Ideals of UN do not match its actions
by Rondi Adamson

Why should Bush listen to someone who balked at chance of ousting Saddam?
by Rondi Adamson

Bill C-257 would limit the rights of those who want to work
by Rondi Adamson

Quebec is not a nation
by Rondi Adamson

Women no longer need to be coddled, like less clever creatures than men
by Rondi Adamson

Harper's Action on Surplus in Best Interest of Canadians
by Rondi Adamson

Canadian Intelligence to Blame in Arar Case
by Rondi Adamson

Five Years After 9-11
by Rondi Adamson

We should not legitimize Hezbollah’s aim of erasing Israel
by Rondi Adamson

If Canada were to seek talks with Hezbollah, why not, in the name of consistency, extend a hand to Hamas and Al Qaeda? Better yet, we could remove all three from our terror list. No, we should not negotiate with terrorists, no matter what Kofi Annan, or other proponents of the recent ceasefire in the Middle East might like to believe. A ceasefire, by the way, which offers nothing toward fixing any of Lebanon's domestic dilemmas.
Were we to engage in such fecklessness, what would we discuss with Hezbollah? Its stated desire is the eradication of the state of Israel, with a promise that Jewish and Western targets be attacked the world over.
So would we, say, negotiate a reasonable number of attacks per year?
Or, would we talk about allowing Hezbollah to eradicate a certain percentage of Israelis? They are also fans of Islamic law. Would we negotiate an acceptable number of rights women could give up?
But, say some, Hezbollah helps seniors and orphans. It is a safe bet they kill more of the former and create more of the latter than anything else. Yes, Hezbollah has a political wing. But it remains a terror organization. Inside Lebanon, criticizing Hezbollah and its sponsors, Syria and Iran, puts one in danger. What are we telling the moderate Lebanese, who fear speaking out, if we negotiate with Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah?
Hezbollah has, over decades, consistently shown us who it is, with attacks in South America, Europe, Asia and Africa. Hezbollah terrorists were famous hostage-takers in the 1980s, suicide bombers (including the truck bomb that killed 241 U.S. Marines), and hijackers (the group that hijacked TWA Flight 847 was linked to Hezbollah).
Even were one to romanticize Hezbollah as a "resistance" movement, born of Israel's ill-advised invasion of Lebanon, what "justifications" can currently be given? Israel has not occupied a centimetre of Lebanon since 2000. What, exactly, is Hezbollah resisting? Oh right. I forgot. The continued existence of that pesky Jewish state. Let us not give its goals legitimacy by talking with Nasrallah, or his acolytes.
This past week, Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj amassed his share of headlines.
But the words of one of his travelling companions on the trip to Lebanon, sponsored by the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, deserve attention. New Democrat Peggy Nash was quoted as saying, "If the political parties in Lebanon who may disagree with Hezbollah, and be opposed to them and their philosophy, can figure out a way to work with Hezbollah and try to get along internally, then perhaps we should take a cue from that."
We should take cues from Lebanese politics? Okay. How about Canada emulate Lebanon's Chronic Political Assassination Syndrome? Or its sectarian violence? Or its civil war?
Instead, let us take a cue from common sense, and not talk with Hezbollah, or remove it from any terror list. It took us far too long to put it there.

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?"
I thought about that following the arrests of 17 Canadian terror suspects last weekend. Most were citizens of Canada, born and bred, or residents. The police who announced the dragnet were careful to say that the young males did not represent any specific ethnocultural group - though all are Muslim.
Toronto's mayor, David Miller, after commending the excellent work of Canada's security forces, wondered aloud why young people might get involved in terrorist activities. We need "strategies to try to prevent that from happening again," he said. His earnestness awed me. Can he truly believe there is some "thing" Canadians can do (hold a "Hands Across Canada" event?) to prevent this kind of occurrence?
Canada is not France. Canada's Muslim population is not marginalized out of fear and contempt, not left alone to manage its own affairs. Even though a Toronto mosque had its windows smashed following the arrests, that sort of thuggery and stupidity is not systemic or common. Canada's Muslims are not prevented from attending good schools or holding high-powered jobs. Nor are they, for the most part, unwilling or unable to fit in peacefully and productively. So the mayor's concern was misplaced. His comment should have been something along the lines of, "I wonder what Canada's Muslim leaders/moderate Muslim citizens can do to prevent this kind of thing in future?"
In countries like Canada, or England, or Spain, where citizens have been shocked by the news of home-grown cells, I believe more needs to be asked of Muslim religious and community leaders. Western Muslims are a powerful potential ally in the broader "war on terror." It is true that most Muslims are not terrorists. But we need Muslims themselves to admit that most of the terrorists who threaten us are Muslim.
Aly Hindy, a high-profile imam in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough, called the arrests "an attack on the Muslim community." He went on to say that, "We are abusing our boys for the sake of pleasing George Bush." Rather than speaking out against extremism, or entertaining the notion that perhaps his country's security forces know what they're doing, Hindy called the charges against the men "home-grown baloney."
Even moderate Canadian Muslim groups, willing to show faith in Canada's justice system, are mitigating their statements. The Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) praised the work of Canada's spy agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. But then they scolded the Canadian government for not funding "academic research to diagnose this serious social problem and provide scientific solutions to it." A scientific solution to Islamofascism? Bring it on.
The group also chastised Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper for portraying events "as a battle between 'us' and 'them.' " Following the arrests, Mr. Harper stated that "we are a target because of who we are. And how we live." One wonders - do the members of the CIC not consider themselves part of the "we" Harper referred to, when he spoke of Canadians? If so, that is indeed revealing.
The Muslim Canadian Congress fared only a tad bit better. They praised the police, and expressed dismay that members of their community might be guilty as charged. And then they managed to blame President Bush, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and even Harper for the fact that any such terror cells might exist. So far, only the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada (CAIR-CAN) has managed to issue a condemnation of terror, and praise of the police, without tacking on a "but," a "Bush," or a "Canadian troops in Afghanistan."
I was happily surprised at CAIR-CAN's press release. I shouldn't have been. We must expect that Western Muslims will wholeheartedly condemn Islamofascism, without any conditions placed on that condemnation. Without that, we may reach a point of divisions too deep to mend.

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.
One of the characteristics of much of the current left is the tendency to hold anyone pro-American to impossible standards while allowing others the greatest leeway. Were it not so, this boycott would simply be something we could dismiss as sophomoric and embarrassing. Instead, it is predictable and frightening.
Given the weight of CUPE Ontario's membership, should it not have allowed its rank and file to vote on the matter? My guess (my hope?) is that many would have been passionately against the decision. I am not suggesting this was done purposely, to force the measure through. More likely, the leadership vote was a thoughtless and facile decision, much like the resolution itself.
But practical considerations disappear in the shadow of all of the moral, political and historical reasons this boycott is so appallingly wrong. The wording of the resolution indicates that those who wrote it are ignorant of the country they are so keen to condemn.
The boycott calls on Israel to recognize the Palestinian "right to self-determination." Israel has long recognized the Palestinian right to self-determination and has done more to bring that possibility about than have successive Palestinian leaderships, or than have most Arab governments in the region.
Israel has made significant concessions (unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and parts of the West Bank), provided countless dollars to the Palestinians in both financial and tangible assistance, trained Palestinian security forces, attempted to negotiate peace deal after peace deal, and more. What they have asked in return — the cessation of attacks on Israel and recognition of Israel's right to exist — is hardly unreasonable. Yet neither request has been met with any consistency or sincerity.
The boycott also condemns the Israeli "apartheid" wall, the security barrier Israel has built as a response to attacks from Palestinian suicide bombers. While calling for the dismantling of the wall, CUPE's resolution does not call for an end to the violence that brought about the building of the wall in the first place.
If that were not enough, the resolution demands Israel recognize the Palestinian right of return. In short, CUPE is demanding the destruction of the State of Israel. One wonders whether those who wrote this resolution even understood what they were asking for.
Purportedly, unions protect the "little guy." But the crass action of CUPE's Ontario branch serves only to scapegoat Israel, the little guy under threat from its neighbours — and now, it appears, from a Canadian labour union. CUPE should rescind this boycott, lest it desire being de facto aligned with the likes of Hamas and Iran.

WAKE UP CANADA - WE'RE AT WAR!
by Rondi Adamson

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.

Blended private-public systems still provide quality care
by Rondi Adamson

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.
It is nothing but another baby step — maybe a toddler step — toward giving Canadians more choice in the kind of health care they would like, and toward reducing pain and waiting time for many patients. It is not the destruction of universal health care for those who need it. Nor is it the handing over of all we hold dear to sinister profiteers.
The changes in Alberta follow similar changes that have already taken place in Quebec, following last year's Supreme Court ruling, which cleared the legal path to private care.
The province now allows cataract surgery and joint replacement to be performed in private clinics if the public system cannot provide those services within six months.
And Premier Gordon Campbell of British Columbia is currently touring hospitals in Europe, as part of a fact-finding mission towards possible changes at home. Many European countries have done a good job of blending private and public systems — but still provide quality care across the board.
The fact that Alberta's plan will allow doctors to function simultaneously in the private and public systems strikes me as particularly innovative. Rather than doctors and other health-care staff fleeing the public system en masse, many could well choose to make some serious money some days (nothing wrong with that) and be do-gooders the rest of the time (also nothing wrong with that). Some private doctors might choose a sliding scale. Many, I suspect, will stay in a public system they believe in. And if they don't, this might tell us something about the viability of our public system.
Concern has been expressed that allowing doctors to jump between the two systems will create gross inequity and the dreaded "two-tier" situation. The dearth of, for example, orthopedic surgeons in Ontario, is often held up as proof that allowing privatization will only make the queue longer in the public system.
But surely we are approaching that problem illogically. If our current system is not motivating enough of a certain kind of surgeon to work here, why would maintaining that system change things? As for the two-tiered scenario, it has already existed for some time. Canadians who can afford it have long gone to the United States for surgery. And private clinics have quietly existed in Quebec for a long time.
Agree or disagree with Ralph Klein's health-care proposals, I believe most Canadians agree with him when he says, "... the health system must change to survive," and, "People are waiting too long. The system is too expensive and growing more expensive day by day." A Leger Marketing poll from June 2004, indicated that a majority of Canadians wanted parallel private health care to be available.
Since most of us would like some kind of motion, let us not panic about these small, but meaningful, changes.

Time we chipped in on continental security
by Rondi Adamson

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.
In short, we can afford to abstain, knowing the neighbour we frequently hold in such contempt, will continue to sacrifice money, time and lives, researching and carrying out new ways to secure us.
But should we continue in our role as another of the world's many armchair generals? Or should we recognize that while we are not powerful, we have much to offer in the defence of freedom.
I believe the answer is the latter, and it seems that Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor concurs. Last Thursday, O'Connor said Ottawa is willing to reopen ballistic missile defence talks with Washington, provided the U.S. initiated such a discussion. In the complicated "dating world" of foreign policy, it seems the more powerful partner has to make the first move.
That announcement will no doubt send into a tizzy those Canadians labouring under the delusion that our rejection of missile defence somehow enhances this country's sovereignty and pride. For that is really what Canadian objections to missile defence participation are all about, and sadly, the state into which our political mindset has degenerated. In fact, all our abstention does is guarantee that decisions about Canada's safety get made without Canadian input.
One hopes that with a new crew in Ottawa, things might improve. The performance of Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay has been less than stellar, so far. But perhaps having a defence minister who served honourably with our armed forces for three decades, and ended his military career as a brigadier-general, will help coax Canadians into the heady world of "realism," at least concerning international matters.
If we swallowed our anti-Americanism and donated some of our considerable Canadian talent (and money) to this venture, we may even get a missile interceptor, or part of the infrared satellite system, or maybe even a command centre, named after us. That might fulfill our need to be "recognized," and to have the "value expressed" for our work, that MacKay claimed we weren't getting enough of last week.
The missile defence system is geared mostly toward rogue states, such as North Korea and Iran, both of which have leaders I would generously call insane. With common enemies of that ilk, discussions with Washington can't hurt. We have had too few discussions. And any decision would have to pass a Commons vote.
O'Connor has also said that Canada should expand its role in NORAD, working with U.S. Northern Command. "This will help us exercise our sovereignty, and allow us to strengthen co-operation with the United States ... dedicated to North American security." And that is what this is about: Security.

No obligation to support elected but vicious regime
by Rondi Adamson

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.
But supporting the process does not mean supporting the victors, if the philosophy of those victors is at once murderous and suicidal, and if those same victors are pledged to destroy Israel.
We do not want aid money paying for the means to attack Israel — which is where it likely will go, instead of building schools or feeding children.
Nor do we want to give Hamas a veneer of acceptability and respectability on the international stage. Canada has classified Hamas as a terrorist organization and we should hold them in appropriate contempt.
And surely Hamas, with its contempt for the West, wouldn't want to sullied by accepting Western bankroll.
By cutting off aid to the newly elected leadership of the Palestinians, we are, by extension, cutting the Palestinian people loose. But they have made their choice clear.
Yes, a part of that choice was the rejection of Fatah's corruption and duplicity. But another part was the eagerness to embrace fanatics. And now the Palestinian Authority cannot complain about its inability to control Hamas, or claim ignorance of suicide bombers in their midst.
As the representatives of the Palestinians, Hamas can, if it wishes, declare war on a country it refuses to recognize. It can give that same country an opportunity to defend itself without the world being able to claim there was no provocation and that Israel was simply being a greedy bully of a nation.
Most importantly, as democratically elected representatives, Hamas can now answer to its people.
How will the Palestinians react if they are taxed in order to finance car bombers? If the answer is, "They would love it," all the better we should know that about them sooner rather than later. No more pretense at a willingness to live side by side with Israel.
If the answer is, "They will be furious," then Hamas will have to be accountable, or face the consequences. If the Palestinians have truly only elected it as a rejection of Fatah's sleaze, then it will be interesting to watch as Hamas switches its focus from the external, from fomenting hatred, to providing services and solving internal, quotidian problems.
Fascist parties have come to power democratically in the past. In those cases, more often than not, they did not keep the democratic machinery functioning.
Legitimate re-election is not something fascists like to face. The last thing we should do is help these fascists carry out their plan. The best thing Canada can do is recognize Hamas' victory, but not be friendly — financially or otherwise — with it.

Canadian troops will improve the lives of Afghans
by Rondi Adamson

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.
Canadian forces will be part of a multinational combat force participating in what one could unceremoniously, but truthfully, refer to as "Taliban killing." No more self-congratulatory claims of "But Canadians are peacekeepers," for us.
And we should be proud of that.
Now, if you don't believe that the current war — what I call the War on Islamofascism — is anything other than a fabrication/exaggeration of a jingoist administration in Washington, D.C., or if you believe Canada is not threatened in said war, then you won't be proud.
But I would then suggest you are delusional. For not only is this war real, we are threatened, as are all Western democracies. Osama bin Laden has put Canada on his "hit list," and he is a man who keeps his word.
And if he doesn't convince you, keep in mind that his particularly deadly strain of Islamist fundamentalism afflicts many the world over and brought homegrown bloodshed to the United Kingdom last summer.
The invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 destroyed the comfortable base once provided Al Qaeda and its ilk. By hunting down intransigent Taliban, Canadian troops will be helping improve the lives of Afghans, and helping sustain and increase stability in a part of the world many dismissed as beyond repair five years ago.
A recent BBC poll found that Afghans (and Iraqis) were among the most optimistic in the world when it came to their economic futures. Creating this kind of hope and opportunity for people increases our security and the security of other free nations.
But it does involve violence. Freedom doesn't come without a cost. As much as Canadians would love to cling to the cherished myth of the peacekeeper, the fact remains that you cannot keep peace without first making it. And often, you can't make it without fighting. What pride can we take in leaving that to others?
We refused to help in Iraq. And we have brought our cowering skills to new heights with our "reaction" to the Danish cartoon controversy — another battle in the same war. At the time of this writing, only two Canadian newspapers (one, a student newspaper) have reprinted the cartoons. And Peter MacKay's mealy-mouthed drivel (courageously supporting, and not supporting, freedom of expression) on Wednesday was shameful.
Speaking two weeks ago in Montreal, Major-General Ed Fitch of the Canadian Forces said Canadians are "sleepwalking" in the face of terrorism both in and outside Canada.
He added that Canadians were "generally unaware" of what was going on and that our apathy is our enemies' "greatest delight."
At least in Afghanistan, we can proudly say we are playing a relevant and meaningful role defending democratic principles. A role for which we should never apologize.

There is nothing to fear from a Conservative minority
by Rondi Adamson

Will Harper's victory be good for Canada's foreign policy?
by Rondi Adamson

Majority lets government rule, not just hang on
by Rondi Adamson

Open season on the U.S. in Canadian elections
by Rondi Adamson

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's mayor, David Miller, had this to say: "It's a sign that the lack of gun laws in the US is allowing guns to flood across the border that are literally being used to kill people in the streets of Toronto."
In case we missed the point, he added, "The US is exporting its problem of violence to the streets of Toronto." No one knows whether the gun that killed Jane Creba came from the United States, but if it did, Canadian security measures are in part responsible for allowing it in. And the two men accused in the shootout are Canadian. Though Mr. Miller won't face an election until November, he immediately turned to the default setting. As Jean Chrétien, Canada's former prime minister, and a shrewd reader of the Canadian public said in 1998, "I like to stand up to Americans. It's popular."
With a federal election to be held Jan. 23, that observation plays out each day. And it hasn't gone unnoticed by US ambassador to Canada, David Wilkins. Unlike his predecessors, he has commented publicly on the phenomenon. Shortly before Christmas, speaking at a luncheon in Ottawa, he said, "It may be smart election politics to thump your chest and constantly criticize your friend and your No. 1 trading partner. But ... all of us should hope it doesn't have a long-term impact on our relationship." He was specifically referring to comments made by Paul Martin, Canada's prime minister, referring to American unwillingness to sign on to the Kyoto treaty.
Mr. Martin accused the US of lacking a "global conscience." (This, in spite of the well-documented fact that in the past 10 years greenhouse gas emissions have risen more rapidly in Canada than in the US.) Martin responded to Mr. Wilkins with, well, a little chest thumping: "I am not going to be dictated to as to the subjects I should raise." Unless it's by a desire to win votes. Martin's Liberal Party has tailored at least four of its televised campaign commercials to Canada's relationship with the US. One concerns the disagreement between the two countries over the tariffs the US imposes on Canadian softwood lumber exports. It features "ordinary Canadians" telling viewers that Martin will "stand up" to George Bush. As though the US were threatening Canada, rather than disagreeing over policy.
Another liberal ad focuses on Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper, Martin's chief rival and his purported fondness for the US. It quotes a December Washington Times column by Patrick Basham, in which Mr. Harper is described as "the poster boy for his [George Bush's] ideal foreign leader," and "the most pro-American leader in the Western world." The ad concludes - over the steady sound of a military drumbeat - with this: "A Harper victory will put a smile on George W. Bush's face." Heaven forbid.
It isn't just party leaders who deal with default settings. Former Harvard Professor, Michael Ignatieff, a Canadian, left his job at the university to run as a Liberal candidate in suburban Toronto. At his nomination meeting, he attempted to address the crowd, while people shouted, "American!" It probably wasn't a compliment.
Nationwide, the race is tight. And if the Liberals lose, as polls suggest they will, it won't be from serving Canada too big a dose of anti-Americanism, but because of kickback scandals and their own hubris. It will also be because Harper distanced himself from his supposed ties to the US. He even wrote a letter to the Washington Times regarding Mr. Basham's column, emphasizing that he's no American lackey. As Harper surely knows, the anti-American card is hard to overplay in Canada.

Policies akin to those we embraced in the 1990s
by Rondi Adamson

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.
In one of the famous (or infamous) Liberal attack ads — not the one that was pulled, which insinuated Harper was planning some sort of coup d'etat — a grave voice tells us Harper once gave a speech to some people in Montreal (I think these people are called "Americans"). In this speech, years ago, it seems Harper suggested that Canada's unemployed received fairly decent benefits. (True enough, I might add.) The voice continues over a muffled military drumbeat, appearing to suggest that this proves the Conservative leader lacks compassion and therefore could never be an appropriate choice for prime minister.
Anyone listening to this ad might believe that Harper, at some point, had proposed cutting significantly the benefits given to this country's unemployed.
No evidence is given to back the implied point. Also omitted from the ad is the well-documented fact that employment benefits were substantially cut back over the past 12 years by the Liberal party and its finance minister, Paul Martin.
That was back when Martin was in a position to do as he thought best, including making many cuts and changes to social programs. One could argue that if cuts to social programs were going to divide Canada, it must already have happened. (As though it is cuts to social programs that divide Canada.)
As the Conservative platform stands, a Harper government would reduce the GST; it would maintain planned increases in benefits for the unemployed; it would maintain scheduled transfers to the provinces for equalization and health care.
Harper's final fiscal platform also proposes a $200 million fund offering tax credits to developers who build low-income housing.
On child care, Harper has simply proposed allowing parents to decide for themselves what is best for their children. He is still offering them a lump sum.
The only real difference between the Liberals and Conservatives in proposed policy, is with regard to same-sex marriage. Personally, I support same-sex marriage. But I fail to see why the idea of a free vote in Parliament on the matter frightens people.
Harper says he won't use the notwithstanding clause to eradicate the right to same-sex marriage. So, even if gay marriage was overturned by Parliament — which, in a free vote, seems unlikely — it can't be overturned, ultimately.
None of this sounds scary, or frankly, particularly conservative.
It hardly sounds more conservative, or radically different, than the policies Canada knew in the 1990s.

Harper paying heed to public's concerns
by Rondi Adamson

Thugs know they won't be severely punished
by Rondi Adamson

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.
Once the crime has been committed, the fact that the perpetrator may come from a bad neighbourhood or have been the victim of racism or be young, no longer matters.
Plenty of people feel alienated but don't commit violent (or any) crimes. Once someone is behaving this way, our justice system needs to be effective, not only because this might actually deter some potential criminals, but because this would keep actual criminals off the street, hence, protecting the rest of us. Isn't that the point?
"I think," said Prime Minister Paul Martin, commenting on the Boxing Day killing of 15-year-old Jane Creba, "more than anything else, the shootings demonstrate what are, in fact, the consequences of exclusion."
I beg to differ. I think, more than anything else, the shootings demonstrate that Canada's justice system is too soft on violent crime and brutes out there know it.
In downtown Toronto, drug dealing, petty crimes and gang activity go on publicly with the perpetrators oblivious to reprisals. I doubt any of this was "exported from the United States," to quote another great thinker this week.
Passing the buck won't help, but more cops walking the proverbial beat, would. Allowing them to do their job would be useful, as well. Why not subject someone using drugs on a street corner to more scrutiny and police officers to less? The Youth Criminal Justice Act needs changing, too — tougher sentencing for lesser offences, and eliminating "alternative" sentencing (such as attendance in community programs) for offenders.
Proponents and opponents of capital punishment concur that a "life sentence" does not mean as much in Canada. With few exceptions, it means parole. Our justice system allows concurrent sentencing for violent crimes, and conditional sentencing for drug crimes and repeat offenders: We should scrap all of that.
Rather than banning handguns, assuming that were possible, or wasting money on a gun registry (how many of the Boxing Day offenders do you suppose would co-operate with that?), how about a mandatory minimum prison term for gun crimes?
Creba's death was the 78th homicide in Toronto this year. In November, when Amon Beckles was attending the funeral of murder victim Jamal Hemmings, he was shot to death outside the church. Mayor David Miller referred to Beckles' assailants as "despicable thugs." He talked tough, and truthfully. I'd like to hear more of that from every level of government — and reforms to our overly generous justice system.

Vote-hungry politicians fan anti-U.S. sentiment
by Rondi Adamson

We don't need Big Brother running children's lives
by Rondi Adamson

U.S. doing better than Canada without Kyoto
by Rondi Adamson

Payoff is just a flawed bribe to buy silence
by Rondi Adamson

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
bribe Take this money and shut up about it, okay? This is not about a sincere reckoning or accounting of the mistreatment of aboriginals. This is about a payoff. This is also not surprising, given that our "solution" to most problems involving aboriginal peoples seems to involve handing over money and perpetuating the very culture of dependency that has created so many of the problems those same peoples face.
And therein lies the second problem. This payoff is not even a sensible one. It's an extremely flawed bribe.
For example, descendants of residential school students who passed away after May 30 of this year (when Ottawa appointed a former judge to help negotiate a settlement) are also eligible for compensation. Why should someone who did not attend a residential school be given compensation for a traumatic experience they never had? Should I get an apology or money for something my parents went through? At one point, a line has to be drawn. A line should also be drawn in terms of what grievance, exactly, is being paid for.
While money cannot make up for sexual abuse and beatings, it is, perhaps, the best that can be done after so many years. It goes without saying that a child who was sexually abused, or physically abused at a residential school should receive some kind of compensation. (Of course, this is true for children who were abused at regular Canadian public schools, as well.)
But loss of language or culture is impossible to measure and paying people for that loss is counterproductive and counterintuitive. At the time, an attempt was being made to assimilate students at residential schools into white Canadian society. Unlike sexual or physical abuse, this was not being done with ill intent.
Canadians now recognize residential schools as not the most shining moment in our history. But should someone be given compensation for simply having attended a residential school? Attendance at one of those schools does not equal horrific abuse, nor should it qualify someone for compensation. Residential schools were a reflection of an era, not something we would sanction now. But painting all of those schools in the same light is unfair. I think of a close friend of mine, whose late mother taught at a residential school. In recent years, my friend's mother has been hurt by being tarred with the same brush as abusers .
The school this woman taught at was decent and compassionate, and many of her students kept in touch with her until her recent death. Her fondest memory of her time at Sioux Lookout was being made a "blood brother" by her students - hardly a ceremony that would be extended to an abuser.

He might have been young, but Omar Khadr is no Degrassi kid
by Rondi Adamson

Will Canadians be better off with Liberal tax cuts?
by Rondi Adamson

Few beyond Libby likely to be implicated
by Rondi Adamson

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.
This is the case of a prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, failing to find any White House cabal, or criminal conspiracy, or actual transgressions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Instead, Fitzgerald charged that a Bush administration official lied to a grand jury about what he said to journalists.
There has been no indictment on the core issue — the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame by someone in the White House as supposed revenge against her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for an anti-war commentary he wrote in July 2003, in The New York Times.
It is worth noting that Plame does not fit the definition of "covert," since she had not served abroad for the CIA in the previous five years. And that Robert Novak, who first revealed her "secret," is an anti-Iraq war journalist.
Add that to the fact that, so far, no charges have been laid against presidential aide Karl Rove, (the magnet for much anti-Bush hatred), and one can't blame foes of the war for stretching things. It is a desperate stretch to say, as did Democratic Senator Harry Reid, that Fitzgerald's findings were actually about how Bush and his circle "manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq," and also about the White House wishing to "discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president."
I fail to see how stating the truth is a "discredit." Or if it is, one should look to Wilson as the source of his own discredit. How is it a smear to speak the truth about someone?
One alleged "smear" about Wilson is that his wife got him sent to Niger in 2002, to investigate whether Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium. In his book, Wilson wrote that his wife "had not proposed that I make the trip." Yet, the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that Plame "had suggested his name for the trip."
Wilson also claimed, in his famous commentary, that Saddam had not tried to buy uranium from Niger. Yet the same Senate committee found that Wilson neglected to mention his finding of proof of a meeting between Baathist minions and Niger's prime minister.
Further, according to a June 2004 story in the Financial Times, there is evidence that Niger was trying to sell uranium to an unsavoury bunch of nations, including Iraq. British intelligence reports found the evidence of Saddam's Niger uranium connection to be believable. And French and German intelligence believed Saddam to have been in the market for illicit weapons.
A jury will decide if Libby lied. But even if Rove is charged, or pressured to step down, the only known dissembler here is Wilson, whose anti-war agenda is clear. The question is, "What did Wilson know, and when did he know it?"

Allowing our culture to compete offers more protection than shielding it
by Rondi Adamson

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.

Canada's culture minister, Liza Frulla, stated that the Convention was part of an "unshakeable commitment to protect and promote Canada's rich cultural diversity, including our aboriginal heritage and the boundless creativity of Canadians." Apparently, those comments weren't parody.

I concur that some Canadians are possessed of boundless creativity. They ought to be able to see their artistic expression flourish without absurd restrictions; they ought to be able to decide who gets to buy their offerings. I fail to understand how "protecting" our culture means protecting it from competition. Surely allowing it to grow and compete offers true protection.

A great irony is that after 9/11 UNESCO asserted, "intercultural dialogue is the best guarantee of peace." If this is true, surely intercultural exchange should be encouraged, not restricted. We are fortunate to live in a time when, thanks to globalization, people can learn about each other through each other's music, movies and other expressions of culture, available to them through unprecedented openness. Why impede such progress? The Convention gets in the way of the very cultural diversity it purports to support, all in the name of something impossible to define or quantify.


It should come as no surprise that the one country that consistently refuses to go along with this kind of protectionist nonsense is the United States — the one country whose culture everyone else is desperate to keep out. The Convention is aimed primarily at the U.S. It is its exports, billions of dollars worth, that so many other nations are eager to shield their citizens from, even though those citizens are happy to pay for the dreaded American culture. One particularly creepy line in the Convention refers to "the importance of culture for social cohesion." Social engineering, anyone?

Few countries are keener to limit the choices their citizens have in terms of foreign cultural content than Canada. Just from a practical point of view, we should stop wasting our time. With the proliferation of personal electronic devices and Internet access, it is hard to stop Canadians from watching/reading/listening to what they wish. More important, though, is the question of whether we want to be a grown-up, confident nation, ready to compete with other grown-ups. There is no reason for us not to be.

Canada doesn't have oil, Alberta does
by Rondi Adamson

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.

Who is the "our" in our oil? I don't know many Albertans, but I know enough of them to know they don't think Ontario, or much of the rest of Canada, is part of that "our."

Since Ottawa sold its stake in Petro-Canada, it could be argued that the federal government doesn't control any oil. Albertans do. And Albertans may feel that they kindly allow Ottawa to collect billions of dollars in taxes from that oil.


In short, Eastern oil consumers and Western oil producers most likely disagree about who controls what, and who it "belongs" to.

Control of oil comes from the marketplace, not from any buyer. Let's just imagine that the Canadian government mandated oil sales to China. China would then buy less from everyone else and American firms would still end up paying about the same price on the world market and getting about the same amount.

The only difference? According to John Palmer, economics professor at the University of Western Ontario, "We would force Canadian producers to pay more to ship it to China instead of the United States. In the process, we would further strain Canada-U.S. relations while donating cheap oil, by probably subsidizing the transport costs, to China."

Prime Minister Paul Martin should keep that — among other things — in mind when he decides to use oil to threaten the United States. Speaking two weeks ago in New York, the Prime Minister attempted to address the ongoing softwood lumber dispute. He hinted that Canada would look at China and India as a marketplace for "our" oil, restricting energy exports to the United States, if the Bush administration doesn't smarten up.

Apart from how morally questionable it is to suggest that trading with a dictatorship like China is a preferable/equal option to trading with a free country like America, there is also the matter of reality.

Canada is dependent on the American market, which buys approximately 85 per cent of what we have to offer. This is not to mention how our Prime Minister is causing further deterioration of already tenuous Canada-U.S. relations.

In the world market, oil is fungible. Who sells how much to whom is of little import. The price is determined by supply and demand, not a single oil company, or state. Certainly, if American demand dropped, so would the world price, but American firms do not set oil prices.

It would be nice if Canadian politicians would realize all of this and find less childish ways to deal with our largest trading partner. We always seem to be reacting against the United States, rather than carefully thinking through our rhetoric and our options.

Do the wealthy pay too much tax in Canada?
by Rondi Adamson