I first want to make a statement regarding tonight’s debate that has nothing to do with the issues discussed. All Canadians should take a moment and digest the fact that we live in one of the only countries in the world in which political engagements are conducted bilingually. No matter where you happen to come from in this country, that is a point of pride that all Canadians should identify with.

That said; if it were possible to take everyone at that table tonight and somehow combine them into a single person, this county would be in good hands. Unfortunately, being that that’s an impossibility, my opinion of the five party leaders wasn’t altered this evening.

I will say that I was pleasantly surprised that the debate wasn’t entirely focused on the current economic crisis and the participants didn’t employ it as a political fear tactic. It was wide ranging and covered numerous issues, though I found it unfortunate that the war in Afghanistan did not receive more attention given that we are, after all, a nation at war – one that, when the size of our force is put into context with regards to the sizes of other NATO forces involved in combat operations, we have the highest casualty rate.

One definite positive about tonight’s debate was its moderation. Hopefully Jim Lehrer was taking notes.

October 1, 2008 36 Comments

There are those that will argue that the controversy regarding Mr. Harper and the speech that he gave in Parliament in 2003 that plagiarized a speech given by Australia’s then Prime Minister, John Howard, is little more than a political move on the part of the Liberals, who are waning in the polls.

Given that we’re in the midst of a federal election, I’ll certainly not deny that this revelation is incredibly timely, especially given the fact that the speech was made five years ago.

That said; as an independent observer, and someone that does not support the Liberal Party, nor any other party for that matter, confronting the actual issue behind the plagiarism is something I feel highly relevant.

The speech that Mr. Harper gave in 2003 was one in which he urged this country to join the ‘coalition of the willing’, and thus involve us in the US led invasion of Iraq. One therefore has to ask several fundamental questions.

1) Were the Prime Minister to gain a majority, would there be a reversal of policy regarding Iraq, even if such an alteration did not promise the inclusion of Canadian combat assistance?

2) Does the Prime Minister still hold to the belief that Canada should have supported the invasion of Iraq?

3) Given what has occurred since, would he have supported Canadian involvement in the occupation of that country?

These are fundamental questions that I feel are highly relevant.

Then there is the act of plagiarism itself. Obviously, Owen Lippert, the individual that wrote the speech given by Mr. Harper, has now resigned. Having done so, Lippert has claimed that neither Mr. Harper, nor his superiors, were aware that he had plagiarized Howard’s speech.

This is where the Prime Minister’s continual promotion of ethical government must be questioned. No matter who was responsible for writing the speech, it was one that Mr. Harper gave in the House, and therefore exists within the Parliamentary record as his own. Despite the fact that it was written by Lippert, for the Prime Minister to now claim that he cannot be held to account is entirely hypocritical given his steadfast promotion of government accountability and transparency. Five years have passed since the speech was made, and yet it is only now, after the truth was uncovered, that Lippert has resigned.

That, in and of itself, should say something to Canadians with regards to how Mr. Harper runs his shop.

October 1, 2008 13 Comments

It’s official, Canadians are going to the polls on October 14th. Three floors below me Rod is laying on his couch groaning because one of his main contracts at work is handling the Conservative’s website.

So the Governor General has dissolved Parliament and over the next 37 days Canadians will be treated to the usual barrage of campaign promissory notes. Not that I’m complaining, mind you. It’s taken the Americans well over a year to gear up for their federal election in November, the focus on which has done a fantastic job of distracting many Americans from the fact that they are currently fighting two foreign wars. At least in our case we only have to dedicate a little over a month to the affair.

This time around I find myself in a new riding, one that is currently held by the NDP’s Libby Davies who won in a landslide in 2006 with 56.5% of the vote – not all that shocking given the state of affairs around here and her background as a human resources coordinator with the Downtown Eastside Residents Association and former coordinator for the Downtown Eastside Community Health Plan. Davies was also the incumbent in 2006, so that says something as well.

Being that her riding includes the nation’s poorest neighbourhood, a Conservative or Liberal victory down here is a long shot to say the least. If there’s one thing that a working class riding in which only 46% of the population lists English as their first language won’t do is elect a Tory. Two blocks from my home is North America’s largest China Town. In the 2006 election the Tories ran an Asian candidate in an obvious attempt to pander to the Asian vote. Their candidate, Elizabeth Pagtakhan, ended up with only 13% of the vote, 10 points shy of David Carl Haggard of the Liberal party.

Poverty, coupled with ethnic diversity, breeds mistrust, especially when it comes to a party whose base consists of members that routinely attack multiculturalism as if it were a plague and not the foundation on which this country was actually built.

September 7, 2008 23 Comments

We have lost another three brave young men in Afghanistan because of a reckless foreign policy agenda bent more on placating our southern neighbours than ushering in any sort of realistic ‘new day’ in a country that has been at war for decades.

In a country where international relief supplies are easier to obtained on the Black Market than anywhere else, where promises made by foreign powers have rarely become a reality despite propaganda to the contrary, one has to seriously wonder why the people of this country have remained largely silent while 96 Canadians have returned home in coffins. To some that might not seem like a lot, but, in truth, we have lost more lives given the small size of our contingent in Afghanistan than any nation involved in combat operations.

As I have exhaustively pointed out in the past, there is a vast difference between supporting our fighting men and women and supporting the policies that place them in harms way. They are, by no means, one in the same. That said; I will not launch into a protracted entry about my views regarding the conflict itself, as I have written a myriad of entries that can be sourced using the search function.

The Looming Election

It’s no secret that Stephen Harper intends to ask the Governor General to dissolve Parliament and force a federal election, most likely on October 14th, breaking a legislative election pledge passed in the House that there would not be a federal election until October 19th of 2009. Given the disarray of the Federal Liberal Party, and its lack of what I consider a real leader, it makes sense. By breaking the legislative promise that Harper himself proposed and was successful in passing, the Conservatives have a chance at gaining a majority.

The truth is that Stéphane Dion is not, in my opinion, PM material. The NDP, of course, do not have the sort of national support required to win the PM’s office, with the Bloc’s potential remaining as limited as ever given their mandate. Thus, by the end of next month we could very well see a Conservative majority in the House and the dawning of a new age of unobstructed Conservative rule in Canada. The groundwork is already being laid…

» Tories pledge $80M to reopen Ford plant in Windsor, Ont.
» Tories unveil $60 million of pre-election goodies.

September 3, 2008 21 Comments

The reaction by many US conservatives, including Republican Presidential hopeful John McCain, to the recent US Supreme Court decision to grant detainees held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus has been, dare I say, rather un-American. In fact, McCain has even gone so far as to call the decision the worst in the history of the Supreme Court. One wonders if Mr. McCain, and those who share his view, have read Thomas Paine’s Rights Of Man?

Of those detained at Guantanamo, how many are innocent? Some officials have claimed the number could be in the hundreds – all of them held without official charge and without legal recourse or access to council under the auspices of either US or International law. Basically – they have absolutely no rights. They can be disappeared, transferred to undisclosed locations, and can be made to endure whatever their captors decide is “acceptable” given the circumstances.

Some of you might view the facility at Guantanamo as essential with regards to US national security. Some of you might agree that granting detainees the right to Habeas Corpus is a disastrous decision because it’s gifting them rights that they don’t deserve given the now familiar mantra that the War On Terror is a “new kind of war” that requires the employment of a strong and determined mindset to fight. Unfortunately, when it comes to the rule of law, you can’t have it both ways. You cannot claim to be a global champion of it while completely denying due process to a select few. Because if that precedent can be established and its hypocrisy not confronted, then the question ultimately has to be asked – where does it end?

True democratic principles do not conform to the whims of a Presidential administration, nor those that support its flagrant abuse of the rule of law. They demand the existence of impartiality, of legal representation, and the right to seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of Habeas Corpus three times. The United States Constitution specifies that it can only be suspended “…when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”. Of course, many disagreed with the legality of Lincoln’s right to impose the suspension, but the circumstances were, of course, much different than those now faced, though it is still an issue that is argued over to this very day.

Legally, can those that have been held by the United States in legal limbo for the last seven years be viewed as invaders? Did 9/11 technically constitute a military invasion of the United States? Obviously they cannot be classified as individuals in revolt as they are not US citizens. Therefore, according to the Constitution, they have to be labeled as members of an invading force for Habeas Corpus to be suspended. The problem, of course, is that the majority of them were apprehended in foreign countries, and therefore not a part of any invasion force. In that case, International Law should take precedent, not to mention articles of the Geneva Conventions, but the protections of both have also been denied them.

The Red Cross was granted access to the facility at Guantanamo, had the courage to attack its conditions and hypocrisy, and have since been denied access to it. The United Nations followed suit, with the UNHRC coming to similar conclusions. Of course, neither had any impact on US policy.

So, after seven years in legal limbo, the US Supreme Court has granted those being held at Guantanamo the right of Habeas Corpus, which, in layman’s terms, means that detainees can individually take their cases to US courts and contest unlawful imprisonment. But the Supreme Court’s decision is not without its caveats. The ruling, in part, reads…

“United States courts have jurisdiction to consider challenges to the legality of the detention of foreign nationals captured abroad in connection with hostilities and incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay.”

Thus, while detainees have been granted the possibility of redress, US courts possess the right to consider challenges to the legality of their detention. That stipulation is, in truth, a loophole that provides US courts, on a case by case basis, the right to consider whether the auspices of Habeas Corpus will be granted. One very important of the ruling though is that it does provide the chance for a precedent to be set with regards to finally clarifying the legal status of detainees.

June 20, 2008 16 Comments