Rants from the Right Coast

Christian faces execution in Afghanistan

2006-03-21T22:40:00.000-08:00

Our troops are in Afghanistan protecting fascist Islamic law?

Abdul Rahman is charged with the crime of leaving the faith of Islam and now faces the death penalty:

Now, in a major test of Afghanistan's fledgling court system, Rahman, 42, faces the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity. Prosecutors say he should die. So do his family, his jailers, even the judge. Rahman has no lawyer. Jail officials refused to let anyone see Rahman on Monday, despite permission granted by the country's justice minister.

"We will cut him into little pieces," said Hosnia Wafayosofi, who works at the jail, as she made a cutting motion with her hands. "There's no need to see him."

"If he doesn't regret his conversion, the punishment will be enforced on him," the judge said. "And the punishment is death."

Italy and Germany are trying to save him.

Sign a petition supporting Rahman's right to live.

Send your thoughts to the Afghanistan embassy in Ottawa and Foreign Affairs minister Peter MacKay.
.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

2006-03-08T12:39:00.000-08:00

Today is International Women's Day, so I decided to focus on one particularly courageous woman. Now an MP in the Dutch parliament, Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born and raised in Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia and Kenya. She fled to Holland at age 22, to escape an arranged marriage to a cousin in Canada that she had never met. She learned Dutch, worked her way through university and held positions within government and politics, before being elected to the Tweede Kamer. Her outspokeness in regards to Islam has resulted in constant death threats, so for the past few years she has had continual bodyguard and police protection.

She wrote and narrated Submission, a controversial film about Islam's treatment of women. The film's director, Theo Van Gogh, was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri while biking to work in 2004. A five page note pinned to his body that stated that Hirsi Ali (and others) was next. She went into hiding in Holland and New York City, but has returned to parliament, more determined to speak her mind than ever.

Submission was originally shown on Dutch public TV, but since the violence and threats of violence, it was pulled from a film festival out of fear. Hirsi Ali is now working on a sequel, dealing with four Muslim mens' - one of them gay - experiences with Islam. A Dutch court ruled against religious groups trying to block its' release. "By not making 'Submission Part II,' I would only be helping terrorists believe that if they use violence, they're rewarded with what they want," says Hirsi Ali. As a woman who once called the Prophet Muhammed was a "pervert" for marrying a nine year-old girl, it isn't surprising that she also been critical of the West's response the the whole cartoon issue.

"Don't be silenced by extremists"

2006-03-01T06:52:00.000-08:00

In yesterday's Toronto Star, eleven Canadian Muslim academics and activists published a plea to fellow Canadians:

Today, the religious right and autocracies in the so-called Islamic world are united in their call for passing legislation to make any discussion on religion a criminal offence. This, at a time when many writers in Jordan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Afghanistan are rotting in jails, facing charges of apostasy and blasphemy.
We call on Canadian politicians and intellectuals to stand up for freedom of expression.

Yesterday's Jyllands-Posten featured a manifesto, signed by eleven intellectuals, including Canadian Muslim Irshad Manji:

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

To blaspheme or not to blaspheme?

2006-02-22T08:52:00.000-08:00

Is this cartoon blasphemous and offensive to some? Without a doubt. Is it funny? I think so.

The Strand, a student newspaper at the University of Toronto, published this cartoon of Jesus and a faceless Muhammed kissing. The Student Administrative Council wrote to the paper and stated that the cartoon is an "act of hate" and an "offensive and appalling attack on all Muslims". Managing Editor Nick Ragaz maintains that "The cartoon is a sort of Canadian statement on religious tolerance...it can not, under any circumstances, be understood to promote violence or hate". The President of U of T's Victoria University and the Student Union are standing by the publication.

The Western Standard and the Jewish Free Press both published those other cartoons last week and were met with a call to the police by some Muslim groups. Calgary's crown prosecuter said today that there would be no charges against these magazines, as

the Criminal Code requires there be an intent to incite hatred against a specific group, and his office had determined there was no intent in this case.

The response of Syed Souharmardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, caught my eye though, as he stated that his organization will begin lobbying for legislative changes so that offensive remarks or depictions of any religious figure are considered a crime.

I'm confident that their lobbying efforts to criminalize blasphemy will prove unsuccessful, but his intentions deserve more scrutiny. Such legislative changes would affect everything from The Family Guy to art galleries and would be an enforcement nightmare. Who would be the barometer of what's offensive and who would determine which religious sects make the legal cut? Free speech and religious freedom mean that people can publish things that are in bad taste, offensive and that no one religion can use the force of the State to ensure all citizens observe its traditions or taboos. The Strand can publish blasphemous cartoons, Southpark can feature an animated Prophet Muhammed fighting the Lincoln Memorial and free speech can be used to try and convert others to observant Christians, Muslims... or Scientologists. Atheists can say fuck all religious figures.

Most Canadian Muslims respect these rights and have exercised them over the past few weeks, speaking out against the cartoons, protesting and boycotting. The Muslim Canadian Congress has expressed its offense, but does not support making offensive speech illegal. Some retailers exercised their right to pull The Western Standard from their newstands. Those who are offended by Air Canada or Indigo's decision not to sell the magazine can take their business elsewhere.

It should stay this way and Souharmardy's ideas deserve to go the way of Sharia Law in Ontario.

Jyllands-Posten editor defends himself

2006-02-19T16:48:00.000-08:00

Flemming Rose, the Danish editor who first published the twelve infamous Muhammed cartoons in the September 30, 2005 edition of the Jyllands-Posten, has written a defense of his decision in today's Washington Post:

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.

Rose's entire commentary is worth a read, whatever your opinion on the controversy.

The SAFS expresses concern to UPEI

2006-02-19T10:22:00.000-08:00

The Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship has written a letter to UPEI president Wade Maclauchlan, expressing concern about the February 8th issue of The Cadre.

Clive Seligman, president of the SAFS, notes that

Fear of possible ‘mob action’ must not be allowed to dictate to UPEI or any other Canadian university what ideas its students and faculty may express, disseminate and debate. By censoring this debate at your campus rather than taking the necessary steps to provide appropriate security to allow debate to happen, you have encouraged the view that the threat of violence, real or imagined, is an effective way to challenge ideas with which one disagrees.

Read the whole letter here.

Psiphon: the anti-censor

2006-02-19T09:12:00.000-08:00

(Photo: Deborah Baic)

This May, a team of researchers from Citizen Lab, at the U of T, will be unveiling a program called Psiphon at the international congress of PEN, a free speech organization with branches in over 100 countries.

The Globe and Mail:

More than fifteen years after the Berlin Wall was shattered with hammers and bulldozers, a Canadian-designed computer program is preparing to break through what activists call the great firewall of China.

The program, in the late stages of development in a University of Toronto office, is designed to help those trapped behind the blocking and filtering systems set up by restrictive governments. If successful, it will equip volunteers in more open countries to help those on the other side of digital barriers, allowing a free flow of information and news into and out of even the most closed societies.

Great news for writers in repressive countries all over the world. The Inquirer notes the difficulty for government officials who specialize in censoring online information about such topics as Tibeten independence, democracy and the Tinanmen Square massacre of 1989:

[Psiphon] enters users' machines through computer port 443, which is designed to transport secure data for banking. If China wanted to close this avenue down, it would also have to shut off a lot of its foreign electronic banking operations.

Once again, the Internet is proven to be the medium of free speech.

Olympic Sexism

2006-02-19T08:25:00.000-08:00

The International Ski Federation has decided that ski jumping is too dangerous for women, so it has become the one sport in Torino that has only male competitors.

"It's like jumping down from, let's say, about two meters on the ground about a thousand times a year, which seems not to be appropriate for ladies from a medical point of view," the federation's president Gian Franco Kasper said.

Despite Kasper's opinion, some ladies have decided that this particular sport is "appropriate" for them. "I don't know what he's talking about because clearly he has not seen us jump in the last two years," said Lindsey Van, the second-ranked female ski jumper in the world. "Our technique is as good, if not better than, the men."

There are about five hundred women competing on the international level and two of the top-ranked jumpers are Canadians. If you think Katie Willis and Atsuko Tanaka should have the chance to be Olympians in Vancouver, you can contact The International Ski Federation, who are voting this spring about whether to include women's ski jumping in the 2010 Olympics.

Gone down the memory hole

2006-02-10T17:42:00.000-08:00

I never did get a copy of The Cadre into my possession, as the UPEI student union asserted their ownership rights over this week's issue:

A copy editor at The Cadre, Rob Walker, said he was called into the office of the general manager of the student union, Heather Love, on Friday afternoon. "[I] was told, on the advice of their lawyers, I should be told a number of things. Primarily, the paper was actually owned by the student union, and they demanded its return, and if it wasn't returned they would contact the police," Walker says.

Ray Keating did not intend to offend, but wanted people to be able to have an informed discussion:

"The message really has been that we want people to be able to have an effective discourse on the issue, and we felt that people wouldn't be able to have an effective discourse without actually seeing the original cartoons."

Here's an excerpt from the SU's statement:

[...]it is now apparent that we must take into account the overwhelming reaction that these cartoons have caused worldwide and therefore we must react accordingly. It is also to be noted that there is a great deal of sensitivity involved with this contentious issue, a fact personified by the recent outrage and riots that were sparked in direct result of the publication of these cartoons.

So, it appears that the student union shares the view that cartoonists caused the violent riots (rather than the Islamofascist fundamentalists) and that our reaction should be self-censorship - not a defense of free speech.

The SU is within their rights, as the student government owns the paper. However, this ownership is via the students whose mandatory fees fund The Cadre. Once hired, the newspaper staff normally have editorial control - independent of the student government. Threatening to involve the police to repossess the student newspaper is an extreme step.

It is great to see that the SU has reversed one decision, though. Whether due to student pressure, national media coverage, or a realization of the obvious, the student union has reopened debate about the cartoon issue on UPEI weblogs.

Cartoon Craziness

2006-02-09T09:00:00.000-08:00

The Cadre, UPEI's student newspaper has published the twelve infamous editorial cartoons that criticized aspects of Islam.

At the request of president Wade MacLauchlan, university administrators have removed all 2,000 copies of the paper from campus.

The campus police also showed up at the office of Ray Keating, the paper's editor, and asked that he hand over any copies in his possession, a request he refused to comply with. Read Keating's editorial here.

The UPEI Student Union has withdrawn support of this week's issue of The Cadre and has also stated that Weblogs@UPEI "are no longer accepting comments on the cartoon issue" CTV's Steve Murphy noted during his broadcast tonight that it appears that they are now "censoring discussion about censorship".

Wade MacLauchlan stated that “... The Cadre has been a very good newspaper this year but there is no need for UPEI to step recklessly into a situation that has caused violence and mounting violence all over the world,’’

And that is the real issue. Should people who publish cartoons feel responsible for the actions of those who burn embassies and shout for their murder? Should we self-censor and blame ourselves for these violent reactions?

Cartoons about the cartoons here.

Google: Civil Libertarian/ Authoritarian Censor

2006-01-25T20:13:00.000-08:00

The Internet has made it more difficult for the Communist Party of China to enforce its Orwellian policies, but companies anxious to tap into the huge Chinese market have decided to lend a hand.

Google released a Chinese version of its popular search engine today, which is programmed to censor search results on subjects that the communist party wants to remain in the country's growing memory hole (human rights, Tibetan independance, the persecution of falun gong practitioners - to name a few). Google demonstrated this week that it will defend civil liberties against the Bush administration, while simultaneously designing high-tech censors for the Chinese government.

Microsoft and Yahoo have also come out with technology to help Chinese authorities censor information, but unlike Google, both companies are also abiding by the demands of the US government.

How will our new government deal with China?

2006-01-25T14:08:00.000-08:00

In a debate on CTV during the election campaign (in between Liberal ads attacking our largest trading partner), Belinda Stronach told Mike Duffy that the Conservatives would be detrimental to our trade relationships, because of their MPs' insistence on mentioning human rights abuses in China. Ms. Stronach, former minister responsible for democratic renewal, stated that Jason Kenney and other Conservatives were "stuck in the 1950s" because they continue to call the communist country "Red China".

Perhaps Belinda hasn't come across any news stories on China from the past fifty years. In December, 2005 (one week before mute Canadians officials attended the WTO meetings in Hong Kong), an unconfirmed number of villagers were killedby Chinese government officials while protesting the repossession of their land. Publishing any information on this atrocity, or the 1989 massacre in Tiananmen Square, can get a citizen jailed for a decade.

Under the Liberals, we have given more than $1 billion to China over the past ten years (Refusing to fund oppressive regimes? That is so 1950). While on the opposition benches, the Conservatives continually called for an end to the $65.4 million that is taken from our paycheques and given to China every year. The Conservatives also spoke out in regards to reports of Chinese spies in this country. Hopefully they will follow through, as China has a huge military, a space program and does not need, or deserve, our hard-earned money.

Four members of the Opposition

2006-01-25T12:43:00.000-08:00

For the first time in eighteen years, PEI will have no MPs on the government side at the federal level. The Island is the only province without at least one Conservative MP elected to parliament. Prior to the Chretien era, PEI had a history of electing opposition MPs; the majority of our MPs were conservatives during Trudeaumania and provincial opposition to NAFTA caused Islanders to vote Liberal in 1988.

The Liberal party's attempts during this election to create wedge issues out of abortion, same-sex marriage and the notwithstanding clause, as well as their campaign of fear, did not help the Island's four Liberal MPs win their ridings. Prince Edward Island is the only jurisdiction in North America where abortions are not performed. Lawrence McAuley, easily won re-election in Cardigan after voting against same-sex marriage during the last session of parliament and receiving an endorsement from Elsie Wayne on behalf of Vote Marriage Canada. After winning the riding of Malpeque, Wayne Easter wasted no time criticizing the way the Liberals' national campaign was run.
With an average riding population that is less than 40,000 (many urban ridings have 100,000+), politics on the island are mainly fought door-to-door. Voters here chose Easter and MacAuley, rather than campaign policy or rhetoric coming out of the national Liberal war-room.

The next election, which will likely occur in two years time or less, will likely be a more level playing field for the Conservatives. During this election, the Liberal MPs were able to start unofficially campaigning in the weeks before the writ was dropped, with huge spending announcements. Between now and whenever we have to go back to the polls, there will be no federal funding announcement photo ops for Prince Edward Island's MPs. However, MacAuley and McGuire have been in parliament since the Mulroney government, and it is hard to imagine the Conservatives winning an Island seat until one of the incumbents retires.

A monkey for a speechwriter?

2006-01-15T22:36:00.000-08:00

Both Harper's and Martin's party has an official campaign "blog" on its website. The Conservatives' most recent blog entry:

Home stretch
14 January 2006
It was a big week for the Conservatives. Stephen kicked it all off with a strong, confident performance at the second round of debates in Montreal. Later on in the week, he shared a stage with the Premier Bernard Lord in Fredericton...

Predictable, confidently supportive of the party, and very different form the Liberals' blog, authored by Scott Feschuk - described as Paul Martin's chief speechwriter. Feschuk calls himself "blog boy", and features a monkey's photo next to his name. Here are some recent entries:

January 15th - Day Forty-Eight: We Saw Nude-Type People Having "Relations" in a Car Last Night on a Main Street in Montreal. I'm Just Saying.

3:04 PM - Fruit-based update: Just so there is no confusion on this most important of matters, Blog Boy gratefully accepts all gifts of canteloupe, kiwi, pineapple, diamond-encrusted Rolex watch and banana.

2:05 PM - I feel the need to go on the record with something: I have a real problem with all these polls that show we're not ahead.

My problem is that they show we're not ahead.

What I'm basically saying is that I'd prefer if we were ahead, instead of being ahead's more homely, horribly disfigured stepsister, behind.

I throw that out there in case, you know, saying so makes a difference of some kind.

What I mean to say is that I'd hate to find out Jan. 24 that all I'd needed to do was ask politely.

I'll tell you this though: with a week to go, no federal election campaign team that spontaneously sang Mandy with as much passion and verve as we just did, can possibly be counted out. And if in the end we can't beat them on the hustings, then mark my words: we shall beat them on Star Search.

Perhaps Feschuk is a contributing factor to Paul Martin's inability to form coherent sentences during the past week?

I couldn't find a blog on the NDP's website, but it does have some funny features:

Take the Liberal Culture of Entitlement Quiz

or compete for the following prize in The Great Paul Martin Credibility Hunt :

We’re giving away return airfare and hotel accommodation to any country Paul Martin used to avoid Canadian taxes, labour laws and environmental regulations – while he was finance minister – by flying other countries’ flags on his ships. From Barbados to tiny Vanuatu in the South Pacific to human-rights-abusive Liberia, Paul Martin’s company wandered the globe to find flags of convenience to fly. And if you can prove his values are more than convenient, too, you’re going on vacation to see for yourself. We’ll be announcing the winner on Friday, January 20.

or you could have downloaded cards to play bingo with over-used Martin lingo during the debate.

Adscam

2006-01-11T09:17:00.000-08:00

In an email exchange (behind registration wall) with The Globe and Mail, Liberal spokesman Ken Polk stated that the now infamous "Soldiers with guns" ad
was inadvertently posted... then he sent another e-mail, saying: "The ad has not been aired. It may still."
A few minutes later in another e-mail, he said: "The ad will not air in its present form and was never intended to."

A CTV report by Lisa Laflamme indicates that in a period of a few hours, Ujjal Dosanjh defended all 12 ads and said Paul Martin had approved them, Paul Martin stated that all parties pull already-released ads that they never intended to play, and John Duffy said that "it cannot be called a Liberal ad" and insinuated that journalists should not even be discussing it.

Section 320 of the Canada Elections Act refers to a party ad as an ad which mentions that it was authorized by the official agent of the party. This "pulled/never-released/Martin-approved" Liberal ad clearly meets the criteria.

Regardless of whether the English ad was released on TV (a French version is still running on Quebec TV), it was given to the media and uploaded on the Liberal website.
The Liberals refuse to accept that the internet is a widely-used public medium. If something is on the internet, it has been released. Now the ad is getting constant replay on Newsnet and Newsworld, including the screen showing that it was authorized by the official agent for the Liberal Party.

The Debates

2006-01-10T22:11:00.000-08:00

If the two men running to lead this country keep their promises, we are heading for a consitutional debate no matter who wins. During the debate, Harper supported Charter property rights, while Martin said he would remove the notwithstanding clause from the Charter altogether. Layton quickly pointed out that he supports the notwithstanding clause, to protect things like health care.

Both debates were better than the first two, but all leaders were relatively predictable and stuck to their prepared scripts and attacks. I enjoyed the French debates more, even though Harper's improving french skills remain almost as painful as Duceppe's english. I would much rather bilingual debates, instead of the Quebec and Canada versions that we have now. Harper had the most to gain tonight, with poll numbers showing him now leading the Liberals in Quebec and stealing Bloc support.
He told Quebeckers that he wanted them to give him a cabinet minister, and that the Bloc would always be powerless. Martin stuck to theme that Duceppe won't be able to stop Harper.

The most entertaining moments of both debates came from Paul Martin. Last night he stated that Aboriginals were a root cause of poverty. He then referred to the Metis and First "Nations", but would only call Quebec a "peuples". During the debate tonite he accused Layton of supporting property rights, but not a women's right to choose. This got Layton yelling, and Martin never said whether he had actually meant to say Harper.

Harper held is own in a language he is not entirely comfortable with, and Quebeckers will likely recognize the effort he has made. This was also the first French debate in a long time where a leader outside of the Liberals or the Bloc was viewed as a contender. Harper will likely get a few seats in Quebec on Jan. 23rd, provincial Liberals and former federal Liberals are even helping the campaigns of CPC candidates in Quebec.

Liberal second-thoughts

2006-01-10T20:26:00.000-08:00

The Liberals have reached a new low with an attack ad, which was pulled from their website today. It is still available on CTV and clearly states that is was authorized by the Liberal Party. In an interview during the French debate, Liberal John Duffy asked CTV's Mike Duffy not to mention the ad. Mike Duffy angrily stated “We will not be intimidated. We will do our jobs as journalists.”

The ad features a voice (CBC Radio's "Promo Girl"?) saying: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We're not making this up. Choose your Canada."

The reality is that Candian soldiers are already stationed in many Canadian cities, as well as abroad, and are not considered a threat to Canadian citizens. I know the Liberals refuse to believe that an inanimate object is incapable of killing somebody, but implying that a Harper government and the Canadian Forces' guns would threaten Canadians in the cities of this country? Even though the ad has been pulled, it's still insulting to soldiers' and to Canadians' intelligence. I can just imagine some of the calls the Liberals got from supporters within the military. Paul Martin told CTV
that "all political parties have ads which are not played". Why did they release it to the media, have Ujjal Dosangh defend Martin's personal approval of all 12 ads and upload it onto the Liberal Party website, before removing it a few hours later?

The Conservatives could have a legitimate counter-attack ad with "Paul Martin actually refused to adequately equip our military presence in other countries. Middle Eastern cities. Soldiers without working subs or jeeps. In dangerous places. In Afghanistan. We're not making this up. Stand up for Canada."

The truth is that foreign policy issues, including how many soldiers we should have and what roles they should take on, are being virtually ignored during this campaign. Canada has just accepted NATO's request to take a leading role in southern Afghanistan.
Canadian Col. S.J. Bowes said his force, which will assume responsibility for Kandahar, is prepared to extend the offensive nature of the operation and that it's not a peacekeeping mission.

Regardless of your position on the announcement that we will be taking on more of a commanding combat role in the middle east, its occurance during an election should spark debate. Shouldn't our soldiers be a serious topic of discussion, not just a convenient target of insults while fear-mongering? We're not in Iraq. Both Harper and Martin stated in the past that Canada should participate in Iraq; Chretien said no. Both now say they won't send troops to Iraq, but neither has mentioned Afghanistan - where we do have troops.

If only Paul Martin had an individual conscience

2006-01-07T08:11:00.000-08:00

From the CBC:
a Liberal government would invest $1 billion over 10 years to clean up major waterways in Ontario, Quebec and Manitoba, Paul Martin announced on Saturday. He said the program would tackle toxic hot spots along the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes, which together make up the world's largest fresh-water ecosystem.

So the same Paul Martin whose company, Canada Steamship Lines (now run by his sons), flew the Liberian flag to avoid paying taxes in Canada wants the rest of us (who do pay taxes in this country) to clean up the mess in the great lakes that his company helped to create?

Martin continually states the need for a global conscience, but not only did he profit from what This magazine reports to be illegal dumping in the great lakes, CSL received public money. Wikipedia notes that
On January 28, 2004 the federal government, in response to opposition party and media enquiries, revealed that CSL Group Inc. had received $162 million in federal government contracts, grants and loans since Paul Martin became Minister of Finance in 1993. Earlier figures released in 2003 had suggested CSL Group Inc. had only earned $137,000 during this time period.

Stephen Harper finally raised Paul Martin's history with CSL in a speech this week:
Mr. Martin has questioned my patriotism...the fact is Mr. Martin lived a good deal of his professional life under the flags of other countries and Mr. Martin constantly tried – and was successful, I gather – at avoiding paying taxes in Canada. That's the record.

Martin responded that he didn't know why Harper was getting personal and stated "in fact, I think that's what we want to see Canadian companies do."

Perhaps this explains why Paul Martin always qualifies his conscience as global, hypocrisy is a lot easier if you're not expected to have any personal responsibility for your actions.

Volunteer or Liberal Insider?

2005-12-26T16:51:00.000-08:00

The Canadian Press is reporting that Mike Klander abided by the Liberals' wish for him to resign, and that the Liberals are referring to him as nothing more than a "volunteer". A quick google of "Mike Klander" returns a Liberal Party webpage, headlined "Executive Vice-President Mike Klander", where his long history of paid work for the Liberals in Ontario is documented.

In response to the growing infamy that Klander has earned with his publications, the Liberals sent out Stephen Heckbert to explain Klander's fate and remind Canadians that the "blog was personal and did not reflect the view of the federal Liberals"

"I think he recognized that there's some things that are outside
the bounds of good taste," Heckbert said. "And I think then it came
to a decision that it would be better for the party and for him if he
were to step down."
Though Klander's comments were regretful, it's not uncommon for
political blogs of all stripes to cross certain boundaries...
Partisan blogs get a little heated, particularly around election time"
he said. "You'd see some language that might curl your hair."

The spectacle of a long-time Liberal worker and government lobbyist, using an easily accessible (and forever cached) medium to write "Jack Layton is an asshole" and "his wife is is an Asian dog", just might be enough to curl some metaphorical hair.

The CPC and the NDP have been handed a textbook example of the scummy Liberal Party insiders they've been warning us about. Klander's business site, mikeklander,com, notes that he has been

an organizer in every federal and
provincial election campaign since 1988 [and] has developed a comp-
rehensive understanding of the political process and how government
operates. Building on that experience, he established Klander and
Associates; an independent government relations practice representing
clients both in Ottawa and at Queen’s Park... as a senior political
organizer Mike played a significant role in building Paul Martin’s
Leadership organization in Ontario.

Are you listening Toronto? Mike Klander is well-connected and respected in Queen's Park and Ottawa.

Three signs that Paul Martin may be going senile at age 67:

2005-12-25T22:24:00.000-08:00

-He thought that a picture of Duceppe and Harper speaking together at a holocaust memorial could convince Canadians that Harper is "in bed" with the seperatists.

- Since being asked to produce a copy of the $1.4 million dollar cheque he said his Party had written to our country's treasury (to return the amount of money Gomery managed to prove they had stolen), Martin has not been able to remember where he put it.

-After flying into an international Kyoto conference with an ecological footprint that stomped all over his government's one-tonne-challenge, Martin implied that a country that has reduced a greater percentage of emissions than Canada was lacking a "global conscience". This was followed by his admission that he had no idea how much of a gas-guzzler the Liberal campaign jet actually is, and that perhaps someone might look into it.

(Hey Paul: I guess you missed the taxpayer-funded primetime ad blitz, but all you have to do is follow Rick Mercer's "free" advice and call for your very own "free" government brochure on how Canadian individuals like yourself can take the challenge).

Who can keep up with Sheila Copps?

2005-12-25T20:18:00.000-08:00

As annoying as Sheila Copps the Liberal cabinet minister was, I find her to be quite an interesting character now. Since leaving office in 2004 she has appeared in Le Match des Etoiles (a reality show on Radio-Canada about ballroom dancing), Train 48, and starred in a play.

She's now back onto the political scene, as advisor to the Tories in Hamilton East-Stony Creek, while publicly supporting the NDP candidate of her former riding. This Chretien cabinet minister offers up the explanation that "one-party rule is not health for the country". In her Toronto Sun column last week, readers learned that Copps has investigated the various federal parties' debtloads and can smugly report about a Liberal Party that owes $34 million on 13 different back loans. The Conservatives'debt-free status and the NDP's "modest" debt of $3 million meet her approval.

Poor old Paul Martin, his age and the fifteen cups of coffee he drinks per day are really beginning to show. I can't imagine the stress of pleading with creditors to fund a fear-a-thon of prime time ads in the post-Gomery atmosphere, while the man you originally hired to make Sheila go away is looking more and more like that mythical knuckle-dragging, racist Conservative MP you are desperately hoping and searching for.

Just another Liberal "gaffe"?

2005-12-25T15:02:00.000-08:00

Mike Klander, a senior executive in the Liberal Party of Canada posted this, distasteful and rude joke about Olivia Chow, on his blog.
Paul Wells, over at Macleans,
reports that Klander has since closed down the blog, but the image can still be found in the cache by clicking on the link above.

It will be far more difficult for the media to quickly accept a Liberal apology (a la beer and popcorn)- as a riding president deliberately left the incriminating photos and text published online. I'm curious to see if this makes any headlines once the MSM is back to work tomorrow.
If anyone needed yet another reason to distrust the Liberals' motives and methods, this is it.

Layton to Klein: "Back Off"

2005-12-24T22:01:00.000-08:00

From the Truth is stranger than fiction department:

While campaigning in Alberta last week, Jack Layton told Ralph Klein to "back off" of his so-called assault on public healthcare. It seems a strange campaign move for a federal leader to attack a premier over an area of provincial authority - especially the province which is successfully lowering wait times for patients. Layton's outburst of arrogant and impassioned ignorance also highlighted the general media bias. Imagine the response and reaction had it been Harper telling Dalton McGuinty (in Ontario) to "back off" on legislating same-sex marriages?

Harper and Layton do share a similarity though, in that both leaders would allow varying rights for different citizens. Fortunately, a Harper-led parliament would have little chance of passing a restoration of the old definition of marriage (or avoiding a ruling by the Supreme Court that the definition was unconstitutional), as his official position is that the Conservative Party would allow only those already married to define themselves as such. The NDP has no chance of even forming a minority, so we don't have to worry about Layton's two-tier world - where only those private clinics already in existence are permitted to operate.

Debating the Charter

2005-12-17T10:32:00.000-08:00

Paul Martin could not have been happier that the first question of the English debate involved same-sex marriage, as he jumped on the opportunity to portray himself as the defender of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that it is up to parliament to define marriage, but declined to answer Martin's question as to whether the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is unconstitutional.

If parliament freely voted for the traditional definition, Harper would introduce a bill on civil-unions, with all the rights and privileges of a married couple. This approach was recently adopted in Britain and exists in many European countries. If the Supreme Court deemed the new definition unconstitutional, he wouldn't use the notwithstanding cluase. The chances of a minority CPC parliament voting to reverse the previous vote are very low, anyways.

What about the Chaoulli decision on healthcare? This is a Charter decision which makes the allowal of one word on a piece of paper seem a bit trivial. Six months ago, a majority of Quebec's Supreme Court judges ruled that the ban on allowing an alternative to government-controlled health insurance for certain types of healthcare was a violation of George Zeliotos' Charter rights to life, liberty and security . Zeliotos had waited more than a year in pain for hip surgery. Harper won the debate and positioned himself as more of a defender of the Charter than the other leaders, when he outlined that his party is the only one with a plan to respond to the ruling. The CPC would ensure that medically-acceptable wait times (rather than "benchmarks" acceptable to the premiers) were adopted. If a regional health authority couldn't provide care within those time frames, the government would pay for a citizen to receive the care in another province, or even another jurisdiction if necessary. He rightly admitted that that would be difficult, but correctly noted that it has to be done to respect "both the Canada Health Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

We have no dentist, optometrist, physiotherapist, or naturopathic doctor shortages. Pretty much every country in the world, including all of Europe and Scandinavia, has some form of private delivery and/or coverage. While these health-care providers want to make a decent living and establish innovations in their delivery methods, the level of service they provide is not marred by profit-driven greed - as Layton and Dosanjh would have us believe. Canadians pay roughly half of all taxes on healthcare, often three or four thousand dollars per year in addition to of any private insurance they already fund. The government's role should be to provide universal healthcare insurance - not to ignore Charter rights and freedoms.

The national discussion on healthcare "the #1 issue" is dominated by mistruths and a glaring lack of media coverage . Why would it be political suicide for Harper to completely follow the Chaoulli decision by supporting the legality of private health insurance? Why has no leader suggested referring the issue to the Supreme Court of Canada? After all of the pompous talk by Martin about defending the Charter and minority rights during the debate, you would assume he would have dealt with this issue months ago... especially when his personal physician owns a private clinic.

Harris locked out, Duceppe out of place

2005-12-17T10:02:00.000-08:00

It wasn't until Gilles Duceppe was asked to outline his party's position on Western Alienation that the sheer senselessness of the debate format hit me. Why was Gilles Duceppe answering questions from voters outside of Quebec? Also, why was Jim Harris not permitted to answer their questions? Voters in the other twelve jurisdictions of Canada cannot vote Bloc, nor would they have any conceivable reason to. Yet, here was Gilles Duceppe admitting that it wasn't for him to answer that question, and stating that his party's position is basically that "the West wants in and Quebec wants out"!

It would have made more sense to have Gilles take his turn in answering those voters from Quebec chosen to ask questions, and then stand politely at his podium during the rest of the debate. That would've aptly highlighted the impossibility of the Bloc forming a government and that unlike the other leaders, Gilles Duceppe isn't running to be Prime Minister. The same format could have reasonably been used during the French debates, where Duceppe would've still gotten less speaking time than the other leaders. This would've given Jim Harris space to outline his party's policy to Canadian voters. Six hundred thousand Canadians voted Green in 2004, but not one person outside of Quebec could even consider voting for Duceppe. I think such reforms to the BQ's partipation in the debates could result in higher ratings. The purpose of the debates is to give those individuals running to lead this country a chance to outline what policies they would adopt if elected.