Paul S. Graham

Thanks to Beijing York for flagging this ferociously funny franglais flick. No wonder Harper is a shadow of his former self in Quebec.

In case you missed it, here’s an open letter from Premier Danny Williams (Newfoundland and Labrador) that has been making the rounds since he issued it, Oct. 1. In it he quotes Stephen Harper as declaring: “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.” Hmmm. This reminds me of the time Brian Mulroney referred to social programs as a “sacred trust.” Surely this is a coincidence. 🙂

Better course for Canada: First step as easy as A-B-C

By DANNY WILLIAMS
Wed. Oct 1 – 6:19 AM

We are quickly approaching the finish line of one of the most important federal election campaigns in the history of Canada. The shape our country takes in the years ahead will be determined by the choice we make right now.

Today, I encourage all Canadians to carefully and deliberately consider who best reflects your core values and ideals, as a leader in this great federation. My place is not to say whom you should vote for; that is clearly your own personal democratic choice. I simply offer my most sincere and honest opinion on voting in this federal election. I am not going to weigh the pros and cons of the various campaign platforms. Every party in every campaign raises ideas that we may agree with strongly or moderately or not at all.

But at the end of the day, it is not ideas that get elected. It is people who get elected. And sometimes, the people who get elected abandon the key ideas that got them into office in the first place. More important than the ideas people espouse is the character of the people espousing them.

And all too often, a broken promise betrays a broken character.

In this campaign, as we decide the future direction of our country, we are called upon to be judges – not of words or of looks, but of character.

During the last two federal election campaigns, Stephen Harper came to my province and made an important promise worth billions of dollars. It was a promise that not everyone agreed with; and clearly Stephen Harper wished that he had never made it. Regardless, it was without question a promise. And he made this promise repeatedly, in writing to me and in campaign literature to voters. It was official Conservative Party of Canada policy – vetted and approved by the leader himself.

In fact, in the very campaign brochure in which he stated this promise, he demonstrated how serious he was about keeping it by quoting a famous Gaelic proverb, which says: “There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept.” How very ironic those words turned out to be when he betrayed his word and broke his promise.

I am not asking my fellow Canadians to work with me to keep the prime minister to this particular promise. That is my battle and, frankly, it is no longer about the promise for I now know it will never be fulfilled. But I feel it is my duty as a leader in this country to caution voters against this man whose promises are so meaningless. Many question my motivation; some even question my right to speak out. But I can assure you that my motivation is genuine concern for my country. And my right to express my concern is what democracy is all about. I am simply standing up for my province as the people of Newfoundland and Labrador elected me to do.

Trust, integrity and dependability: Those are words that absolutely must apply to our country’s leader. The people of Canada deserve no less.

But can those words  – trust, integrity, dependability – be applied to a man who makes promises only to secure votes, then throws his promises to the wind? A man who cuts funding to the programs and sectors that are the core of our society – the arts and culture, students, women, other minority groups? A man whose own party was built on a broken promise? A man who implements fixed election date legislation, then carelessly and with great indifference casts it aside when it suits him? A man who has yet to share with us his vision for rural Canada?

Stephen Harper’s agenda is reflected very clearly in his own words: building a firewall around Alberta; bemoaning the Atlantic Canadian “culture of defeat;” comparing immigrants to people who live in ghettos; opposing monies for child poverty and social spending; telling Americans that Canada is a Northern European welfare state. These are his words. These reflect the true ideology of the man. Let’s not give him the majority he craves to implement this agenda. Let’s keep his power in check.

Putting Canada on a better course for a brighter future is a mission that all of us share. And the first step is as easy as A-B-C.

Anything But Conservative.

Thanks to JanfromtheBruce for reminding us why we should be “stickin’ with the NDP.”

🙂

A Liberal-NDP-Green government — could it work? John Ryan, writing in today’s Tyee, thinks so. I’m not convinced one way or another, but I’m open to being convinced. What do folks think?

Dion, Layton, May: Time Has Come to Craft a Coalition

A centre-left government is doable. See Europe.

by John Ryan, The Tyee, October 6, 2008

If the Conservatives do not get a majority in this election, Canada could still get a majority government. This could happen if the Liberals, NDP and the Greens (if they elect any members) formed a coalition. Such a coalition government would reflect the majority of Canadians who do not support the Conservatives. The Conservatives received only 36 per cent of the vote in the last election and, with a slight shift of fortunes, they may get less in the coming election. However, when the substantial majority of over 60 per cent gets split among four other competing parties, the Conservatives — with a minority of the vote — could wind up forming the government. This need not happen.

If for once the Liberals and the NDP set aside partisan politics and acted in the interests of Canada, it would be the beginning of a new era for us. In making this proposal, I am not suggesting a merger of these parties. The parties would remain as they are. They would only have to agree on a certain number of objectives and policies. On this basis they could form a majority government, or even a minority government with more seats than the Conservatives.

Cabinet seats could reflect the proportionate share of MPs from both parties. If the Liberals had 115 MPs and the NDP had 40, the Liberals would compose 75 per cent of the cabinet and the NDP 25 per cent. In such an arrangement, it would seem reasonable if Jack Layton became deputy prime minister.

At this stage, both of these parties need one another if they are to have a role in forming a government. Coalitions occur on a regular basis in Europe and in other parts of the world — but so far, never in Canada, although the NDP and the Liberals did cooperate in the past. And it was at those times that some progressive legislation was passed. It is high time for this to occur again.

READ ON . . .

Winnipeg journalist Lesley Hughes has decided to seek election as an independent in the Manitoba riding of Kildonan-St. Paul.

Unfairly smeared as an anti-Semitic, 911 conspiracy nutbar and dumped by the Liberals as their candidate, one can easily understand why Lesley Hughes might want to run as an independent and show her attackers what she is really made of. If the outpouring of support for Hughes by Winnipeggers is any indication, she will give a good account of herself.

Can she win? Probably not. Tory incumbent, Joy Smith, won by a handy margin last time and lacking the resources the Liberal Party could provide, Hughes is in a poor position to challenge effectively.

With Hughes out of the race, NDP candidate Ross Eadie might have had a chance.

Here is what happened in 2006.

2006 Results

With Hughes in the race as a high profile independent candidate, the anti-Tory vote is fractured.

It’s a pity.

http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1529573193

In about 30 minutes, Lesley Hughes is expected to announce whether she will run as an independent in Winnipeg’s Kildonan-St. Paul riding. Stay tuned.

by John W. Warnock
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Republished with permission.

On September 12, 2001, the government of Jean Chrétien pledged
Canada’s full support to any action by the U.S. government to confront
the al-Qaeda organization and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The
United Nations passed resolutions calling for all countries “to work
together urgently to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and
sponsor of these [9/11] acts.” But George W. Bush’s administration rejected
this proposal and refused to seek the approval of the UN Security
Council for the planned attack on Afghanistan.

On October 2, 2001, NATO gave full political support to the assault
on Afghanistan. Prime Minister Chrétien announced Canada’s support
and began to send Canadian Forces naval vessels to participate in
the U.S.-directed Operation Enduring Freedom, charged with bringing
about “regime change” in Afghanistan.

The assault began on October 7, 2001. The war was short, given the
overwhelming military superiority of the U.S. military and its massive
bombing campaign. The Taliban fled Kabul on November 12, and the
U.S. allies, the Islamist Northern Alliance, assumed the role of de facto
government. Kandahar fell in early December and the war was over.

The Liberal government pledged 2,000 Canadian troops to Operation
Enduring Freedom (OEF) in Afghanistan, and Joint Task Force 2 special
forces were engaged in military conflict near Kandahar as part of the
last campaign to destroy al-Qaeda and Taliban forces.

From this time on, Canada’s role in Afghanistan escalated. In
February 2002, Canadian forces were assigned to Kandahar to defend
the city and the airport, and to engage any remaining Taliban forces.

Creating the International Security Assistance Force
On December 20, 2001, the UN Security Council agreed to sanction
the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) under
Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, an enforcement mandate. The ISAF is
completely outside the United Nations, part of the “coalition of the willing”
created by the U.S. government. This “stabilization mission” was to
support the UN humanitarian assistance program. Canada was to be
part of the ISAF, under British command.

Between 2001 and 2003, the ISAF was confined to Kabul in a peacekeeping
role. By early 2003, the rebellion against the interim Afghan
government and the occupation forces had begun. Under direction from
the Bush administration, which was preparing for an attack on Iraq,
NATO assumed the responsibility for the ISAF. Canadian forces served
in Kabul between October 2003 and November 2005. They were then
moved to Kandahar, first under OEF and then in July 2006 under the
authority of the ISAF. Canadian military forces made a major shift from
a peacekeeping role in support of humanitarian assistance to fighting a
counter-insurgency war.

Over this period, the governments of Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin,
and Stephen Harper all gave full support to the Bush administration’s
position on Afghanistan. In April 2008, a resolution was passed in
Parliament authorizing Stephen Harper’s government to extend Canada’s
role in the counter-insurgency war through 2011. The resolution by the
Conservative government received the support of the Liberal opposition
headed by Stéphane Dion.

According to public opinion polls, a large segment of the Canadian
public is opposed to the participation of Canadian Forces in this counterinsurgency war, ranging between 45% and 50%. An Angus Reid Strategies poll, released on March 26, 2008, found that 58% of those surveyed were opposed to extending the Canadian military mission until 2011. The political breakdown showed that only supporters of the Conservative party (72%) supported the extension. The majority of supporters of the other political parties were in opposition: Liberal party (63%), New Democratic party (74%), Bloc Québécois (78%), and Green party (68%). Only in Alberta did an overall majority support the extension.

Persistence of the insurgency
Over the past two years, the insurgency by the Taliban and their allies
has grown in strength, and the conflict has spread to all parts of
the country. The number of attacks on the NATO forces has greatly increased, and the number of deaths by the military forces and civilians
increased by 62% in the first six months of 2008. In spite of defeats in
direct conflicts with NATO forces, the resistance movement has been
able to continue to find replacements and expand operations.

Why is this happening? As the UN Secretary-General pointed out in
his report of September 2007, the main problem is the unpopularity of
the government of President Hamid Karzai and the country’s National
Parliament. The government is notoriously corrupt, and drug lords and
regional commanders have great power. The economy remains very poor
and at least 40% of the people are unemployed. The average Afghan
earns only $350 per year. Lack of food and housing is a widespread problem.
Public services are very limited.

The United States creates the new Afghan government
The formation of a post-Taliban government began in November
2001, when the U.S. government brought some representatives from
Afghanistan together at Bonn, Germany, to create an interim government.
The Bush administration chose groups aligned to the Northern
Alliance, the Islamists who have been their close political allies since 1979.
Five broad groups representing the democratic forces in Afghanistan
asked to participate, but they were refused official status and voting
rights. This set the pattern for everything that followed. The democratic
forces have been excluded from all the operations to create a new constitution and government, as well as from the first elections.

It is widely known that the Afghan people wanted a restoration of the
liberal, democratic constitution of 1964, a constitutional monarch with
a parliamentary government, political parties, elections by proportional
representation, and a federal state. The U.S. government, backed by
the Canadian government and representatives from the United Nations,
blocked this development. At the Bonn meetings in November 2001,
the U.S. government mandated that Hamid Karzai be appointed the
new interim president. He named 30 people, mainly Islamists from the
Northern Alliance, to form the transitional administration.

An interim Emergency Loya Jirga (or Grand Council) was held in
June 2002. Delegates were chosen by local warlords and the regional
leaders of dominant ethnic groups. Their proposal for a constitutional
monarchy was rejected by the U.S. government.

Karzai and his U.S. and UN advisors then drafted a new constitution
through a very secret closed-door process. The general public did
not get a chance to see the constitution, and there was no public debate.
It was presented to the Constitutional Loya Jirga (CLJ) in December
2003. The majority of delegates opposed the plan for a highly centralized
government with enormous power entrusted to the president, and
there was also strong opposition to the re-creation of Afghanistan as
an Islamist state. When 48% of the delegates walked out in protest,
Karzai threatened not to run for president. The constitution was then
“unanimously” approved by the delegates even though no vote was held.
Representatives from the Canadian government played key roles in helping
the U.S. government in this entire anti-democratic process.

Demonstration elections
President Bush insisted that a presidential election be held in Afghanistan
prior to the U.S. presidential election in November 2004. But there was
no national government and no functioning provincial or local governments.
No political parties were allowed to participate. The whole process
was deeply flawed. Karzai won by default because Afghans feared
a warlord would win or U.S. government aid would be withdrawn.

The election for the parliament, held on September 18, 2005, was
worse. No political parties were allowed to participate, which greatly
strengthened the regional Islamist forces. The Single Non-Transferable
Vote (SNTV ) system was used, but there were no party lists. The goal
was to prevent the development of new political parties on the democratic
left. The Karzai administration refused the request by 34 political
parties for a system of proportional representation.

Of the 249 elected positions to the House of the People (the lower
house), over one-half were filled by men who had fought in the
Mujahadeen war, and one-half were clearly identified as radical Islamists.
The large majority of those elected had close ties to regional armed
groups. Voter turnout was very low, estimated at 40% overall and 30% in
Kabul. The Canadian government was deeply involved in these fraudulent
“demonstration elections,” as Noam Chomsky has called them.

The Harper-Bush military strategy
Stephen Harper’s government and Canada’s military leaders insist
progress is being made in Afghanistan, but this view is not shared by U.S.
and British military commanders. The U.S. Government Accountability
Office reported in June 2008 that the Afghan Army cannot operate without
the support of NATO . Only 52 of 433 units of the Afghan National
Police are capable of being deployed. There are widespread reports that
over 40% of all economic assistance funds disappear within the system.
NATO governments, mindful of their own public opinion, are refusing
to send additional armed forces to Afghanistan.

Stephen Harper’s new Canada First Defence Strategy dismisses
peacekeeping and promises even further integration of Canadian Forces
into those of the United States. Military spending will focus on expanding
the capacity to be “interoperable with the U.S. Military.” NATO
will be Canada’s first priority, described by President George W. Bush
as a new “expeditionary force” for the First World. The United Nations
and peacekeeping are ignored in the new Tory policy statement.

But a large percentage of the Canadian public does not agree with
this policy direction. It is time for Canadians to stand up and be counted,
to pressure the political parties and the government to break with
U.S. policy in Afghanistan. It is time to switch to supporting the people
of Afghanistan who want an end to the war and a chance to improve
their lives.

What can be done
An opportunity for change appeared beginning in 2007, when the
Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO) put Afghanistan high on its
agenda and called for regional negotiations to settle the conflict and promote reconstruction. The SCO members are China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.

At the April 2008 meeting of NATO at Bucharest, the SCO position
was advanced by President Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. He proposed
the reconstitution of the old Six Plus Two negotiations (1998–2001),
hosted by the United Nations, which included the six countries on the
border of Afghanistan plus the United States and Russia. To this group
would be added NATO . This body would design a general regional
plan for establishing peace and democracy in Afghanistan. The United
Nations would then replace NATO as the lead organization to direct
peace and redevelopment.

Unfortunately, this proposal was rejected out of hand by the U.S. government, and the Harper government agreed. None of Canada’s opposition parties seemed to be aware of this peace proposal, which would have had the broad support of the majority of Canadians and been welcomed by the Afghan people.

Since 2001, our Canadian governments have given complete support
to the United States on Afghanistan. But this policy has failed to
date and is doomed to fail in the long run. The challenge for Canada is
to take a different position: one which puts the interests of the Afghan
people first. In public opinion polls in Canada over recent years, a consistent
70% have indicated that they want Canada to return to a role of
peacekeeper. Higher majorities want Canada to emphasize humanitarian
and economic assistance.

The challenge we face is how to convince our elected governments
and political parties to join with this majority opinion.

This is an excerpt from The Harper Record, a CCPA publication edited bt Teresa Healy that examines the record of the Harper government. As with earlier CCPA reports on the activities of previous governments while in office, this book gives a detailed account of the laws, policies, regulations, and initiatives of the Conservative minority government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper during its 32-month term from January 2006 to September 2008. To download the book or specific chapters, and to find out how you can get a hard copy, visit the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Today’s Winnipeg Free Press carried a letter to the editor from Leslie Hughes, a journalist who was dropped as a Liberal candidate last week over an article she wrote in 2002 about the motivations behind the invasion of Afghanistan and some of the circumstances surrounding the 911 terrorist attacks in the US. This is what she had to say:

Six years ago, I wrote a column which examined evidence that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan may have been motivated by the drive for oil and drug profits. As background, I reported that the intelligence agencies of Germany, Israel and Russia all warned the CIA that the attacks of Sept. 11 were coming, a fact also reported in the London Telegraph, the Jerusalem Post, and on Fox News. I noted that the U.S. disregarded the warnings, but Israeli businesses took them seriously, and (sensibly) vacated the Twin Towers.

The Canadian Jewish Congress seems to have assumed that I am one of those who subscribe to a bizarre conspiracy theory that the world’s Jews were responsible for 9-11, a ludicrous idea I have never supported. As a result of the Congress’s assumption, I have been slandered as an odious anti-Semite, a claim accepted by the prime minister, by the leader of the opposition, and the nation’s media. I have also been labelled an extremist nutbar who has promoted, rather than investigated, the possibility that 9-11 was an inside job. As a result, the voters of Kildonan-St. Paul have no Liberal candidate, and a narrower debate before electing their MP.

One hopes journalists will be asking two questions: 1) Who benefits from this hysteria? 2) Is it still possible for journalists to do the work of journalism, which is to “challenge the official story” in an atmosphere of fear and ridicule?

LESLEY HUGHES
Winnipeg

Last week, Winnipeg journalist and ex-Liberal candidate Lesley Hughes was viciously smeared as antisemitic. The Canadian Jewish Congress has promoted this allegation. The Tories maliciously distorted Hughes’ 2002 article, “Get the Truth,” and Dion’s gang hopes to use the 911 Truth Movement as a club to beat the NDP.

It is worth restating what she actually wrote in 2002:

“German Intelligence (BND) claims to have warned the U.S. last June, the Israeli Mossad and Russian Intelligence in August. Israeli businesses, which had offices in the Towers, vacated the premises a week before the attacks, breaking their lease to do it.”

So, what do we know about Hughes’ statements?

Did the Israeli Mossad warn the Americans? There are conflicting reports. According to Project Censored:

“At some point, between August 8-15, 2001, two high ranking agents from the Mossad came to Washington and warned the FBI and the CIA that an al-Qaeda attack on the United States was imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02] On September 20, 2001, the Los Angeles Times reported that Mossad officials stated that indications point to a “large scale target” and that Americans would be “very vulnerable.” [Telegraph, 9/16/01; Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01; Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times retracted this story on September 21, 2001, because a CIA spokesman stated, “there was no such warning” and that the allegations were “complete and utter nonsense.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] Israel denied that there was ever a meeting between agents of the Mossad and the CIA. [Ha’aretz, 10/03/02] The United States has denied knowing about Mohamed Atta prior to the 9/11 attacks. [www.cooperativeresearch.org]”

Did “Israeli businesses” break their lease to escape the carnage a week before? Not according to Project Censored:

“On September 4, 2001, an Israeli-owned shipping company entitled Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., moved their North American headquarters from inside the World Trade Center, to Norfolk, Virginia— one week before the 9/11 attacks. [Virginian-Pilot, 9/04/01] Zim had announced its move 6 months before the attacks, [Virginian-Pilot, 4/03/01] yet 10 employees were still in the building on Sept. 11, taking care of the final moving arrangements. They were able to escape, unharmed. [Jerusalem Post, 9/13/01; Journal of Commerce, 10/18/01]”

Did Leslie Hughes accuse Israel of responsibility for the 911 attacks? Not at all. In fact, she credits them with warning the Americans, a notion that was supported by some news reports and denied by others.

Did Leslie Hughes get it right on the lease breaking, Israeli businesses? Nope.

Does this make Leslie Hughes an antisemite? No. At the worst, she is guilty of getting part of the story wrong. It is a big story and there are a lot of places where a reporter could go wrong. Leslie Hughes is hardly unique in this, but that only makes her human.

Dismissing the Truthers

You would have to have been living in a cave on the dark side of the moon to have missed out on the growing mountain of research that casts doubt on the official version of 911. Some of that research is undoubtedly halfbaked nonsense (and some of it disgustingly antisemitic), but there is enough substance for sensible, open minded people to pause and reflect and demand serious answers.

Instead, what we get are arrogant, dismissive statements designed to marginalize folks who ask legitimate questions.

In this case, false allegations of antisemitism are being used as a tool to discredit a journalist who has asked for answers about 911. Reminiscent of the tactic used by apologists for Israeli foreign policy who brand every criticism as evidence of antisemitism, this kind of smear campaign is a step in the direction of conflating the 911 Truth Movement and antisemitism.

Let us be very clear: antisemitism, like all other forms of rascist bigotry, is completely unacceptable. Similarly, smear campaigns are incompatible with getting to the truth about a terrorist attack which served as the springboard for an orgy of imperialist violence in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Further reading

Professor Anthony Hall, who teaches Globalization Studies at the University of Lethbridge, has written an interesting reflection on the Hughes affair entitled A Clash of Conspiracy Theories. And here are some other 911 Truth sources that are worth your time:

9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Canada Wants the Truth
Complete 9/11 Timeline

A commenter on my last post suggested we “talk about Andrew McKeever.” I agree. McKeever, NDP candidate for Durum, has come under fire in recent days for Facebook postings in which he attacked U.S. war resisters, threatened people who disagreed with him, and used vulgar, misogynistic language to describe people who support war resisters.

He has apologized for his comments and recanted his anti-war resister statements. His apology has a hollow ring, probably because it couldn’t have been written by him. Compare the linguistic sophistication of the apology with his Facebook postings that the Liberal Party was only too pleased to capture for posterity.

McKeever’s potty-mouth rants reveal an immature mind, at best. His attitude towards women is disturbing.

He’s welcome to his reactionary political idea (his Facebook posts seem to reveal only one “idea”), but one wonders why the NDP nominated him, much less why they continue to keep him in the race. It will be some time, if ever, before he could be trusted to represent anyone in the House of Commons.

I’m voting NDP in this election, principally because of its stated intention to withdraw Canada’s troops from Afghanistan. If I lived in Durum, I would have to spoil my ballot.

No doubt Jack Layton is regretting the loss of dope smoking candidates in winnable ridings. That’s life, Jack. Get over it and ditch this loser. His candidacy undermines the NDP’s growing credibility. It is time to show him the door.