends. And Canadians will be overwhelmingly with us. But we will not be with the Canadian government. Modern Canada was forged in large part by war -- not because it was easy but because it was right.

That was an act of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Because regardless of their personal feelings, as Members of Parliament they must support the wishes of the government and the country. Canadians did not want to be in that war as polls overwhelmingly confirmed.

Had they sent letters to Canadian papers, it would have been different, but they went to a foreign country to let them know that their party would stand with stand with them, and not with us. Stephen Harper took this even further when he appeared on Fox News to deliver the same message.

More recently, as leader of this country, Harper pledged his undying loyalty to Israel, again over the wishes of Canadians, including many Jewish Canadians, who prefer a more balanced approach to foreign affairs. There is also a movement to silence us from criticism against this foreign country. And when we were upset over the murder of aid workers by Israel, Harper hosted a visit by the Israeli prime minister, telling him he regretted that the "unpleasantness" delayed his arrival.

Now shocking news from the United States, reveals that soon-to-be House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, has told Binyamin Netanyahu, that he will stand with him against the American president.

Cantor huddled with Netanyahu just prior to the Prime Minister's meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton was expected to reaffirm the American commitment to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations and opposition to Israeli settlement expansion. Cantor wanted Netanyahu to know that he had his back.

That is high treason, criminal disloyalty to one's government. Because despite how Cantor may personally feel his job is to uphold his nation's sovereignty, not pledge allegiance to another.

How far are the Republicans prepared to go in support of this foreign country over their own? How far will Stephen Harper go to support them both?

I think we may already know the answer.

If Israel Never Has to be Accountable She Will Remain Forever a Petulant Child

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Major Paeta Hess-Von Kruedener was serving as a United Nations Military Observer stationed at the UN Patrol Base in Khiam South Lebanon. On the evening of July 25th 2006, at approximately 7:30 p.m., he and three other UN Military Observers were killed when their patrol base was struck by an Israeli bomb.

An official inquiry determined that it was a "tragic accident".

He was presented with a posthumous award and all was forgotten.

And yet Kruedener's widow tells a different story.

The wife of a Canadian soldier missing and presumed dead in an Israeli air strike on a United Nations observation post in southern Lebanon says she believes the attack was intentional. Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener, wife of a missing Canadian UN observer believed killed this week in Lebanon, speaks yesterday at Canadian Forces Base Kingston. Accompanied by her son, Jonah Rosson, Hess-von Kruedener said she believes the Israeli attack on a UN post, which killed at least three, was intentional. Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener made the allegation yesterday when she spoke to reporters at Canadian Forces Base Kingston.

"Why were they firing on that base?" Hess-von Kruedener demanded to know. "That wasn't the only day they were firing on that base. My information from (her husband) is weeks upon weeks they've been firing on them. "In my opinion, those were precision-guided missiles, then that was intentional," she said. (1)

Weeks upon weeks?

According to the official report: At the time of the incident Israel and Hezbollah were involved in an armed conflict, which began on 12 July 2006 with the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and quickly expanded into a large-scale incursion into southern Lebanon by the Israeli Defence Forces.

That's more like days upon days.

If it's true that they were targeted, why? Could it be that that they were Peacekeepers, working for the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization? Could it be that Israel didn't like being watched?

We'll never know because they don't have to answer for anything they do.

Stephen Harper's response to his death was "what was he doing there in the first place?" Simply a case of his being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Two Israeli soldiers had been kidnapped so this could be excused. "Though Lebanese civilian casualties outnumbered those for Israel by almost ten to one, Harper announced that the Israeli response to provocations by Hezbollah was "measured."" (2) Measured? According to Linda McQuaig:

Harper's strong pro-Israel bias took on a dramatic new dimension in the summer of 2006 when Israel launched its devastating attack on Lebanon, after the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah ... Suddenly, some fifty thousand Canadians were in harm's way, trapped in a country that Israel was relentlessly bombing. Now, one would have thought that the first priority of a Canadian prime minister is the safety of Canadians. One would have thought that Harper, faced with a choice of expressing his support for Israel or doing everything he possibly could to protect tens of thousands of vulnerable Canadians, would opt for protecting the Canadians. After all, he is prime minister of Canada, not Israel.

But, astonishingly, Harper refused to do the very minimum necessary—to add his voice to those of other world leaders and the UN secretary-general in calling for a ceasefire in the conflict.

... Stephen Harper followed Bush's lead—as he has in so many areas—in refusing to call for a ceasefire. The message was clear: let the killing continue! In fact, Harper actively defended Israel's bombing, calling it a "measured" response, a description he refused to withdraw even after eight members of a Canadian family and a Canadian UN peacekeeper were killed by Israeli strikes in Lebanon. Harper's stance amounted to giving encouragement to a foreign army whose actions were directly endangering the lives of Canadians. (3)

He recently stated that he has taken bruises for his undying support of Israel, but what I would like to know is when will he take a punch or two for us? "After all, he is prime minister of Canada, not Israel." And yet he is dragging Canada through the mud, and Canadians along with him.

And when Michael Ignatieff joined International voices demanding that Israel answer to possible war crimes for their actions, Harper immediately went on the attack.

In Question Period, he declared, "This is consistent with the anti-Israel position that has been taken [by] virtually all the candidates of the Liberal leadership." Noting that his wife was Jewish, Bob Rae demanded an apology, alleging that the PM's remarks were a divisive insult. "We cannot carry on politics in this country like this," Rae said. "It will not work. It divides Canadians. It's something for which he should be thoroughly embarrassed." Ignatieff similarly accused Harper of "playing crass politics with the issue of the Middle East. It's beneath him and his office to do so." (2)

But if anything he's gotten worse.

When Israel seized a Turkish ship in international waters and killed nine peace activists, ours was the only government not to denounce their actions.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper cheerfully followed through with a planned meeting the next day with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Appearing with Netanyahu, Harper merely expressed regret about the loss of life and the fact that it interfered with Netanyahu's visit to Canada: "I'm sorry this has coloured this [visit]," said Harper, "but delighted you were able to join me at least last night and today, and we've had some important talks, so welcome to Canada." (4)

Interfered with his visit to Canada. Yes that's what I was worried about too.

The sad thing is, that this is all political. Stephen Harper could care less.

His position on Israel, more uncompromising than Ottawa had ever been accustomed, became the source of a long-running dispute with traditionalists ...
He was asserting the neo-conservative view, which framed issues in black-and-white as opposed to seeing them in the context of root causes, historical grievances, and the like.

[but] As well as conforming to Harper's beliefs, the policy had other benefits. Though Muslims outnumbered Jews by two to one in Canada, the Jewish community was more politically impactful. Harper was aware, for example, that he stood to gain a major advantage in the Canadian media with his position. The country's largest media empire, Canwest, was controlled by the Aspers, who made no secret of their allegiance to Jewish causes and became enthusiastic backers of Harper on all related questions. (2)

When Stephen Harper won the Alliance leadership, it was reported that Stockwell Day asked Harper to be the Alliance foreign affairs critic, but he said “No, you’re too pro-Israel.” At the time Ezra Levant was running for Harper's seat, but he eventually stepped down and Day became foreign affairs critic. (5)

That certainly lends credence to Harper's new found love of Israel, being only for political leverage. But where does that leave us?

Most Canadians are not anti-Israel, but we prefer a more even handed approach when it comes to the Middle East. Nobody wins in a nuclear war.

But our prime minister is actually choosing a foreign country over his own, and like a petulant child, used to getting his own way, Benjamin Netanyahu is challenging U.S. president Obama, because he knows he can. The mid-terms have given him more friends in Washington and Canada is willing to put "hard power" (2) behind whatever decision he makes.

And Canadian citizens have absolutely no say in the matter. None. If the opposition speaks up they are villified. Look what happened to Libby Davies by her own party.

When Ari Fleischer was touting Stephen Harper around, arranging interviews on Fox News, Canadian journalist Scott Feschuk quipped: "I guess if there’s an upside, it’s that members of our own press gallery now understand what it takes to get a question answered by our Prime Minister – an American passport and Ari Fleischer’s cell number."

What will we need to get our prime minister to allow a debate on this subject? Netanyahu's cell number? It would appear he's now our co-leader.

Sources:

1. Canadian's Wife Wants Answers: Says deadly bombing of UN observer post was `intentional, by Phinjo Gombu, Toronto Star, July 28, 2006

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 80-82

3. HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT: Canada and the US Empire, By Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 11-13

4. Stephen Harper delighted to help flotilla 'farce', By Linda McQuaig, Rabble, June 15, 2010

5. Ezra Levant is no Oscar Levant, By Larry Zolf, CBC News Viewpoint, April 2, 2002

We Need to Listen to Jewish Voices Before we Lose Our Own

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in New Orleans yesterday to give speech to a prominent American Jewish group. This was on the same day that his government said it would move ahead with hundreds of new housing units in disputed east Jerusalem.

Greeting the Israeli PM was a group of protesters from Young Leadership Institute of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Rae Abileah, a 28-year-old protester from San Francisco, shouted "the settlements betray Jewish values". A man sitting in front of her attempted to ram a seat cushion into her mouth, just before she was hauled off by police.

Other protesters were pushed, sworn at and taken away.

It would appear that Netanyahu is attempting to use the protests over the planned expansions as proof that Palestine is not serious about wanting to talk peace, despite the fact that the new apartments are being deliberately constructed on land where the Palestinians hoped to place their future capital.

And as unfair as that seems, we are not allowed to suggest that Israel is being unfair, without the risk of being called anti-Semitic.

How did we get to this point?

A group calling themselves the Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, is trying to define a "new anti-Semitism" as being any criticism of the country of Israel or it's actions.

What they are essentially doing, as you'll hear on the video, is allowing a foreign country to dictate the rights of Canadian citizens.

We need an open and honest debate on this issue. We cannot allow our government to simply state that we cannot demand sanctions, for instance, against any foreign country engaged in human rights abuses. And this includes Israel. The country.

Sure we should be upset with comments made by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the past, and we should be diligent about Iran and the possibility that they could develop nuclear weapons.

Ahmadinejad is a populist right-wing Conservative. And his people appear to love him. Who are we to tell them they can't have the leader they want? Funny business during the election? Gee. Where have we heard that before?

Mr Ahmadinejad reportedly spent no money on his first presidential campaign in 2005 - but he was backed by powerful conservatives who used their network of mosques to mobilise support for him. He also had the support of a group of younger, second-generation revolutionaries known as the Abadgaran, or Developers, who are strong in the Iranian parliament, the Majlis. The campaign focused on poverty, social justice and the distribution of wealth inside Iran. He also repeatedly defended his country's nuclear programme, which worried the US and European Union.

But Israel actually has nuclear weapons. Lots of them. We should be worried about them too.

Canadians are a pretty smart bunch. We can make up our own minds. This kind of silencing, may only drive people to sympathize with those our government prefers we not sympathize with.

It's not just a new anti-Semitism but a new McCarthyism. And it is wrong. And we need to tell our government that it is wrong.

The following video was made by a group called Independent Jewish Voices, and I'm pretty sure they're NOT anti-Semitic. We should listen to them.

Harper-Bush Inaction on Global Warming Isolated Their Citizens from the Rest of the World

"Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations." - Stephen Harper, The Star, January 30, 2007

Though Stephen Harper promised an aggressive 'Made in Canada' solution to Global Warming before being elected in 2006, once in office he did a complete flip flop.

Taking George Bush's lead he pulled Canada out of Kyoto and set new goals, which were shocking in their ineffectiveness.

He also moved toward an 'emissions intensity' scheme, a system rendered impotent.

In place of mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, Bush announced a plan to seek an 18 percent decrease by 2012 in the "emissions intensity" of carbon dioxide pollution from power plants and utilities. But notice the sleight of hand: "emissions intensity" is a measure of emissions as a percentage of economic output. Because the administration forecasts significant growth over the next decade, by Bush's own calculations, carbon dioxide emissions will actually increase 14 percent in the next ten years. (1)

In their Book on Bush, Eric Alterman and Mark Green, discuss how Bush's actions damaged international relations, and was one of the reasons that so many countries refused to join him in Iraq.

President Bush further deflated efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by removing the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the internationally negotiated program to limit CO 2' . Bush had said all along that he would not submit the treaty to the Senate, so his decision itself was no surprise. It was his complete disengagement from the international environmental process—first refusing to cap greenhouse gases domestically, then, pulling the United States out of Kyoto—that generated such worldwide danger. While Bush promised the media that the United States would continue working multilaterally, in the corridors of international diplomacy people regarded the world's only superpower and biggest polluter as pulling stakes on a problem that demands international cooperation.

Consider, for example, that the radiation from Chernobyl fell on Bridgeport, Connecticut—a perfect example of what UN secretary general Kofi Annan calls "problems without passports." The later hostility of European countries to Bush's Iraq policies was sown by his handling of Kyoto—in the anti-war editorials of 2003, they often linked his unilateralist foreign policy with his unilateralist environmental policy. In the international press, Bush's 'CO 2' announcement was referred to as "suicidal," "tragic," "irresponsible," -outrageous," "a low point in world environmental history"—and that was just from our allies. The (Scottish) Sunday Herald wrote of the president's speech: "It was the callousness of his words, the naked self-interest of his sentiment and the disregard he showed for the health and safety of the rest of the world, that really shook people." (2)

And it's Canada shaking the world now. George Montibot wrote for the UK Guardian that 'Canada's image lies in tatters'.

When you think of Canada, which qualities come to mind? The world's peacekeeper, the friendly nation, a liberal counterweight to the harsher pieties of its southern neighbour, decent, civilised, fair, well-governed? Think again. This country's government is now behaving with all the sophistication of a chimpanzee's tea party ...

... So here I am, watching the astonishing spectacle of a beautiful, cultured nation turning itself into a corrupt petro-state. Canada is slipping down the development ladder, retreating from a complex, diverse economy towards dependence on a single primary resource, which happens to be the dirtiest commodity known to man. The price of this transition is the brutalisation of the country, and a government campaign against multilateralism as savage as any waged by George Bush. Until now I believed that the nation that has done most to sabotage a new climate change agreement was the United States. I was wrong. The real villain is Canada. Unless we can stop it, the harm done by Canada in December 2009 will outweigh a century of good works.

The harm done by us will outweigh our century of good works. And it was not only in the UK that this was being noticed.

Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma made a move to have Canada removed from the Commonwealth because of our sabotaging of climate conferences and failure to address this serious issue. Canada!

And in October of 2009, 77 Developing nations walked out on Canada when it was our turn to address the conference.

The government's push to abandon much of the Kyoto protocol prompted dozens of developing countries to walk out on Canada's address during recent climate talks in Thailand, The Canadian Press has learned. The mass walkout came after the Canadian delegation suggested replacing the Kyoto Protocol with an entirely new global-warming pact, according to one of the negotiators and notes taken by others at the meeting.

A widening and bitter rift between rich and developing countries over climate change was laid bare last week when delegates from 180 nations met in Bangkok to shape a successor to Kyoto before its first phase expires in just over two years. The United Nations hopes to broker a draft deal in time for a meeting in Copenhagen this December. (2)

And when Obama was addressing the united Nations, Harper instead made a donut run.

All of this contributed to Canada's losing it's seat on the UN Security Council. It had nothing to do with Michael Ignatieff. It was all Stephen Harper and George Bush.

Sources:

1. The Book on Bush: How George W. (mis) Leads America, By Eric Alterman and Mark Green, Penguin Books, 2004, ISBN: 0-670-03273-5, Pg. 13-15

2. Canadian position prompts walk-out by developing countries at climate talks, By Steve Rennie, The Canadian Press, October 12, 2009