The “Coup D’etat at Barriere Lake and Why it Matters

During the 2008 election campaign, a citizens group occupied the offices of Lawrence Cannon. After a member of his staff insulted the peaceful protesters, by suggesting that they were all drunkards, Cannon was forced to issue an apology.

But the incident brought the situation at Barriere Lake in Quebec, from where the occupying citizens hailed, to the public's attention.

Because the sit-in was only one measure taken by the community, that has been victimized by corporate greed and government intervention, for decades.

In his book, Speaking Out, Jack Layton mentions a visit to the community and a meeting with then Chief Harry Wawatie.

The true heroes, however, are First Nations leaders and communities. Like Barriere Lake Reserve Chief Harry Wawatie, whose community of four hundred people live in sixty decrepit houses in abject poverty while resource-extracting firms and tourism companies suck the enormous economic wealth out of the lands that should provide the community with sustenance. Courage and wise determination are what you see in the chief's eyes, along with deep sadness as he watches an affluent nation systematically deny human rights and security to the next generation of his community. (1)

And it has indeed been systematic, in what Todd Gordon calls a "violent intervention by paramilitary force to impose government-friendly leaderships in First Nation communities" (2), Barriere Lake being one of them.

The occupation of Lawrence Cannon's office was to protest the hostile takeover of their government.

In what residents of the Algonquin community of Barriere Lake, located 250 kilometres. from Ottawa, describe as a coup d'etat, SQ officers forcibly entered their community of 650 to remove a customary leadership, which had not been subject to the Indian Act's band council system and which had the support of the majority of the community. The SQ-enforced coup followed the Department of Indian Affairs' decision to remove the traditional chief and council and replace them with a small and unpopular faction. (2)

The conflict began in the 1960s, when the federal and Quebec governments forced the First Nation community off of its traditional lands and onto a small plot, with 'no community centre or high school, only one phone line for the entire community and serious overcrowding in substandard houses (in some cases; up to eighteen people live in small dwellings with unfinished basements and leaky roofs.'

The reserve is badly underserviced and the rape of the land has wreaked havoc on the ecosystem of their traditional territory. Hydro development has damaged waterways. Logging companies have cut over traplines, destroyed moose habitat (moose have been a staple of the community's diet) and sprayed the area with industrial herbicide.

One of their struggles has been a battle with lumber giant Domtar. In the 1980's the people of Barriere Lake mounted blockades, and cut off the wood supply to their mills, resulting in a Trilateral Agreement between the federal government, the Quebec government and the First Nations. But that agreement has not been honoured. Financial remuneration has been withheld and important meetings cancelled.

This has necessitated the residents to again mobilize, while the government worked behind the scenes to remove dissidents and plant a more compliant municipal body.

When former Barriere Lake leader Chief Jean Maurice Matchewan, was charged with assault, his bail conditions prohibited him from returning to the community. The same thing happened with band administrator, Michel Thusky. And though the cases were eventually thrown out, the legal troubles were damaging.

In 1995, the Quebec government began making accusations of sexual and financial misconduct by the community leadership, based solely on accusations by the puppet government in waiting.

Indian Affairs hired the law firm of Thompson Dorfman Sweatman to file a motion with the federal government to have Barriere Lake's traditional council removed from power. It was later discovered that the law firm also represented Domtar, the company standing the most to lose if the citizens retained their democratically elected council.

But the residents remained defiant, and blockaded their own reserve to keep the opposition from entering their community. Faced with the resistance, Indian Affairs cut off all government funding to the reserve, which was already suffering from ninety percent unemployment and extremely poor living conditions. But community members refused to give in, and lived for over a year without water, electricity or schooling for their children. They survived entirely by living off their land as best they could given the decades of environmental destruction caused by resource development. And when logging companies tried to move back into areas that had previously been protected, they were met once again by blockades. With mills facing shutdowns as a result, Indian Affairs dropped its effort to replace the community's leadership, and when elections were subsequently held, the opposition was soundly defeated." (2)

They won this battle , but the war continues. When a new chief was elected in 2006, the Harper government refused to recognize his leadership. Instead, it put Barriere Lake under Third Party Management meaning that an external consultant unilaterally runs their affairs.

This allowed the unwanted and unelected opposition, under corporate friendly Casey Ratt, to move in. He refused to hold elections and has promised to drop the lawsuit against the federal government.

This again sparked confrontations that led to a number of arrests.

Although most of those activists were eventually released from jail, the experience is a chilling re-minder of the lengths to which the state will go to keep indigenous people under its thumb. The full force of the state's coercive apparatus is brought to bear on those indigenous peoples willing to step outside the parameters Canada has set for its colonial relations with First Nations.

According to the Department of National Defense's counter-insurgency manual, there are aggressive measures that can be taken to handle "indigenous militancy".

One is the use of deception and misinformation campaigns, something we have already witnessed at Barriere Lake. But it does not rule out the use of "deadly force".

The rise of radical Native American organizations, such as the Mohawk Warrior Society, can be viewed as insurgencies with specific and limited aims. Although they do not seek complete control of the federal government, they do seek particular political concessions in their relationship with national governments and control (either overt or covert) of political affairs at a local/reserve ('First Nation') level, through the threat of, or use of, violence.

Given Harper's new border security deal with the U.S. and the Wikileaks documents that express their concerns over "indigenous militancy", we could see the use of force becoming more commonplace, if campaigns of deception and misinformation fail.

And let's not forget the most troubling aspect of all. A deal signed three years ago that allows the U.S. military to cross our border in the case of what they deem to be a "civil emergency".

I'm very concerned with the direction that the Harper government will take, given their unfettered power.

Lawrence Cannon has fortunately been replaced, and the new NDP MP Mathieu Ravignat, seems to be a compassionate and caring man. But if this becomes a military issue, there is little he will be able to do to stop it. I'm very worried.

Sources:

1. Speaking Out: Ideas That Work for Canadians, By Jack Layton, Key Porter Books, 2004 ISBN: 1-55263-577-5, Pg. 265-266

2. Imperialist Canada, By Todd Gordon, Arbeiter Publishing, 2010, ISBN: 978-1-894037-4507, Pg. 283-286

Why I Prefer a Communist to Lawrence Cannon

One of the major upsets of this election was Lawrence Cannon losing his seat to a newcomer, who entered the race late and swept the riding.

Initially, the media focused on the fact that Mathieu Ravignat was a Communist, who had wept when his party lost official party status.

But before anyone yelps in protest, the Canadian Communist Party is not what they may envision. I'm sure somewhere in their framework, they might see Canada as a Communist country, but the reality is, that's about as likely as the Reform Party .... oops.

Just kidding.

I read Communist party press releases all the time, and one fact is indisputable. People always come first. They advocate for women's rights, aboriginal rights, the rights of workers, seniors, the disabled. And they are strong in their convictions.

The NDP started out like that under J.S. Woodsworth and Tommy Douglas, but they have since lost their way. They are now purely political. And many predict that Jack Layton will now have to move his party even further away from social values to compete with the Harper Conservatives.

The end of an era.

But what I expect and hope of Mr. Ravignat, is that he remains true to his beliefs, and even if he is the lone dissenting vote, will be on record as putting people over partisanship.

And he is no political lightweight.

Ravignat campaigned on a strong social justice platform, saying workers and their pensions need protection as the forestry industry collapses in this vast rural riding. He is a former communist, holds a master's degree in political science, works as a federal government research officer and is a member of the Royal Heraldry Society of Canada.

I think I'm going to like him very much.

A refreshing change from Lawrence Cannon, who colour coded people and decided who is a Canadian citizen and who isn't.

Following is a video I found of this new MP on YouTube. Maybe that's how he and John Baird should handle a debate.

Give it Up Lawrence Cannon. John Diefenbaker Would Have Kicked Your Ass!

Lawrence Cannon has just announced that his government is creating a humanitarian award in John Diefenbaker's honour, and I was wondering what Diefenbaker would have thought of that.

He would have been pleased if it was coming from a legitimate humanitarian source, but coming from this government, it is a slap in the face.

John Diefenbaker did so much to protect Canadian sovereignty, and Lawrence Cannon and his ilk has traded it away for a handful of beans. In fact we didn't even get the beans. We just got the shaft.

But I'm picturing Diefenbaker's response to this empty gesture, also imagining my dad who did a pretty good impersonation. Shaking jowls and all.

"Thank you for this honour. I will treasure it. And now sonny the most humanitarian act I can think of to do, is to make sure that we get rid of your government. You have done enough damage to the conservative brand that people like me worked so hard to build. And you have done so much to destroy this country, that was once a champion for human rights. I am in hope that we can wrest it from your cold hands while there is still a Canada left to save."

Yes John Diefenbaker would have kicked Lawrence Cannon's ass. In fact he would have lined them all up, and bounced them one by one off the toe of his boot.

How dare they invoke this man to cover up their latest travesties.

Omar Khadr: With All Due Respect. Canadians do Care. We Just Don't Know It.

On April 24, 2009, in response to queries about Omar Khadr, Lawrence Cannon shocked Members of Parliament and the media alike, when he stood up and made the claim:

" ... last night we were able to see television footage of Mr. Khadr's alleged building and planting of explosive devices that are actually planted in Afghanistan. Those devices are the devices that basically have taken away the lives of young Canadian men and women."

Khadr was tried in the House of Commons, based on the American television show 60 Minutes.

In July of this year, Lawrence Martin wrote a column in which he criticized our government's decision to not repatriate Omar Khadr, but did not confine his anger to the Harper government, but also expressed displeasure with the Canadian people.

To avoid depression over the standards of justice in this country, here’s a tip: Stay away from opinion polls on Omar Khadr. If you ever thought Canadians were a progressive, fair-minded people who believed in equal rights before the law, these soundings tell a different story.

They say most Canadians don’t want the Toronto-born Mr. Khadr to be returned to Canada from Guantanamo Bay for a legitimate judicial process. All other nations have repatriated their Gitmo detainees. Led by our counterclockwise Justice Department, we are the lone heathen holdout. (1)

First off, most polls that I read, showed the Canadian people were split down the middle on the issue. But the problem with polls is that the headline that accompanies their publication, is often misleading. And for those who read only the headlines, if they are called the next time the poll comes around, they often base their judgement on the headlines and not the facts.

The Omar Khadr case is far too complicated to be condensed to a few, often leading questions. And I think that if the poll was conducted after first giving Canadians all the facts, the results would be quite different.

The question was, should Omar Khadr be allowed to return to Canada and be tried by his peers? But before presenting the question, it should have included the fact that Canada was the only country NOT to repatriate our accused, housed at Gitmo. The only one. That's important information.

And they should also mention the fact that Khadr was a "child soldier".

And that he had been indoctrinated from the age of nine.

And they should remind us that when in Afghanistan, his homeland was invaded and occupied. Many children worked with the French Resistance, fighting Nazi occupation. They were considered to be heroes. I'm not suggesting that Omar Khadr is a hero, but he's not a monster either. He was the victim of circumstance, and as a Canadian citizen, deserved the same rights afforded all Canadians.

Or at least that's the way it's supposed to work.

New Laws in Harperland

Traditionally, Canadian leaders had tried to be a moderating influence on the foreign policy of American presidents. But with Harper and Obama, the roles were reversed in some areas. One was Guantanamo. Aware that the prison's judicial standards, bordering on the medieval, were damaging the American reputation for human rights, Obama was bent on closing it down, as was the Republican candidate, John McCain. Harper differed. He had no such inclination. He gave the impression that it was fine with him.

Even to many Tories, Harper's stance on Omar Khadr was primitive. Khadr was fifteen when he killed a U.S. special forces soldier in the midst of a firelight in Afghanistan. From all appearances, the Canadian-born youth had been indoctrinated by his terrorist father and jihadists since he was nine. Accused of terrorist activities and spying, he had been incarcerated in a Guantanamo cell since 2002. He was the only citizen of a Western country to remain there; all other nations had demanded that their Gitmo detainees be returned to home soil, where they could face legitimate jurisprudence.

... In the case of Khadr, six former Canadian foreign affairs ministers, including John Manley and Joe Clark, wrote an open letter of appeal to Harper, but it was ignored. Canadian courts repeatedly ruled in favour of repatriating Khadr. Guantanamo, the courts ruled, represented a clear violation of Canada's international human rights obligations. The verdicts found that Khadr's Charter rights had been violated. Even the conservative National Post would headline an editorial "Bring Back Omar Khadr." (2)

So why was Harper ignoring even his loyal fans? According to Martin, Harper " put forward a political argument, saying that the government, not the judiciary, should be the final arbiter of foreign policy. In this instance, the Supreme Court, while declaring that Khadr's Charter rights had indeed been violated, refused to order his repatriation. It said it would be inappropriate to dictate the diplomatic steps necessary to address the breaches of those rights. On this issue, Harper won the case. In the conduct of foreign affairs, his powers were deemed pre-eminent. (2)

He wanted to make it clear that his voice and his voice alone, spoke for Canada.

No courts, experts or human rights advocates would have a say. In Harperland, only Harper matters.

Throughout, the Tories refused to give their reasons for not repatriating Khadr. Wesley Wark, an Ottawa professor and the past president of the Canadian Association for Security and Intelligence was appalled at the arrogant silence. "The Harper government's view that it does not have to explain its actions," he said, "is nothing short of breathtaking."

At the same time, the Harper government rebuffed requests by the Obama administration to help resettle dozens of Guantanamo detainees and close the prison. The recalcitrance was striking. It was a matter, in the case of Khadr, of supporting high standards of justice or not. Harper chose not.

A Matter of Opinion?

Facing renewed criticism, the pollsters are once again coming to his aid, creating the impression that Canadians agree with the anointed one.

I think the most ridiculous, is this one published in the Sun.

OTTAWA — In a showdown between terrorist Omar Khadr and serial killer Russell Williams, Canadians say Khadr is the bigger threat to the public. Ottawa’s Abacus Data asked Canadians which of the two men, whose trials have dominated headlines recently, is the greater threat to Canada’s public safety. About 34% of respondents chose Khadr, 24% chose Williams, and the rest chose neither man. (3)

OK. First of all, who is the biggest threat to the public, Khadr or Williams? Who dreamt up that ridiculous question? It's apples and oranges. Omar Khadr killed in battle, Russel Williams is a rapist and serial killer. It was obviously intended to create the impression that Khadr was dangerous.

So I read down a bit and saw that the poll was conducted by Abacus Data.

I know. I'd never heard of them either. But I have heard of their president David Colletto. Colletto is a colleague of Harper insider Tom Flanagan, both belonging to the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. And yet the Sun doesn't mention that.

The headline should have read 'Harper pal conducts country's most idiotic poll.'

And the information that Canadians should be privy to before answering any poll concerning Khadr:

The civilian populations are the first victims of contemporary armed conflicts. Over the course of the past decade, wars will have cost the lives of two million children and mutilated six million children. Many of them have been victims of sexual violence. Twenty-three million children are refugees or victims of forced displacement, often separated from their families or orphans. Each year, 10,000 children are victims of antipersonnel mines. Worldwide, there are more than 250,000 child soldiers at the heart of modern wars.

Omar Khadr was a child soldier and since 1999, the UN Security Council has adopted six major resolutions aiming to fight the phenomenon of child soldiers

But in July of 2009, Embassy Magazine reported that:

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy ... Among the changes identified [is]replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict."

... Striking Out 'Child Soldiers', while it might appear to be one of the least controversial language changes cited—changing "child soldiers" to "children in armed conflict"—sources told Embassy this may be related to the case of Omar Khadr... at the political level there is a sense that children involved with terrorists groups are not child soldiers, and that's simply not the case under international law."

Mr. Neve [ Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International Canada] raised concerns about possible ramifications for the issues around Mr. Khadr. He said there is a very particular, legal reason to recognize him as a child soldier and to weaken that language could suggest an intention to avoid the legal obligations that come with it. (4)

If international law contradicts the views of Stephen Harper, Stephen Harper just changes international law, with a simple stoke of the pen.

In Harperland only one person's opinion matters and even legally binding international agreements mean nothing. Harper has spoken. End of.

Welcome to the new realities in the country formerly known as Canada.

Welcome to Harperland.

Sources:

1. In the matter of Omar Khadr, shame on us, By Lawrence Martin, Globe and Mail, July 15, 2010

2. Harperland: The Politics of Control, By Lawrence Martin, Viking Press, 2010, ISBN: 978-0-670-06517-2, Pg. 199-200

3. Khadr a bigger threat than Williams: poll, By Brian Lilley, Parliamentary Bureau, Toronto Sun, November 3, 2010

4. "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language, By Michelle Collins, Embassy Magazine, July 29, 2009

Lawrence Cannon's Ego Cost Canadian Taxpayers 300 Million Dollars

Canadian taxpayers are on the hoof for 300 million dollars because the PMO forgot to tell Lawrence Cannon what to do.

He was told to sit down and shut up five years ago and has since been frozen in time.

I think Harper should implant computer chips and then he could direct them by remote control.

Canadian taxpayers are being forced to pay $300 million in more Conservative waste for the Harper government’s stubborn failure to negotiate with the United Arab Emirates, leaving the Canadian military to scramble to find a new airbase in the Middle East, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic Bob Rae said today.

“Minister Cannon refused repeated requests to resolve a dispute that was on his desk for years, and now we’re stuck with a $300 million bill,” said Mr. Rae. “Snubbing the Ambassador of the UAE was a colossal miscalculation with costly results for both our military and taxpayers.”

Same old, same old.

The Politics of Obscurantism: Anti-Intellectualism

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

In restricting knowledge to an élite ruling class of “the few”, obscurantism is fundamentally anti-democratic, because its component anti-intellectualism and elitism exclude the people as intellectually unworthy of knowing the facts and truth about the government ... (1)

The late Dalton Camp, formerly president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, was not an alarmist. He was intelligent and a well respected columnist and author.

So when he began warning Canadians of the dangers of the Reform Movement, almost two decades ago, we should have listened. He understood their ideology and was concerned with the Republicans they had aligned themselves with. The same people who are now destroying American politics, as card carrying members of the Religious Right and the Tea Party gang.

In the introduction to his book; Whose Country is This Anyway?, Camp quotes Friedrich Nietzsche from The Will to Power: "The great majority of men have no right to existence, but are a misfortune to higher men."

This is a codicil for the comfortable, the affluent, and the obscenely rich in our time, as it was the inspiration for fascism earlier in our century. The new order is not without its coterie of apologists and intellectual dandies. Indeed, it even has a political party of its own, called—irony of ironies—the "Reform" Party. (2)

Germany under Hitler was fascist, because it was run by industrialists, who profited from war and the build up of the country's military. The German people, while manipulated with propaganda, were nothing more than "a misfortune to higher men."

The notion of anti-intellectualism can mean simply that Stephen Harper has always opposed public education, referring to it as "union run schools", and bragging that "Universality has been severely reduced: it is virtually dead as a concept in most areas of public policy... These achievements are due in part to the Reform Party..." (3)

It can also refer to his attacks on the well educated who challenge his policies, dismissing them as "university types" ... "elites".

But in the theory of Obscurantism, it's something much more profound. It's a deliberate attempt to paint themselves as being part of the anti-intellectual crowd, despite the fact that many in the movement have university degrees, including several PhDs. And they do this to convince the populace that they are just "ordinary folk", who see danger in listening to intellectuals who don't have their best interests at heart.

A deliberate obscuring of the facts.

Betty Plewes recently wrote a column for the Mark News, the topic of which was Canada's abandonment of the Non-Profit sector. She mentions a speech given by Lawrence Cannon in Krakow, to the Working Group on Enabling and Protecting Civil Society. She found the speech enlightening and articulate, but was surprised that "a transcript of the speech was not posted on the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) website and is very difficult to obtain." (4)

She contributed that to the fact that Stephen Harper has no interest in charitable pursuits, but while that is true, there is another reason for this. Cannon's speech would contradict their image of "folks" and their notion that intellectuals are the scourge of society.

The Edmonton Journal recently asked: What would Harper Fellowship look like a decade after his departure? They suggested:

Some criteria for evaluating the body of work put forward for recognition might include:
- -Best description and "proof" of a national social problem without the use of statistical analysis;
- -Best policy proposal for the betterment of Canadian society based solely on anecdotal "evidence";
-Best application of the concept of "truthiness" to future Canadian policy directions. (5)

What would a Harper fellowship look like, when his political strategy is anti-intellectualism? Having his party play dumb to appear dumb? Only their leader has any smarts and that's why he has to exert so much control over them.

When the Reform Party had their first real electoral success in 1993, the media dismissed them, often asking "who are these yokels and who voted for them?" The Sun referred to them as a " ribald bunch of dung kicking rednecks", and Preston Manning with his squeaky voice was compared to a country preacher.

And yet Manning is a brilliant physicist and many in the party's hierarchy (now called the Conservative Party of Canada) have university degrees. So why did they not defend themselves against this belief? In a word: Obscurantism. If they appear to be country bumpkins, how could we possibly fear them?

And if anyone points this out, they become "elites", and are immediately silenced, to the cheers of their supporters.

Stephen Harper is a Straussian, and Leo Strauss a follower of the belief in the necessity of obscuring facts. And Strauss's beliefs came from the methods used by the Nazi party to earn and hold onto power. He escaped Germany, but several of his family members died in Concentration camps. As a result he felt that an authoritarian style government was the only solution to stave off a recurrence of Nazism. The ignorant masses only had to be controlled, in a large part by keeping secrets and obscuring the truth.

When political philosopher, and colleague of Strauss, Hannah Arendt, attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann at Nuremberg, she was surprised at how "Unimaginative, ordinary and unthinking" he was.

Others may have hoped to see Bluebeard in the dock, she wrote, but for her, the horror lay in the fact that "there were so many like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic ... [but] terribly and terrifyingly normal." (6)

She was one of the first to refute the "monster theory" of less-than-human Nazis. She called them "banal". But as Erna Paris, author of Long Shadows: Truth, Lies and History, points out. Many Nazis were well educated, and several had doctorate degrees.

So what would have made her think that they were banal?

Maybe their chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels, himself a PhD, explains it best.

"It would have been very unwise if we had given exact explanations to the Jews, prior to the Seizure of Power, of what we intended to do with them.... It was quite good that [they] did not take the National-Socialist movement quite as seriously as it actually deserved. . . ." (7)

We did not take the Reform "movement quite as seriously as it actually deserved." And while they are not planning a domestic genocide, they do have an aggressive foreign policy agenda, from a prime minster that Lawrence Martin claims sees the world as a "clash of civilizations" rather than as "one big family". (8)

Dalton Camp did not suggest that the Reform Party was stupid, but called them "intellectual dandies". He did however, suggest that they were dangerous, in part because of the company they kept. American Straussians.

Previous:

The Politics of Obscurantism: First You Obstruct

The Politics of Obscurantism: Next You Control the Message

The Politics of Obscurantism: Then You Control the Press

Sources:

1. Obscurantism - Wikipedia

2. Whose Country is This Anyway? By Dalton Camp, Douglas & McIntyre, 1995, ISBN: 1-55054-467-5, Pg. 18

3. Stephen Harper, speech to the Colin Brown Memorial Dinner, National Citizens Coalition, 1994

4. In Search of Canada's Non-Profit Policy, By Betty Plewes Former President and CEO of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation; member of the McLeod Group, The Mark News, October 18, 2010

5. What would Harper Fellowship look like a decade after his departure? By The Edmonton Journal, October 4, 2010

6. Long Shadows: Truth, Lies and History, By Erna Paris, Alfred A. Knopf, 2000, ISBN: 0-676-97251-9, Pg. 318

7. June 1944 speech at Nuremberg.

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

So Michael Ignatieff Destroyed Our UN Bid. Why Not Paul Heinbecker? Or Are They Afraid We'll Read His Book?

There was a letter to the editor in the Kingston Whig Standard, by Roy Kenny of Napanee, in response to Canada losing it's bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.

It wasn't unlike others I've read from Harper's supporters. Things like "freedom", "human rights", "democracy" and "the rule of law", thrown around.

Michael Ignatieff suggesting that "we didn't deserve a seat on the Security Council", tilting the vote, though it was erroneously stipulated that he had been saying that for months, when in fact it's been more like days.

But there is something very important that is being missed here. Partisan jabbering aside, this is a significant snub. And while I'm sure Ignatieff is flattered that anyone thinks he has that much power, it's other voices we should be listening to, because those are the voices that made the difference.

Like that of the Secretary General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Kamalesh Sharma, who in November of 2009, joined others in a movement to have Canada kicked out of the Commonwealth, because of our inaction on climate change. Or the voices at Copenhagen who awarded us the 'Colossal Fossil', not just for our "do nothing" stance, but for the fact that the Harper government actually sabotaged the negotiations.

Or Julio Montaner, president of the International AIDS Society, who lambasted Stephen Harper for snubbing organizers of a major international conference because he was “afraid” to show his face after his lack of leadership on health at the recent G8 summit.

Or maybe the voice of Robert Fowler, Canada's former top diplomat who was kidnapped and held for ransom last year, while on a special mission for the UN. He recently commented: “I’m not sure that Canada deserves to win this election, for we no longer represent the qualities which we Canadians have long insisted that candidates for the council should bring to such responsibilities."

Or perhaps the voices of Mr. Fowler's colleagues, the 100 former senior diplomats and ambassadors who signed a letter, along with Fowler, in support of Richard Colvin, the man who was being vilified by the Harper government because he spoke out against Afghan detainee abuse.

Or how about Paul Heinbecker, our UN Ambassador the last time we had a seat on the council. Heinbecker has written a book which offers a scathing assessment of the Harper government's international performance. He criticizes our UN peacekeeping missions, where we are now ranked 53rd, and reveals that Canadian diplomats are discouraged from taking part in UN human rights negotiations. They are also forbid from using terms such as "gender equality" and "international humanitarian law", even though these terms come from treaties Canada has ratified; simply "because the words offended the sensibilities of the party's social conservative base."

And we can also add the voices of Canadian foreign aid workers who understand the significance of the "secret" changes to our foreign policy. Like Adrian Bradbury in Northern Uganda, who got his "list" of things he's no longer allowed to say. "When speaking of the war, where upwards of 3 million people have been killed, and rape is widely used as a tool of war, the terms "impunity" and "justice" can no longer be used when calling for an end to, and punishment for, sexual violence."

And Bradbury reminds us that Canada had fought hard to have those things included in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, making them part of the human rights language. Now we have abandoned them with no input or debate.

So Mr. Kenney while you might not respect the United Nations, the fact is that the United Nations used to respect us. And it was not only African or Arab nations voting against us, but many former allies, including India.

And while most Canadians do stand with Israel, we prefer that it not be at the expense of our relationship with the rest of the Arab world, or mean that we have to marginalize one million Muslim Canadians. It was that kind of narrow minded attitude and xenophobia that caused the Holocaust.

But maybe Robert Fowler says it best, when he aptly remarked recently: "The world does not need more of the kind of Canada they’ve been getting.”

I'm so proud.

The Golden Age of Canadian Diplomacy Has Been Tarnished

Canada learned yesterday, something most of us knew was inevitable. That for the first time in our history our bid for a seat on the UN security council was denied.

Of course the Harper government tried to blame it on Michael Ignatieff, because he rightfully questioned whether this government had earned such a spot.

But he aired this at home. Lawrence Cannon took it international, with typical hyper partisan nonsense.

Michael Ignatieff's father was a career diplomat and once served as acting president of the UN General Assembly. He understands the history and tradition of Canada's involvement as negotiators for peace.

In less than five years, Stephen Harper has destroyed that tradition, and has no one to blame for this embarrassment but himself.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has been undermining Canada’s bid for a United Nations Security Council seat since he was first elected back in 2006. Our embarrassing loss to Portugal merely confirms that our image as a progressive, even-handed, nation has taken a knock on his watch.

Apart from staking out a leading Afghan role, the Conservatives treated the UN largely as an afterthought. They aligned Canada closely with then U.S. president George W. Bush’s unloved administration, tilted our Mideast policy to be more pro-Israel, and walked away from pledges to fight global warming. They were erratic on human rights, de-emphasized African aid, and showed scant interest in peacekeeping and disarmament.

And Michael Ignatieff answered Lawrence Cannon's baseless accusations:

At a news conference in Ottawa on Tuesday, Ignatieff called it a "sad and disappointing" as well as "historic day" for Canada because "it's the first time in more than 60 years we failed to secure a seat on an institution that this country helped found.... It's part of the general pattern of disappointing results for Canada on the international stage."

Ignatieff refused to accept blame for losing the seat. "The responsibility for this vote lies squarely and exclusively with the Harper government. Any other proposition is just too ridiculous to entertain," he said. "Don't try this blame game with Canadians." Ignatieff went on to say, "I derive zero pleasure out of this.... Canada deserves a place on the security council."

And John Ivison agrees:

So what happened? It’s all Michael Ignatieff’s fault, according to Lawrence Cannon, the Foreign Minister. “Not being able to speak with one voice had a negative effect on the Canadian campaign,” he told reporters in New York.

How does the government know this? “When the Prime Minister was in New York, there was a buzz,” was the best attempt at quantifying the impact of Mr. Ignatieff’s remarks that Dimitri Soudas, the government’s director of communications, could come up with. This explanation will work for those people who want to think the worst of the Liberal leader, no matter how implausible the story. For those of a more reflective nature, no matter how thin you slice it, it’s baloney.

I think Murray Dobbin may have said it best though: Hurray! We lost – and the world has Harper’s number:

Stephen Harper’s death bed repentance regarding his hostile attitude towards the UN apparently didn’t fool enough delegations to get the suddenly coveted Security Council seat. (Teeny Portugal got 113 votes to Canada’s 78.) This bodes well for the United Nations for if Canada, with its long list of offensive, reactionary and perverse stands on issues had been rewarded for its behaviour, one would have to wonder if the UN really is corrupt.

It is amusing to think back on the trajectory that this misanthrope of a Prime Minister has followed on the UN and the Security Council seat. Like so much else about government, Harper has a visceral hatred of everything about the social democratic and liberal state. His goal has always been to dismantle the activist state and turn it into a dumbed down, minimalist institution consisting of the military, the police (and prisons), CSIS, and the Bank of Canada. Everything else, in Harper’s fantasy world, would be handled by the private sector.

... It is gratifying to know that, finally, the world has taken notice – something that rarely happens simply because there are so few mechanisms for expressing criticism. The vote and its secret ballot were like a global referendum of nations on Canada’s behaviour.

The world has taken notice, but sadly Harper is dragging us down with him.

The Harper Government Again Embarrasses Canada on the World Stage

When speaking in L'Aquila Italy in 2009, Stephen Harper launched into a blistering attack against Michael Ignatieff. It was not only confusing to the foreign press who weren't used to partisan attacks on the international stage, but it was also based on false information.

Harper, whose party has questioned his rival's commitment to Canada because the Liberal leader lived three decades overseas, said Ignatieff should withdraw any suggestion that Canada could be excluded from a new body to replace the G8."I think it's an irresponsible suggestion, and Mr. Ignatieff is supposed to be a Canadian."But his spokesman, Dimitri Soudas, quickly met with reporters to say he had misinformed the prime minister on the matter. Soudas said the remark attributed to Ignatieff was actually made by an academic, and he apologized for the error. (1)

So should we be surprised that in an address to the United Nations, foreign affairs minister Lawrence Cannon would again go on a partisan rant?

The Harper Conservatives injected partisan politics into their UN Security Council campaign, telling international diplomats Wednesday that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff puts his party before his country. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon delivered that partisan message to an audience of international diplomats gathered to hear a major speech on Canada’s foreign policy at his department’s headquarters.

Cannon was taking Canada’s bid for a temporary seat on the UN’s most powerful body directly to the Canadian envoys of countries that will decide that race next Tuesday in New York. But Cannon also attacked Ignatieff directly, the second time in weeks a federal cabinet minister has used a speech to a non-political gathering to take aim at the Opposition leader. (2)

This must be so embarrassing for Mr. Ignatieff, who already has a well earned international reputation.

In December of 2009, he was named one of the world's top 100 thinkers by Foreign Policy Magazine, "for showing that not all academics are irrelevant." and he also made Forbes prestigious list of people to watch for in 2010.

The Watch List: Michael Ignatieff. After decades in Britain and the U.S., the professional intellectual returned to his native Canada and became head of the Liberal party. If a federal election is called in 2010, he could become the next prime minister, and the Canadian head of state with the biggest international profile since Pierre Trudeau.

Ignatieff's father was a long serving diplomat and his family is about as Canadian as you can get. What must those at the UN think of Cannon and of us? This is reprehensible.

And to think that it came from a man who is one of four cabinet minsters who may not even be allowed to run next election, because of questionable campaign spending. This has got to stop.

Sources:

1. PMO apologizes after Harper slams Ignatieff, By Peter O'Neil, Europe Correspondent, Canwest News Service, July 10, 2009

2. Cannon blasts Ignatieff to diplomats, says he puts party before country, By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press. October 6, 2010

The Harper Government and the Colour of Democracy

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

In September of 2005, Michael Ignatieff was invited to speak at the U. S. Coast Guard Academy, on leadership, and what that meant. He was originally going to talk about human rights and international politics, but this was in the wake of Katrina, so he changed his lecture to one of current relevance.

I wanted to share with you in a very raw form, a very direct form this civilian’s view of some of the challenges—some of the moral and ethical challenges that arise from the Katrina story, that is still unfolding. This is the largest natural disaster in US history, but it’s not just the loss of life and the scale of devastation that’s shaken the country. The most troubling aspect has been the failure of anticipation and the failure of response by almost all levels of government ... (1)

Using the levee as a metaphor, he suggests that the people in Katrina's path believed that it would protect them in the same way they expected their government to protect them, and just as the levee burst, so too did their faith in the government.

And to go off topic a bit, I think what happened in the U.S. in the wake of this disaster, epitomizes why neoconservative ideology will fail. There is far too much "assumption" and too little fact. But there is also a dismissive attitude toward those who are disadvantaged.

The evacuation plan for New Orleans ... assumed that people would leave by private car. Assumption number one. And assumption number two—that people, when they left, would be basically housed by their family and domestic networks. Both assumptions turned out to be flawed.

The assumptions were correct for seventy percent of the population or eighty percent of the population but not correct for twenty percent of the population, and we know what percentage of the population it wasn’t true for. It was not true for people who can’t drive. It was not true for people without extensive family networks out of state. It was not true for people without the resources to rent cars. It was not true for very large numbers of human beings. (1)

As images were shown from New Orleans and the surrounding area, and sent around the world, what we saw was a side of the United States that they tried very hard to keep hidden. These people were poor before the hurricane. And most of these devastatingly poor people were black.

A duty of care involves social knowledge—social knowledge about the facts of race and class, however unpleasant they may be in our society, and a willingness to create an evacuation plan that deals with a society that actually exists...

... Katrina was one of those moments where we saw the ties that bind the country together put under tremendous strain, the ties that bind were frayed by what happened in Katrina. One of the cries that went up from the people trapped in the convention center in New Orleans was very significant and I’ll never forget seeing the woman who said this: she said, “We are American citizens, we are American citizens, we are not refugees, we are not stateless objects of your charity, we are citizens of this republic, we have rights here and our rights have been denied.”

Ok, for that woman and for thousands of people who went through the experience of the last five or six days, the thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little.... But these ties of citizenship are legitimate and accepted as binding only if citizenship confers equal rights regardless of race and social class. (1)

"The thing that was so shocking was that their citizenship counted so little."

And sadly we are now living in a country where citizenship for many Canadians means very little indeed.

Sydney Sharpe, former member of the Ottawa Press Gallery, once wrote that: "This way of thinking characterizes the ideology and behaviour of right-wing Supremacist groups such as the Heritage Front. While such groups can, to a certain extent, be ignored because of their small numbers, such thinking is also evident in the doctrines of the Reform Party [those doctrines written by their policy chief Stephen Harper], who won a substantial number of votes in the federal election of 1993 and who hold 52 seats in Parliament." (2)

So should we really be surprised that the Reform Party, that changed it's name to Alliance Party and now call themselves the Conservative Party of Canada, have written a policy of selective citizenship?

We saw this with Suaad Hagi Mohamud, the Canadian woman who visited relatives in Kenya but was not allowed home until she took a DNA test.

If Canadian citizen Suaad Hagi Mohamud were wealthy or politically connected or media savvy, she would never have been stripped of her passport and her rights while travelling through Kenya.

She might have been stopped at the airport in Nairobi. Initially, a Canadian consular official might even have supported her detention. When she presented her identification, the Canadian system would have rallied to her side. Suaad Hagi Mohamud, however, is not rich. She's not a political insider. She's not a media darling. She is a black Somali immigrant who had to live on charity once Canadian authorities sent her passport to Kenyan police and suggested they prosecute her for not really being one of us. She had produced a half-dozen forms of valid identification, but our bureaucrats closed their ears to her desperate pleas for help. By cancelling her passport, they rendered her stateless. (3)

Her "citizenship counted so little."

And we are seeing it with Omar Khadr:

Lawrence Cannon stood up in the House of Commons and pronounced his guilt, before a court of law had determined that he was guilty of anything, and they refuse to bring him home.

"There's never been any allegation that Omar conspired to injure Canadians," said Nate Whitling, one of Mr. Khadr's Canadian lawyers .... it seems to me a terrible abuse of power that government ministers (or even little spokespersons) should be able to make insinuations about the criminal guilt of individual Canadian citizens, especially when no legitimate prosecutor has ever raised such charges and when Omar Khadr is still, under any legal process, however suspect, as the U.S. military commissions are universally considered to be entitled to the presumption of innocence. (4)

His "citizenship counted so little."

Or Brenda Martin, the Canadian woman languishing in a Mexican jail. Helena Guergis said that her government was doing everything possible to help her. Guergis even flew to Mexico herself, but never visited Martin or anyone involved. Instead she went partying and later said that she spoke to someone at the party about her.

Supporters of a Canadian woman imprisoned without trial in Mexico for nearly two years were astonished when they learned that a federal cabinet member is publicly claiming she and her government have worked hard behind the scenes to expedite Brenda Martin's case and to ensure her legal and human rights have been respected. Incredulity turned to anger when Helena Guergis, the secretary of state for foreign affairs and international trade, warned in a letter to the editor published in the Edmonton Journal that "those who are playing politics with Ms Martin's regrettable situation . . . are not helping to advance her case or get her home any faster."

... In her letter to the editor, Guergis, who is engaged to Edmonton MP Rahim Jaffer, said the federal government has "strongly and repeatedly pressed senior Mexican officials" to expedite Martin's case. But Dan McTeague, the Liberal foreign affairs critic for consular services, said he met with the Mexican ambassador to Canada, Emilio Goicoechea Luna, earlier this month and the ambassador told him no one from foreign affairs had ever contacted him about Martin's case. (5)

Martin wasn't black but was not wealthy. She didn't move in their circles.

Her "citizenship counted so little."

Or Jason Kenney removing gay rights from the citizenship guide.

Their "citizenship counted so little."

Or Stephen Harper removing the word "equality" from the Status for Women.

As for Canadian women, it is doubtful that Harper’s sudden interest in championing women in the developing world will wash. They have heard those words before. Shortly after taking power, Harper broke his pre-election promise to “take concrete and immediate measures…to ensure Canada upholds its commitments to women.” He removed the words “equality” out of the Status of Women’s mandate, closed 12 out of 16 SWC offices, abandoned a Universal childcare program and killed off the Courts Challenges Program. The program subsidized Constitutional test cases for finally disadvantaged groups including women. A major beneficiary of the program was the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF) that intervened in over 150 constitutional equality cases including violence against women, sexual assault and pay equity issues. (6)

Our "citizenship counted so little."

Which brings us to Abousfian Abdelrazik.

The Harper government was warned shortly after it came to office in 2006 that Sudan’s notorious military intelligence agency was ready to “disappear” Abousfian Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen, unless Ottawa allowed him to go home, The Globe and Mail has learned. Sudan wanted to “deal with this case for once and for all: we judge as significant their verbal reference to a ‘permanent solution,’” Ottawa was bluntly told by Canadian diplomats in the Sudanese capital, according to documents now in possession of The Globe.

Instead of protesting the threat or warning Sudan – a regime notorious for its human rights abuses – that Ottawa would hold it responsible if harm came to a Canadian citizen held in one of its prisons, diplomats in Khartoum were ordered by a senior Canadian intelligence official to deliver a non-committal response “notwithstanding the expected displeasure of the Sudanese.” (7)

And rather than deal with it, Lawrence Cannon simply lied to the Canadian people and to Mr. Abdelrazik.

The lobby of the Canadian embassy in one of the world’s leading basketcase nations is an odd place for our government to house a man posing a serious threat to national security, wouldn’t you say? And yet, this is what Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon would have us believe he and his predecessor have been doing with Abousfian Abdelrazik for over a year. Yesterday, the latest chapter in the Sudanese-Canadian’s mind-boggling six-year struggle to return home unfolded as many had ruefully predicted. Having booked and paid for a flight to Canada, thus fulfilling the conditions under which the government had promised, in writing, to issue an emergency passport, the apparently destitute Abdelrazik was instead told he needed somehow to get himself removed from the United Nations’ no-fly list before the papers would be issued. (8)

So I am pleased to learn that Abousfian Abdelrazik has won the right to sue not only the Harper government, but Lawrence Cannon personally.

A Montreal man who claims he was abandoned by Canada and subjected to torture in Sudan has the green light to pursue his lawsuit against the federal government. The Federal Court this week rejected a government motion to strike significant parts of Abousfian Abdelrazik's suit for $27 million. The government argued it couldn't be sued by individuals for torture, that the government isn't duty-bound to protect Canadians detained abroad and that
Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon couldn't be named personally in the
lawsuit.

In his statement of claim, Abdelrazik alleges the government arranged for him to be detained, encouraged or condoned his torture and actively obstructed his repatriation to Canada. In it, he singles out Cannon, seeking $3 million in damages for allegedly blocking his attempts to return. (9)

We need to let this government, and any future government, know that this kind of behaviour reflects badly on Canadians. It's not who we are and it's not who we want to be. Because despite the Reform Party mindset, our equal citizenship counts for everything!

Sources:

1. U.S. Coast Guard Academy Institute for Leadership presents the 2nd event in the 2005-2006 academic year’s Leadership Speaker Series: Dr. Michael Ignatieff, September 8th, 2005

2. The Colour of Democracy, Racism in Canadian Society, By Frances Henry, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees, Harcourt Brace & Company, 1995, ISBN: 0-7747-3255-5, Pg. 24

3. A country that abandons its own, Toronto Star, August 29, 2009

4. Lawrence Cannon aspires to be ... Richard Nixon?!? By skdadl, Peace, Order and Good Government, eh?, April 25, 2009

5. Guergis warns against 'playing politics', By The Vancouver Province, December 26, 2007

6. STOP PLAYING WITH WOMEN’S LIVES, Ad Hoc Coalition for Women's Equality and Human Rights Media Release, February 22, 2010

7. Canada 'indifferent' to Sudan's threat to kill Abdelrazik, files show, By Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, July 31, 2009

8. "The Trial," by Lawrence Cannon, By Chris Selley, National Post, April 04, 2009

9. Feds fail in attempt to avoid Sudan torture lawsuit, By Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News, September 1, 2010

C'Mon Stephen Harper. Give us Some Truth About Afghanistan

With Harper's tight controlling of the message when it comes to the War in Afghanistan, these leaked documents could spell trouble.

"We have certainly not misled the Canadian public in any way, shape or form," Cannon said, calling the government's handling of information on Afghanistan "extremely transparent". "This is about leaked US documents, and yes, our government is concerned that operational leaks could endanger the lives of our men and women in Afghanistan," he added.

"Extremely transparent... Not misled the Canadian public in any way"? That's all they've done since taking over in 2006. Harper intentionally put our troops into the most dangerous situations to impress George Bush, but misled us into believing they were building schools.

I don't think we can simply walk away next year, after the mess we've made of things, but this invasion was doomed from the beginning. And what's different about these leaked documents is that none will be redacted, and apparently there are more to come.

There is one thing that really angered me though and it has nothing to do with the Conservatives mishandling of this mission. It was the fact that the US claims to be still "looking" for Bin Laden. The man has been dead since December 2001.

Last week, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State, visited Islamabad to announce US$500-million in aid to Pakistan. During her trip, she repeated she believes Osama bin Laden is hiding somewhere in the country.

Even Pat Buchanan is telling them to quit the charade.

Fox News reported his death within days:

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. "The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

There is also a group of veterans trying to get the government to stop the nonsense. Those videotapes don't look a thing like him and the audiotapes are either old or doctored.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what all the documents reveal, but don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that Bin Laden is still in "hiding".

Four of Harper's MPs Could be Barred From Running in the Next Election

I've been trying to keep track of the ongoing court case surrounding the "In and Out" scandal. There has been nothing new, but just a reminder that it is far from settled.

After one victory, and Pierre Poilievre sticking out his tiny chest and claiming it was over, Elections Canada has said "Not so fast".

A court ruling initially hailed as a triumph by the Conservatives turns out to contain a bitter pill that could poison the electoral prospects of three senior cabinet ministers.

... the Tories are also appealing, hoping to strike down a little-noticed section of the judgment that would mean up to 10 candidates — including Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon, Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis, Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Josee Verner and former minister Maxime Bernier — exceeded their campaign spending limits in 2006.

If the ruling is allowed to stand, the four sitting Tories and up to six former candidates could face charges. If convicted, they could be barred from running again or even be barred from sitting in the House of Commons, much less cabinet ... "Apart from any conviction," the agency goes on, "this option would cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election of the four candidates ... who are current members of Parliament."

Hopefully this will be settled before the next election.

More on Harper's Hostile Take Over of Rights and Democracy. Who are These Guys?

Following the continuing story of the hostile takeover of our Rights and Democracy agency, we learn that the Reformers are still on a rampage, firing dissidents and making life a living hell for anyone who dares to defy them.

In the latest round, they have appointed another Christian extremist, Gérard Latulippe, as president of the agency.

OTTAWA - A former politician with strong ties to the Conservative government has been appointed the head of a troubled human rights agency, in a move that is sure to enrage the opposition parties.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon announced late Tuesday that he had appointed Gerard Latulippe, a former Quebec Liberal who also ran for the Canadian Alliance federally in 2000, as president of Rights and Democracy. The announcement, which was made late at night on the eve of Wednesday's throne speech, came on the same day that it was reported that three senior managers at the Montreal-based agency had been fired.

The government-funded agency has been in turmoil for months as Tory appointees and other board members have clashed, squabbling over the funding of rights groups critical of Israeli policies. Critics have accused Stephen Harper's government of trying to gag legitimate criticism of Israel by meddling in what is supposed to be an independent body.

Again I take exception to the comment: '... that is sure to enrage the opposition parties.' Yes the opposition did their job and opposed, but this should enrage any Canadian citizen who is not nuts. Look at what just happened here. Wake up people.

Blogger Dr. Dawg says; the anti-gay rights Islamophobe Gérard Latulippe...

Mr. Latulippe was a colleague of Lawrence Cannon's when he was in the Quebec provincial government of Robert Bourassa.

He was also an advisor and the Quebec lieutenant of Stockwell Day's, and ran unsuccessfully for Day's Alliance Party in the 2000 election. As his lieutenant in that province, he must have also been involved with Stocky's coalition proposal to the separatist Bloc, as reported in the New York Times. Just don't tell Rodney Weston because he doesn't like deals made with parties that want to 'break up Canada'.

Apparently he wasn't privy to Harper's 'firewall letter' or heard of his plans to divide Canada along ethnic lines. If he did he'd be giving his boss a good talking to.

But what is more troubling about Latulippe, are his views of Muslims. He once argued that the “geographic concentration of more and more immigrants from Muslim countries” undermined “the proper functioning of Quebec society.” He added if Quebec failed to change the way it selected immigrants, it faced a significant threat: the “unnecessary risk of fostering domestic terrorism.”

"In our opinion this promotes an unfounded fear of Muslims and of Muslim immigration in Canada," said Ihsaan Gardee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada.

We need fewer Hagee/McVety disciples, not more.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

************

Related Postings

When it Comes to Women's Rights in Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon Says What Rights?

Lawrence Cannon Brought Into Rights and Democracy Controversy

Did the Conservatives Engineer a Break-In as Part of a Hostile Take Over?

The Opposition Must Not Back Down Without a List of Demands

The Hill Times is reporting today that the Liberals may back down from their demand for uncensored documents, provided that the Conservatives allow a full public inquiry.

BUT THAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH!

We now know that the Reformers have been working behind the scenes to tie the hands of the committee, adding a few pages to their book on how to obstruct progress.

But if they do drop the order to produce documents, it must be with conditions.

This is a list from WE the people of Canada who are sick to death of Harper's nonsense:

1. WE want the committee to be able to pick up where they left off, and not have to start from scratch.

2. WE want unredacted memos pertaining to what our government knew and when, handed over. When we voted for our Member of Parliament, we trusted them with our secrets.

3. WE want all of Richard Colvin's legal bills to be paid for past and future appearances.

4. WE want Peter Tinsley to be reinstated, because as he says ' ... pushing him out of the job will effectively kneecap the already crippled inquiry into claims that Afghans tortured prisoners.'

5. WE want Jason Kenney to stop his rampage on our NGOs (and maybe see a shrink because that's guys got a few too many bats in the belfry)

6. WE want Ari Fleisher to be fired and not given anymore 'secret' contracts, that we only learn about by reading U.S. newspapers.

7. WE want the Conservatives to start taking this seriously. No more lies and no more nonsense.

8. WE want an end to the ridiculous photo-ops with our military. They are just as ashamed of our government as we are over this issue. Fight your own damn battles and leave them out of this.

9. WE want an end to the ridiculous ten per centers, especially the ones suggesting that the opposition believes that our soldiers are guilty of war crimes. It's a lie and the Reformers know it.

10. WE want a public apology to everyone who has been hurt by this government's decisions. That includes the people of Afghanistan, the opposition and our troops who have been forced to wear the shame because Stephen Harper refuses to.

So the Conservative government will meet all of these demands, or WE will want an election, no matter what Tim Naumetz of the Hill Times says.

Because if this ends up in the International Courts, and Canada is charged with war crimes, our protests over the abuse of prorogation will be nothing compared to the grief WE will give you over that!

When it Comes to Women's Rights in Afghanistan, Lawrence Cannon Says What Rights?

Last spring, when news that the Afghan Parliament had passed a law depriving women of their children in cases of separation, banning them from appearing in public without the permission of their husbands, and making it illegal for them to refuse to have sex with them; Canadians were outraged.

We immediately demanded answers from our government.

Our young men and women are fighting in that country and one of the things they are fighting for is the rights of women; or so we're told.

Foreign Affairs minister Lawrence Cannon got on it right away.

Canadian officials contacted Karzai's office, and Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon spoke to two Afghan cabinet ministers Tuesday seeking clarification. Karzai's office has so far refused to comment on the legislation, which has been criticized by some Afghan parliamentarians and a UN women's agency but has not yet been published.

Critics say Karzai's government approved it in a hurry to win support in the upcoming election from ethnic Hazaras — a Shia Muslim minority that constitutes a crucial block of swing voters.

"If these reports are true, this will create serious problems for Canada," said International Trade Minister Stockwell Day, who fielded questions in the House of Commons. "The onus is on the government of Afghanistan to live up to its responsibilities for human rights, absolutely including rights of women.

Fast forward to 2010, and the hostile take over of the Rights and Democracy agency by the Conservative government. Lawrence Cannon has already been brought into the mix when it was discovered that he lied about knowing that there were problems, instigated by his party.

So should we be surprised to learn that Cannon knew of the new Afghan law months before it was passed, so his huffing and puffing was nothing more than that?

Lawrence Cannon swore he knew nothing about the law and that it came as a complete surprise to him… he was contradicted by two employees - the president, Rémy Beauregard, and Razmik Panossian, its policy director, who told Embassy Magazine that Canada had known it was coming for months…

Rémy Beauregard was the gentleman who suffered a heart attack and died because of the horrendous actions of our tyrannical government. As I've said many times, if you question them they will set out to ruin you.

But apparently, Cannon was not the only one who knew.

Ottawa’s man, Aurel Braun, did not appreciate the fact that employees contradicted two Conservative ministers about what was known about Kabul’s misogynistic law….

So there were two high ranking Conservatives who knew of the law and supported it with their silence. We can only assume that the other one was Stockwell Day, since it was he who stood up in the House of Commons and said "The onus is on the government of Afghanistan to live up to its responsibilities for human rights, absolutely including rights of women."

He probably took notes to see if he could get away with enacting a law like that here.

Give him time.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Lawrence Cannon Brought Into Rights and Democracy Controversy

In the ongoing saga of the hostile takeover of the Rights and Democracy agency, a group that is supposed to be arms length of government; a shady character if there ever was one, just entered the mix.

Our very own Lawrence Cannon. Who'd a thunk it? I mean besides me.

But as Larry is denying having any knowledge of the plot, claiming he never saw the warning letter, evidence reveals that he is lying ... Again!

Not only did he get the letter but he almost immediately put two of his cronies on the board to make sure the agency spun their findings his way. Better known as Hagee 101.

Cannon was told of trouble at agency
Rights and Democracy president wrote minister in November warning of 'divisions'
February 11, 2010
Bruce Campion-Smith Ottawa bureau chief

OTTAWA–Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon was warned last November that brewing troubles at Montreal-based Rights and Democracy risked becoming an "embarrassment" for the government and would give Canada a black eye on the world stage.

In a letter that would later prove prescient, Remy Beauregard, then president of the agency, wrote Cannon saying that the board of directors was facing "deep divisions." He pleaded for an urgent meeting to lay out his case....

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

Harper Government Has Traded Humanitarian Aid For Bullets

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

Adrian Bradbury, Founder and Executive Director of Athletes for Africa and Football for Good, recently wrote a piece on Canada's new direction when it comes to foreign policy:

An internal DFAIT email was leaked this summer which outlined a series of shifts in the language of Canadian foreign policy. These changes were politically directed, coming from Foreign Affairs Minister Cannon’s office. The terms "gender equality," "child soldiers," "international humanitarian law," "good governance," "human security," "public diplomacy" and "The esponsibility to Protect" have been blacklisted from government parlance.

While already limited to an unprecedented degree on what they are allowed to say in public, Canada’s civil servants and diplomats are now banned from using certain words. (1) Last year Oxfam Canada was critical of Harper's foreign aid to Afghanistan. (Unfortunately they may be one of the humanitarian organizations on the chopping block.) "Oxfam Canada welcomes Canada’s commitment to increase aid to Afghanistan but remains concerned that military objectives are trumping aid effectiveness in setting priorities." (2)

Not long after that, the Toronto Star reported of the G8 Summit:

During this year's summit, humanitarian groups closely following the talks accused Canada of trying to water down the G8's key 2005 commitment to double aid to Africa by 2010 and a pledge to spend $60 billion fighting AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis. This was denied by Canadian officials, but it was clear that, after watching Harper at the G8 for three years, anti-poverty activists longed for the days when Liberal prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin used their influence to push their summit counterparts to open their wallets and do as much as possible for the world's poor. (3)

The Harper government made other changes to our foreign policy without permission or advice from anyone, that almost went unnoticed until Embassy magazine reported on them:

With subtle strokes of the pen, it appears the Conservative government has been systematically changing the language employed by the foreign service and, as a result, bringing subtle but sweeping changes to traditional Canadian foreign policy.

In an email communication obtained by Embassy, staff at the Department of Foreign Affairs express concern about frequent changes being made to commonly used terms, particularly where such changes are not consistent with accepted Canadian policy, and which may be carried out to minimize international obligations on issues as complex as the Omar Khadr case.

Among the changes identified are the excising of the word "humanitarian" from each reference to "international humanitarian law," replacing the term "gender equality" with "equality of men and women", switching focus from justice for victims of sexual violence to prevention of sexual violence, and replacing the phrase "child soldiers" with "children in armed conflict." (4)

This is all part of a very disturbing pattern, I'm afraid.

Sources:

1. The Government's Newspeak: Recent changes to the language of Canadian foreign policy represent a fundamental shift in how the country presents itself to the world, By Adrian Bradbury, The Mark, December 2, 2009

2. Despite billions wasted, more foreign aid needed: Oxfam, By Richard Foot, Canwest News Service, April 26, 2010

3. Harper has changed Canada's progressive image: G8 positions show why country now seen as hard-nosed conservative player on world stage, Toronto Star, July 8, 2008

4. "Gender Equality", "Child Soldiers" and "Humanitarian Law" are Axed from Foreign Policy Language, Embassy Magazine, By Michelle Collins, July 29, 2009