Could Someone Possibly Guilty of War Crimes Really Win a Nobel Peace Prize?

Social media has been buzzing recently over the announcement that the B'Nai Brith has put forward Stephen Harper's name as a possible recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This prestigious award is presented to an individual or group of individuals who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Above all. The promotion of peace.

It boggles the mind.

I can't think of a single incident or plank in this government's platform that promotes peaceful resolutions to anything. They even turned Toronto into a war zone during the G-20 Summit in 2010, then praised the police for their brutality.

During this horrific abuse of human rights, one police officer told a citizen "This ain't Canada right now". For many of us, it feels like we've not lived in Canada since Harper took control of our country in 2006. And I don't use the term "took control" lightly.

But just as an increasing number of Canadians are being made to feel that they are unwelcome visitors, in what was once their "home and native land", the international community has found a Canada that is no longer a peace broker, but a bully for corporate interests.

When Documentary film maker Michael Moore was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey, she stated that she was shocked to learn from him, the things being done in their country's name.

All Canadians need to read The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper's Foreign Policy, by Yves Engler. It becomes very hard to feel like a proud Canadian when you learn what this government is doing in our name. "This ain't Canada right now" indeed.

On Power Play recently, former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (from Canada's first Conservative Party that was disbanded in 2003), stated: “When Canada, for the first time in our history, loses a vote at the United Nations to become a member of the Security Council . . . to Portugal, which was on the verge of bankruptcy at the time, you should look in the mirror and say: ‘Houston, I think we have a problem.’”

Yes we have a very serious problem, and for the B'nai Brith to put forward Stephen Harper's name for a Nobel Peace Prize, not only mocks the integrity of the award, but is a slap in the face to his victims, at home and abroad; who see Harper as the antithesis to peace.

His government is not only supporting the genocide of Palestinians by Israel, but sending out fund raising letters asking for help to make sure that they can continue to condone the slaughter.

The Afghan Detainee issue is yet to be settled satisfactorily, and there is strong evidence that Canada could face a war crimes tribunal with the International Criminal Court, not only because of our handing over of prisoners for violent interrogation, but for the extraordinary lengths that Harper went to to stop the investigation.

In 2012 the UN strongly rebuked Canada, not only for our complicity in torture, but for our horrendous immigration policies and unwillingness to protect Canadian citizens abroad.

We were once a country with a moral conscience, but under Harper, have become a country with no conscience at all.

In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize went to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Instead of addressing Climate Change, Harper has gone above and beyond to not only deny that it exists, but to make sure that groups like the IPCC cannot operate in this country. He has also poured billions of tax dollars into the Tar Sands, and their weapons of mass destruction.

How could anyone possibly believe that this man is deserving? Maybe we need to look at who put forward his nomination.

Frank Dimant of the B'nai Brith is hardly an unbiased judge. While the Brith is a commendable organization, Dimant has aligned himself with the radical Religious group, Christians United for Israel.

In 2006, Charles McVety, president of Canada Christian College hosted the first event (Israel You're Not Alone) of a newly created coalition called Christians United for Israel (CUFI). CUFI counts amongst its members such extremists as John Hagee, Pat Roberston and the late Jerry Falwell. In fact, Frank Dimant, BB Canada's Executive Vice President, shared the podium with McVety and Hagee, and thanked them both in these terms: "But we (Jews) and Israel are not alone because of you and the tremendous leadership of Dr. McVety and Dr. Hagee") (Jewish Tribune, May 25, 2006.

Former U.S. Presidential nominee John McCain, was forced to distance himself from John Hagee, because of remarks he made suggesting that Hitler was doing God's work when he drove the Jews to Palestine.

And Charles McVety, who once handled Jim Flaherty's Ontario leadership bid, is Canada's Religious Right leader, and the man who brought Karl Rove to Canada to instruct Conservatives in the art of stealing elections. They were apt pupils.

Dimant sees Harper and his government, not as brokers of peace, or advocates of human rights, but as willing accomplices in a Holocaust.

There is a group; Deny the Nomination of PM Stephen Harper for 2014 Nobel Peace Prize, and a petition in support of this denial with almost 30,000 names.

Columnist Heather Martinuk condemns the petition, suggesting that it makes a mockery of the Peace Prize's goal. She claims that it is just partisan attack on the Prime Minister and suggests that we should take pride in the fact that he is being thought of for the prestigious award.

If he was deserving, we would be proud. Instead we continue to bow our heads in shame.

Fortunately, the international community does not share Martinuk's views, and Harper has as much chance of winning this, as he does a singing contest, but if the nomination is upheld, it will be an undeserved honour, imprinted in Canadian history. We can't let that happen.

“Peace demands the most heroic labor and the most difficult sacrifice. It demands greater heroism than war. It demands greater fidelity to the truth and a much more perfect purity of conscience.” Catholic Monk and Social Activist Thomas Merton

Mark Adler: From Belle of the Ball to Do Not Call

As Conservatives prepared for the 2011 election, they began targeting ridings with large Jewish populations, that they felt they could steal away from the Liberals.

Stephen Harper was already portrayed, and not always in a positive light, as the most staunch supporter of Israel; so to build on that, they had to select candidates with the same commitment.

In the Toronto riding of York Centre, that candidate was Mark Adler, who had at least one friend in a high place, Nathan Jacobson; who was somewhat of a kingmaker for the Harper Conservatives. A described "philanthropist" Jacobson had all of the right connections, both in Canada and Israel.

Jacobson hosted a number of Canadian-Israeli receptions on Parliament Hill, and said that people from the Prime Minister's Office attended, as well as Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird ... A photograph has circulated in the media of Jacobson standing between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Prime Minister Harper ...

Jacobson also said that he had introduced Kenney to top-level politicians in Israel. "Jason and I have spent a little time in Israel on several occasions when he's been there. And I've hosted dinners in Israel with senior government people. I, in fact, took Jason to meet Netanyahu his first time, meeting Netanyahu and other people within the security and political environment within Israel."

Mark Adler had met Nathan Jacobson when he was trying to secure Israeli speakers for his Economics Club of Canada. According to Jacobson he loaned Adler $140,000 to expand into the U.S., which he failed to pay back. As a result, Jacobson was suing him. Stephen Harper had to know of the lawsuit, as his then Chief of Staff, Nigel Wright told Adler to settle it.

But soon a scandal would break that would prove to be more of an embarrassment for the Conservatives. Seems their bridge to the vote rich Jewish community might collapse, when it was discovered that Jacobson was wanted in the United States on a charge of money laundering.

Harper, Kenney and Baird claimed not to know of his criminal past, which begs the question: why is there no screening of people getting this close to the Prime Minister and members of his cabinet?

A Bizarre Election Campaign

Mark Adler would go on to defeat the incumbent, hockey legend Ken Dryden. However, what made the campaign bizarre, was the issue of who was the biggest supporter of a foreign country.

York Centre has a large Jewish population and a key issue, Dryden told CBC News, is the two parties' positions on Israel.

Standing outside Kiva's Bagels on Steeles Avenue, Howard Cohen is one such voter. He said Conservative Stephen Harper's consistent backing of Israel has won him over to the Conservative camp. "We need all the friends we can get and he's the leading supporter of Israel in the western world," said Cohen.

Voters like Cohen have not forgotten Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's labelling of an Israeli military action in Lebanon as a war crime back in 2006, and he said Dryden could end up paying the price. "He's on the wrong side this time," Cohen said.

Ironically, key players in both the war in Lebanon and attacks on Gaza, are being investigated by the Israeli courts.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, the current justice minister, are among the high-level figures accused of breaking the laws of war when they launched attacks on Lebanon in 2006, and on Gaza in the winter of 2008-09.

The allegations have been levelled by Marwan Dalal, the only Israeli lawyer to have served as a senior prosecutor in one of the international criminal courts at The Hague in the Netherlands.

Dalal, who spent three years as a prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, belongs to Israel's Palestinian minority, which comprises a fifth of the country's population. He said he had based his petition to the court on "strong factual and legal findings" from public sources, including the reports of Israeli official inquiries.

His evidence includes statements from senior Israeli officials in which they appear to implicate themselves in actions - including killing, collective punishment and attacks on civilian infrastructure - not justified by military necessity. Such acts are breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as Israeli law.

I hardly think that Dalal is anti-Israel. He just knows that if they don't address this issue themselves, the International Criminal Court will take over.

So apparently Michael Ignatieff was on the right side of this issue after all.

Robocall Scandal and Republican Canvassers

Mark Adler may have been the Belle of the Ball after his stunning victory, but the glow would soon fade from his tiara, when it was discovered that his riding was one being investigated in the Robocall election fraud scandal.

He was also one of the Conservative candidates who used the Republican Front Porch Strategies to canvas for him, but failed to mention that on his Elections Canada financial report. Would that invoice have put him over his legally allowable limit? He spent more than $94,000.

In Hot Water Again

Adler would continue to play off the Israel connection to ensure his political fortune, especially given the bad press he'd received after the election.

When Stephen Harper visited Israel for the first time in January of this year, Adler was heard on tape begging to have his picture taken with him at the sacred Western Wall.

A month later, he barred Liberal MP and human rights activist, Irwin Cotler, from an Israel charity event.

Global News reported last week that Adler told Cotler – a well-known human rights activist – he was not welcome at the event on Jan.19. Rabbis said they heard about the incident and were upset that Cotler was not invited to attend – one even calling it senseless hatred.

Senseless hatred indeed. Nothing new for the Harper clan though, as they also tried to ban Michael Ignatieff from attending a Hanukkah ceremony at a school for disabled children.

But aside from the gaffes, Adler's integrity is again put into question, with a pending and controversial fundraiser that he will be hosting.

He settled the lawsuit with Nathan Jacobson, by agreeing to pay $114,962, hence the need for the fundraiser.

However, this has now become an issue for the ethics commissioner.

The Conservatives themselves, questioned how NDP Pat Martin was going to pay a $100,000 settlement, and according to Martin: “It’s wrong to use subsidized public dollars for personal private use,” he said. “I’ve got tons of money in my riding association coffers and they can’t spend a single nickel to help me with my legal problems or the debt from my lawsuit"

Donations made are tax receipted meaning that 75% of the donations would be made by us, and it's pretty clear that this fundraiser is being conducted by the riding association. Says Steve Maher:

Mark Adler’s brother, Paul, is the treasurer of the York Centre Conservative Association. Martin Rosenbaum, who handled Adler’s defence in the Jacobson lawsuit, is a former president of the association. The invitation to the fundraiser is headlined: Fundraiser in support of Mark Adler.

The “confirmed guests” at the event are Industry Minister Christian Paradis, Government House Leader Peter Van Loan, Senator Linda Frum and parliamentary secretary Pierre Poilievre. Shelly Glover withdrew on Wednesday. Her office said she has events in her riding to attend.

Glover wouldn't want to remind the public of her own lobbyist invited fundraiser. It's important to note that this is not the first time that Adler has been in trouble over fundraisers.

How much does he think he can get away with?

Hopefully, by 2015, the voters of York Centre will have had enough of Mark Adler. I know I have.

Taxpayers Should be Happy About Change in Direction in Afghanistan?

I posted a piece in December, on how the Harper government had turned the War in Afghanistan into a mafia style playground, buying protection, and hiring firms blacklisted by everyone else.

The Star now reports that Harper has finally decided to fire the corrupt organization, run by the Karzai family.

The firing is being called "a victory for Canadian taxpayers." What the hell? A victory for us would have been not hiring this group in the first place. Instead we were complicit in their crimes.

In his new book Obama's Wars, Bob Woodward of Watergate fame, discusses Canada and confirms that the Taliban is being paid "protection money". What a mess this government has made of things.

Harper is calling the mission a success. What a farce. As Thomas Walkom reminds us, with a view shared by many, we have won nothing. The Taliban is just as strong and the Afghan forces just as weak.

And with Harper's new "spreading of democracy", will our soldiers really be coming home, or just sent someplace else?

The problem with having a madman at the helm.

World News: Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay Could be Charged with War Crimes

While the pundits cackle over the Afghan documents that we had to fight so hard to have made public, the International Criminal Court has a different mandate.

They are now investigating Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay for violations of the Geneva Convention. Stephen Harper has been trying to distance himself from the ICC, snubbing his nose at the convention, but there are some things that go beyond his supreme rule.

The ICC’s chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo, is conducting a “preliminary examination” into human rights abuses committed in Afghanistan by Taliban and ISAF forces alike. And while the ICC has focused in recent years on prosecuting African despots, Mr. Ocampo said he will not back down from prosecuting Western governments that are not holding their officials accountable for their actions.

“I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate. If they don’t, I shall investigate,” Mr. Ocampo said. “That’s the rule and we have one rule for everyone.” According to the ICC, Canadian officials (mainly Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay) may be in breach of the Geneva Convention and have launched an official war crimes investigation.

Now personally I don't care if these two do end up in prison, but it's just that they are taking Canada down with them. War Crimes? Canada?

And if that isn't enough of a black eye, we also learn that the Harper government has hired goons fighting in Afghanistan, that are deemed too brutal for even the United States.

Canada spent more than $41-million on hired guns in Afghanistan over four years, much of it going to security companies slammed by the U.S. Senate for having warlords on the payroll. Both the Defence and Foreign Affairs departments have employed 11 security contractors in Kabul and Kandahar since 2006, but have kept quiet about the details.

The records show Foreign Affairs paid nearly $8-million to ArmorGroup Securities Ltd., recently cited in a U.S. Senate investigation as relying on Afghan warlords who in 2007 were engaged in “murder, kidnapping, bribery and anti-Coalition activities.”

What has he done to us?

George Bush Banned from Switzerland for War Crimes. What About Stephen Harper?

A kind of funny, but not so funny, story from Switzerland. George Bush was planning a trip there but had to cancel those plans after calls that he be arrested for war crimes.

Former US President George W Bush has cancelled a visit to Switzerland amid concerns he could be arrested. The former leader had been due to speak at a charity gala, making the keynote speech at Keren Hayesod's annual dinner on February 12.

But human rights groups in the country have been calling for the Swiss government to arrest him over allegations he ordered the torture of prisoners. Court officials have said criminal complaints against Mr Bush have been lodged in Geneva but Swiss officials said he would enjoy some diplomatic immunity as a former head of state.

What about Stephen Harper? The International Criminal court is still investigating his case. The wheels of justice move slowly, but the case is still open.

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 May Have to Pay for "Fake Lake" with Manna From Heaven

Despite promises to hand over unredacted documents, the Reformers are still stalling, once again skipping an important committee meeting.

As a result the opposition could hold up the funds needed to pay for Harper's Vegas style extravaganza. Let's hope they stick to their guns.

The opposition parties could hold up the millions in federal cash needed to pay for the G8 and G20 summits and a whack of other programs if the Conservative government does not bend on the release of classified documents about the Afghan mission. The NDP and Bloc Quebecois said Friday they are losing hope that the four federal parties will come to an agreement on releasing records related to the transfer of Afghan detainees by the Canadian Forces.

Without a deal, those two parties are prepared to forge ahead Monday or Tuesday with a process that could tie up the House of Commons and all its work until it rises for the summer. It is unclear how far the Liberals are willing to go. "All three of the opposition parties are quite frustrated with the government. For the last two weeks at least we don't see that there's been any significant change," NDP justice critic Joe Comartin said in an interview.

and:

The problem for the government is that once such a motion is in play, nothing other than question period can take place in the Commons. Debate on the motion can go on indefinitely, with no possibility of limiting the time. That could hold up an important vote on government's main estimates, money that goes toward paying important budgetary items including the G8 and G20.

Will Jason Kenney Finally Admit That Israel CAN Do Wrong?

As tension mounts with the Israeli blockade, hopefully, the western world will unite in denouncing Israeli aggression. No more nonsense about it be antisemitic to suggest they are guilty of war crimes. They are guilty of war crimes, plain and simple.

Our foreign policy CANNOT be based on a biblical prophesy. And for Jason Kenney's information, many of the people living in Israel oppose what their government is doing and are allowed to say so.

As a direct result of Israeli Apartheid, Gaza remains in a state of ruin, A 2009 Red Cross report concluding Israel's blockade is 'strangling' the economy, and preventing reconstruction efforts, warning "Gaza neighbourhoods particularly hard hit by the Israeli strikes will continue to look like the epicenter of a massive earthquake unless vast quantities of cement, steel and other building materials are allowed into the territory for reconstruction."

As Israel continues to resist international calls to lift the blockade, the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip grows increasingly dire. This is precisely the reason a fleet of ships called dubbed Freedom Flotillas set out to defy the blockade; seeking to deliver tens of thousands of tonnes of food, medicine and reconstruction materials directly to the people of Gaza.

Meanwhile, as usual, Stephen Harper is pretty non-committal:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a statement Monday regretting the deaths and injuries that occurred when Israel used military force against a flotilla of ships carrying aid to the Gaza Strip, but said more information is needed to shed light on what happened. The statement was issued by his office shortly before Harper hosted a meeting in his office with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

"Canada deeply regrets the loss of life and the injuries suffered," Harper's office said. "We are currently looking for more information in order to shed light on what exactly happened." Prior to meeting Harper, Netanyahu gave his "full backing" to Israel's military forces after Israeli navy commandos stormed the vessels in international waters, leaving as many as 19 people dead and others injured. "The prime minister . . . reiterated his full backing for the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) and inquired about the well being of the wounded," his office told AFP in Ottawa.

How Dean Del Mastro Got it So Wrong

While he was on his two and half month vacation, Dean Del Mastro told his local paper that the break was not just so that his boss could sell us out in a bogus Buy America scheme, but also so that they no longer had to be asked embarrassing questions about the Afghan Detainee issue.

Yes, I'm kidding. That's what he should have said if he was into the truth, but he's just another hand puppet, so on the issue of possible complicity in torture Deano had this to say:

The Afghan detainees issue has nothing to do with the prorogation of Parliament, Del Mastro said. The opposition parties are twisting the facts on the Afghan detainees issue, he said. "The opposition is way off base on where Canadians are at on that," he said, adding it's about "potentially, alleged abuse which may have occurred between Afghans (officials) and Afghans (detainees) ... that may have been turned over by Canadian Forces."

Since Harper keeps a death grip on the media, only allowing his MPs to speak on the local level, I'm dragging them kicking and screaming into the national story. And since most of what Del Mastro had to say locally, is completely false; I thought I'd set the record straight.

Again it was not the opposition who brought this to our attention, but groups you may have heard of like our Military Police, Amnesty International, the International Red Cross, the U.S. State Department and NATO.

Now while on vacation Deano's party went into action, cutting funds to Richard Colvin and limiting the scope of the investigation, not by the opposition, but by the justice system whose job it is to make sure that the Geneva Convention is upheld.

OTTAWA - Foreign Affairs officials have been called to testify before a probe into Canada's transfer of Afghan detainees - despite a court ruling that limited the inquiry's ability to delve beyond military ranks.

The Military Police Complaints Commission has sent summonses to a total of 25 people from the Canadian Forces, National Defence and Foreign Affairs, said Nancy-Ann Walker, a spokeswoman for the commission.

And since Deano's boss fired the last person to head up the Military police inquiry, because he was getting too close to the truth, things will definitely slow down.

And he has also placed a corporate lawyer in charge of determining whether or not the 1867 Constitution of this country is now null and void. That would be the charter giving all of our elected officials full access to all government documents.

OTTAWA - The Conservative government gave a former Supreme Court justice guidelines Saturday for a review of whether MPs can see uncensored Afghan detainee documents, but critics were quick to call the decision a "stalling exercise" that wastes time and money ... "Iacobucci will provide our government with valuable advice for fulfilling our responsibilities to parliamentarians, Canadians and the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan," Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in a news release.

... "I think this is an expensive waste of time, but it really seems to be designed to delay political consideration for a long time, well into the possibility of an election happening," NDP defence critic Jack Harris said in an interview Saturday. Paul Champ, a lawyer who represents Amnesty International, also said Iacobucci's review will only boil down to a second opinion, as government officials and lawyers would have already vetted the documents for national security concerns.

So next time Dean Del Mastro spins a story for the local paper I will be there. I promise.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS DEAN DEL MASTRO REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR PETERBOROUGH?

We Must NOT Allow Frank Iacobucci to See Documents Before OUR Elected Representatives do

If I ever had any doubts that the supremacy of Parliament must prevail, I no longer have a single doubt. Not one.

In fact what would be a step up from that? Put me on that step.

And no it's not because I don't trust Mr. Iacobucci. The optics may not be the best, since he is a corporate and tax lawyer, not a human rights lawyer; but that is irrelevant.

And it's not because he's on the board of a major Canadian newspaper. (Toronto Star)

It's because of someone else who has just entered the debate, that makes me 100% convinced that this is ABSOLUTELY WRONG ON EVERY LEVEL POSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter Worthington.

Yes this former founder of the Toronto Sun, wrote a column in favour of this appointment. It's the usual crap I expect from Worthington:

Whatever subtleties Iacobucci may find in documents pertaining to prisoners, his overall concern will likely focus on whether Canadian soldiers abused or tortured Taliban insurgents it captured — not on what Afghanis do to one another. The opposition and human rights activists seem more concerned about what happens to Taliban prisoners, than what the Taliban were doing — or trying to do — to Canadian soldiers.

Sound familiar? I can't even critique his nonsense because it is just so damn ugly.

So instead, I will just let you know who Peter Worthington is and why, when he is brought out of hibernation to prop up the Harper government, I start to worry. And worry, and worry and worry.

Northern Foundation

I've posted many times on Stephen Harper's involvement with an extreme right-wing group, called the Northern Foundation. In fact, Harper was a founding member. And guess who else was a founding member? Yep. Peter Worthington.

This man has led quite an adventurous life. You can read his bio here at Wikipedia.

A conservative, Worthington led the brash new tabloid throughout the 1970s as it campaigned against the government of Pierre Trudeau. At one point he was jailed after being accused of violating the Official Secrets Act. ... Worthington was criticized when it was revealed that he had informed to the American Federal Bureau of Investigation about the suspected political sympathies of a number of his friends including June Callwood.

Worthington is the stepfather of conservative writer Danielle Crittenden (She has been critical of the feminist movement and is considered to be a social conservative. Crittenden is the editor of The Women’s Quarterly magazine. She is married to former George W. Bush special assistant and speechwriter David Frum
and resides in Washington DC.) and is thereby David Frum's father-in-law.

David Frum's name comes up a lot, especially when it comes to Israel/Palestine. He was actually the man credited with coining the term 'Axis of Evil.' His sister Linda was one of Harper's patronage senate appointments.

Peter Worthington and South Africa

I posted a while back on Worthington and a man by the name of Craig Williamson.

From Williamson's Wikipedia bio:

"Craig Michael Williamson (born 1949, Johannesburg), a former South African police major, was exposed as a spy in 1980, and was involved in a series of state-sponsored overseas bombings, burglaries, kidnappings, assassinations and propaganda during the apartheid era."Williamson was one of the main collaborators with Peter Worthington in the pro-apartheid video The ANC method - violence which was distributed by Citizens for foreign aid reform throughout Canada in 1988."

David Stonehouse wrote an article in the Ryerson Press in 1988, about this documentary:

South African expatriates and the ANC have labeled it propaganda; Worthington prefers to call it "a personal view." Hugh Winsor, national political editor for The Globe and Mail, who covered South Africa for the now defunct Toronto Telegram, says: "It is not straight-up journalism. I would have seen it as more valid if he indicated where he got the footage and where he got the help."

Distribution cost him even less. That was handled by Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, a right-wing organization based in Toronto. CFAR agreed to the task after Worthington's attempts to get his taped views aired on public television got nowhere, says Paul Fromm, CFAR's research director. And while the television producers were saying no, CFAR's members were nodding yes, snatching up 4,000 copies of the tape and its 12-page companion booklet in five months. Members of Parliament were each sent a copy, and 400 more went to major media outlets across the country.

Meanwhile, Worthington was also circulating copies to his friends, and this was how it caught the attention of David Somerville, a former employee of Worthington's at The Toronto Sun. Somerville is president of the National Citizens' Coalition, another right-wing pressure group in Toronto. He offered the tape to his membership, which numbers 36,000, at $12 apiece ("at cost"). The NCC sold 600-more than double what it expected. Somerville calls the video a "journalistic effort at setting the record straight on the ANC."

Others argue differently. The ANC's Canadian representative, Yusuf Saloojee, says, "What Worthington is doing is working the South African government propaganda machinery. It's a distortion of reality, of what is really going on in the country. He totally stays away from state violence."

Worthington's latest column is clearly just more propaganda, and if we allow this farce to continue, Stephen Harper is going to get away with possible war crimes. We deserve better than this.

And for those who don't know, Stephen Harper went on to become president of the National Citizens Coalition and Paul Fromm was allowed to sell memberships to C-Far at the Reform's Assembly.

Also of note is that Conrad Black was one of the power money guys behind the formation of the Reform Party, and he used his media empire to swing Canada to the right, and advance the cause. Worthington and Black go back a long way. Worthington once had a thing for Black's wife, Barbara Ameil, another right-wing journalist.

And the association also includes David Frum, as per Frum himself.

I have repeatedly referred in this space and elsewhere to my long professional association with Conrad Black. But to obviate any possibility that any reader might be unaware of it, I gladly recapitulate it ...

Now I'm not suggesting that these guys are doing anything illegal or untoward. Only that they are from the extreme right-wing, where Harper hung his hat until he re-invented himself, so he'd stop scaring people.

And everything they say and do comes from that mindset and boils down to a very extreme view of Islam. It's why Worthington dismisses Afghans torturing each other in his column. They have no value, and while he does credit our soldiers with wanting to help them, it's pretty clear he would lose no sleep over Canada being charged with war crimes, if it comes to that.

Another founding member of the Northern Foundation was Link Byfield, who just happens to be involved with the new Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta. (which connects him to the famous Calgary School)

He is a fairly regular speaker at the anti-women REAL Women conferences. In 2002 he spoke of three scenarios for the future of Canada.

The three scenarios Mr. Byfield envisioned were that either Islam, materialism (secular humanism) or Christianity will prevail in Canada's future.

An invasion by Islam will not be by force of arms, as they do not have the technology for that. The power of Islam is in its birth rate. Islam cannot be removed or replaced, and it grows by way of its large families. In Britain, there are entire Muslim communities, with mosques going up everywhere. Although Muslims share the Christian notion of family, Islam also demands submission.

Democracy is a Christian philosophy and, therefore, does not exist or, at best, is only a peripheral force in most Muslim countries.

There is clearly no scenario where Islam, atheism and Christianity can live in harmony. There needs to be a clear victor.

And this is why we must demand that the Afghan Detainee issue is dealt with properly. All human life has value and we cannot dismiss any human being simply because Harper's extreme-right wing people, do not want to share their world with them.

It speaks to the very heart of who we are as Canadians. And the more the Harper government stonewalls, the more guilty they look.

As Greg Weston says: For a government with nothing to hide, it is certainly going to extraordinary lengths to hide it. And Darren Ridgley: They represent our country, and we all, with our international reputation, may end up paying for their inaction.

And from the Globe: There are two separate and related reasons for concern: the government's refusal to be transparent with Parliament and Canadians at large; and the possibility that the government of Canada is disregarding its legal and moral obligations to protect detainees from known risks of torture.

Worthington's column merely reminds me of why my gut has always said that Stephen Harper is the wrong fit for Canada, and as a result I am even more committed to exposing this gang of thugs.

Thank you Mr. Worthington.

Iaccobucci Agrees That the Privileges of Parliament are Part of the Fundamental Law of Our Land

While everyone who knows about things like constitutional law and Parliamentary privilege, are stating that Parliament is the highest court in the land and that all Members of Parliament have the right to see all government documents, the Reformers have gone into full spin mode, believing they only have to win in the court of public opinion.

Not this time.

And while justice Iaccobucci has no legal authority to change our constitution, Neil Morrison at MacLeans suggests that he may not even try. He's been down that road before.

A question for Iacobucci

Interesting point about former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci, who as just been named by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson to review the documents on the Afghan detainee controversy that Parliament ordered released last December. He was on the bench when the top court decided one of the most important cases dealing with the question of parliamentary privilege.

" In summary, it seems clear that, from an historical perspective, Canadian legislative bodies possess such inherent privileges as may be necessary to their proper functioning. These privileges are part of the fundamental law of our land, and hence are constitutional. The courts may determine if the privilege claimed is necessary to the capacity of the legislature to function, but have no power to review the rightness or wrongness of a particular decision made pursuant to the privilege."

Maybe the Reformers chose the wrong judge, though this is probably just to buy time. Perhaps they tried to appeal to a sitting judge, but were given answers they didn't want to hear.

According to constitutional law professor Amir Attaran, who saw the memos before they were run over by a magic marker:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said. "There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

What is Ed Holder Hiding About Afghan Detainees?

Early this year while the Conservatives were on their two and a half month vacation, a concerned citizen of London Ontario, who happens to reside in Ed Holder's riding, sent him an email.

He wanted to let Holder know that as a Canadian citizen, he felt it was important to hold a full public inquiry into the accusations of his government being complicit in torture.

He got a reply, that was so full of nonsense, I was almost embarrassed for him. I'd be tempted to ask if that was his final answer, or if he wanted to phone a friend.

So let's break it down.

Right off the bat, he does not refer to them as detainees, but 'Taliban'. I'll excuse that. Maybe Mr. Holder doesn't read much, or he'd know that we are not just fighting Taliban, but villagers; who have been forced to take up arms against what they see as an invading army.

However, I am now thoroughly convinced that the Reformers have little transmitters embedded in their brains, because they all say the same thing. "To be clear, Mr. Colvin did not present one shred of evidence that Canadian soldiers mistreated Taliban prisoners, and any insinuation that our brave men and women acted dishonourably is an insult to the Canadian Forces."

Remember Peter Braid? How could we forget?



But Mr. Holder, no one has suggested 'that Canadian soldiers mistreated Taliban prisoners.' The only ones who have passed this onto the soldiers, has been the Conservative party of Canada.

"Mr. Colvin admitted that he never actually witnessed any acts of abuse ... the opposition is only too happy to take the word of the Taliban as fact ... This is a ridiculous accusation. Mr. Colvin’s accusations are completely unsubstantiated ... Our Government has been transparent on our mission in Afghanistan ... "

Blah, blah, blah, and of course not a shred of truth. This government has been extremely secretive about what they are doing in Afghanistan. We are the only NATO country where our journalists are not allowed to provide a story. All interviews had to go through the PMO first and then routed back.

And would it surprise Mr. Holder to know that Canada suffered disproportionate losses because Stephen Harper wanted to show off for George Bush, so he needlessly sent them into areas with the heaviest fighting?

This is an interview with a former Ambassador to that country.

Whenever you hear that a NATO soldier has been killed in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, it's probably a Canadian soldier. Canada only has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, but they are fighting in one of the most dangerous
regions of the country. So while Canadian troops make up only a small fraction of NATO forces, they've suffered the highest number of fatalities proportionately.

And from a constitutional lawyer who has seen the unredacted memos before Holder's party put the brakes on:

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said. "There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

And from CBC today:

An internal government memo obtained by CBC confirms that Canadian authorities began formulating a plan for dealing with accusations of torture of prisoners in Afghanistan as early as March 2007 — months before such allegations first came up in the media.

The memo, drafted by officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs, instructs staff to inform the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission and the Red Cross if "NGOs, relatives, media or otherwise make credible allegations that detainees transferred by CF [Canadian Forces] to Afghan authorities have been potentially abused following their transfer."

Officials must also "follow up separately to address potential concerns with the conditions of detention," the memo says. First drafts of the document were written in March 2007, months before the Globe and Mail reported that 30 prisoners handed over to Afghan authorities by the Canadian military were "beaten, whipped, starved, frozen, choked and subjected to electric shocks during interrogations."

Are they all lying Mr. Holder? I don't think so. And if your government refuses to do the right thing, our troops will wear this and our country will wear this.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS ED HOLDER REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR LONDON WEST?

Asadullah Khalid May be Gone But His Legacy Lives on

On April 14, 2008, then foreign affairs minister, Maxime Bernier, after a visit to Afghanistan; was asked by reporters what could be done to reduce corruption in the Karzai government.

Bernier's suggestion was to replace Governor Asadullah Khalid of Kandahar province, which immediately set off a diplomatic firestorm.

He would later retract his statement, while the Harper government went into damage control. Within a week, International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda appeared at a public event in Kandahar with Khalid, for photo-ops, where the controversial governor was quoted as saying; "It was a misunderstanding, which I believe, and for me, relations between Afghans and Canadians, this is more important."

The problem of course was not that Bernier was wrong in his assessment, but that he should not have tried to interfere, at least not publicly; with the governing of a sovereign nation.

What was later revealed, was that Karzai had already planned to expel Khalid, but because he couldn't appear to be taking orders from a foreign government, he was forced to keep him around for another few months.

Canada's Relationship with Asadullah Khalid

During his first trip to Afghanistan in March, 2006, the Prime Minister was met at the Kandahar airfield briefly by Governor Asadullah Khalid and senior tribal elders. The Governor is the senior ranking government official in Kandahar and, as such, he would greet the Prime Minister upon his arrival in Kandahar. (Paul Koring, Globe and Mail, February 1, 2008)

By that time it was rumoured that Khalid was running several 'secret' prisons, and was actively engaged in the torture of his prisoners. He was both detested and feared by the Afghan people, and yet for almost two years, our government continued to befriend him.

In December of 2009, the Canadian Press revealed that in fact, the Harper government ignored warnings from Karzai himself, as stated by Richard Colvin.

"In the one meeting where the subject was discussed, in July 2006, it was the president who raised the issue; Canada defended the governor, thereby ensuring his continued tenure." The uncensored report sheds further light on Colvin's Nov. 18, 2009 testimony before a special House of Commons committee, where he stated the governor was considered a "bad actor" on human rights.

It also makes clear the division between the Canadian military, which supported Khalid, and skeptical diplomats, who became increasingly vocal about allegations of corruption, drug-running and prisoner abuse. The governor is a known human-rights abuser," censored parts of the memo say.

"He runs at least one private detention facility, at which he personally has tortured detainees. ... His record is well known in Kandahar, including among the Canadian press corps." In a blistering critique, Colvin wrote that "rather than tackle this governance failure, Canada has systematically avoided it ...

This brings us to recent allegations made by constitutional lawyer, Amir Attaran.

Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert. If the allegation is true, such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

"If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees," he said. "There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents, and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can."

Their latest ploy, using a retired supreme court judge, who will only answer to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson; is not good enough, and they know it.

They've had two and half months to develop a strategy, and if this is all they've been able to come up with, they have clearly run out of options. Our Constitution is clear. Parliamentarians are allowed to see all documentation. When we vote for them, it means that we trust them with our secrets.

If the Harper government continues to play this game, they will find themselves in contempt of Parliament, and I don't think anyone wants to see that. However, it may be the only solution.

Why Should We Care?

I read many comments at the end of online news articles dealing with this situation, that claim it is only about Afghans torturing Afghans, so why should we care? However, it is about much more than that.

Tom Blackwell wrote in the National Post, discussing a thesis written by Major Manon Plante, a Canadian army officer:

In an exhaustive critique, the author concluded Canada's decision to hand over suspected insurgents to Afghan authorities with a history of abuse violated Canadian ethical values, could turn ordinary Afghans against foreign troops and likely increased the stress of this country's combatants. The policy might even have contributed to the alleged mercy killing of a Taliban fighter by a Canadian soldier, she wrote.

Do we really want to add unnecessary stress to our soldiers?

And as far back as 2007 we were warned that by condoning torture, we were also putting our soldiers at greater risk of being killed or tortured themselves, because the enemy may do what they have to do, to avoid being captured.

Rick Hillier had mentioned in his book that it was Harper himself who decided to place our troops in the most dangerous areas of the country.

At the time he had aligned himself with George Bush, and no doubt wanted to impress him. Though Canada only had a small force, he set out to prove that size doesn't matter.

In June of 2008, Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan, Arif Lalani was interviewed by a morning show host, Renee Montagne, from Culver City, California. In Montagne's introduction:

Whenever you hear that a NATO soldier has been killed in the Taliban heartland of Kandahar, it's probably a Canadian soldier. Canada only has 2,500 troops in Afghanistan, but they are fighting in one of the most dangerous regions of the country. So while Canadian troops make up only a small fraction of NATO forces, they've suffered the highest number of fatalities proportionately.

And this high death toll has led to a lot of protests in Canada about the mission in Afghanistan. Arif Lalani is Canada's ambassador to Afghanistan. He's in Washington this week and joins us in our studio ...

So if Stephen Harper wanted to show off our might, by subjecting Canadians soldiers to the heaviest fighting, should he not have done everything in his power to make sure that they were not put in even more danger?

And if it's true that he or someone in his government, or our military, actually choreographed the torture, from the safety of a secure office; this then is unconscionable.

Or worse still, did we work directly with Asadullah Khalid, a man hated and feared by the people we are suposed to fighting for?

We expect our men and women in uniform to act with dignity and honour, reflective of 'Canadian ethical values'. Should we not expect the same from our government?

This is why we should care.

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

Related Stories

Harper Will Not Ride Out This Storm on a Magic Marker

More Evidence That Our Government and Military Knew About Torture

By 2007 Harper's Tight Control Delayed Reporting of Detainees

We Were Warned in 2007 That Stephen Harper Was Putting Our Soldiers at Greater Risk by Condoning Torture

Dean Del Mastro Believes That Canada's Top General is Lying

Despite the fact that Canadians knew that one of the main reasons Harper took a 2 1/2 month vacation, costing taxpayers an estimated 130 million dollars; Dean Del Mastro says otherwise.

He has suggested that Canada's top general, Walter Natynczyk is lying or distorting the truth, because clearly Dean has all the answers.

The Afghan detainees issue has nothing to do with the prorogation of Parliament, Del Mastro said. The opposition parties are twisting the facts on the Afghan detainees issue, he said.

"The opposition is way off base on where Canadians are at on that," he said, adding it's about "potentially, alleged abuse which may have occurred between Afghans (officials) and Afghans (detainees) ... that may have been turned over by Canadian Forces."

Now I know that most of Del Mastro's time in Parliament is spent whining over some nonsense, but last time I checked; the military police, Amnesty International, Oxfam, The International Red Cross, the U.S. State Department and Nato, weren't part of the opposition, nor is Richard Colvin.

Because they are the ones sounding the alarm over this issue and have been for more than two years. Parliament got involved because if we don't hold a full public inquiry, the International Courts will take over and Canada could be charged with war crimes.

Not our soldiers, because they were just acting on orders. But members of our own military and government. However, because cowards like Harper and Del Mastro won't put our men and women in uniform above partisan politics, it will be our soldiers forced to wear the shame.

Deano finishes his interview with the Peterborough Examiner, with another lie.

"We will effectively take a majority position in the Senate in the coming weeks which will allow us to take ... bills that have been blocked by the Liberal senators," he said, pointing to Senate reform bills.

It has been proven that it was not the Liberal senators who have been blocking the bills, but Stephen Harper himself, by continually shutting down the House.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS DEAN DEL MASTRO REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR PETERBOROUGH?

Rick Hillier and Stephen Harper Have Some 'Splainin' to Do!

Stephen Harper may have put the brakes on the Afghan Detainee issue when he prorogued Parliament, but with the House set to resume next week, the issue will definitely be back in the news.

And despite the fact that he has been working behind the scenes to stall the process, I don't think even he can simply make this go away.

Nor should he be able to. Canada's honour is at stake here, and if we don't start taking this seriously, the International Courts, who have already opened a file, will step in; and no amount of gold medal victories at the Olympics, will erase our shame.

This is what will define the mission, and our troops will wear this.

In his column yesterday, James Travers reminds us that Rick Hillier has some explaining to do.

As chief of defence staff, Rick Hillier was a hero to the troops and an irrepressible force Liberals and then Conservatives struggled to contain. Now in his second retirement year, Hillier still casts a long shadow over a military worried about its future and a federal government desperate to control Afghan prisoner-abuse damage.

For better and worse, Hillier remains synonymous with the Armed Forces. On his watch, it regained lost stature as a national icon and became a fountainhead of public pride. On his watch, it also slipped into a controversy so politically threatening that the Prime Minister suspended Parliament rather than answer questions or release documents.

I've been going over some of my old postings and putting things together to try to make some sense of this. As a person who was against getting into this war, I was lulled into a sense of complacency by both Rick Hillier and the PR campaign that sold it as a noble mission.

But looking back now, I believe I was duped, as many people were. The warning signs were there all along and I chose to ignore them. I never trusted Stephen Harper's military fervour, especially since he fought against defense spending when he was in opposition; but thought Hillier was a stand up guy. Now, not so much.

"Our Job is to Kill People"

When Rick Hillier showed up on Parliament Hill to convince then prime minister Paul Martin to intensify our involvement in Afghanistan; he was armed with maps, charts and an excitement that was infectious.

According to Billy Schiller in the Toronto Star, Hillier used this March 21, 2005 meeting with then prime minister Martin and his 12-person inner circle, to convince his government to send "a battle group of at least 1,000 soldiers" to the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. He saw it as a way to improve Canada's armed forces and their reputation worldwide.

Hillier had been trained at Fort Hood, under Lt. General Thomas Metz, and had no patience for anyone not ready to climb on board. He stated that the military was not the public service. "Our job is to kill people."

And when Jack Layton called his remarks "disconcerting", he was accused of trying to "bestow the most ennobled status on the Taliban---that of victim".

From that time on, everything changed. We were no longer on a mission ... we were at war!

Mind you Paul Martin was adamant that all of our resources not go into this, and that we maintain enough Peacekeepers for other duties. But when Stephen Harper took over, he aligned himself with George Bush, and those silly notions were thrown out the window.

Demonizing the Enemy

A group that supports the criticism of Israeli aggression, being deemed antisemitism, used a 3-D approach in defining the Palestinian position : Delegitimize, Double Standard and Demonize.

On July 15, 2005; just three months after his meeting with Paul Martin, Rick Hillier was quoted by CBC, in an article entitled Helping Afghanistan will protect Canada, says top soldier:

"It doesn't matter whether we are in Afghanistan or anywhere else in the world. They want to break our society. I actually believe that," he said.

If Canada is attacked, he says, it will be only because it is a free country. "They detest our freedoms. They detest our society. They detest our liberties," he said.

By sending troops to Afghanistan, Canada is actually protecting itself, at least in the long run .... In time, Hillier said, Afghanistan will develop into a fully functioning country that's not a haven for people like al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, the man believed to be responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S.

He would also refer to the Taliban as "detestable murderers and scumbags."

It's certainly not a new concept during war time to demonize an enemy, so you can convince yourself that their deaths are justifiable, but "They detest our freedoms. They detest our society. They detest our liberties," where have we heard that before? Fort Hood Texas trained him well.

Delegitimize

They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, but sometimes one word in a thousand can paint a very vivid picture.

When General Metz, (who was the commander of Fort Hood when Hillier took his training there), spoke to an audience of senior Canadian military officers, soldiers, defence analysts and lobbyists; on a Saturday morning in Toronto, he laid it all out.

The general notes that there are almost a billion people in the Islamic world, and that if only one per cent of them are radical, "that's ten million radicals." He then shows a chart depicting the military challenges America faces, measured in terms of level of danger and level of likelihood. At the very apex—the most dangerous and the most likely—sits just one: radical Islamic terrorism. "Radical Islam wants to reestablish the Caliphate," says Metz. "Just as Hitler wrote Mein Kampf, you can read what they want to do." (Holding the Bully's Coat, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, pg. 67-68)

And there's that word in a thousand - Caliphate. Funny he should bring that up.

Much like the proposals of a North American Union, so revered by those free marketeers; a Caliphate simply put, is a union of the Muslim world.

However, there are two words that describe this initiative, that scare the west, or more specifically neocons, the most. No they are not "Islamic Terrorists", but "Welfare State".

Remember the scene in the Wizard of Oz when they throw water on the witch and she melts? Next time you see a neoconservative, look them in the eye and mutter those two words: 'welfare state', and I swear they'll be reduced to a puddle of sweat.

The Caliphate was the first political philosophy that adopted the notion of using their natural resources to look after their people. It wasn't communism, or socialism, it was just a belief in something bigger than they were. God or Allah, and they believed that this is what he wanted them to do. Historically, it is a continuation of political authority, first introduced by Muhammad's disciples.

Most Christians who share the same God, but a different prophet; agree. So why not western governments?

In the midst of his talk about the dangers of Islamic terrorism, Lt.-Gen. Metz abruptly shifts gears and starts talking about America's dependence on oil. In his southern drawl, the general notes how much oil the U.S. consumes—roughly 25 per cent of the world's consumption, even though Americans make up only 5 per cent of the world's population—and how central this is to the country's high standard of living.

He then tells the story of a big strong man not being able to cut as much wood as a chainsaw with a bit of gasoline. Point taken.

The general's little discourse on the importance of energy to America is certainly interesting. But what is it doing in a speech about military threats to the United States', The connection between America's voracious oil consumption and the dangers of radical Islamic terrorism are never explicitly stated by Lt.-Gen. Metz; he simply notes that the Islamic world has a lot of oil and what happens there has an impact on energy markets. (McQuaig, Doubleday, Pg. 68-69)

George Bush once asked, when he was criticized for using so many soldiers to guard Iraq's oilfields, "can you imagine what would happen if the terrorists got their hands on all that oil"? Loosely translated that means, can you imagine what would happen if we allowed the Iraqi people to keep their oil?

They can't risk having the Arab world unite on any level, not necessarily because they would pose a united front in battle, but because they would nationalize their resources, and then they would decide who gets to buy them.

Double Standard

In Warrior's honour, Michael Ignatieff says that 'War is always at the most unrestrained when religion vests it with holy purpose.'

Many will associate that to a Jihad or a holy war, but that's a double standard.

According to Jason Kenney's buddy, John Hagee; America is at war with radical Islam ... Jihad has come to America. If we lose the war to Islamic fascism, it will change the world as we know it .... They hate us because we are free. They hate us because it is their religious duty to hate us."

Stephen Harper's buddy Link Byfield suggests that the future will be dark if "Islam Prevails because although Muslims share the Christian notion of family, Islam also demands submission. Democracy is a Christian philosophy and, therefore, does not exist or, at best, is only a peripheral force in most Muslim countries."

And Rick Hillier's buddy, Thomas Metz says: "The Islamic faith is not evil but it's been hijacked by thugs ... there are almost a billion people in the Islamic world, and that if only one per cent of them are radical, that's ten million radicals."

Yet there are between two and three billion Christians in the world, so if only 1% are fundamentalists, that's twenty to thirty million Christian extremists. But the general doesn't mention that.

So maybe they don't hate us because we're free. Maybe if they hate us, it's because we want their stuff, and they fear we also want their souls.

We Were Warned

In December of 2005, while Canada was in the middle of the election campaign that brought Stephen Harper to power, then-Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier signed a deal establishing our detainee transfer protocol — an arrangement that did not provide for Canadians to monitor their prisoners (Stephen Maher, Chronicle Herald)

Before the Globe and Mail picked up the story, and before Richard Colvin revealed what our government knew of the torture of detainees, Linda McQuaig wrote:

... the likelihood of torture is actually higher for detainees who are not transferred but who remain in the custody of Afghanistan, which has a notorious human rights record. Even the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission—an agency of the Afghan government—reports that Afghanistan routinely tortures its prisoners. There have been bone-chilling reports of Afghanistan housing prisoners in steel shipping containers, with only a hole cut in the bottom for them to defecate. Yet, despite widespread reports of horrendous abuses in Afghan prisons, Ottawa's arrangement with the Afghan government contains only the most minimal protections. [quoting Michael Byers]

...Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, describes the Canadian arrangement as a "detainee laundering agreement" that "has no adequate safeguards to prevent torture from occurring. In an interview, Lieutenant Carole Brown, a spokesperson for Canada's Department of National Defence, acknowledged that Canada doesn't follow up on what happens to its detainees. "It would not be our mandate to track them in any way." She also refused to reveal any information about Canada's detainees, including even how many there have been.'In fact, Canada has left its detainees in a particularly dangerous situation.

Attaran notes that, by refusing to reveal any information about these people, Canada is actually making their situation even more perilous than those held by the U.S. at Guantanamo Bay. The Pentagon at least lists the names of Guantanamo prisoners on its website. By not revealing the names of those it hands over to Afghanistan, Ottawa makes it impossible for lawyers or human rights organizations to contact them or their relatives or to in any way take up their cause, thereby denying them any hope of access to the courts. They simply disappear into a black hole, beyond any possible legal protection. Says Attaran: -We are doing something [denying them access to the courts] that has not been done in the common law in centuries."This alone should make our involvement in Afghanistan intolerable. (HOLDING THE BULLY'S COAT, Canada and the U.S. Empire, Linda McQuaig, Doubleday Canada, ISBN 978-0-385-66012-9, Pg. 20-21)

I don't know how this is going to play out. Stephen Harper has already fired the head of the Military Police and cut off Richard Colvin's funding, making it almost impossible for a committee to start this up again.

He has also been distributing taxpayer funded attack ads suggesting that the opposition Liberals are accusing our soldiers of war crimes.

Of course that's not rue. The only one who has tried to pass this off on our troops, is Stephen Harper himself.

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA?

A Few Related Stories

Harper's Meddling in Military Affairs Reveals That He Knew About Detainee Abuse

Stephen Harper's Cowardice Has Reached New Heights

The Conservatives Are Not at War, They are on a Crusade

Afghanistan and Detainee Abuse up to and Including 2006

By 2009 Harper's Spin on Detainees Was Stopped in it's Tracks

Why Do We Never Include Peace as a Strategy for Afghanistan?

Luis Moreno Ocampo of the International Criminal Court Could Charge Canada With War Crimes
Military Spending and Other Costs Associated With the Invasion

The Shah of Iran and the Birth of Terrorists

Peacekeeping is Not For Wimps and Canadians Are Not Wimps

The Manley Report Gave New Direction But Failed to Answer the Question: Why Are We There?

A Country's Shame and a Nation's Heartache

How Did we Get Here From There? The Afghanistan Call to Arms

Paul Martin, Rick Hillier and a New Direction For Afghanistan

Selling the War Invoked a Buying Frenzy But Was the Product Shoddy?