|
|
|
Christian Science
Monitor
January 23, 2006
The
surprising Stephen Harper
Tuesday marks one year
since Stephen Harper led Conservatives to power, becoming Canada's first
right-of-center prime minister in 12 years. In late 2005, Mr. Harper was
possibly the only Canadian who believed he would win.
A wonk extraordinaire, known for his
love of policy debates and classic "Star Trek" – rumor has it
that as a youth he attended Trek conventions and competed in
costume contests – Harper didn't seem the type to set voters'
hearts afire. And with his blunt approach, robotic exterior, and
awkward smile, he didn't. But thanks to his ability to learn
from past mistakes, and to a reigning Liberal Party mired in
scandal, he surprised nearly everyone with a triumph.
Even Harper's foes bow to his
political savvy, focus, and intelligence. He has navigated the
past year with only a minority government, meaning he needs
opposition support to pass legislation. As a result, he has done
little domestically that could reasonably be called radical. He
has replaced left-leaning spending and social engineering with
centrist spending and social engineering. For example, a
national day-care plan proposed by his liberal predecessors was
scrapped in favor of issuing monthly $100 checks to parents of
children under the age of six. He has cut Canada's goods and
services tax by 1 percent. And while he has made cuts to social
programs, he has steered clear of touching the "third rails" of
Canadian politics – socialized healthcare and the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation.
Time magazine named him Canada's top
newsmaker of 2006, noting his emergence as a "warrior in power."
The terminology is telling, since the area where Canadians have
seen the most change has been in their country's foreign policy.
Notably, Canada's new prime minister has not engaged in any
gratuitous anti-Americanism. That's a standard Canadian
political tactic, guaranteed to please the "blue-state" denizens
of Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto.
Where the war on terror is concerned,
he has been, by Canadian standards, revolutionary. For decades,
Canadians have loved the image of themselves as "neutral,"
peacekeeping do-gooders who don't actually fight. This is an
image difficult to reconcile with past reality, and with the
present reality in Afghanistan, where approximately 2,300
Canadian soldiers currently serve. While it was a Liberal prime
minister, Jean Chrétien, who committed Canada to the war in
Afghanistan, neither he nor his successor, Paul Martin, were as
vocal and steadfast in their support for the mission as has been
Harper.
Harper has shown similar strength in
his support for Israel. After the Palestinian elections last
January, Canada cut off relations to the Hamas-led government.
When Hizbullah rockets began pummeling Israel last summer,
Harper affirmed that Canada stood with Israel. Gone were the
usual mealy-mouthed statements coming out of Ottawa, the
vestiges of the Trudeau-era romanticizing and courting of
terrorists and dictators.
This kind of principled stance and
impressive leadership has earned him some respect, and cost him
some support. It has also earned him the nickname, "Bush Lite."
Many who know Harper call this unfair, saying these have always
been his ideals, not something newly acquired to please
Washington.
Which is not to say Harper is above
political pandering. He threw red meat to his socially
conservative base by revisiting the same-sex marriage issue. The
law stayed in place, but this was widely believed to be Harper's
attempt to say to supporters, "Hey, I tried. Now let me get on
with governing." He is also not above breaking promises – such
as his campaign pledge to leave income trusts alone. A tax was
slapped on trusts in an autumn decision dubbed the "Halloween
massacre."
In December, the Liberal Party elected
a new leader, Stéphane Dion of Quebec. He trails Harper in
polls, but not by much. Dion is a supporter of the Kyoto
Protocol (which Canada has ratified) and seems to mention global
warming with each breath. He even has a dog named Kyoto. This
puts Harper, a cat lover and not a Kyoto supporter, in a bind.
His power base is in oil-rich Alberta, where Kyoto is unpopular.
That won't be Harper's only challenge.
Canada is a country without significant conservative
infrastructure, or conservative media. The result is a peddling
of hysteria about Harper's alleged "hidden agenda" – a
conviction that, with a majority government, he would destroy
Canada's social safety net, sell our mothers to oil companies,
and sign us up as the 51st US state.
Those fears, however unfounded, are
what stopped Canadians just short of giving Harper and his
Conservatives a majority last time, and are what he needs to
allay. If anyone can do it, it's Stephen Harper. He's certainly
surprised us before.
|
|
|
|
Toronto Star December 31, 2006
Ideals of UN do not
match its actions |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
December 17, 2006
Why should Bush listen to someone who balked at chance of ousting Saddam? |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
December 10, 2006
Bill
C-257 would limit the rights of those who want to work |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
December 3, 2006
Canada Should cut
diplomatic ties with Iran |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
November 26, 2006
Quebec is
not a nation |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
November 19, 2006
Ambrose has done
nothing to merit dismissal |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
November 5, 2006
No one is
interested in World's Fairs anymore |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
October 29, 2006
Withdrawing Coalition Forces from Iraq would not serve Western Interests |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
October 22, 2006
Bill Signals Kyoto is
Dead for Canada |
|
|
|
Christian Science Monitor
October 16, 2006
Out of the Mouths of
Babes...Defeatism
In the wonderful movie "Dick," two teenage
girls find themselves in the White House in 1972. Hearing Henry
Kissinger discuss "offensive action north of the 22nd parallel," one
girl declares, with outrage, "War is not healthy for children and other
living things."
You can count on young people to be
idealistic, right? Wrong - judging from e-mails I've received. I am
accustomed to angry, odd, and lazy messages from readers. "U R a typical
necon" read a recent pearl of wisdom. (Writing out "you" and "are" was
too much work.) "What's a necon?" I asked a friend. "I think it's a new
hybrid car from Toyota," she answered.
But I could not have predicted the lengthy
messages I received in response to a pro-US column I wrote on the
anniversary of 9/11. I knew something was up when the carefully written
e-mails - nary a comma out of place - were signed with names such as
"Schuyler, Kylie, Tyler, and Megan," rather than with grown-up names
like Michael, Liz, Mark, and Jennifer. It turns out that students in a
Toronto-area high school class were asked to pick a newspaper column
they disagreed with. At least 12 students picked mine. In groups of two
or three, they explained why.
Explain they did ... and all I can say is, out
of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained defeatism. Rather
than the adorable youthful conviction that war is not the answer, these
teens seemed sure of two things: 1) The United States is to blame for
the anger and actions of Islamofascists, for "creating more enemies,"
and 2) War may be the answer, but since Islamofascists will always be
two steps ahead of us, we're bound to lose.
The former didn't shock me. There will always
be anti-Americanism in Canada, particularly in the Toronto area, our
very own blue state. When in doubt, blame Washington. But the latter
explanation was fairly unexpected and revealing - in a creepy sort of
way.
Wrote one group: "... no matter how advanced
we get, the Taliban, and terrorists in other countries ... will find a
way around everything we have put in place to protect us." Well now,
there's the spirit! No matter what we do, guys in caves who wish for a
return to the 7th century will find a way to top us. What would these
kids have said in 1939, faced with a technologically advanced enemy?
"Hey, FDR! Why hire that Einstein guy to make a bomb? Nazis have way
better scientists on their payroll!"
More student optimism: "As our technology
becomes more advanced, so does Al Qaeda's. An example of this would be
the liquid explosives disguised as Gatorade found in an airport in Great
Britain this summer ... no matter how much we spend on precautions ...
our lives will always be endangered...."
Ah, blithe spirits! Did your teacher happen to
tell you about fighting on the beaches and landing grounds and never
surrendering? Or did he at least, say, mention the intelligence that
uncovered the liquid explosives plot and other information? If so, I'd
be curious to know the spin he put on it, given these words from a
pupil: "Our intelligence is useless today because they are always two
steps ahead of us." Where can I order my burqa?
In case I missed the point, there was this:
"For every wall we build around us, they find a new way over." Get it?
We are no match for our foe.
A recent Decima Research poll of 2,000
Canadians showed that 59 percent agreed that Canadian soldiers in
Afghanistan as part of NATO forces "are dying for a cause we cannot
win." So Schuyler, Kylie, Tyler, and Megan come by their defeatism
honestly. Each Canadian casualty in Afghanistan is met with days of
media coverage, with pundits debating whether we ought to continue
fighting "George Bush's war," and whether said war is "unwinnable."
We might want to recognize that it is our war,
too. Especially if this prophecy from the students comes true: "When it
comes to the point that America has turned everyone against them, there
will be no one left to come rescue them...." And no one left to rescue
Canada.
But perhaps I'm interpreting this too
negatively. After all, I am a typical necon.
|
|
|
|
Toronto Star Oct. 15, 2006
Women no longer
need to be coddled, like less clever creatures than men
As much as equality between the
genders can be achieved, it has been achieved in Canada. In
the reasonable ways in which gender equality can be
measured, Canadian women can declare victory.
Women have every kind of
liberty, intellectual, physical and reproductive
freedom. Women have the same opportunities as men. Women
can become CEOs, die in horrible space shuttle
accidents, buy banks, get the better of someone in a
divorce settlement — all the things that used to pretty
much be the realm of men.
Contrary to the
oft-repeated — and debunked — perceived wisdom,
women in Canada have achieved pay equity.
Taking experience,
qualifications and work hours into
consideration, the pay gap does not exist.
But, for example,
should a woman takes years off outside work
to stay home with her children, she won't
return to the same pay as a man who has been
there all along. If a woman becomes a social
worker, rather than a surgeon, that will be
reflected financially. These are choices,
which, thankfully, Canadian women have.
Aren't choices the root of equality?
The Harper
government is not tabling legislation to
jeopardize those choices.
What the
Tories have done is cut back funding
to some women's groups, notably,
Status of Women Canada, or
Womenslibesaurus Regina, the great
dinosaur of the Trudeau-ic Era.
Much
fuss has been made about Status
of Women removing the words "to
advance equality" from their
mandate, as though it were part
of Harper's famed secret agenda.
The words were replaced with "to
facilitate women's participation
in Canadian society."
But both options are
patronizing, as though women
need to be coddled along,
like less clever creatures
than men.
This attitude is as
Jurassic as the feminism
behind it.
If the Tories are
doing anything to
harm women, it is in
continuing to fund
anything this
anachronistic.
Decades ago,
such
organizations
had a place. In
2006, they are
obsolete.
True, there
is not an
equal
percentage
of women and
men in every
professional
sphere. But
even if I
thought
there should
be, I can't
see how it
is up to the
government
to make it
happen.
Ultimately,
the
interests
of
Canadian
women
are the
same as
those of
Canadian
men. I
refer to
broader
interests
here,
such as
freedom,
health
and
family,
not
cars,
sports
and
beer.
I
believe
the
best
way
to
serve
the
broad,
and
smaller,
interests
of
people
is
through
limited
government
interference,
and
increased
personal
responsibility.
There are people who will never take a woman seriously. Sadly, there will always be bigots.
The best way to fight them is for Canadian women to make the best of their enviable situation. A situation that allows them, if they choose, to serve in the Armed Forces in places like Afghanistan ... helping women who could really tell us something about having their interests threatened.
|
|
|
|
Toronto Star October 1st, 2006
Harper's
Action on Surplus in Best Interest of Canadians |
|
|
|
Toronto Star September 24, 2006
Canadian Intelligence
to Blame in Arar Case |
|
|
|
Toronto Star
Sep. 17, 2006
Kimveer Gill’s
weapons were registered, but it did not stop him from killing
I have to admit, I’ve been wrong about the gun registry in the past. I
always thought that it should be scrapped, for the simple reason that
criminals don’t obey the law. It turns out, however, that the registry
is useless for another reason. Some criminals do obey the law, dutifully
registering their guns before using them to slaughter people.
On Wednesday, at Montreal’s Dawson College, Kimveer Gill used three
apparently legally registered firearms to kill (as of this writing) one
person, and injure and traumatize many others. In one sense, at least,
he was law-abiding. But given what he was able and willing to do with
his registered weapons, how can it be argued that the registry is
anything but a misuse of funds, time and energy?
Even had Gill’s weapons not been registered, what difference would that
make? It isn’t paperwork that will prevent the kind of violent crime
Gill committed. That kind of crime can probably never be completely
prevented. Mandatory sentencing, tougher bail and parole legislation,
while laudatory initiatives in terms of other crimes, would not have
stopped Gill. He had no police record. Hiring more police officers,
while also a good idea would most likely not have stopped him. And even
sounding the alarm at the sight of his nihilistic web profile might not
have helped. Were we to scrutinize every young male who posts similar
ramblings (an impossibility), there would be few police left for
anything else. Not to mention the crucial matter of freedom of
expression, be that "expression" disturbing or not. All of this is
tragic, but no less true for that. The registry of long guns, and more
talk of gun control in general, came about, in part, as a reaction to
the 1989 Montreal massacre. But, if anything, one could argue that the
1989 tragedy and Wednesday’s events, would more likely have been stopped
earlier on, if not prevented, by
supporting the right to bear arms. Had all, or many, students and
faculty at L’École Polytechnique, or Dawson College, been armed, Marc
Lepine and Kimveer Gill would have been taken out quickly. I’m not
suggesting Canada should be like Tombstone, Arizona. I’m arguing that it
is fatuous to insist these rampage killings would be stopped by stricter
gun laws. We should, after incidents such as this, ask questions. We
should look for solutions, or at least improvements. But the inevitable
political manipulations that take place in the aftermath of the Lepines
and the Gills are dismaying. The reflexive reaction on both sides — the
latte-drinking, pro-gun control urbanites, vs. what the latter view as
assorted loners, rubes and crazies, is not productive.
But as a latte-drinking urbanite, who has no interest in owning a gun of
any kind, I see no societal benefit to making rubes, crazies, or anyone
else, register theirs.
|
|
|
|
Toronto Star September 10, 2006
Five Years After 9-11 |
|
|
|
Toronto Star August 27, 2006
We
should not legitimize Hezbollah’s aim of erasing Israel |
| August 13, 2006 Toronto Star The safety of residents and protestors are being sacrificed to fear by Rondi Adamson It seems to me a fairly basic tenet of common sense, that bad behaviour should not be rewarded. This is true for children and adults alike. Yet for six months, a band of Six Nations protestors in Caledonia, and some assorted non-native hangers-on, have seen their bad behaviour indulged. The behaviour in question has included ignoring court orders, erecting barricades, blocking rail lines, roads and bridges, digging up streets, setting fires, causing blackouts, dragging police officers out of an SUV and attacking them, attacking cameramen and more. The lawlessness has, at times, been returned by residents of Caledonia. The natives say they have a land claim on Douglas Creek Estates, a housing development. This may well be true, but it doesn't strike me as justification for their current activities. In June, the Ontario government purchased the disputed land — with taxpayer dollars — with no promise from the protestors that they would desist. If that weren't stupid enough, the province then indicated it would continue to negotiate the claim. Thankfully, Ontario Superior Court Justice David Marshall ruled this week that negotiations should be suspended until the protestors vacate Douglas Creek Estates. Mind you, Marshall ordered the same thing months ago. He also ruled that if protestors would not leave willingly, they should be removed by police. But his orders were, in his own words, "blatantly disregarded." That hasn't been the only blatant disregard. Many residents of Caledonia have complained that police have not protected them, and instead have stood by throughout the violence. One can deduce why. Premier Dalton McGuinty is paralyzed by the memory of Ipperwash. In other words, the safety of residents in Caledonia, as well as the safety and best interests of the protestors, are being sacrificed to fear. Add a dose of historical guilt and sound judgment is scarce. No one wants to be seen confronting natives, as though allowing criminal behaviour from radical elements will make up for centuries of injustice. One wonders: How, exactly, does it compensate? There is no painless solution, especially since it has been allowed to drag on. McGuinty should personally urge protestors to abandon their intransigence and leave willingly. Because if they don't, police will have to be dispatched, and it won't be pretty. Had things been properly dealt with in March, there is no telling how much aggravation could have been avoided. Echoing Justice Marshall, John Tory stated last week that, "We shouldn't be carrying on negotiations until court orders are being followed, until the law is respected by all people at all times." It confounds that this needs to be said. Ontario's premier had one shining moment of backbone last fall when he announced he would prohibit all religious-based tribunals to settle family disputes. It was the right move, because there should be one law for all Ontarians. Does he no longer believe this?
|
| August 6, 2006 Toronto Star We have never treated all sides equally by Rondi Adamson In 1947, Canada voted in favour of the partition of Palestine. In 1948 we recognized Israel and its right to exist. We continue to do so. On the other hand, where Hamas and Hezbollah are concerned, we have officially denoted both as terrorist groups. Neither were given that designation gratuitously, in an effort to please Israel, but rather as a result of their actions. I don't know, therefore, how Canada can have an "even-handed" approach to Middle East policy, when we do not have an even-handed, or impartial, relationship with all parties involved. We do not treat all sides equally, nor should we. Do we want to be given the benefit of the doubt to Hassan Nasrallah, for example? We are deluded if we view ourselves as having been historically even-handed, where the Middle East is concerned. Interim Liberal leader Bill Graham wrote last week that the Harper government was "squandering our historic role as Mideast bridge-builder." It's difficult to squander something you do not possess. We had one bridge-building moment of glory in 1956, with the Suez Canal crisis. That's it. We can be proud of Lester Pearson's contributions, but we were not even neutral back then. De facto, we sided with the United States. We were not even-handed during the Six-Day War. In fact, in the lead up to the war, Ottawa opposed Gamal Abdel Nasser's blocking of Israeli shipping. (Interestingly, our representative at the UN, at the time, was one George Ignatieff.) It was only during the Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin years that we moved away from those policies. And even there, we only moved to a sort of "goad the United States all you can," stance. Perhaps from that childish anti-Americanism was born another myth: That Stephen Harper, as Gerard Kennedy said on CTV Newsnet this week, is acting "in lockstep" with the United States. Yet people close to Harper for years have told me these have always been his views. Canadians are uncomfortable, polls would indicate, with these perceived great changes. A Decima poll on Wednesday showed the Conservatives losing ground, particularly in Quebec. And Harper is responding with a substantial aid package for the region. Part political expediency? No doubt. But it will also help people. This does not mean we cannot work toward peace, but it has to be done realistically. We have become accustomed, in this country, to patting ourselves on the back and asserting that we do good. But there is rarely follow-through. We will be able to do more good in the Middle East with a leader like Harper — provided he sticks to what he believes, in the face of apparent backlash. (Would that he were so tough on some national issues.) Treating the parties involved as they deserve to be treated — not as though Hezbollah and Hamas's actions can be morally equated with Israel's — is the wisest road to a solution.
|
| July 30, 2006 Toronto Star Disarming Hezbollah first only way to lasting peace by Rondi Adamson |
| July 9, 2006 Toronto Star Harper priorities set well before Bush talks by Rondi Adamson It is difficult to imagine Prime Minister Stephen Harper getting cozy with anyone, least of all another politician. It is also difficult to see how, as Maude Barlow wrote in Thursday's Toronto Star, our current government has gone "to great lengths to please Bush." Has it? Canadian troops, 2,300 of them, are in Afghanistan, as part of an international force in an internationally sanctioned mission to help rebuild a strife-ridden country and protect it from becoming a welcome mat for Al Qaeda, again. Canada's troops were initially sent to Afghanistan by Liberal leaders, and the recent extension of our work there was voted on in the House of Commons, freely and openly. If we sent troops to fight the Taliban in order to please President George Bush, then I guess it isn't only the ruling party which wants to make the Texan happy. What else? Harper's de facto abandonment of Kyoto. Harper has never been a Kyoto fan. This is not some posture he has adopted since Jan. 23, part of that notorious "hidden agenda." And I strongly suspect that if he is trying to cozy up to anyone by dissing Kyoto, that anyone would be the province of Alberta, also known as "Harper's base." The latter aren't Kyoto fans. If Harper were nearly the Bush lackey some Canadians have charged, by now our troops would be in Iraq. Harper would have waited for Washington's lead before withdrawing funding from Hamas, rather than becoming the first Western leader to do so. And, when asked Thursday, at the joint Bush-Harper press conference in Washington about missile defence, Harper would have immediately announced plans for Canada to participate, not even bothering to phone the news in to Gordon O'Connor and Peter MacKay. Though, given Kim Jong Il's attention-grab last Tuesday, missile defence may be something we want to reconsider. Canadians who wrap their identity up in anti-Americanism will find anything short of constant belligerence between our two countries unsatisfactory. But the fact is, by way of geography, history, values and interests, we are "cozy" with the United States. The ways in which we are similar (love of freedom, democracy and civil society) are more numerous, and far more significant, than the ways in which we differ (the occasional trade disagreement, "free" health care). We are two secular societies. As such, we face the same foes. Various Islamofascists, and crackpot leaders in Pyongyang and elsewhere, do not care that Canadians deem themselves "nice." More likely, this escapes them, irks them, or makes them snicker. Given our limited military capacity, cozying up with our friendly neighbours seems a wise choice. It is possible, even probable, Bush will leave Washington before Harper leaves Ottawa. Harper knows that, and knows that his job is to protect Canada's best interests, regardless of who lives in the White House. And Canadians should recognize that more often than not, those best interests dovetail with the best interests of the U.S.
|
| June 11. 2006 Toronto Star Fealty to multiculturalism makes us reluctant to act decisively against agitators by Rondi Adamson
|
| June 6, 2006 Christian Science Monitor Moderate Western Muslims, speak up! by Rondi Adamson In the months following 9/11, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman said
that rather than constantly ask ourselves, "Why do they hate us?", we should
instead ask, "Why don't they see us for who we really are?" |
| June 4, 2006 Toronto Star Union risks being aligned with likes of Hamas by Rondi Adamson The CUPE Ontario decision to advocate a boycott of Israel is egregious, and
sheer fatuity. In effect, the Ontario leadership of CUPE is showing itself
eager and willing to condemn alleged, exaggerated or taken out of context
offences of a pro-Western government, over the real villainies of
anti-Western regimes. This should not surprise. |
|
May 21, 2006
Toronto Star
|
|
May 7, 2006 Toronto Star Federal budget will make Canada more competitive
|
| April 16, 2006 Toronto Star Biker killings show criminals don't heed law
|
| April 2, 2006 Toronto Star Prime Minister shows decisiveness and maturity
|
|
March 19, 2006
Toronto Star
Canada's role in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan will
require us to kill people. And sometimes we will — unintentionally —
kill innocent bystanders, as apparently happened earlier this week. It's
called "war" and as the cliché goes, it is not pretty. Nor is it a
science, where, if a formula is followed, the outcome is assured.
People will get mad at us. Many of them already are (remember 9/11,
where Canadians were murdered?). Our "image," assuming it is a shiny one
— and that could be debated — might get stained. But should we decide
matters as important as where to send soldiers based on, "will they
still like us in the morning?"
And who are the "they" we are so concerned about?
Headlines this week trumpeted the tale of Adam Budzanowski, the Canadian
aid worker taken captive in the Gaza Strip by Palestinian terrorists, or
"extremists," as some insist on calling them.
Budzanowski is quoted as saying, "When they were certain I was Canadian,
they were very disappointed. Then, they told me, `We love Canada.' ...
It's wonderful to have a Canadian passport because it changes people's
minds. One of the guards kept asking me to say hello to Canada, so it
does stand for something."
Yes, indeed it does. It stands for a country of which Palestinian
terrorists claim to be enamoured. Members of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine "love Canada." Ah, just makes you proud, doesn't
it?
This is why my uncle died on the battlefields of France more than 60
years ago. So extremist Islamists could take the place of the German
ones, only this time Canada would cleverly hedge its bets, "sort of"
being involved in the war, but not at full throttle, lest we make the
bad guys think badly of us.
If our goal, in other words, is to have a good reputation with
Palestinian terrorists and Al Qaeda and their ilk, our work in
Afghanistan may destroy the likelihood of that happening. But why should
we care?
Consider the source. And I am not convinced our image abroad is what
saved Budzanowski. After all, the other captives — 10, in total — were
released, as well. Had the Palestinians who took them felt, using their
twisted reasoning, that it was in their best interest to kill all 10 of
them, the Canadian included, they certainly would have.
At the end of the day, it is what we think of ourselves that matters.
Remember what our moms taught us: Any reputation worth having will not
be acquired by worrying about what the cool kids think, or by trying to
prove we are more cool than our neighbour.
Ottawa should make foreign policy choices based on right and wrong, and
based on our interests — national security, preservation of freedom,
helping our democratic allies. Keeping the Taliban out of power in
Afghanistan surely fits the bill.
|
Christian Science Monitor April 3, 2006
WAKE UP CANADA - WE'RE AT WAR! The weekend of March 18, worldwide antiwar protests took place, Toronto included. That day, I was having my hair cut. My Ecuadorian stylist, in Canada four years, proudly asserted, "Canadians are peacekeepers. We don't fight." Wow, I thought, only here four years and you've got the lingo down like a native. I suspect they taught her that in citizenship class. In 1956, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister (and future prime minister) Lester B. Pearson proposed a peacekeeping force to deal with the Suez Canal crisis. Mr. Pearson was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, and ever since, Canadians have been in love with the image of themselves as blue-hat wearing do-gooders, convincing everyone to get along while never firing a shot. That fantasy took on even greater power during the era of Pierre Trudeau, who welcomed draft dodgers and positioned himself as a Euro-style "citizen of the world." But that fantasy is being challenged. Through the early months of 2006, the number of Canadian troops in Afghanistan (there since 2002) increased to 2,300, by our standards a huge commitment. Canadian forces in Afghanistan are part of a multinational combat force participating in both the continuing battle against stubborn Taliban remainders and in the securing of the young Afghan democracy. One would think, given the generally accepted role of soldiers and given the easily provable brutality of the enemy in question, that Canadians would understand the inevitability of casualties, both military and civilian. Yet a cursory look at recent headlines in Canadian newspapers reflects the sad reality: Canadians are in a dream world, and need to be shaken from their sleep. Some examples: "More risk for our troops," "Dangers to Canadian troops in Afghanistan expected," "Canadian deaths in Afghanistan unavoidable: Department of National Defence," and, "Nervous day for Canadian troops after Afghan blasts." On TV and radio, debates about whether our troops should be "exposed to danger" are commonplace. Should it not go without saying that soldiers face risk and danger? The minutiae of each death of a soldier (there have been 11 so far, four from hostile action, three in accidents, four from friendly fire) is parsed, analyzed, given wall-to-wall coverage, exploited by politicians and everyone with an anti-American ax to grind. And it isn't just soldier deaths that send us reeling. When an Afghan civilian ran a checkpoint in mid-March, Canadian soldiers shot him. The incident sparked Canadian self-flagellation, and the man's family asked to be relocated to Canada and have us pay for the education of his six children. So far, this wish has not been granted, though there are Canadians who feel it would be appropriate. Had we brought over the families of every German civilian killed by Canadian soldiers in World War II, I would be writing this column in German. (Canada played a vital, and decidedly nonpeaceful, role in that war.) As civilian and soldier deaths continue, Canada will have to learn to deal with harsh reality. Each death also brings about a roller coaster of public surveys. One indicated that 62 percent of respondents were against Canada's involvement in Afghanistan, once it was explained that we were there in "combat" capacity. Have we forgotten that Canadian citizens were murdered on 9/11? Or that we are included on Osama bin Laden's list of target countries? If it weren't so frightening, the idea that a nation was surprised its military might be involved in something, well, dangerous and violent, would be laughable. And hypocritical. A peacekeeper is a soldier first and foremost, one whose actions, we hope, will bring about and maintain relative peace. He is not a Quaker. More than 100 Canadian soldiers have died in peacekeeping operations in the past 50 years, some from enemy fire. But none of those conflicts got the headlines or attention Afghanistan does, so public reaction was nil to muted. In the Balkans alone, more than 20 Canadian soldiers died. Why the discrepancy? Because soldiers on "peacekeeping missions" did not die in anything openly called "war" - though de facto, that's what it was. Nor was the twisted logic involved in blaming the United States for everything we don't like as much a part of the picture previously as it is now (though in Canada, that habit has not been fully absent in the past 40 years). In 2005, reports from Canada's military commanders warned that Canada's forces were overstretched and underfunded. But those problems, grave as they are, are nothing compared to the dangers of the Canadian mind-set. Underfunding can be overcome. A firmly entrenched national myth, five decades in the making, is a different matter. Our new prime minister, Stephen Harper, visited Canada's troops in Afghanistan in early March. Paul Martin, his predecessor, in power for two years, never bothered. Mr. Harper's gesture was welcome and overdue. But it was just one step. We have a long way to go. I fear what it might take for us to wake up, and whether that day will come too late. |
| Toronto Star March 5, 2006
Blended
private-public systems still provide quality care It is hard to believe Alberta Premier Ralph
Klein's proposals for a "Third Way" in his province's health-care system is
"too far" a push toward privatization. |
| Toronto Star February 26, 2006
Time we chipped in on
continental security Washington will forge ahead with its
missile defence program — essentially, an early warning radar system —
whether Canada chooses to be involved or not. The U.S. will defend Canada
from a missile attack (and any other kind of attack) as best it can, whether
we are involved with the program or not. |
| Toronto Star February 19, 2006
No obligation
to support elected but vicious regime Canada should cut off aid to the Hamas-led
government of the Palestinian proto-state, elected in late January. We can,
and should, support the democratic process all over the world, and
particularly in the Arab Muslim world, where that process is desperate to
thrive, is taking significant (baby) steps, and whence has come our current
foe. |
| Toronto Star February 12, 2006
Canadian troops
will improve the lives of Afghans Throughout February, Canadian troops will
be leaving for Afghanistan. The number of Canadian troops in that part of
the world will increase to 2,000. |
| Toronto Star February 5, 2006
There is
nothing to fear from a Conservative minority |
| Toronto Star January 29, 2006
Will
Harper's victory be good for Canada's foreign policy? |
| Toronto Star January 22, 2006
Majority lets
government rule, not just hang on |
| Christian Science
Monitor January 20, 2006
Open season on the
U.S. in Canadian elections The default setting in Canadian politics is
"anti-American," which rears its adolescent head during crises - and
elections. A particularly heartbreaking example of the former happened on
Dec. 26, when Jane Creba, a Toronto teenager out shopping, got caught in the
crossfire of a gang shooting. She died. |
| Toronto Star January 15, 2006
Policies akin to
those we embraced in the 1990s It is hard to fathom how Stephen Harper's
policies, at least as he has stated them, will be divisive or harmful to
this country. This is the argument his opponents, in particular the Liberal
party, have made. They claim Harper will radically change Canada with his
tax-cut and social policies. An interesting assertion, but as the saying
goes, consider the source. |
| Toronto Star January 8, 2006
Harper paying heed to
public's concerns |
|
Toronto Star
January 1, 2006
Thugs know they
won't be severely punished There isn't any question that looking at
the "root causes" of crime, and funding programs designed to prevent people
from turning to violence, are worthy endeavours. But there also isn't any
question that once someone belongs to a gang, or is willing to murder,
carjack, rape, or steal, root causes are pretty much points rendered moot.
|
| Toronto Star December 18, 2005
Vote-hungry
politicians fan anti-U.S. sentiment |
| Toronto Star December 11, 2005
We don't need Big
Brother running children's lives |
| Toronto Star December 4, 2005
U.S. doing better than
Canada without Kyoto |
| Toronto Star November 27, 2005
Payoff is just a
flawed bribe to buy silence The agreement reached between the federal
government and former students of Canada's residential schools - $2.2
billion in compensation - is wrong on two levels. First, it amounts to a |
| Toronto Star November 13, 2005
He
might have been young, but Omar Khadr is no Degrassi kid |
| Toronto Star November 20, 2005
Will Canadians
be better off with Liberal tax cuts? |
| Toronto Star November 6, 2005
Few beyond Libby likely
to be implicated Perjury, making false statements, and
obstruction of justice are serious charges. That Scooter Libby has been
indicted on those charges is not a small thing for him. But it needn't be
turned into more than that, something ominous for his former bosses. |
Toronto Star
October 30, 2005
Allowing our culture to compete offers more protection than shielding it I agree with France's culture minister,
Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, who commented during the UNESCO negotiations
regarding the Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of
Cultural Expressions, that "culture is not merchandise like any other." It
certainly isn't. I feel fairly comfortable allowing democratic governments
to decide how many corn on the cobs, say, they import, or how much they
charge other countries for wine. I don't feel comfortable having them decide
what constitutes my country's "culture." Nor do I want Ottawa to decide
whether a TV show is sufficiently "Canadian" for my sensibilities. |
|
Toronto Star
October 23, 2005
Canada doesn't have oil,
Alberta does The United States does not have too much
"control" of our oil. The idea that it does — because, under NAFTA, we sell
a certain proportion of oil to the United States — shows a failure to
understand any number of things. |
| Toronto Star October 16, 2005
Do the wealthy pay too
much tax in Canada? |
| Toronto Star October 9, 2005 Do We Really Want Private Decisions Regulated? by Rondi Adamson I do not smoke. But I accept, as part of living in a country with taxpayer-subsidized health care, that I have to pay for other people's stupid choices, as well as their misfortunes. And likewise. That people make stupid choices may well be at least one argument in favour of privatized health care. But those same stupid choices don't strike me as being much of an argument in favour of governments (or, for that matter, individuals), suing tobacco companies for the cost of tobacco-related illnesses. A choice is just that. For more than 40 years the perils of smoking have been known to us. An emphasis on personal responsibility in this country would be refreshing. How far would we like to take things? It is indisputable that smoking causes illness. It is also true that all kinds of illnesses could be avoided — the cost of them, as well — if people would control their weight. Cirrhosis of the liver could be avoided if people wouldn't drink, high blood pressure if one exercised more and stayed away from aggravating situations. Careful use of condoms can prevent all manner of disease and unwanted babies, the former causing pain and costing money now, the latter sure to cost a bundle right now, and to develop bad, pricey habits of their own down the line. But just how much do you want your private decisions regulated by others, snitched-on by your neighbours or used by your government so they can make some money? It is not inconceivable that junk food will be next. A report released this week by the Ontario Medical Association found obesity rates in Canadian children had nearly doubled between 1981 and 1996. Thirty years from now, those kids will be making us pay through the nose for stomach staplings. Will the government tax their chips, and sue Ruffles? The Supreme Court's ruling doesn't just set a dangerous precedent. It represents an utterly transparent double standard. Our governments continue to allow tobacco to be sold, and collect taxes on cigarettes. They also sell liquor and promote gambling. Should Canadian citizens sue them, then, for encouraging and profiting from such deadly endeavours? Or perhaps tobacco should simply be banned. That would be less hypocritical than suing a tobacco company whose product you tax. But banning tobacco would be a mistake, depending on the kind of society you want to live in. I want one where adults are free to take risks and indulge in their own selection of vices, within reason. Adults, in turn, should then be held responsible for whatever those vices bring about. And a government that taxes cigarettes to high heaven, and then claims tobacco companies owe it money to cover treatment for emphysema and lung cancer, is not being held responsible for its own policies. But that would suit them fine, since, while they decry smoking, the last thing any government that taxes cigarettes wants, is for its citizens to stop the deadly puffing. |
| Toronto Star September 25, 2005 What's Wrong with Paying Off Our Debt or Cutting Taxes? by Rondi Adamson |
| Toronto Star September 18, 2005 Was Mulroney Underrated as Canada's Prime Minister? by Rondi Adamson |
| Toronto Star September 11, 2005 Critics Firing Arrows at the Wrong Targets by Rondi Adamson If only George Bush had treated the United Nations with more respect these past four years, not only would Katrina's aftermath have been different, but hurricane season this year may have been avoided altogether. This is close to the level of silliness we have been hearing since Aug. 31. The initial charge, that Bush underfunded levees, was quickly debunked. In The New York Times of Aug. 31, Shea Penland, director of the Pontchartrain Institute for Environmental Studies at the University of New Orleans, said the break in the levee surprised him because it was "along a section that was just upgraded." Okay, but Bush caused global warming, which in turn caused Katrina, right? William Gray, a Colorado State University expert in the study of cyclones, was quoted in the Belfast Telegraph two weeks ago, regarding the alleged link between global warming and hurricanes, saying, "... it just isn't so ... These are natural cycles." But the Louisiana National Guard were all in Iraq, fighting Bush's illegal, immoral war, right? No; 8,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard were at home. The job of dispatching them belonged to state officials. And this is what the handling of Katrina exposes: The negligence and incompetence of Louisiana officials, in particular state governor Kathleen Blanco and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin. There is no question the handling of Katrina does not reflect well on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's director, Michael Brown. But in the American system, emergency planning is a local and state responsibility. Blanco and Nagin have both been terrible leaders, unwilling to co-operate with each other, and with Washington. Were Blanco more reasonable, a mandatory evacuation — which Bush called for Aug. 28 — focusing on those unable or unwilling to leave, could have been carried out. The New York Times reported Sept. 9, "Officials in Louisiana agree that the governor would not have given up control over National Guard troops in her state as would have been required to send large numbers of active-duty soldiers into the area." Further, it was Blanco who prevented the Red Cross from entering New Orleans Sept. 3 with supplies, for fear it would discourage people from evacuating. Nagin, complaining that people should "get off their asses" and help, stayed on his (in Baton Rouge, much of the time), and refused to use school buses made available to his citizens. He wanted nicer buses. Soon enough, the school buses were under water. A cursory look at the situation in Mississippi shows what effective leadership can achieve. Governor Haley Barbour declared martial law as soon as Katrina hit. While Louisiana's neighbour also suffered enormous losses, citizens of Mississippi could rest assured the governor they elected kept those losses to a minimum. I would like to see Michael Brown fired. But I also look forward to seeing the citizens of Louisiana let Blanco know what they think, the next time they vote. Ditto Nagin, should New Orleans hold elections again. |
| Toronto Star September 4, 2005 For the Majority of Canadians, a Car is a Necessity by Rondi Adamson |
| Toronto Star August 28, 2005 NAFTA Has Been Beneficial to Canada by Rondi Adamson |
| Toronto Star August 21, 2005 Before Israel Makes More Concessions, Palestinians Must First Show Good Intent by Rondi Adamson Given that a majority of Israelis do not support keeping the Gaza settlements, there was little likelihood Ariel Sharon could have made any other decision than to disengage. That's how democracies work. But whether or not Israel should withdraw from all the disputed territories is another matter, one which depends largely on the aftermath of the Gaza withdrawal. The disengagement is a bold move that should earn Israel praise and support from the world community. It should also give Israelis increased security. But that remains to be seen. Palestinians now have a golden opportunity. But they have had those before, many times. Going over them all would require far more space than this column allows. The most recent was in 2000. Unprecedented concessions were offered by the government of Ehud Barak. Yasser Arafat, as always, not acting in the best interests of the people he purported to care about, walked away. Until the election of Mahmoud Abbas, Palestinian leaders had stood by while terror obstructed hope, or worse, encouraged that terror. Abbas has a chance to change that. Islamist murderers and jihadists would prefer for him not to succeed — were a Palestinian state to coexist with Israel they would have no more "excuse" for flying airplanes into buildings and strapping dynamite to themselves, and the jig would be up. Abbas's task is no small one, but he can prove he is a worthy partner-in-peace to the Israelis by bringing moderate Palestinian voices to the forefront, by showing his willingness to destroy Islamic Jihad, Hamas, and other groups, by reforming a school system that encourages violence and teaches anti-Jewish propaganda, and by bringing about rule of law. Rule of law is the key difference between the Jewish state and the Arab Muslim world. Let's look at what has happened this week. The Gaza settlements were the result of misguided decisions by Sharon, among others. Now, Sharon is doing the necessary to reverse those decisions. This takes guts. I would like, to see any Palestinian leader reverse any mistake, even a tiny one. On top of this, we see a serious, democratic state enforcing legal decisions against its own population, decisions that are painful and which many are passionately against. I desperately, longingly, await any Palestinian leader demonstrating like-minded behaviour, or of showing the smallest shred of such capability. Or even of understanding the concept. So before Israel gives more away and makes more concessions, they deserve evidence that the Gaza decision will represent improvement. This is already looking dubious. On Wednesday, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal declared the disengagement was "proof the armed struggle has borne fruit." Should Gaza become nothing more than a base from which Hamas launches missiles into neighbouring Israeli communities, it would be clear to even the most obtuse that dismantling settlements on the West Bank would simply be rewarding violence and that Israel should forget about peace and simply do what is best for its own safety. |
| Christian Science
Monitor August 15, 2005 From Settler to Soldier, the Faces of Israelis Touched by Gaza Pullout by Rondi Adamson Everyone I met on a recent trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories had an opinion on Israel's disengagement from the Gaza Strip: • Bus driver: against, as he believes Jews have a religious claim to Gaza; • Intelligence expert: for, but angry that none of the heads responsible for creating the Gaza settlements in the first place have rolled; • Hotel clerk: against, as she feels it is tantamount to rewarding Palestinian violence; • Jerusalem shopowner: for, as he calls the religious claim to Gaza "weak," and the cost in lives, money, and security "too great." Polls indicate a majority of Israelis support the disengagement. My own instincts tell me that expecting Israelis to continue defending 8,000 settlers living among nearly 1.5 million Palestinians is, at best, counterintuitive, at worst, not in the best interests of a strong Israel - or of the Palestinians. Eight days on the ground there served to harden my conviction that Israel's security should be at the forefront of any Middle East negotiations. But it also exposed me to the human factor. Talking face to face with those directly involved crystallized the concerns of those who hold points of view, making them easier to understand. As part of a group of Canadian journalists on a trip designed to give us firsthand experience of the political and cultural landscape in Israel, I met Israeli and Palestinian officials, journalists, and academics, as well as others whose professions were related neither to policy nor to the media. But there was one person we nearly didn't meet. Our trip into Gaza to meet with settlers in Gush Katif was foiled both by a nearby suicide bombing, which took five lives, and government concerns about antidisengagement demonstrators staging sit-ins inside Gaza. But a Gush Katif settler, Laurence Beziz, agreed to come out and have lunch with us. Tearful, rather than intractable and strident, she told us her story. This mother of four had come to Israel from France 25 years previously with her boyfriend (now her husband), a Tunisian Jew. For 20 years the family has lived in a settlement, running their agriculture business. (In Gaza, settlers have reclaimed desert and developed greenhouse farms worth $100 million per yearin exports.) Ms.Beziz's descriptions of their community, and the prospect of packing it all up - "the destruction of what we've been building for years" - caused her to break down. She called it nothing short of "betrayal." Beziz was there, she reminded us, because of appeals from the Israeli government. The incentives given back then were both romantic (to help settle land to which Jews have a religious connection), and economic (the settlements have always been highly subsidized by the government). She says that what's happening now - the disengagement - seems like a big "never mind" from the government. Unlike some other settlers we talked with, Beziz did not believe it likely there would be a last minute reprieve - from God or the Knesset. Nor did she plan to resist by means other than democratic. "I do not want to raise a hand to a soldier," she said. But she explained she will wait for an Israeli soldier to come to her home. "I want him to tell me to leave. I want to look him in the eyes when he tells me." After leaving Beziz, we met Susie, American-born but in Israel for more than 30 years. She took us on a tour of her bucolic community, Netiv Haasara, which looks out over, but is not in, Gaza. Watching what the Gaza settlers were facing, Susie had a sense of déjà vu, having been forced to relocate in 1982 - along with her entire community - from a Sinai settlement to their current location. Recently, she said, mortar shells had landed near her house, and she feared what the future would bring once the settlers and the Israeli army abandoned Gaza. The Canadian in me had difficulty grasping the idea of daily threats. Hours after we left Susie, a mortar shell fired from Gaza landed in Netiv Haasara, killing one resident, 22-year-old Dana Galkovitch. The soldiers whose job it will be to force settlers to abandon Gaza are no more stereotypical than Beziz herself. One of them is a senior fellow at the Shalem Center, a think tank in Jerusalem, and author of "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East." American-born and in his 50s, Michael Oren has been called up as a reservist to remove settlers from their homes. "This will be a miserable assignment," he said, though he added he supports the disengagement. "I feel it's absolutely necessary to maintain an Israeli national consensus about our borders, and to ensure the continuation of a solid Jewish majority in Israel." Though his son was wounded last September, shot while arresting a Hamas leader (he is fine now), Oren's fears are less about safety than the potential photo-op for Hamas. "The Palestinians will undoubtedly try to shoot at us as we evacuate, to substantiate the myth that we are running away under a hail of Hamas gunfire." He added, "Dirty work, but somebody's got to do it." I choose to hope that if I am fortunate enough to return to Israel, I'll meet the same people, and see that the dirty work, and sacrifices, have given them - and their Palestinians neighbors - more benefit than regret. |
| Toronto Star August 14, 2005 Unfortunately, Criminals Just Don't Obey the Law by Rondi Adamson |
| Toronto Star August 7, 2005 Blunt Talk about the True Nature of War is a Wakeup Call by Rondi Adamson U.S. Gen. George Patton once famously told troops that, "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other, poor dumb bastard die for his country." I'm fairly certain not much fuss was made about that comment, because it was, and is, true. And yet Gen. Rick Hillier's equally accurate comments about the nature of war and the nature of terrorists, have addled many — and not just easily addled Carolyn Parrish. I suspect this is because Canadians are not accustomed to hearing the truth about what an army does or what war is all about. For more than three decades we have been told that we are "peacekeepers," as though that role never involves killing or dealing with scumbags and murderers. More than 100 Canadian soldiers have died in peacekeeping operations in the last 50 years. In the Balkans alone, more than 20 died, and some died from enemy fire. I take some comfort knowing those guys were prepared to kill in return. At the very least, "peacekeeping" involves keeping the peace we have graciously allowed someone else to make in the first place by sacrificing young men and women. How any moral superiority can be claimed in these scenarios is difficult to glean. Canadians are even less familiar with hearing our military leaders express opinions. Those leaders have, like Canada's military itself, been neutered. This is a shame, since part of their job is to understand the situation they are dealing with and, one would hope, make a judgment about it. This is not to say they should make policy decisions. But we should welcome their weighing in, particularly someone like Hillier, who is the government's chief military adviser. In sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan, our government is, de facto, acknowledging that there are very bad people there who need to be killed. Hillier was just expressing things more bluntly than Paul Martin ever would. And that's just dandy. For one thing Canadians lack is a realistic attitude where military matters are concerned. One hopes Hillier's speaking the truth might lead to an understanding from more Canadians of the need for increased military spending and manpower. On Wednesday, Ernest "Smokey" Smith, Canada's last surviving winner of the Victoria Cross and the only Canadian private to win the honour in World War II, died. During a battle in Italy in October 1944, Smith successfully fought off German troops and tanks by killing the former and firing directly into the latter, hence killing more of the former. One suspects Smith would have taken no umbrage at Hillier's open recognition that we face a detestable enemy who threatens us. One also suspects he would have wholeheartedly agreed with one of Hillier's less colourful comments, but one as true as the others: "We need to take a stand." |
| Toronto Star July 31, 2005 It's Naive to Believe Jihadists Won't Bomb Us, Too by Rondi Adamson I'm sleeping better since Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier said, earlier this month, "We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people." He also said that terrorists were "detestable murderers and scumbags." I only wish more Canadians understood as much and understood we are at risk. To deny the inevitability of a terror attack on our own soil is representative of a naïveté even outside the scope of the usual Canadian variety. To try and reduce what has happened in Britain to Iraq, claiming we are safe because we don't "invade other countries," is representative of a complacency and a parochial world-view even beyond the scope of the usual Canadian varieties. The jihadists are smart enough to know the Iraq connection will be made by some, and with that knowledge they can manipulate us. If the rest of us are frightened, the power that protects us from living a life of medieval wretchedness, the United States, can effectively be isolated. Ditto Britain. (One hopes the Brits are not simply Spaniards in raincoats.) When thinking small-picture, something Canadians excel at, our "niceness" matters ... for now. When thinking big-picture, something we ought to try, our niceness won't protect us, least of all from barbarians who never behave nicely. Canadians would do well to look at the mountain of evidence — attacks from Islamist murderers throughout the world for the past nearly four decades, long before the war in Iraq. Canadians would do well to remember the loud and clear messages Islamist murderers routinely send in the form of various acts of violence; the loud and clear messages they send in the murder of their fellow Muslims, and, in that most depraved recent incident in Iraq, the slaughter of Muslim children as they collected candy from American soldiers. These last points are of the utmost relevance. For one fact often missed in the maelstrom is that this war is in one part a battle for our civilization against jihadists, but in another part a battle for the soul of Islam — a civil war between Muslims who would live reasonably, and others who would bring back the Caliphate. Any country with a growing Muslim population, such as Canada, is already part of that battle. Mind you, this point will be moot if we've completely surrendered before the attack on Canadian soil comes. And make no mistake, the attack will come. If there were a Palestine alongside Israel tomorrow, if there were no American troops anywhere outside the United States, if there were no more slights, real or imagined, jihadists would still be coming to get us. By giving even the slightest credibility to the argument that the U.S. and Britain are targets because of their foreign policy, and that therefore Canada is safe, we are allowing the jihadists to dictate our decisions and keep us in a dangerous dream world a while longer. And above all, we are helping the wrong side in the battle for Islam. |