Paul S. Graham

Lieutenant- Colonel Dave Corbould, Commanding Officer, Second Battalion Princess Patricia’s Canadian Light Infantry, shakes hands with Progressive Conservative Leader Hugh McFadyen as Premier Gary Doer looks on during the launch of the Manitoba Yellow Ribbon campaign. Photo: Winnipeg Free Press

The growing avalanche of bullshit aimed at convincing Canadians to back the war in Afghanistan picked up a little steam yesterday with the announcement that Manitoba’s government was supporting a project to send yellow ribbons to Manitoba soldiers in Afghanistan.

Knowing that a majority of Canadians oppose Canadian involvement in this war, the message is “if you can’t support the war, at least support the warriors.”

The yellow ribbon campaigners are collecting the signatures of Manitobans on ribbons as 800 soldiers from Canadian Forces Base Shilo plan to ship out. According to the Winnipeg Free Press:

Lt.-Col. Dave Corbould, who’s leading the deployment to Afghanistan, said his men and women are impressed with the support they’ve received from fellow Manitobans.

“Politics aside, let’s talk about what’s really important here,” he said.

I agree, let’s talk about what’s important. Contrary to Col. Corbould, politics must be a part of the equation. Politics — misguided at best and pathologically corrupt, vicious and cynical the rest of the time — got us into Afghanistan. And honest politics will get us out and free Canada to begin to become a force for peace in the world.

The government line, loosely paraphrased, is that brave Canadian soldiers risk their lives to free the Afghan people from the grip of terrorists so that they may one day live and prosper in a free, democratic society.

The reality is that 78 Canadian soldiers have died supporting a gang of thugs who are no more interested in freedom and democracy than the Taliban they replaced.

Afghan refugee students chant slogans during an anti-war rally organized by the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan in Islamabad April 28, 2007. Photo: REUTERS/Faisal Mahmood

Don’t take my word for it. Listen to women of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. RAWA struggled for freedom against the Soviet Union and the Taliban, and they continue to carry on that struggle today.

The US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of Afghanistan under the banner of “bringing freedom and democracy for Afghan people”. But as we have experienced in the past three decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan. . .

After about seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy and reconstruction in Afghanistan. On the contrary, the destitution and suffering of our people has doubled everyday. Our people, and even our unfortunate children, fall victim to the Jehadis’ infighting (Baghlan incident), the Taliban’s untargeted blasts and the US/NATO’s non-stop bombardments. The Northern Alliance blood-suckers, who are part of Karzai’s team and have key government posts, continue to be the main and the most serious obstacle towards the establishment of peace and democracy in Afghanistan. READ MORE.

In RAWA’s opinion, we should get out. Afghans, they insist, can and must solve their own problems. As RAWA expressed it in the above-linked communique:

Instead of defeating Al-Qaeda, Taliban and Gulbuddini terrorists and disarming the Northern Alliance, the foreign troops are creating confusion among the people of the world. We believe that if these troops leave Afghanistan, our people will not feel any kind of vacuum but rather will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts. In such a situation, they will face the Taliban and Northern Alliance without their “national” mask, and rise to fight with these terrorist enemies. Neither the US nor any other power wants to release Afghan people from the fetters of the fundamentalists. Afghanistan’s freedom can be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation.

The yellow ribbon campaigners hope to get 10,000 signatures (50 per ribbon). With provincial approval, they will take their campaign to Manitoba schools. Under Gary Doer’s tutelage, another generation of young people will be fed the lie that you can make the world a better place by killing people.

However well-meaning its supporters might be, the yellow ribbon campaign is disgusting. By playing on the emotions of Canadians who fear for the lives of our soldiers, they hope to build support for the war. Gary Doer should be ashamed for his role in allowing pro-war propaganda into Manitoba schools.

If the folks who peddle these pathetic little rags really want to “support our troops” they would bring them home.

Take Action

This campaign comes at a time when pro-war forces are working overtime to influence the pending vote in Parliament on whether to extend Canada’s combat mission in Afghanistan. I hope you will join with me and write our premier and our MLAs and tell them that war propagandists should not be given the keys to our schools. I also hope you will encourage your friends to do likewise.

Here is a list of MLAs and their email addresses: http://www.gov.mb.ca/legislature/members/alphabetical.html

By Andy Worthington, Counterpunch Magazine, Jan. 19/20, 2008

How humiliating.

The story begins with the shameful case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian who was kidnapped by US agents as he changed planes in New York in 2002, and rendered to Syria, where he was tortured for a year on behalf of the Americans before being released.

Mr. Arar — who was awarded millions of dollars in compensation by the Canadian government in January 2007, but has yet to receive even an apology from the US administration — had been wrongly fingered by Canadian intelligence, and his case his one of many chilling examples of the damage caused by failed intelligence in the American’s program of “extraordinary rendition.”

In an attempt to prime diplomats about how to spot the signs of torture when they visit Canadians in foreign jails, the Canadian government’s Foreign Affairs Department instigated a “torture awareness workshop,” which also informed the diplomats of where they could expect to find what CTV in Canada described as “countries and places with greater risks of torture.”

The list, in a training manual issued by the Foreign Affairs Department, included traditional offenders — Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria — but also included some torturers that are not generally mentioned in polite Western company: Israel and the United States. Specific mention was made of Guantánamo Bay, where, to drive the point home, the manual noted specific “US interrogation techniques,” including “forced nudity, isolation, and sleep deprivation.”

Oops. READ MORE.

The Pinky Show is a damned cute, hand-drawn educational TV show that focuses on information and ideas that have been misrepresented, distorted, suppressed, ignored, or otherwise excluded from mainstream discussion. The main character of the show, a cat named Pinky, presents and analyzes the material in an informal, easy-to-understand way.

Are these shows for children? They could be useful in a classroom setting. However, as the creators put it: “Although the simplified visual style of the show recalls children’s programming, The Pinky Show is in fact intended for an adult audience.”

In the episode I watched, I appreciated the down to earth, factual and non-rhetorical presentation of the evidence that the American government is guilty of numerous crimes against humanity in Iraq.

Episodes are available on the internet for free at www.PinkyShow.org. Here’s the episode entitled “The Iraq War: Legal or Illegal.” Please share it widely.

Is Canada joining the Surveillance Societies of the world? Not yet, perhaps, but we are on the way.

Each year since 1997, the US-based Electronic Privacy Information Center and the UK-based Privacy International have conducted a comprehensive survey of global privacy. The Privacy & Human Rights Report surveys developments in 70 countries, assessing the state of surveillance and privacy protection. The most recent report published in 2007, available at http://www.privacyinternational.org/phr.

In 2006, Privacy International decided to use this annual report as the basis for a ranking assessment of the state of privacy in all European Union countries together with eleven non-EU benchmark countries. The new 2007 global rankings extend the survey to 47 countries (from the original 37) and, for the first time, provide an opportunity to assess trends. PI has mapped the results and if current trends hold, we may all have to move to Greece to escape the prying eyes of government spies — which is pretty scary when you consider the less than democratic state of this birthplace of democracy over the last few decades — but I digress.

Privacy International observes “The 2007 rankings indicate an overall worsening of privacy protection across the world, reflecting an increase in surveillance and a declining performance of privacy safeguards.”

Canada, which in 2006 was described by PI as a country with “significant protections and safeguards” has slipped to the status of having “some safeguards but weakened protections.” While we seem to be moving, lockstep, with the rest of the countries surveyed, we still have a way to go before we join the category described by PI as an “Endemic Surveillance Society.”

Who are the “endemic surveillance societies?” They include China, Russia, the UK and the United States. Given Stephen Harper’s fabled love of all things American, we should be concerned.

Photo: BBC — The state of Tabasco suffered the worst flooding in 50 years.

A Winnipeg family and Assiniboine Credit Union (ACU) have partnered to channel donations to nongovernmental relief agencies assisting Mexican flood victims in the state of Tabasco.

“The situation in Tabasco is extremely serious,” says Winnipegger Jorge Leon, whose extended family is among those hardest hit by the disaster. “Even though the news media have stopped covering the story, many people need our help to cope with shortages of food, drinking water, clothing and medicines.”

Donations can be made at any of ACU’s 22 branches in Winnipeg, or at their Gillam and Thompson branches.

The flood, which covered parts of Chiapas and 80 per cent of Tabasco destroyed hundreds of thousands of houses and businesses and directly affected over one million people. At least 90 per cent of the city of Villahermosa, Tabasco’s state capital, was under water and 80 per cent was without electricity and running water. While flood waters have receded in most parts of the state, the devastation will be felt for much time to come.

Many people are dependent on aid for food, water and medicine because the economy is at a standstill until the cleanup is completed and businesses can reopen.

“Many Manitobans know from personal experience how terrible it is to be flooded out,” says Leon. “Imagine how much more serious the situation is in countries that are not as wealthy as Canada.”

The Leon family of Winnipeg is urging Manitobans to help. People who donate to “Mexican Flood Relief” at the ACU can direct their contribution to either the Canadian Red Cross or the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace.

The Canadian Red Cross will channel funds to the Mexican Red Cross; CCODP will direct donations to Caritas Mexicana.

Funds will be used to provide emergency assistance in the form of drinking water, food, clothing, health and sanitation kits, mosquito nets, and cooking utensils. It will also help in the coordination efforts currently underway to help families to return to their houses, by providing them with cleaning kits to help them sanitize and clean their homes.

The relief agencies will issue charitable tax receipts for donations over $10.

The federal government has created a panel to review Canada’s role in Afghanistan beyond the current mandate.

Former Liberal MP and deputy prime minister John Manley was appointed chair of the five-person committee.

The other members of the panel are Derek Burney, former ambassador to the United States and chief of staff to former prime minister Brian Mulroney; former clerk of the Privy Council Paul Tellier; former Conservative cabinet minister Jake Epp, who served in both Joe Clark’s and Mulroney’s governments, and Pamela Wallin, former journalist and Canada’s former consul general in New York.

Manley’s position in the Liberal Party will doubtless be trumpeted as proof this committee is nonpartisan and independent. As Stephen Harper expressed it at his news conference: “I am pleased to announce the formation of an independent panel of eminent Canadians who will consider our options and provide expert non-partisan advice that will help parliamentarians make our decision.”

Independent? Nonpartisan? Where are the members of the Bloc Quebecois? Where are the New Democrats?

From here it looks like a committee set up to tell Harper what he wants to hear.

Manley’s position is indistinguishable from that of Mr. Harper. Early in 2002, an interview with Manley was posted on Mapleleafweb which is pretty revealing. For Manley, the “military action in Afghanistan is an act of self-defence . . .”.

Harper has said many times over the past while that he wants to maintain Canada’s military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2009. Don’t be surprised if this committee tells him exactly what he wants to hear.

Michael Byers, one of Canada’s outspoken critics of the war in Afghanistan, will be speaking in Winnipeg next Thursday.

Date: Thursday, October 4, 2007
Place: Club Room, Hotel Fort Garry
Time: 7 PM
Admission: A suggested donation of $5 to defray expenses has been requested by the sponsors.
Sponsor: Peace Alliance Winnipeg

Dr. Byers’ work focuses on the interaction of international law and international politics, especially with regard to international organizations, the use of military force, the law of the sea, human rights and Canada-United States relations.

He is a regular contributor to the London Review of Books, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, and is the author, most recently, of Intent for a Nation: What is Canada for? (Vancouver/Toronto: Douglas & McIntyre, June 2007).

He holds a Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law at the University of British Columbia, where he also serves as a faculty member at the Liu Institute for Global Issues. Prior to July 2004, he was a tenured Professor of Law and Director of Canadian Studies at Duke University. From 1996-1999, he was a Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University.

Here is an excerpt from a recent article Byers wrote for the Globe and Mail:

“… Travelling through Europe this month, I’ve been struck by how national debates in different NATO countries take place in isolation from each other. Many Germans, for instance, assume Canadians support the counterinsurgency mission in southern Afghanistan. Similarly, many Canadians assume the 3,000 German soldiers in relatively safe northern Afghanistan aren’t going anywhere soon.

“In fact, 54 per cent of Germans think their soldiers should be withdrawn. In the Netherlands, 58 per cent want the 2,000 Dutch troops brought home by next year. Even in Poland, where the government strongly backs the mission and none of its 1,100 soldiers have been killed, a staggering 78 per cent oppose the Polish presence in Afghanistan.

“Governments have fallen because of their support for the mission. In Italy, Prime Minister Romano Prodi resigned in February after losing a Senate vote over a foreign policy that included keeping 1,800 troops in Afghanistan. Although he was asked to form a new government, Italy’s commitment to the mission remains tenuous at best.

“Other governments are teetering on the edge . . .”

Including ours. Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe has repeatedly threatened to topple the government unless there is a clear mandate to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by February 2009.

In my view, 2009 is not soon enough. But toppling this government is an appealing prospect. Maybe it will help speed up the process of getting Canada out of one of America’s dirty wars.

Peter Holle, of the Frontier Institute for Public Policy (FIPC), writes in the September 23 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press (Parable of the drug dealer):

“The idea that our carbon emissions are destroying the planet, however, is beneficial to anyone involved in this particular science. As long as we think we face a choice between our industrialized way of life and saving the planet, global warming is a big research topic, a big lobbying issue, a big political opportunity and a big media story.”

He goes on to suggest that various groups expressing concerns about global warming are motivated by financial interests (Greenpeace, the news media, etc.) and anti-capitalist political interests (coyly described as “the older class-struggle and state ownership types“).

He even attaches a dollar value to this conflict of interest:

“If conservative estimates of the dollar amounts of U.S. government research grants are correct, climate change is a $2 billion a year industry.”

Even if Holle’s unsourced “conservative estimate” of $2 billion is accurate, it is chump change compared to the reported profits of the major oil companies in 2006:

1. Exxon Mobil ($39.5 billion),
2. Royal Dutch Shell ($25.4 billion)
3. BP ($22.0 billion)
4. Chevron ($17.1 billion)
5. ConocoPhillips ($15.55 billion)

Holle continues

“If, as many contend, we are experiencing natural warming with minimal impact, more research is unnecessary.”

Who are these “many” who are contending that we are experiencing “natural warming”????

Perhaps one of Holle’s “many” is FIPC research advisor Tim Ball. Ball, who taught at the University of Winnipeg until 1996, has made a name for himself as a climate change denier. According to DeSmog Blog:

“Ball is listed as a “consultant” of a Calgary-based global warming skeptic organization called the “Friends of Science” (FOS). In a January 28, 2007 article in the Toronto Star, the President of the FOS admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry. In an August, ’06 Globe and Mail feature, the FOS was exposed as being funded in part by the oil and gas sector and hiding the fact that they were. According to the Globe and Mail, the oil industry money was funnelled through the Calgary Foundation charity, to the University of Calgary and then put into an education trust for the FOS.”

According to Holle:

“There is no global warming conspiracy. But there is a group of people, let us call them translators, who inform us about scientific issues we cannot understand first-hand. These translators have their own incentives, which mostly tend toward keeping the man-made global warming hypothesis alive. When the warming lobby warns of perverse incentives distorting the debate, they just might be right.”

The same might be said for Holle and his organization. FIPC is a neo-liberal think tank whose raison d’etre seems to be promotion of untrammeled economic growth, deregulation, smaller governments, and so on. FIPC preaches the mantra of freedom through wealth creation and property rights.

Holle’s personal history includes a stint as senior policy advisor in the Saskatchewan government of Grant Devine during the 1980s, according to SourceWatch. Devine’s rule was marked by large scale privatization, reductions in public services and corruption. Devine left the people of Saskatchewan with a $15 billion debt. One might wonder what role Holle played in the sell-off of Crown corporations and natural resources that destroyed Saskatchewan’s public institutions and history of balanced budgets.

I agree with Holle on one thing. There is no “global warming conspiracy.” But the “climate change deniers conspiracy” — that is another question.

For a lighter look at climate change denial . . .

Canadians should feel shame and outrage at the decision of the Harper government to vote against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Reading the document, it is not difficult to understand why the Tories are unwilling to join the rest of the world in recognizing the rights of aboriginal peoples. Virtually every aspect of the declaration speaks eloquently and forcefully against abuses of the kind perpetrated by Canadian governments for generations.

Don’t take my word for it. Read the declaration and judge for yourself.