Paul S. Graham

The long awaited inquiry into the business dealings of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and arms dealer Karlheinz Schreiber begins on Monday. From the get-go, it looks like it will be a waste of time and money.

Justice Jeffrey Oliphant has said he will not seek to hold anyone criminally or civilly liable for any wrong-doing that may be uncovered. Furthermore, he said that if he suspects any ethical shortcomings by Mulroney he will give the former prime minister a “full opportunity to respond before any report is issued.”

Oliphant seems to be bending over backwards to ensure that Mr. Multoney does not have to account for any misdeeds that might be uncovered. According to the Canadian Press: “In a ruling last month, the judge said he must also be free to take account of the ethics provisions in federal statutes such as the Parliament of Canada Act, the Financial Administration Act and the Income Tax Act. He initially included the Criminal Code in the list as well, but had second thoughts about that Thursday. “Upon reflection I must state that the Criminal Code is of little if any value in this endeavour,” Oliphant said.

The Criminal Code of Canada contains stiff penalties for politicians proven to have accepted bribes or kickbacks.

119. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years who

(a) being the holder of a judicial office, or being a member of Parliament or of the legislature of a province, directly or indirectly, corruptly accepts, obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain, for themselves or another person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by them in their official capacity, or

(b) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives or offers to a person mentioned in paragraph (a), or to anyone for the benefit of that person, any money, valuable consideration, office, place or employment in respect of anything done or omitted or to be done or omitted by that person in their official capacity.

Given that Mulroney and Schreiber have both admitted that Schreiber paid large sums of cash to Mulroney while he was still a Member of Parliament (they disagree on the amount and the purpose), it is more than strange that Justice Oliphant would rule out, in advance, any findings that could point to the need for criminal charges.

The Airbus Affair is a lengthy and complicated story that I won’t even attempt to summarize here. The CBC’s Fifth Estate, which incidently is one of the CBC programs affected by the latest round of funding cuts,  published a revealing account in 2006.

We might have to be content with the Fifth Estate account because it looks like this public inquiry is being set up to ignore the most important question: Did Brian Mulroney violate the Criminal Code of Canada when he accepted money from Karlheinz Schreiber?

These days a lot of Canadians, including many opposed to the war in Afghanistan, have their knickers in knots because some ‘merican TV talk show Faux News assholes suggested our soldiers were pussies. Get over it!

March 24, 2009: Five American helicopters swooped in, filled with American Special Forces troops. Moments later, five Afghan civilians were dead, at least one of whom was killed as he slept. Just another day in Afghanistan.

How many civilians have died as a result of this war is not known with precision. While each of the foreign troops who have died has been meticulously counted, identified, catalogued and mourned, the best we can do for Afghanistan’s war dead is guess.

As of Jan. 25, 2009, Unknown News put the civilian death toll at 7,373. Wikipedia aggregates various estimates, and suggests that “direct” deaths may be as high as 10,557 and “indirect” deaths up to 20,000. Responsibility for most of the direct deaths lies with the invading armies, including Canada’s. The indirect deaths, which arise out of circumstances caused by the invasion, are surely all the responsibility of the invaders. That is, had there been no invasion, these folks would not have died.

I’ve never been totally comfortable with those whose objection to the war is motivated primarily by the deaths of “innocent civilians.” It somehow suggests that the other folk, the ones with the gall to actively resist our invasion are somehow deserving of their fates.

How many of these “terrorists” have died? Once again, Wikipedia supplies an estimate. As of March 23, 2009, between 21,214 and 21,624 insurgents were reported to have been killed. Add to that, another 11,000 dead Afghan troops, and we are getting into some serious numbers, here, more than 60,000 Afghans killed since Oct. 7, 2001 — the day the Americans (with some help from the Brits) launched “Operation Enduring Freedom” (sic).

Afghanistan, like Canada, has a relatively small population in a large land. There are about 31 million of them and 33 million of us.

We mourn our fallen soldiers, even if most of us disapprove of their presence in Afghanistan. 116 deaths and counting. What a waste! What a criminal waste!

It’s time for empathy, folks. Imagine the impact on this country of 60,000 dead Canucks. Imagine the psychic pain, the overwhelming grief, the interminable mourning. Imagine not even knowing how many have died? Imagine a death toll equivalent to the city of Charlottetown, PEI or North Bay, Ontario or Medicine Hat, Alberta. Imagine being awakened in the middle of the night by heavily armed soldiers who have dropped in to kill you.

It is time for empathy and a time for outrage. These days a lot of Canadians, including many opposed to the war in Afghanistan, have their knickers in knots because some ‘merican TV talk show Faux News assholes suggested our soldiers were pussies. Get over it!

If you are going to be outraged, be outraged that Canada continues to pour people, money and our national soul into murdering Afghans. Be outraged that our government is committing crimes against humanity overseas and assaults on our rights and freedoms at home.

Maher Arar knows about the decline in human rights in Canada if anyone does. Fortunately, he lived to tell the tale of his arrest and “extraoridinary rendition” by the US to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured in 2002 — and to hold the Canadian government accountable for the despicable role it played.

In this video, produced by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Mr. Arar speaks about the fragility of our rights, the dangers of allowing deeper integration with the US to trump human rights, and the need for meaningful oversight of CSIS and the RCMP if we are to restore Canadas tarnished reputation for promoting human rights both at home and around the globe.

The Government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper Makes Its Choice for Canada

By Anthony J. Hall, Professor of Globalization Studies, University of Lethbridge

Just two days after the Calgary Chamber of Commerce hosted former US President George W. Bush in his speaking engagement before an adoring crowd of rich business executives, the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper has banned George Galloway from entering Canada to address anti-war audiences.

James Clark of the Toronto Coalition to Stop the War condemned the Harper government’s effort to prevent the silver tongued British MP from speaking in Canada as “a frontal attack on free speech.” Galloway himself referred to the action of his would-be censors as a “last-ditch” efforts by Canada’s “right-wing dead enders” to promote the Bush brand in a country once known more for its peace keeping rather than its waging of aggressive war in close alliance with the torture-mongering former custodian of the White House.

The contrast between Bush and Galloway could not be more dramatic. The decision by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce as well as the Bennett Jones law firm to host the former US president did not go unchallenged. Many millions around the world point to Bush’s badly bloodied hands as chief executive for the dirty work done in waging his fraudulent War on Terror.

Lawyers Against War submitted detailed evidence to the Canadian Ministry of Immigration and to the Canadian Ministry of Justice highlighting evidence that “George W. Bush is a person credibly accused of torture and other gross human rights violations, crimes against humanity and war crimes.”

In a widely-published Internet article entitled “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta to Be Tried for International Crimes,” I explored the legal and political implications of the choices raised for Canadian law enforcement agencies and the Harper government by the decision of Canada’s Oil Patch executives to wine and dine the former US president.

With the enthusiastic backing of his lawyer, former US president Ramsay Clark, the legendary Mohawk Warrior and Attica Brother, Splitting The Sky, dramatized the failure of Canadian law enforcement agencies to uphold the Canadian War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act.

Please see the gripping video of Splitting the Sky being arrested as he calls for the arrest of George W. Bush.

Take Action

Our freedom of speech is on the line! Take Action! Here are some things you can do:

1. Sign the petition at http://petitiononline.com/galcan09/petition.html.

2. Contact Immigration Minister Jason Kenney and tell him to take of his brown shirt and smarten up!

3. Email your MP. Here is where to get the address.

4. Write a letter to the editor of your local paper; call your favourite radio talk show host; make a fuss!

The shooting may have ended in Gaza, but the pain persists. Perhaps it can never end.

I wept when I saw this report. Anyone with children or grandchildren would.

Khaled lost his two daughters in the conflict, murdered in cold blood by Israeli soldiers. They were just two and seven years old.

Al Jazeera’s Hoda Abdel Hamid reports from the north east of the Gaza Strip.

Abousfian Abdelrazik is a victim of the post-9/11 madness that is corroding human rights in Canada. His case is yet one more reminder that our federal government is determined to continue to violate cherished rights and freedoms. His story is a cautionary tale and a call to action.

Mr. Abdelrazik, a Canadian citizen of Sudanese origin, was arrested in Sudan, Sept. 12, 2003 in Khartoum while visiting his sick mother. The recommendation for his arrest came from the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, which had placed him and numerous other Muslims in Montreal under surveillance, following the arrest of Amed Ressam, the “millenium bomber,” in 1999.

He was imprisoned for 11 months, during which time he was tortured by his Sudanese jailers and interrogated on at least one occasion by people he identified as Canadian. He was rearrested in 2005 and held for an additional 10 months, during which he was interrogated by US FBI agents, and denied Canadian consular assistance.

Finally, in 2006, the Sudanese released him, saying they could not continue to hold an innocent man.

Since his release, he has been unable to return home because he was placed on United States and United Nations no-fly lists, despite having been cleared of all allegations by the Sudanese government and Canada’s own RCMP. While Ottawa allowed him to live at the Canadian Embassy in Khartoum, it has refused to provide a passport to replace the one that expired or travel documents.

Documents obtained by his supporters under the Privacy Act implicate CSIS in his arrest and show that the government is unwilling to allow him to return even though they know he is innocent.

Mr. Abdelrazik is in a legal catch-22 of the government’s design. They have refused to allow him to return unless he has an airline ticket. But because he is on US and UN no-fly lists, he is considered a terrorist, and hence anyone who contributes to buying his airline ticket is violating Canadian law and subject to charges under Canada’s draconian anti-terrorist laws.

Despite this, over 100 Canadians have made donations, and they are applying pressure to the federal government to issue the documents he needs to board the plane and return to his family in Montreal.

If you want to join in their efforts, or to learn more, go to Repatriate Abousfian Abdelrazik! Paul Koring provides an excellent summary of this travesty of justice in the March 5, 2009 Globe and Mail.

Extraordinary Rendition – Canadian Style

NDP MP Greg Dewar has referred to this case as “the first case of Canadian rendition” that he knows of. Whether it is the first one, or not, is not publicly known. But it certainly is not the only such case.

Maher Arar, abducted and transported to a Syrian torture chamber, was unjustifiably fingered by CSIS. In Dark Days, Canadian writer and human rights activist Kerry Pither describes how Arar, along with three other Canadian Muslims (Ahmad El Maati, Abdullah Almalki and Muayyed Nureddin) were detained overseas and subjected to brutal torture. Pither writes: “They were all interrogated using questions from Canadian agencies — all were accused of links to terrorism but no evidence has been produced to back these accusations. All were eventually released without charge and returned to Canada.”

We cannot depend on our spooks and their political masters to own up to their crimes. Nor can we just blame it on the Tories. Hateful as their policies are, these are just a continuation of practices established under the previous Liberal government.

Canadians who are willing to tolerate the racial profiling, persecution and extraordinary rendition of Muslims will pay a heavy price some day. It is time to get rid of politicians who cannot or will not respect human rights and exercise some control over Canada’s intelligence service (an oxymoron, that!).

Project Fly Home

Encouragingly, over one hundred people across the country have joined together to buy Mr. Abdelrazik a plane ticket home, even though the Canadian government has made it a federal offence to directly or indirectly finance or collect money to support Mr. Abdelrazik.

The plane ticket strips away another excuse the government has used to prevent Mr. Abdelrazik from returning home. In December, the government stated in a letter to Mr. Abdelrazik’s lawyer that he must present a fully-paid-for plane ticket before Passport Canada would agree to issue an emergency passport. Mr. Abdelrazik’s passport expired while he was in prison in Sudan.

The flight leaves Khartoum on April 3. An emergency passport can take less than 24-hours to issue. The government has three weeks.

To get involved, or make a contribution to bring him home, contact Project Fly Home at projectflyhome@gmail.com.

The Coalition of the Willing is sponsoring a petition that calls for the Government of Canada to either bar George Bush from entering Canada or to arrest him for his crimes against humanity.

One is tempted to dismiss this exercise as a waste of time. After all, the Canadian government would be unlikely to risk offending its powerful neighbour, even if it did find Bush’s crimes reprehensible.

That, however, is not the point. We may be saddled with a militaristic government, firmly wedded to the American imperial project. That does not absolve us of the responsibility to speak out for peace, justice and human rights whenever we have the opportunity.

George Bush’s March 17 visit is one such opportunity that ought not to be ignored.

The hardest time to defend human rights is when they are under attack. This is one of those times.

The debris from the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington and New York still has not settled. It provided American imperialism with the springboard for two bloody wars and fueled a wave of fear and hatred that has yet to subside. Under the guise of fighting terrorism, governments around the world enacted draconian laws that undermined hard won civil rights. Self-styled proponents of human liberty participated in the most heinous crimes against individuals and nations.

The carnage continues on the battle field while eager warriors at home seek to undermine further our rights and freedoms in Canada.

War is the ultimate assault on human rights. For that reason. Peace Alliance Winnipeg held a public forum in Winnipeg on March 7, 2009 entitled Defending Human Rights in a Post-9/11 World. We assembled a diverse panel of activists and asked them to reflect on their experiences and discuss between themselves and with the audience the best ways to defend human rights in the current environment.

The Panel

Lesley Hughes: Lesley is a well-known journalist and broadcaster with a long history of community activism in Winnipeg. A recipient of the YMCA-YWCA Woman of Distinction award, Leslie is author of We Chose Canada, a columnist for Canadian Dimension magazine and host of Alert Radio. Lesley became embroiled in controversy during the 2008 election, slandered as antisemitic and dropped from the Liberal slate of candidates over an article she wrote in 2002 on the possible origins of the 9/11 attacks. I`ve written about this issue elsewhere in my blog, so I won`t recount the issues here. It had been planned that Lesley would moderate the panel. Upon reflection, it made more sense for her to be a full participant. Suffice to say, Lesley`s experiences qualify her uniquely to address the topic.

Colleen Simard: Colleen is a columnist for the Winnipeg Free Press and founder and publisher of Urban NDN – a newspaper she founded in 2008 that offers a fresh journalistic voice from, for and about Aboriginal people in Winnipeg. She doesn`t regard herself as an activist, but I do. Anyone who starts up a community newspaper to give voice to her community`s concerns is as activist as it gets.

Michael Welch: Michael is a peace activist who has shown leadership in organizing support in Winnipeg for American war resisters who are fighting deportation to the United States. He is active in Citizens Concerned About Deep Integration and Peace Alliance Winnipeg and is the local chapter contact for the Council of Canadians.

Shahina Siddiqui: Shahina is Executive Director of the Islamic Social Services Association – Canada, and a frequent commentator on Islamic and human rights issues in Canada and the United States. She sits on the Advisory Board of CAIR-CAN, the Canadian branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and principal author of Women Friendly Mosques and Community Centers: Working Together to Reclaim Our Heritage. I think of all the presenters, Shahina touched me the most when she said that before 9/11 she was a Canadian; after it she became part of “the other.“

Anthony Hall: Anthony is founding co-ordinator and professor of Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge and author of The American Empire and the Fourth World, which Naomi Klein has described as “an overflowing tool box, filled with little-known stories, legal arguments, and fresh ideas that, if used properly, could change the world.”

The forum was well attended; about 100 people came out. As well, it was well supported by 15 organizations who sponsored it. An extra special acknowledgment must go out to the University of Winnipeg Students Association, which provided its excellent facilities at no cost.

For those who missed it, I shot some video — about 2 hours worth — neatly parceled it into the 10 minute segments that You Tube restricts you to. I`ve posted the first 6 segments below so you can access the presentations. If you want to know more, go to You Tube for the final six installments that contain the discussion.

Introductions – Glenn Michalchuk

Michael Welch

Lesley Hughes

Colleen Simard

Shahina Siddiqui

Anthony J. Hall

News that the Tories are rushing to restore extraordinary police and judicial powers dropped from the federal Anti-Terrorism Act two years ago should concern every freedom loving Canadian. These measures include preventive arrests and compelling people to testify in investigations on the strength of suspicions by law enforcement authorities. The news story doesn’t say one way or another, but the old Anti-Terrorism Act permitted arrests without warrants of people suspected to be thinking about a terrorist act — we should be very afraid.

Before the “war on terror” a citizen was presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where all of the charges and the evidence would be laid out. These days, the government can allege “terrorism” and important protections disappear.

What is a terrorist?

What is a terrorist? While there is no short answer to this question, a terrorist is someone who either does nasty things for political purposes, helps a terrorist or belongs to a terrorist organization. (Of course this is horribly simplistic, which is why you should follow this link to the Criminal Code terrorism provisions.)

Being a peace loving guy, I have no difficulty with jailing terrorists. But I am very concerned about how being charged with terrorism automatically deprives people of the rights they would have should they be charged, for example, with rape and murder, or less dramatically,  stealing the potted tomato plant off the front of my front porch under cover of darkness four years ago (but I digress).

Who is a terrorist?

Ever helpful, the Canadian Government has compiled a list of organizations that:

• “have knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity
• knowingly acted on behalf of, at the direction of or in association with an entity that has knowingly carried out, attempted to carry out, participated in or facilitated a terrorist activity”

This list is compiled on the basis of intelligence reports, and doubtless many of the groups named will be familiar to folks who read the newspaper. Conspicuously absent from the list are governments and government agencies that routinely perpetrate terrorist acts on groups and whole populations. You know who I mean.

Where it gets sticky is the secrecy that surrounds the whole business. If you find yourself on the list, you can appeal the ruling. However, under the Criminal Code, you have no right to see all of the evidence “if the judge is of the opinion that the disclosure of the information would injure national security.” (See Criminal Code 83.05 (6) (a).)

Creepier yet, “(6.1) The judge may receive into evidence anything that, in the opinion of the judge, is reliable and appropriate, even if it would not otherwise be admissible under Canadian law, and may base his or her decision on that evidence.”

Hmmm. Does this mean that hearsay evidence or evidence obtained under torture is admissible?

Who else is a terrorist?

According to the Canadian government, anyone on their no-fly list could be, might be, is, kinda, should be dammit, a terrorist. It’s soothingly, reassuringly called the “Passenger Protect” program and it works like this: first you join a terrorist group off the approved list, then you commit or consider the idea of committing a heinous act, or maybe you do something else that makes you unfit for air travel, like not bathing, maybe. This qualifies you for membership on the government’s “specified persons list.” Once a member of this special group, you get a Via Rail Pass because you’ll never fly again.

Is that how it really works? Who know? I looked all over the Transport Canada site trying to get clear information and found some FAQs that don’t really explain how the list is compiled. One may assume that the Star Chamber process used to construct the terrorist entity list is somehow involved. How do you get off the list? Ask the two boys named Allistair Butt who were caught up in this anti-terrorist dragnet. They managed.

Is anyone else a terrorist?

When all else fails, blame some immigrants, arrest them, issue security certificates, and deport them so they can be properly tortured in their country of origin. Or, as the government explains:

“The Government of Canada issues a certificate only in exceptional circumstances where the information to determine the case cannot be disclosed without endangering the safety of any person or national security.”

Not only is this information sooooo sensitive that it can’t be revealed publically, it can’t be revealed to the subject of the security certificate. Go to Mohamed Harkat’s web site and learn how security certificates were used to ruin the lives of five Muslim immigrants in Canada.

National Security versus Real Security

Anyone who has followed the case of Maher Arar knows that government spooks are unreliable judges of threats to our national security. Secret evidence and secret trials lead only one way — to tyranny.

Under the guise of fighting terrorism, our freedom is being stolen. Real security exists where accused persons have the unfettered right to confront their accuser with all of the evidence public and open to challenge. Unless we demand this basic protection for all accused, we are allowing a police state to be born.

Recently retired American War Criminal in Chief George W. Bush is visiting Calgary March 17. In response, Lawyers Against the War has written the RCMP War Crimes Section, requesting that Mr. Bush be investigated and denied entry on the basis that his well known crimes against humanity make him inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Here is their letter. Pass it on!