A blog about news and politics by Steve Janke

July 31, 2006

Can Mel Gibson bounce back?

Other Hollywood types have done vile things and continue to work. What about Mel?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:14 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

1 This headline is a perfect example of people who live in glass houses. He was intoxicated they claim, most likely irritable because of it, and certainly like most celebs thought he had special privileges. I don't think this is as bad as the Couric princess having the pilot of that Delta plane stop his take-off to allow for one of her producers running late. Mel's problem is that he was human, her's is that she thinks she's def better than us mortals.

Posted by: eltoroviejo at July 31, 2006 02:06 PM (Z46AV)

2 "These people have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general." Jews are not an extension of Israel. Israel is a country, Jews are a people. Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism, as much as the right-wing may try to cast it as such even when Israel pursues disastrous courses of action. Equating Israel with Jews has negative effects beyond labelling Jewish critics of Israel as traitors (there are many, in Israel and out). It also gives ammunition to real anti-Semites, who can then make the claim that when Israel acts, it is actually the Jewish people that is acting. In other words, equating Israel with Jews helps neo-Nazis and other extreme rightists by allowing them to blame Israel's wrongs on Jews in general. For this reason, some European governments are keen to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian situation because they see it fuelling anti-Semitism in their own countries. That wouldn't happen to the same degree if right-wingers would stop equating Israel with Jews, and criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Ade at July 31, 2006 02:10 PM (4p91Z)

3 At the time of Passion's Gibson spent a lot of energy denying that he, and therefore his movie, were not anti-semetic. I think his recent words have proven the movie's initial detractors right. I read your post as a defence of Passion, considering that it's now under the microscope again. Also, when it comes to Hollywood, it's the audience that 'tolerates' the behaviour of the filmmaker. If the audience avoided Woddy Allen's movies because of his lack of morals, then he wouldn't be able to make movies, it's that simple. I think in Gibson's case, his fans (made up of the evangelical Christians that loved the Passion) will quickly forgive him. Especially considering he's the only filmmaker to make a big religious movie in 20+ years. Apocalypto will bomb though, I thought it was doomed even before this incident. I'm guessing he got pissed after seeing the test screening results.

Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 31, 2006 02:16 PM (ZQ7AG)

4 Ade: A recent study has found a STRONG correlation between anti-zionism and anti-semetism. I agree that one can be critical of Israel's actions without hating Jews. The problem arises in that so MANY people so STRONGLY hate Israel. Is Israel really that BAD? The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that people are expressing their deep seeded HATE of Jews in the form of HATE for Israel. Yes, Israel makes mistakes, so does every nation. Israel is fighting for its existence! Sometimes it responds too strongly, but that's because if it responded too weakly it would be destroyed. Please don't be so naive to think that all criticism of Israel is due to honest critical analysis of the facts. Where is all the criticism of Syria (no one seemed to care that they are the true occupiers of Lebanon), Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia (with it's treatment of the Chechens). http://hnn.us/articles/28503.html

Posted by: Jonny_eh at July 31, 2006 02:27 PM (ZQ7AG)

5 I'm not defending Passion. How could I? I haven't even seen it. But it is clear that purely religious movie, that is, one that does not hide a religious message inside of a popular secular wrapper (Superman Returns?) can make money. That ran counter to studio wisdom. But even more significant, a movie not issued and distributed under a studio name can find a wide audience and make huge money. That is even more terrifying for the studio movie makers. I think the studios can use this incident as leverage to freeze Gibson out. Make it clear that an actor that works with Gibson will be blacklisted, that sort of thing. Turn him into a pariah, ostensibly because his apparent anti-Semitism, but really because of his threat to their financial health. As for Israel == Jews, I don't buy that myself. But again, I'm talking about how others tend to behave. I think more than a few Hollywood types would have no problem with the "Jews cause wars" theory, internally translating that into "Israel causes wars", not spotting the distinct difference, or caring even if they did. In other words, I'm not certain Mel's rant is sufficient to kill his career, but he might well have handed his enemies the lit match they need set off the bomb that does, a bomb constructed out of jealousy of his success and fear of his power as an independent.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 31, 2006 02:38 PM (pFrk8)

6 Can he bounce back? He's worth $850 million. He lives in the middle of out-of-touch Malibu. His star power is still substancial regardless of his blatant anti-semitism. Money talks, personal beliefs walk. The only consequences will be he'll need to be driven around Malibu in a limo for a year..and pay a $500 fine...and maybe Babs Streisand won't let James Brolin golf with him for awhile. Mel Gibson will get off publicly because anti-semitism is en vogue these days.

Posted by: Turner at July 31, 2006 02:52 PM (Kr2nu)

7 Personally, I think that Mel Gibson was thinking of RICH INTERNATIONAL Jewish people who 'armed' both sides in WWI and WWII. Jewish people have been either scorned or fawned over by 'gentiles' for as long as I can remember. They are people with beliefs that the rest of us do not identify with or understand so the msm "talking heads" either vilify the entire race (as they once did in the case of Indian people in NA) or they fawn over them (as 'they' do now over the Indian people of NA). If the Canadian and American people would use their own judgement to evaluate how they relate to all INDIVIDUALS, instead of using a msm preconception to base their opinions; we would not be so wrung out with knashing of teeth and pulling of hair. Why would anyone in their right mind go into a frenzy about what someone said while drunk??? Drunks are not themselves - they do not call it the 'demon drink' for nothing. It is common knowledge what Rockerfellers and their 'ilk' have done in the past to gain POWER. What Mel Gibson reportably said was a drunk's generalization. Anyone who has ever been around drunk people knows that that type of irrational generalizations are common. I do not join in the condemnation of this good man (Mel Gibson) and I never will because I know from study that certain Jewish people are just as guilty as the M. Strong and the Liebrals in their no holes barred lust for power and the unmitigated hatred the latter have for anyone who will not buy into their hatred for all people. I think that the Socialist groups in Isreal are just as human unfriendly as their Communist 'heros' in Cuba, Canada, USA and Russia. I know that all Jewish people are not Communist/ people hating - I am pretty sure Mel Gibson knows this also. He has said he was sorry for his rant so why don't people just leave it there? I would be happy to join in a rant about the individual Marice Strong and his hate for people - visit the 'habitats for humanity' website to contemplate how lovely living in a beehive as a government slave could be. Thanks, angry, for your take on the situation. I tend to agree with you.

Posted by: Jema54 at July 31, 2006 04:38 PM (/be2/)

8 Come on, guys, if a video camera (or a cop) recorded everything you said when you were drunk, wouldn't you be in some trouble? And another thing, criticizing Israel is not anti-semetic. Israelis do it all the time--just read Haaretz!

Posted by: Ryan at July 31, 2006 05:00 PM (hbAfX)

9 I heard plenty of stuff about the movie when it came out but went to see it anyways, it was okay. I was able to leave any opinions behind while watching and, because I am not religious, I did not find it anti semetic, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. What Mel did last week does give me a second thought now and I am not feeling overly forgiving yet - I am not a fan of the drunk defense. Ade, I am not so certain that the average person can separate the two even though what you say is true. An increase in hate crimes committed against Jewish property or people (like the shooting last week) indicates this.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 31, 2006 05:12 PM (8StLM)

10 Gibson "dissed" the current anministration...he was set up big time...show me the video-audio evidence and stop "interpreting them to the media in a manner that trashes Gibson with no supporting evidence....what a frikkin' hatchet job by the ruling establishment. If the liberty or freedom of a society is guaged by the way they treat dissenters or extremists that strain the limits of expression...modern America is failing the test dismally. Don't knock the "Boss" or we ruin you...there's the message and the trail of the fallen is almost as long as Klinton's white water body count.

Posted by: wlyonmackenzie at July 31, 2006 06:49 PM (sdMWv)

11 He was driving while very drunk and that alone puts him in my badbook

Posted by: kelly at July 31, 2006 07:08 PM (6EOd+)

12 I don't think he will be in any Mel Brooks movies any time soon...

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 07:22 PM (zMnsO)

13 What about Stephen Speilberg movies? Kelly, quite right about the drunk driving thing. That was the first and only thing I heard in the media, the rest came later, guess I was already pissed off at him just for that.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 31, 2006 07:35 PM (8StLM)

14 full disclosure, i'm jewish and i support a strong and secure israel. jema54 is a lot nuttier or at least more drunk than mel was. i read that his bal was 1.2. that's not very high and since he drinks heavily that would probably mean he was only in second gear at the time, i.e. not very drunk. considering his father's point of view, it's not a stretch that he's no jew lover. in any event, his career won't suffer for a couple of reasons. he didn't say anything many, if not most, people believe. and, he doesn't need producers to back him anymore. he risked all his money making the passion and hit a financial homerun. he can do it alone.

Posted by: allen at July 31, 2006 07:45 PM (n4shf)

15 To Ade: It's convenient how "conventional" anti-semitism suddenly disappeared around the 1950s-1960s and anti-Zionism suddenly appeared in equal or greater amounts - almost as if much anti-Zionism was in fact poorly-disguised anti-semitism... And really, you're telling us not to associate Israel with Jews? I know it's a fairly secular state, but honestly, have you looked at their flag recently? Have you seen the photos of IDF operatives wearing tefillin? A bit naÃƒÂ¯ve to be telling us that nobody thinks of Jews when they hear about Israel. Ridiculous, in fact. On the topic at hand, I really don't think Mel Gibson is going to suffer that much as a result of this. Think about it - who is going to be truly upset? Most Liberals think it's perfectly natural to hate the Jews, and most Conservatives are smart enough to see through Hollywood's pathetic hypocrisy. Mel Gibson's statements are tame compared to some of the other crap you hear from Hollywood, not to mention several news organizations like the AP. I don't condone what he did - and I have as much reason as anyone here to be upset and/or offended - but I'd still be much happier to see the New York Times disappear into obscurity than Mel Gibson. I think we've all embarrassed ourselves to some degree before; at least Mel had the decency to immediately apologize and admit that what he said was wrong. That shows at least some modicum of moral character to me, much unlike any of the seething, unadulterated, unrelenting, unabashed hatred for Israel/Jews we've been witnessing in the MSM recently.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 31, 2006 09:38 PM (1xiB4)

16 I just thought this CTV online poll was relevant: Is Mel Gibson's major movie career finished? Yes, I won't ever buy a ticket to his movies again 2131 votes (19 %) No, he'll bounce back after a long break 9065 votes (81 %) Total Votes: 11196 (as of about an hour ago). I was quite surprised. It sounds like people are ready to forgive him. I hope he goes to jail for driving drunk. It won't stop me from seeing his movies (well, the religious ones, anyway). I don't think he really meant what he said. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He took responsibility for his actions.

Posted by: SUZANNE at July 31, 2006 09:41 PM (lWfC1)

17 Strange, I always thought that the standard irrational knee-jerk accusation of Hollywood was that it was overrun with Jews. Now you're saying that in fact it's the opposite that's true? That much of Hollywood is actually filled with anti-Semites who "have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general." So confused! Which prejudicial overgeneralization to blindly embrace?! I hate it when two perfect good racist stereotypes collide. It's enough to make you want to not perpetuate racist statements at all.

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 10:30 PM (YK2nB)

18 The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-semitic movie. Of course protestant fundies loved it; as if they need an excuse to be heretical or anti-semitic. Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now. That your man Harper is courting both these camps sadly speaks volumes about the poverty of contemporary conservatism.

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 11:38 PM (JJas8)

19 A story is told of a Jewish man who was riding on the subway reading an Arab newspaper. A friend of his, who happened to be riding in the same subway car, noticed this strange phenomenon. Very upset, he approached the newspaper reader. "Moshe, have you lost your mind? Why are you reading an Arab newspaper?" Moshe replied, "I used to read the Jewish newspaper, but what did I find? Jews being persecuted, Israel being attacked, Jews disappearing through assimilation and intermarriage, Jews living in poverty. So I switched to the Arab newspaper. Now what do I find? Jews own all the banks, Jews control the media, Jews are all rich and powerful, Jews rule the world. The news is so much better!" ............. Most liberals are not anti semites. Most liberals were strongly in favor of Israel when it was first formed. However many liberals do not support war as it is now being waged by both the US and Israel. Gibson made a religious film that has influenced people around the world. He claimed the film was not anti semitic. His comments while drunk make it appear that he might be anti semitic and the film may have anti semitism in it. The world doesn't need any more hate. 6 million jews died in horrific conditions because of anti semitism and a purportedly religious film that might encourage anti semitism in today's world is something to be concerned about. For once its not about the money.

Posted by: Chris at August 01, 2006 12:12 AM (GTeL0)

20 >>The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-Semitic movie. Wrong on both counts. The movie stayed true to the accounts recorded in the 4 gospels and the teachings of orthodox Christianity. And unfortunately, charges of anti-Semitism will remain as long as people misunderstand why and how Jesus died. >> Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now. As a conservative Christian who is supportive of Israel, I can tell you, as with most generalizations, this is not accurate. There are differing views on the interpretation of end-times prophecy, for example I lean towards orthodox preterism (or partial-preterism) - according to this view there is no special place or requirement for a physical Israel prior to the end of this age. Yet I support Israel, not because I think it is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather I side with a country fighting against those who with full intent attack and kill innocent men, women and children and then celebrate when they succeed.

Posted by: at August 01, 2006 11:50 AM (SqX7o)

21 >>The Passion was a deeply heretical and deeply anti-Semitic movie. Wrong on both counts. The movie stayed true to the accounts recorded in the 4 gospels and the teachings of orthodox Christianity. And unfortunately, charges of anti-Semitism will remain as long as people misunderstand why and how Jesus died. >> Supporting bellicose hawks in Israel hardly counts as a genuine friendship to Jews when the whole point is to bring about Armageddon in the here and now. As a conservative Christian who is supportive of Israel, I can tell you, as with most generalizations, this is not accurate. There are differing views on the interpretation of end-times prophecy, for example I lean towards orthodox preterism (or partial-preterism) - according to this view there is no special place or requirement for a physical Israel prior to the end of this age. Yet I support Israel, not because I think it is necessary for the fulfillment of prophecy, but rather I side with a country fighting against those who with full intent attack and kill innocent men, women and children and then celebrate when they succeed.

Posted by: Denis at August 01, 2006 12:22 PM (SqX7o)

22 Denis, Orthodox Christianity is inherently anti-literal. There is God and there is man. Any time man presumes to know the mind of God or The Truth (which is what literalism entails) one has crossed the river into hereticism. Everyone in the Know knows that is why Orthodox Christianity is the thinking persons religion because it has a built in guard against literalism and therefore dogma. As for the second point. Cheney's brand of fundamentalism certainly entertains the Armageddon in the here and now narrative. So sure not all fundies entertain this millenarianist bent but then not all fundies support the hawks in Israel. The most outspoken ones these days sure do and they sure seem to talk about the end of days a lot . Now if your point is that some fundies are really out there you will get no disagreement from us. Now as for the fact that you support Israel bully for you. So do we! If what you mean by this is that you think Jews have a right to homeland where they can feel safe and conduct their lives according to the organic evolution of their culture/society. But in that sense we support the right of all peoples to such sovereignty. Moreover, and more importantly, one can be supportive of Israel without condoning the actions of the IDF which have consciously lead to the killing of civilians. Either it is wrong to kill civilians or it is not. We do not get to choose when we apply this moral maxim. Selectivity leads to inconsistency and such inconsistency leads to the undermining of the very moral invocation we are trying hold others accountable to. If we are serious that the main reason we ought to denounce terrorism is because it leads to the killing of innocent people then we must judge any strategy of conflict as equally repugnant that, a priori, accepts that a disproportional number of non-combatants will be killed in order to achieve a military goal. If you do not apply this rule consistently you have no moral foundation to condemn Hamas's suicide bombers or Hizbollah's rockets when they kill civilians. Friends do not let friends drink and drive nor should they let them go on what is effectively a murderous rampage no matter how aggrieved they may be. Such actions are the provenance of God not man. In solidarity, Goodwin Ginger www.canadianobserver.wordpress.com

Posted by: goodwin ginger at August 01, 2006 04:05 PM (5rmSy)

23 Mel was drunk enough to become imparticular with semantic distinctions. That's what getting drunk does. The semantic distinction he failed to make was that between 'the Jews', and the particular policies of the State of Israel, a creation of the Zionist ideology, a relatively new ideaology amongst the Jews, and an ideology that many Jews differ with vociferously. See 'Jews Against Zionism' and similar web sites. For this semantic drunk impolity, he is to be blacklisted? Why? What if he had said: 'The Muslims are always starting wars' or 'The Russians are always starting wars' or 'The germans are always starting wars'...would this have caused a similar stir? One aspect of racism is when one racism is condemned and punished more severely than another racism. What if a black comedian had said, 'The honkies are always starting all the wars' ? This incident and mel's predicament is just part and parcel of the post war world learning to shed past paradigms and learning to grow up. In this, Mel has made a public service.

Posted by: hoff at August 01, 2006 04:10 PM (e/acA)

24 If we are serious that the main reason we ought to denounce terrorism is because it leads to the killing of innocent people then we must judge any strategy of conflict as equally repugnant that, a priori, accepts that a disproportional number of non-combatants will be killed in order to achieve a military goal. If you do not apply this rule consistently you have no moral foundation to condemn Hamas's suicide bombers or Hizbollah's rockets when they kill civilians. Well said, 'Goodwin Ginger'! Bully for you too! ;-)

Posted by: A at August 01, 2006 04:29 PM (Oee6D)

25 >> Any time man presumes to know the mind of God or The Truth (which is what literalism entails) one has crossed the river into hereticism. I'm not sure I understand your use of the term "literalism". Literalism, as I would argue it, means to read and comprehend a document according to the style of literature it is written in. For example, a document which follows the pattern of a historic account should be interpreted as a historic account, a document written in poetic form should be interpreted as a poem, etc. Literalism, in this usage, simply means we read a document using its style(s) as context to help understand how we are to interpret its meaning. When it comes to Scripture, literalism does not suppose we know the mind of God, it simply means we interpret what He has revealed to us based on the form of the literature it is recorded in. Since we hold Scripture to be inspired by God, literary style is a tool to help us understand what God is communicating. >> Now if your point is that some fundies are really out there you will get no disagreement from us. That's not really my point; my point is there is diversity, even amongst us "fundies", when it comes to eschatology. I will concede however that there are those out there that support Israel for reasons I would find debatable. >> Either it is wrong to kill civilians or it is not. We do not get to choose when we apply this moral maxim. Selectivity leads to inconsistency and such inconsistency leads to the undermining of the very moral invocation we are trying hold others accountable to. I find no inconsistency in my logic. Hezbollah purposefully and systematically targets civilians, murdering innocent men women and children. They hail men like Samir Kuntar as heroes. Hezbollah's goal is to spill the blood of innocents. Israel on the other hand is conducting itself in a way that shows me they are trying to avoid civilian casualties. And when they fail and innocent blood is shed, they are remorseful not jubilant. I add this to my belief that Israel is justified in trying to destroy Hezbollah and its military capabilities in an effort to save Israeli citizens. They have tolerated more incursions than any sovereign nation should be expected to. As unpalatable as it may be, I see no way to avoid the death of innocents in this current environment. If Israel were to immediately withdraw, Lebanese innocents may be safe from the IDF but inevitably the blood of innocent Israelis would continue to flow. I don't think this is a solution any government should be forced to make. >> Friends do not let friends drink and drive nor should they let them go on what is effectively a murderous rampage no matter how aggrieved they may be. Such actions are the provenance of God not man. I have not seen evidence to convince me that Israel is engaging in a "murderous rampage", i.e., purposefully and systematically targeting civilians. If this evidence were to arise, though I honestly doubt it will, I will definitely revisit my position on this current war. In the mean time, I stand by Israel in their attempt to destroy Hezbollah.

Posted by: Denis at August 01, 2006 05:26 PM (SqX7o)

26 "A", what the hell is wrong with you? You say that the "standard irrational knee-jerk accusation" that Hollywood is overrun with Jews, then proceed to provide "proof" in the form of a link to one of the most infamous sites for revisionist history and Jew-hatred, citing that as an example of what Conservatives think? Are you totally off your nut, or are you just desperately scrounging for evidence of our non-existent hypocrisy? I believe the "standard" criticism of Hollywood, supported by copious evidence, is that it is overrun with moonbats, not Jews. The accusation you claim to be "standard" is only standard in the fevered imaginations of the looney-bin tinfoil hat crowd. But thanks for providing the revisionist-history link. You've shown your true colours for all of us.

Posted by: Aaron G at August 01, 2006 08:36 PM (1xiB4)

27 It is my understanding that people in the creative end in Hollywood are under tremendous pressure to produce. It is also a fact his father Hutton is a dyed in the wool anti-semite,so Gibson grew up listening to this siht. Toss in the fact that he was drunk and I dont find his behaviour surprising. Nothing to see here, move along.

Posted by: rick at August 02, 2006 10:05 AM (qe9Nn)

28 I have a better question. Who the hell cares? He has money, he has fame.... he is set for the rest of his life. He can retire and tell the world to kiss his ass.

Posted by: Ed at August 02, 2006 11:33 AM (zDSj3)

29 Aaron G: I never claimed that the views of the Institute for Historical Review, which I'm fully aware is infamous for its anti-Jewish propaganda, were shared either by myself or by conservatives. I do not believe that Hollywood is "overrun by Jews", but nor do believe Mr. Janke's claim that: ...a lot of Hollywood is populated by Bush-hating ranters cut from the same cloth as Michael Moore and Alex Baldwin. These people have no love for Israel, and by extension, for Jews in general. The point of my post, as you will glean if you reread it with a little more care, is that any "irrational knee-jerk" overgeneralization (to which we may add your own view that "...the 'standard' criticism of Hollywood, supported by copious evidence, is that it is overrun with moonbats...") is flawed and that we should refrain from making them at all. In fact, thanks for proving my point!

Posted by: A at August 02, 2006 12:33 PM (Oee6D)

30 Testing...haven't been able to get on for days...fingers crossed...

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 02, 2006 02:44 PM (oe0J0)

31 Mel Gibson's biggest "sin" in Hollywood is not his misdemeanours of the past weekend, so much as the fact that he is a practising Roman Catholic Christian, and an extremely conservative one at that. The Christian religion/faith is the big boogeyman in Hollywood, far more than Mel Gibson's independence and his massive financial success with "The Passion of the Christ," which people were earlier saying was why Hollywood is mad at him. Don't forget, it wasn't his original idea to produce The Passion independently. He couldn't get any Hollywood studio to touch it with a ten-foot pole. I feel for Mel's family, for his wife and six or seven kids; this public humiliation has got to be extremely difficult for them. Mel shouldn't have been drunk while driving, but he's taken full and personal responsibility for his actions and has apologized to those whom he has offended. If people want more than that, too bad. A pound of flesh? What? I believe in forgiveness when someone is sincerely sorry for what they've done, and Mel Gibson appears have said a heartfelt "I'm sorry." I like the guy. He did a really stupid thing, and now he's going to pay the price. But I'll go and see his next movie, and I'll pray for him, too.

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 02, 2006 02:55 PM (oe0J0)

32 PS--What family doesn't have alcoholism rear its ugly head from time to time? For most of us, we're fortunate that the world's press aren't following our loved ones' every move and quoting everything they've said. I'm not for a minute justifying or excusing what Mel Gibson did, but it's not like he's the only person who's fallen off the wagon and done or said something really stupid or offensive. He has had the misfortune, however, of doing it in the glare of public scrutiny.

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 02, 2006 03:05 PM (oe0J0)

33 The issue is not what Gibson said when he was arrested. What he said might be an indication of what he thinks about Jews. The issue is that he made a film that many Jews think was anti semitic and he was now doing a series on the Holocaust. That series was stopped. If Gibson has anti semitic leanings (which he may not even be aware of) and he is doing films about Jews he is influencing people to think like him. That is the issue. His simple statement when arrested was not very anti semitic, but his films might be fueling anti semitism.

Posted by: Chris at August 04, 2006 01:13 PM (GTeL0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Yasmin Ashareh: Muddled reporting or a change in the facts of the case

I've always assumed that one of the jobs at a major newspaper was fact-checking. Somebody proofreads stories to ensure that the facts reported are consistent with the facts as they are known today, and as they have been generally reported before.

So when the facts being reported change, I have to wonder why, especially when the change is not called out, but simply reported as if it has always been reported that way.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:50 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Must keep silent about the vividly polka-dotted elephant squatting in the room.

Posted by: Shaken at July 31, 2006 08:16 AM (JyC7p)

2 Further to Shaken's comment: was there not a similarly decorated pachyderm squatting in the room when, some weeks ago, we were all told by the cops that our very own alleged terrorists had nothing in common? Oh, that elephant over there! We must have missed seeing it. Well, yes, we guess the fact that they are all muslims does mean that they just might be seen as having something in common.

Posted by: Tom at July 31, 2006 08:34 AM (af6bh)

3 ...if Yasmin Ashareh is really from Somalia, if her father is really from the old country, how does this change our perception of the crime? How old was Yasmin Ashareh when she came to Canada? [sigh] Steve, how could it possibly matter where Ms. Ashareh was born, and at what age she immigrated to Canada (if she immigrated at all)? Does it make her murder any more or less of a tragedy, or of a crime? Least I remind you, she was the victim here. Any literate person can read between the lines of your above statement and recognize what you're driving at. Some (like myself) are disgusted; others (like 'Shaken' and 'Tom') seem ready to award you a Pulitzer. If you're going to continue spinning your conspiracy theories for the amusement of your increasingly irrelevant blogosphere pals, at least have the personal integrity to leave out disingenuous qualifiers like, "Maybe this will turn out to be utterly irrelevant to the case, but..." You clearly believe that whatever nugget you think you've dug up is supremely relevant to the case (why else blog about it without first confirming its factuality by, oh, I dunno, emailing Mr. Godfrey and asking for clarification?). You might as well come clean about it.

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 09:09 AM (Oee6D)

4 Come on, Steve.. Be ignorant like A. Don't ask questions. Be a sheep like A.

Posted by: Levesque at July 31, 2006 09:47 AM (Kr2nu)

5 Thanks for that really helpful comment, Levesque. By this thread's own twisted logic, should we also be concerned that, say, the overwhelming majority of pedophiles in Canada are white males? Are you a white male, Levesque? Stay away from the playgrounds...

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 10:22 AM (Oee6D)

6 Steve, It does not matter at this point where she was born. The main concern remains whether the public will be given the true story of what happened. Was the slaying taken place in the townhouse unit, where were the other tenants in the house? Where did the existing tenants go when the house was being watched by police? So many questions remain unanswered. Whey is there a publication ban? Why cant the public know the actual truth. This would be of special concern to the residents of John Garland Complex who are most eager to know what transpired. I think the Police should provide the public with exact information and what was in the duffel bag as was mentioned in the news conference that took place on June 16th.

Posted by: Melissa at July 31, 2006 11:16 AM (0h9YT)

7 Given the publication ban on evidence, we're not going to hear much about anything. But unless this was a simple mistake on the part of the Toronto Sun, not being able to get something as straightforward as where she was born correct has to make you wonder just how accurate any of the information we are getting is. And if you are still of a mind that there is something else going on here (I'm not sure one way or the other) you'd have to agree that placing her birth here in Canada would deflect attention from those other theories.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 31, 2006 11:27 AM (pFrk8)

8 I'm not overly interested in the details of someone's murder as I don't consider it any of my business. What I find interesting is that there is some surprise expressed about a lack of fact-checking by media outlets. I doubt that they have fact-checkers anymore and there are only a few true investigative journalists left. They grab their stories from the newswires, use each other as sources and dig no deeper than necessary to meet their multiple daily deadlines. Journalists these days tend to be under-paid, under-educated over-worked and under-appreciated, which is why it is always a treat to read a properly researched, well written, factual account in the msm.

Posted by: Selma at July 31, 2006 11:40 AM (RdreP)

9 Steve, our family is concerned coz we live in the neighbourhood and have seen the cop cars surrounding the unit 24 hours since July 14, 2006. Would you not want to know what transpired right opposite your own home? And who is the Imona Russell - was this person a tenant along with another male? Why would a young girl rent a room with only male members in the town house unit? Something does not fit in right here. Any one to shed more light on this topic?

Posted by: Melissa at July 31, 2006 12:02 PM (0h9YT)

10 Steve, our family is concerned coz we live in the neighbourhood and have seen the cop cars surrounding the unit 24 hours since July 14, 2006. Would you not want to know what transpired right opposite your own home? And who is the Imona Russell - was this person a tenant along with another male? Why would a young girl rent a room with only male members in the town house unit? Something does not fit in right here. Any one to shed more light on this topic?

Posted by: Melissa at July 31, 2006 12:02 PM (0h9YT)

11 Why would a young girl rent a room with only male members in the town house unit? Happens more often than you might think, Melissa. Largely to do with high rental costs and a shortage of affordable housing in Toronto.

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 12:32 PM (Oee6D)

12 Hi Steve, What is the motive of slaying this young lady? Was this man her boyfriend? Why stab the neck multiple times? Why leave her in the same area? So many questions unanswered. Why will the police reveal all of this information to the public? Please Steve - follow up and ask them to give us the truth about this case.

Posted by: Amelia at July 31, 2006 01:04 PM (0h9YT)

13 I knew the victim. I just finished having a distraught beer with the boyfriend, whom I also know. The facts (in the Star specifically) do oscillate...her age for one. I know when her birthday is and yet she some how ages one year in a three month period of reporting. Her being Muslim (or not) has bloody well nothing to do with her case...Muslim is just an inflamatory term (considering current events) spilt by the lips of a**ho;le reporters who need to use glaring phraseology in their articles. Irresponsible callous bastards. She was a sweet girl and yes had problems with my buddy/co-worker but it most likely was a random act of brutal violence (which does occur in this city believe it or not).

Posted by: Tackleho at July 31, 2006 03:34 PM (wACYH)

14 I knew the victim. I just finished having a distraught beer with the boyfriend, whom I also know. The facts (in the Star specifically) do oscillate...her age for one. I know when her birthday is and yet she some how ages one year in a three month period of reporting. Her being Muslim (or not) has bloody well nothing to do with her case...Muslim is just an inflamatory term (considering current events) spilt by the lips of a**ho;le reporters who need to use glaring phraseology in their articles. Irresponsible callous bastards. She was a sweet girl and yes had problems with my buddy/co-worker but it most likely was a random act of brutal violence (which does occur in this city believe it or not). And no there was no arranged marrigae. It was as common a courtship as any bloody caucasion sitcom.

Posted by: Tackleho at July 31, 2006 03:50 PM (wACYH)

15 I meant to write three day period of reporting not three month. I make typeos when i type vehemently

Posted by: Tackleho at July 31, 2006 03:53 PM (wACYH)

16 I meant three day reporting not "three month" I make typing mistakes when I type vehemently

Posted by: Tackleho at July 31, 2006 03:54 PM (wACYH)

17 Hi Tackleho, You knew the vicitim and also say that She was a sweet girl and yes had problems with my buddy/co-worker but it most likely was a random act of brutal violence (which does occur in this city believe it or not). This act of violence - whom does that relate to - who commited this random act of violence. Do you the reason why? There has to be a reason. Please comment since you knew the victim. Thanks Tackleo

Posted by: Amelia at August 01, 2006 10:33 AM (CCSBp)

18 No one knows the reasons except the killer him-self. I'm not a forensics scientist or a homicide detective. I am just a subjective affiliate to some involved. I was a little annoyed with the insinuations made about the boy friend and her cultural back-ground. When the white woman died on yonge street a few months back(gang-related) totally innocent casualtie. All of the media exploded in a fenzy of out rage and trauma. No mention of her cultural background or any notion of external influence. Just tragidy. + It exsisted in the media for weeks.

Posted by: Tackleho at August 01, 2006 02:04 PM (wACYH)

19 Tackleho, get in touch with me by email, if you don't mind.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 01, 2006 02:20 PM (pFrk8)

20 I like it very much!sd5f46s5df465sd4f

Posted by: nike vapor 9 at December 02, 2012 01:39 PM (8uCQQ)

21 I like it very much.564651321348545 http://www.indoorsoccershoes2012.com

Posted by: adidas F50+ at December 03, 2012 05:09 PM (3ZkKJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 29, 2006

Beer and popcorn...and iPods?

The Universal Child Care Benefit came out this week. According to the left, I'll be using the money to buy iPods for my kids, being the awful parent that I am. You know, awful in that I'm conservative and I make a decent living. I'm the worst parent ever!

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:39 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

1 An iPod for a 6 yr old? Someone's a little out of touch. I resent MY tax dollars going to poorly thought out Liberal/socialist sink holes, that ONLY benefit certian provinces and certain moulds if your cookie can fit them.

Posted by: Cheri at July 29, 2006 03:01 PM (RusDc)

2 Hmmm....I just tried to register on Babble to make a comment, and was informed that I am already banned. Considering I have never registered there before, it seems to be quite surprising....unitl I realized that the computer IP address is military. Seems those dirty folks in uniform aren't allowed to make comments there. Quel surpris. I did read the comments though. What a bunch of whack jobs. All the commentators there wanted the rest of us to pay for THEIR kids to be given free baby-sitting, but they are completely offended it they have to pay any money themselves. Hypocrisy...thy name is "lefty"

Posted by: JamesHalifax at July 29, 2006 03:42 PM (aPkwd)

3 Just remember this, those creatures posting at Rabble are the sort of people who would have the unionized jobs taking care of your children at their obligatory national "day care" institutions. They'd probably be teaching the little boys to kiss each other on the lips and nap together under the same blanket...

Posted by: anon at July 29, 2006 04:50 PM (Uagor)

4 polls continue to indicate that alot of us firmly believe in the benefits of early childhood education and that our tax dollars should provide universal access to it. with harper and many of policies losing support in ontario and quebec daily, your cynical comments about marg bedore's valid dissatisfaction with harper's monthly allowance sound hasty and arrogant.

Posted by: davidson at July 29, 2006 04:52 PM (000bY)

5 Harper and many of his policies losing support in Ontario and Quebec daily? Funny, I thought he'd been up a point in the last month, and up about 10 points since he came into office. Looks to me like Canadians (that is, the average taxpayer) thinks he's doing a very good job. The only place he has poor support is in Montreal, and I'm not sure if that's actually "down" from before. Strange how the Left in Canada (and the US) always seems to think that Conservatism is in decline, no matter how much its popularity is growing in reality.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 29, 2006 05:49 PM (1xiB4)

6 davison, not to worry about todays polls, think of the next election. The next Liberal leader promising to take away the $100 a month.... The next Liberal leader offering to raise the GST.... Elections are not won by taking candy,or beer or popcorn from a baby.

Posted by: john at July 29, 2006 05:52 PM (ZNAq7)

7 Aaron G, I believe Davidson was referring to this July 27 Decima poll. Although the Tories still lead Canada-wide, they 're down 6 percentage points in Quebec, and 2 percentage points in Ontario (trailing the Grits 43% to 33%). However, given the +/- 3.1%, they may not actually be down in Ontario (though they definitely are still trailing).

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 08:22 PM (Q+Bei)

8 Notwithstanding the ill-advised and regrettable comments made by Scott Reid and Ms. Bedore, among others, there remains a legitimate concern that PM Harper's national child care strategy does not do enough to create affordable child care options for families on the lower end of the income spectrum. Whether PM Harper's Phase 2 plan of creating incentives to create daycare spaces actually creates affordable spaces is, at this point, an open question. Certainly, it is a topic that we can fruitfully debate without resorting to sarcastic comments like So thanks for your contribution, Marg Bedore. Be assured that I won't be using your money to buy an iPod (or beer, or popcorn). or They'd probably be teaching the little boys to kiss each other on the lips and nap together under the same blanket... Are the Liberals or NDP proposing to create state-run day care, or state-funded day care?

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 08:32 PM (Q+Bei)

9 "I am still so angry about this deceptive program. I earn the average Canadian income and I have no problem with helping those families who are in need but I resent my tax dollars being given to the Mrs Harper's who are rich and stay at home and do not need or use day care." How would this be different from providing free daycare to the 'Mrs. Laytons' who are rich? BTW, Rabble is partially funded by Alternatives, who, you guessed it, is funded by the federal government. Just ask them about it, it riles them up something terrible. Or you can quiz them about why Jack and Olivia used to live in subsidised housing in Toronto, they ended up paying it back after they were caught. Either question will get you sent to Cyberia in a hurry.

Posted by: ex-babbler at July 29, 2006 08:46 PM (HJTWW)

10 Daycare is not a right, if you have children you should be prepared to look after them, why should taxpayers? Daycare actually falls under the provinces so the federal government shouldn't even be in this.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 29, 2006 09:48 PM (8StLM)

11 Anne, I think given the economic realities of the day, many families--even those in the middle class--living in expensive urban centres like Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, or Montreal require two incomes to make ends meet. Daycare may not be a right, but then neither are a lot of social services (e.g., public health care, primary and secondary education) that the government nevertheless is willing to fund in the name of the public good. Also, the delivery of daycare services falls under provincial jurisdiction, but like health and education, may require funding from the Feds in order to operate adequately.

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 11:08 PM (Q+Bei)

12 It would be in the public good for people to plan their children, make sacrifices and live within their means. I don't see how throwing billions of dollars that might benefit 20% of the population at best while shutting out the other 80% is such a great plan. The only benefit is to unions which are decreasing in Canada, they would love to see another public service ball rolling around. This would just be another tax burden on the majority of middle class earners. We were just informed last week that our property taxes have increased again by 5%, I am not interested in any more taxes to support someone elses life choices.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 12:18 AM (8StLM)

13 A. Dramatically cut taxes in Canada and watch the affordability of child care cease to be that big of an issue. I see two-income families falling apart all around me. Disasterous for the children.

Posted by: Shaken at July 30, 2006 02:03 AM (JyC7p)

14 I'll say the same thing I said over at rabble ... My problem is that: - the subsidized daycares are useless to shift workers (with two or three exceptions in the large cities) - there are still subsidized daycares which refuse to take the children of lone fathers (only females can drop off or pick up kids) - the subsidized daycares are useless to "special" children like my grand-nephew (two and correcting his daycare provider's piano fingering!) We need a system of broad choices which allow everyone an option, including stay-at-home parents.

Posted by: jw at July 30, 2006 03:45 AM (YJ7GT)

15 To all the people crying about universal daycare, especially those from the government dependant ontario, maybe the feds should just give all females born in this country a uterine bonus. Because someone is born with a uterus they should be compensated for its use, as nobody is responsible for their own action. If you are not in a position to pay for childcare, you have 2 choices, don't have kids or put you children first( hmmm that is a novel idea!) and worry about a career after your kids are of an age that they can care for themselves.

Posted by: todd davis at July 30, 2006 07:12 AM (kSf59)

16 F**k the Constitution ! F**k the separation of powers ! Merge Sections 91 and 92 of the BNA Act. I want the Liberals back in power so they can resume taking over areas of Provincial jurisdiction.Central control of everything ! Heck, I even want the Feds to take over municipal issues. I can't stand it that we don't have bi-lingual garbage collectors here in Calgary.

Posted by: Calgary Junkie at July 30, 2006 09:29 AM (R0bf+)

17 Well, Has on daughter in Univ, and one graduating next year from HS, the wife never made more then 23k and myself 40 when the kids were growing up and we managed to raise our kids using friends and family for daycare that we couldnt even claim. Now under the great Lib plan, how many spots do you think would have been created in Middleton NS. twenty tops. The problem with the fictional Universal Childcare Plan of the Liberals is it never existed. It was a desperate plan to hold on to power. Hell, NB took its money and made a pre kindergarten program. but then again at least that benefitted everyone.

Posted by: Ken at July 30, 2006 10:04 AM (KWhJq)

18 Oh no! There aren't enough subsidized daycares in Canada? Did it ever occur to anyone that you don't need a subsized daycare to provide care for your children? My nephew (5yrs) is in the YMCA sports daycamp right now. It's technically not a daycare (I asked) so doesn't count against those valuable statistics. He spends the whole day with 40 other kids playing various sports. Incidentally, the various child care bonuses cover most of the cost. This is much better than the standard 9-5 daycare that the Liberals supported (and didn't provide).

Posted by: Luke at July 30, 2006 10:09 AM (+F/cn)

19 Anne, I would love to see more people living within their means, but that's another debate for another time. Here are some interesting statistics regarding the growing need for and use of child care services in Canada between 1994/95 and 2000/01. It suggests, among other things, that 57% of Canadians above the LICO (unofficial poverty line) use childcare (of all types, including private family and non-family arrangements), compared to 37% of those below. Another interesting finding: the use of childcare arrangements in rural communities stands at 50%, compared to 53% in urban communities. A third finding: while daycare centres account for about 20% of childcare arrangements in most provinces, in Quebec, which offers a government-subsidized $7/day childcare scheme, 41% of the family population use the service. I would argue that giving all parents of children under six a cheque for $100/month is equal but not necessarily fair, since the utility of an extra $100/month is in covering childcare expenses depends on whether the family in question is in a position to make private childcare arrangments or if they need to pay for daycare centre services, which is already in short supply and whose fees typically far exceed $100/month. Dramatically cutting taxes in itself would be great for everybody, but disproportionately benefits those (like myself) who pay relatively high taxes, while failing to help make childcare much more affordable to low-income families who already don't pay much in taxes yet continue to have difficulties in scraping by. The idea of a federally-funded childcare program isn't new, having been raised before in the 1970s (when economic realities started to alter the average number of income-earners per family) and in the 1980s (by PM Mulroney, no less). More recently, several OECD reports (background and country notes, available here: www.oecd *dot* org/document/3/0,2340,en_2649_34511_27000067_1_1_1_1,00.html) argued for significant increases in funding for regulated childcare services, which in Canada is far below the OECD average. There is, for instance, only enough daycare spaces for 15% of Canadian children 6 and under (by OECD estimates), compared to 40% in Portugal, 60% in UK, and 78% in Denmark. To improve this, the OECD proposes a 40:40:20 split on early childhood education and care (ECEC) costs between the Feds/Provinces/parents. A 1998 survey found Canadian parents paid about 49% of costs at the time. Under this OECD 40:40:20 scheme, $100/month wouldn't quite cut it. The OECD also praised Quebec's $7/day model as being "one of the most ambitious early education and care policies in North America" (p. 5), and suggested it be a model for a federal funding program. Such a program wouldn't merely "benefit 20% of the population at best while shutting out the other 80%." Quebec's program, for instance, is open to all families. In fact, to ensure that the service doesn't disproportionately benefit higher-income families, it may be worth considering the merits of a slide-scale fee structure based on household income. Like our current income-tax structure, it may not be equal, but it's more fair. Of course, Quebec's model has critics, such as the Action dÃƒÂ©mocratique du QuÃƒÂ©bec and the Conseil du patronat. They point to the huge waiting lists, and argue for an alternative program that, like PM Harper's, would put money directly into the hands of parents to spend on whatever childcare arrangement they prefer. However, unlike PM Harper's plan, the ADQ proposes an allowance of $30/day ($900/month), while the CDP proposed $5000/year (~$415/month). I'd also be willing to entertain this type of childcare plan, assuming the combined federal/provincial allowance actually covers a substantial portion (the OECD would like to see 80%) of ECEC costs. This would address JW's concerns that daycare centres don't do enough to help shiftworkers (generally true) and cannot provide tailored care for special-needs children (also generally true). As for his concern that some programs don't accept single-fathers, that is a local policy issue that simply needs to be changed and enforced. As for the benefit being "only...to unions which are decreasing in Canada," I'm pretty sure it would also be of benefit to parents and children.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 10:52 AM (Q+Bei)

20 Calgary Junkie: The central thrust of the "Liberal plan"--in spite of its flaws and limitations--proposes greater Federal funding of childcare service, with regulated programs to be administered by the Provinces. Ottawa might demand provincial accountability for those funds, but isn't that a good thing? Seems to me like the separation of powers is working as intended. Luke: What YMCA program are you referring to (no specifics, obviously, maybe just city-level)? Because the Toronto YMCA daycamp fees are still pretty high. For example, in Scarborough, a Toronto suburb with a significant (and growing) low-income population, it still costs $140/week for a 9-5 sports-themed daycamp. At about $560/month, the $100 monthly allowance covers only 18%. The downtown Winnepeg YMCA/YWCA operates a lovely daycamp for kids (5 years and up; no help for parents of kids 4 years and down) that costs $95/week ($380/month) for Y members (membership = $17/month), $125/week ($500/month) for non-Y members. Are there other gov't bonuses that help to alleviate these costs? Of course, summer day camps only operate in the summer months. The Guelph, Ontario (pop. 125,000), YMCA offers a year-round childcare service, with costs ranging from $31.50-$45/day (~$630-$900/month, assuming 20 working days). The downtown Winnipeg Y charges a more affordable, but still costly, $18.80/day ($376/month) for childcare. I'm not sure what fees look like in the rest of the country, but I don't imagine that $5/day ($25/week, $100/month) is sufficient in most cases to cover daycare-related expenses in any significant way.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 11:40 AM (Q+Bei)

21 Calgary Junkie: The central thrust of the "Liberal plan"--in spite of its flaws and limitations--proposes greater Federal funding of childcare service, with regulated programs to be administered by the Provinces. Ottawa might demand provincial accountability for those funds, but isn't that a good thing? Seems to me like the separation of powers is working as intended. Luke: What YMCA program are you referring to (no specifics, obviously, maybe just city-level)? Because the Toronto YMCA daycamp fees are still pretty high. For example, in Scarborough, a Toronto suburb with a significant (and growing) low-income population, it still costs $140/week for a 9-5 sports-themed daycamp. At about $560/month, the $100 monthly allowance covers only 18%. The downtown Winnepeg YMCA/YWCA operates a lovely daycamp for kids (5 years and up; no help for parents of kids 4 years and down) that costs $95/week ($380/month) for Y members (membership = $17/month), $125/week ($500/month) for non-Y members. Are there other gov't bonuses that help to alleviate these costs? Of course, summer day camps only operate in the summer months. The Guelph, Ontario (pop. 125,000), YMCA offers a year-round childcare service, with costs ranging from $31.50-$45/day (~$630-$900/month, assuming 20 working days). The downtown Winnipeg Y charges a more affordable, but still costly, $18.80/day ($376/month) for childcare. I'm not sure what fees look like in the rest of the country, but I don't imagine that $5/day ($25/week, $100/month) is sufficient in most cases to cover daycare-related expenses in any significant way.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 11:43 AM (Q+Bei)

22 No where do the Conservatives say that the $100 per month covers child care in any form. The thrust was that it was intended to give all families, regardless of choices or region, some help with costs relating to children. My two kids have both just reached their 20's, child care costs to me are not that far in the past nor was it cheap. Had there been national daycare then it would not have done a damn thing for me due to hours and location, only my taxes would have increased to cover other parents' child care. I would have been thrilled to receive the $100 per month per child, I know plenty who are in my area. My original question remains unanswered: why is it my responsibility to raise the children you choose to have? As hard as it was at times I didn't expect someone else to pay for my kids, I just worked harder and saved more. I am already happy that they received free primary and secondary education. When the day comes that we should get diaper to Masters coverage why not just hand the kids over to the government? Why not let them just clone little people and dispense with all the nonsense of people even being parents at all? After all, it's just too much work, money and bother, let the government take care of us all.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 03:37 PM (8StLM)

23 I don't know about other provinces but is Alberta day cares are a provincial responsibilty. As for the poor not getting day care, my wife workked in on for a number of years and low income parents, mostly single mothers had their child heavly subadised, they paid about $85.00 per child while the more afluent people were paying up to $400 per child. That was about 5 years ago but I'm sure the ratios are still in place

Posted by: Barrie at July 30, 2006 04:22 PM (rp6r3)

24 Barrie: The same is true in other provinces as well. Apparently, Alberta has a mix of non-profit daycare centres (few spaces, long waiting lists) and for-profit daycare centres (expensive, possibly poorer quality of care). (I'm not sure what Vue Weekly is, so I would suggest ignoring the obvious political slants and focusing on the content of the article.) Do you know (i) whether low-income parents are generally able to find affordable childcare spaces, or if they face particularly long wait lists (since your wife worked in a care centre, she would only have observed those low-income parents who were able to find spaces, not those who were unable to find affordable care); and (ii) if subsidization is still available for low-income parents who wish to enrol their children in a for-profit centre (because of shorter wait lists)?

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 05:00 PM (Q+Bei)

25 Ann: the Conservative Party platform states that the $100 monthly benefit is intended specifically for child care expenses: Choice in child care. We will give all parents $100 per month per child under age 6 to spend on child care needs as they choose Â– whether that means formal day care, a babysitter, neighbourhood child care, or helping one parent stay at home. You are correct if you mean that the Conservatives did not intend the allowance to cover all childcare expenses. Nobody is undermining your right to raise your family as you choose. The debate is whether or not the federal government should provide the long-term funding to create a nation-wide system of non-profit daycare centres for families who want and need them. I too think that families should have choice in childcare. But since we already have a series of tax exemptions/deductions/benefits, etc. in place (Childcare Expenses Deduction, National Child Benefit Supplement, federal Child Tax Benefits, etc.), maybe the next major investment our government makes in childcare should be in improving daycare infrastructure and services across the country. I'd also like to go on record as saying that, despite being solidly left-of-centre, I do not support the state-sponsored cloning of children.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 05:18 PM (Q+Bei)

26 A, your last sentence made me laugh, I'm still chuckling! Good for you to draw the line somewhere, I'm impressed! Well, I am opposed, I made that clear. The government working towards tax reduction thus lightening the burden on the average family is the way that I prefer. This may help keep one parent at home, at least part-time, or make daycare more affordable with freed up money. I am not opposed to government allowing income splitting and other family friendly ideas. I cannot bear the idea of government (any party) getting involved in another program to administrate, it would end up another cash cow that does little for the taxpayers. Seriously, the government is not known for effeciency on any level, give the money and freedom to the parents where it belongs.

Posted by: Anne (happier in Ontario) at July 30, 2006 06:43 PM (8StLM)

27 Seriously, the government is not known for effeciency on any level... Fair enough, Anne. Given my experience of the last, oh, quarter-century or so of politics in Canada, it's hard to disagree with that statement.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 08:33 PM (YK2nB)

28 Well said Anne. The last word was the best word.

Posted by: Cheri at July 31, 2006 12:06 AM (RusDc)

29 I'm a stay at home mom. Ran a home-based daycare for 7 years for a little extra income, playmates for my kids and adult contact for me since my husband is on the road a lot. I ran it as a business and gave receipts. I specialized in part-time care since I believe a parent should be at home with their kids and by providing flexible part-time care, parents could manage to spend more time with their kids. I worked for nurses (who needed childcare at 6 a.m. so they could make it to the hospital for their 7 a.m. shift) and real estate agents who needed afternoon and evening child care. I was there to take sick kids home from school and put them to bed at our house until a parent could come. I loved my work and felt I was making a difference to families. But it urked me that my dh could not pay me for my services as far as my kids were concerned. If I worked outside the home, we could have claimed a deduction, but because I worked at home, we could not. The government expected me to take care of my kids for free, even while giving deductions to other parents who paid me for my work. It would have been a wash as far as taxes went (I'd make more money but have a tax deduction) but it would have increased my CPP contributions over the years. And it would have formally recognized my work as having value. As well, in the summer, if I put my kids in daycamp, I paid with after tax dollars. Parents that worked outside the home, got to deduct the fees as a daycare expense. That wasn't fair, nor equal. Now that an equal plan is brought in, those who had the advantage before are complaining. Tough. I don't benefit from the new plan (the kids are 17 & 21 now) but it offers more choices to everyone. And that pleases me.

Posted by: at July 31, 2006 09:43 AM (hGm+U)

30 Totally agree with Anne. The Conservative government's one hundred dollars per month for every child under 6 years is an extra allowance for parents to decide where it is needed. Institutionalized day care does not appeal to nor is it widely available to a great many people. Many feel, if at all possible, the ideal for young children is to be cared for by a parent or extended family member. We can look to China for an example of state run daycare.

Posted by: LizJ at July 31, 2006 09:47 AM (/p5Vo)

31 Lets all praise the Quebec daycare system that leaves kids to sleep out in the cold, sounds like quality care to me. (Two separate stories this past winter) I'm now receiving $200 a month, soon to receive $400 a month (wife due with Twins), and we'll pay $70 a day for daycare for all four children. Will it completely cover all my costs? No. Is it better than a kick in the junk? Yes. What worries me about the NDP plan, is that they wanted to legislate that daycare can only be provided by state run centers, and the home-based daycare businesses, which I presently use, would be discontinued. The Liberal Plan was gray on this too, but I doubt they would've stopped other forms of daycare to push their institutional daycare. The worst thing about institutional daycare, if I was forced to use it (either because the cost savings made it insane to choose otherwise, kinda like shopping at Walmart, or if I was actually forced to use it legally) is that I have no control over what they teach my kids.

Posted by: Lore_Weaver at July 31, 2006 03:47 PM (b0Efr)

32 Personally I think the only families that should get subsidized child care are single parent families.. everyone else... the money would be better spent on affordable housing and other expenses allowing families to survive on 1 income.

Posted by: Sierra at August 02, 2006 01:51 PM (tyb+B)

33 As a mom in a single-income family while my stay-at-home kids enjoyed my full-time care and support for the first few years of their lives (one daughter has just graduated from university and the other one is going into second year in the fall), I am gratified to see that the CPC is recognizing the contribitions of all parents to the care and nurture of their children, not just those who work outside the home. I just wish the $100/month/child had been in place when my children were small, as my husband is in a "helping profession," and we lived, therefore, on a very modest income. When I cared for my children in our home, and neighbours' children on snow days, and was "Mrs. Volunteer" in my neighbourhood and in my children's schools, the only type of child care that got government approval and therefore grants was publicly funded daycare, which were, obviously, of no use to me or my family. Not only that, I got the cold shoulder from more "enlightened" (sic) females, aka radical feminists, who thought that I was letting the side down. How dare I care for my own children? Why wasn't I forging an independent path with a career of my own? But that's a whole other story... To those who diss the "small" amount each month, it must be that you are living very comfortably on your family income. To my family, the equivalent of $200 a month, that's $2400 a year, would have been absolutely wonderful: money for snowboots, snowsuits, milk, maybe skates, etc. As it was, we lived VERY frugally and my children wore hand-me-downs and didn't go to summer camp. Big deal--but it would have been gratifying to have had it acknowledged that caring for your own kids has some merit. I maintain that it makes a huge difference in how your kids relate to the world, and I know some teachers who say that they can tell within the first week of school which kids have been in daycare and which have been cared for at home. (I've always maintained that I had a very high incentive in having polite children [please, thank you, sorry, let's share] seeing as I was with them 24/7.) This recognition by PMSH and the CPC that it is preferable for each family to make decisions about how government money is spent on children rather than government making these decisions for families, is a step in the right direction towards families taking responsibility for the care and nurture of their children. Bien fait, PMSH!

Posted by: new kid on the block at August 02, 2006 04:35 PM (oe0J0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Caledonia from another point of view

While I've been focusing on OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface, Kate at small dead animals has a lively discussion on whether Justice David Marshall, the judge whose court orders and injunctions have been so airily ignored, has done all he could to call the OPP and others to account.

The discussion veers off at the end to other news, but it's worth taking the time to read.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:49 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 78 words, total size 1 kb.

Yasmin Ashareh: Not an honour killing, but police aren't saying much else

Toronto Police have made an arrest in the case of the murder of Yasmin Ashareh. They are providing no information, except to state quite adamantly that this was not an honour killing. It is interesting to see how that is playing in the press.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 11:58 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

1 We know absolutely, positively nothing about this except we absolutely, positively know it had nothing to do with Islam. Sincerely, Toronto Police

Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2006 12:43 PM (+OEIf)

2 Methinks thou doth protest too much, Officer.....

Posted by: TBinSTL at July 29, 2006 05:05 PM (bYmT0)

3 Steve, though I'm sure you don't need reminding, here are two excerpts from what you wrote back on July 16: So we have a Westernized woman, born of a clannish Muslim family, unmarried and living on her own instead of under the protection of her male relatives. Already flags go up. She is probably dating, perhaps even kissing, strange non-Muslim men. Maybe drinking alcohol. Allah knows what else. The shame might be more than members of her family born and raised in Somalia could bear, especially if clan relatives in Somalia had gotten news of the situation. This is speculation of course. Perhaps there is a good reason why the family did not note her disappearance for several days (a missed garbage pickup meant that the garbage bags were left out for several days before the body was discovered). My gut tells me this was no mugging gone bad. What if we do have an honour killing here? Clearly no one can says this is what happened, but then everyone is studiously avoiding looking at the dots that could be connected. Take that dangerous step with me and ask, "What if...?" Then all the trouble that has beset Europe in the last dozen years might very well be on the horizon here. [...] If this story plays out as my instincts tell me it will (and I will try to follow it as best I can and let you know, one way or the other), then Toronto in particular and Canada as a whole will have to ask some harsh questions about just how well "Canadian values", so often talked about by the Liberal Party, have been taught to the immigrants who have been waved through our borders over the years. If those values fall away at the first hint of the Canadian lifestyle that goes along with those values (individual freedom, personal responsibility, gender equality, etc), then we might have a serious problem on our hands as the first generation born of those immigrants start coming of age. What problems? Extremism fueled by a harsh effort to retain traditional values and customs, resulting in violence and even death. Sometimes violence and death restricted to the community in question. Sometimes spilling out into the community at large. Now it appears that your speculations were off-base, fueled more by your own preconceptions about Muslim culture than by the facts of the case (of which few were even publicly available). Ms. Ashareh died in the most tragic and gruesome fashion, but it appears that her death was motivated neither by her Somali nor her (alleged) Muslim background. At this point, you could have taken the high-road (and earned my respect in the process) by offering a humble retraction of your earlier inflammatory comments. You did not, instead brushing them with this flippant remark: Looks like my spidey-sense was wrong. A young woman is murdered, and because you believed her to be Muslim, you presumed immediately that it was an "honour killing." And because you believed it to be an honour killing, you then presumed that it indicated the presence of an immigrant (read: Muslim) subculture that may soon rise up to threaten our "Canadian lifestyle." Do you regard your blog as serving to sound alarm bells for the good of the nation, that what you do here helps to uphold "Canadian values"? Do you not realize that when you speculate so recklessly about other people and their cultures, you also insult them viciously? That you commit a very real form of violence against their name? That when you, at the slightest of provocations, so casually apply your negative stereotypes onto entire communities, what you are in effect saying to these communities is, "I do not desire to know you, I do not welcome you here"? I do not believe you to be the sole, or even remotely primary, cause of Islamic fundamentalism in Canada--its reality is far too complex for simplistic blame-games--but I urge you, in a quiet moment, to consider the possibility that your prejudicial and disdainful attitude towards Muslim Canadians accomplishes little except to push alienated moderates towards the extremes. You may try to hide behind disingenuous excuses and qualifiers like "Well, I did say I was being speculative" or "I hope IÂ’m wrong, because..." but know that behind these lame cop-outs, your intentions are readily transparent to the Muslim communities you slander. You wish to uncover how home-grown religious extremism is made to grow? Take a good hard look in the mirror, Steve.

Posted by: A at July 29, 2006 07:22 PM (Q+Bei)

4 Yasmin Asharah's father is a Somali MP who is busy in ignating clannish hatred within the virtually fragile government established in Kenya in 2004. Her mother was married under a hidden marital contract known as "Qodbo Siro" (Secret cucumbine), it is a sort of licence for prostitution. Women who are married under the qodbo siro have no legal rights from the man or from the clan. She is paid food and sometimes shelter in order to be sexually exploited by the man. Probably the young Yasmin wanted a "marriage contract" from the man who impregnated her. It seems that she was "pregnant" by the time of her murder. Who is the man? Is William Imona-Russel 32 of Toronto the killer and at the same time the man who impregnated her? My heart goes out for the young woman who desired marriage and family.

Posted by: Somali at July 30, 2006 07:33 AM (prKlE)

5 Yasmin Asharah's [sic] father is a Somali MP who is busy in ignating [sic] clannish hatred within the virtually fragile government established in Kenya in 2004. Her mother was married under a hidden marital contract known as "Qodbo Siro" (Secret cucumbine) [sic], it is a sort of licence for prostitution. That's some spectacular investigative reporting on your part, "Somali." I myself can find absolutely no evidence for these claims, in the new wires, press releases, or any other public record. I trust you'll be able to produce supportive documentation for your accusations? But even if we were to take your statement at face value--which would require quite a leap of faith--what does it prove? That Ms. Asharah's father is a bad politician and something of a jerk? That her mother is a victim of a culturally-specific and, to our Western eyes, gender-oppressive domestic practise? Certainly, it says nothing about the wider Somali community in Toronto.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 01:54 PM (Q+Bei)

6 Which MP? Which of the four parties? Was he one of the MPs who resigned from the Transitional National Parliament in July? Perhaps you can get in touch with me by email...

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 30, 2006 01:54 PM (DMSzk)

7 Hi Steve, Mr Asharah holds a canadian citizenship and is a MP in the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) currently based in a rural town of Baidoa. You can find his name in this list (he is N. 93) Awad Ahmed Ashara) http://www.somali-civilsociety.org/downloads/Names%20of%20the%20selected%20Members%20of%20Parliament.pdf Here you can glimse his photo http://www.laasqoray.net/images/awad.jpg The point that I was making earlier is that men like MP Asharah put their life's priority in "violence and clannish hatred" rather than the welfare of their children. It is unfortunate also that women in this society are treated sub-human.

Posted by: Somali at July 30, 2006 03:42 PM (prKlE)

8 I've already encountered MP Ashareh/ah/o in my research, but I can find no link to Yasmin or her family, other than a shared name, which doesn't mean all that much. I'll keep looking though.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 30, 2006 03:48 PM (DMSzk)

9 The family is still in denial and will not come forward because of: -Yasmin was unwed and pregnant at the time of her death. - The allegedly murdered Mr. Imona-Russel is a Nigerian (a bantu), christian and has a criminal history. - Yasmin lived alone without the protection of her family/clan.

Posted by: at July 30, 2006 04:29 PM (prKlE)

10 "We know absolutely, positively nothing about this except we absolutely, positively know it had nothing to do with Islam. Sincerely, Toronto Police" LOL Although, one can't really laugh too loudly, considering Toronto Chief Cop Bill Blair's idiotic admission (made while nearly busting with pride, might I add) after the arrest of 17 terror- oops, pardon me - alleged terrorists in Brampton: "I would remind you that there was not one single reference made by law enforcement to Muslims or the Muslim community" How are such individuals charged with the highest level of police authority able to successfully protect the public when they wear such impenetrable multi-culti binders? Can anybody honestly feel safe from terrorist acts when this sort of PC insanity is not an exception to the rule, but in actuality, the de facto rule itself? mhb23re (email is above u/name at google webmail service)

Posted by: mhb at July 30, 2006 11:09 PM (2/Us5)

11 ... and, of course, it goes without saying that one cannot laugh at the circumstances of this terrible murder, either. mhb

Posted by: mhb at July 31, 2006 07:37 AM (2/Us5)

12 mhb: Did it ever occur to you that Mr. Blair wouldn't have to make such painfully worded PC statements to appease the local Muslim community if people like you didn't insist, at every opportunity, on lumping together a tiny fraction of extremists with the huge number of moderate Muslim Canadians who have nothing to do with hate and terrorism? Every world leader in the Western world, from PM Harper to Mr. Bush to Mr. Tony Blair to Mr. Olmert, has taken great pains to emphasize in the press that the present 'War on Terror' is being waged against terrorists and not against the Muslim world. I think the question you need to ask yourself is, "Can anybody honestly feel safe from terrorist acts when people like me continue to create the very environment where home-grown terror is allowed to flourish, by stereotyping the entire Muslim community and pushing its marginalized members ever closer to the fundamentalist extremes?"

Posted by: A at July 31, 2006 09:29 AM (Oee6D)

Posted by: Tackleho at July 31, 2006 03:36 PM (wACYH)

14 Tackleho, get in touch with me by email, if you don't mind.

Posted by: Steve Janke at August 01, 2006 02:15 PM (pFrk8)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gwen Boniface has already left the country

As many of you now know, OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface has stepped down from her position in order to become a member of the Garda Inspectorate in Ireland, a group that oversees the national police force. Most people believe she quit or was pressured to resign over her poor performance during the Caledonia land dispute.

Curiously, she seems to have already started her new job well ahead of schedule.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 06:08 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 980 words, total size 7 kb.

1 Jay Hope - you have to be kidding - another minority (political correct)appointment so that the Government can brag that they now have appointed the first Black to the position of Commissioner. Someone should look into this guys background before it's too late. This guy should never have reached the position he holds now.

Posted by: alonzo shannon at July 29, 2006 08:36 AM (E0G58)

2 Face it folks, this is the result of a decade plus of Liberal social engineering. Look at the new prerequisites for Governor-General, you have to be... 1. Female 2. Foreign born 3. Visible minority 4. An ex-employee of the CBC

Posted by: neo at July 29, 2006 10:52 AM (cQJe4)

3 Gwen has left the country already? Gadzooks, this wasn't suppose to be till October. As we say out here in hicksville Alberta - Don't let the door hit yer butt on the way out... Then a minority posted in her place. Nothing wrong with that, and dont' get me wrong, wish him the best, but it is just the timing. This political correct environment got us into the mess at Caledonia and et al. Hope the new cop has a thick hide and cleans house. Ironically come to think of it, he might just be the right guy to do this because no one will wail and cry against him because, well, you know, that is not politically correct to politically correct a politically correct member of the minority. Wow, where do I sign up for the movie rights to this gong show?

Posted by: tomax7 at July 29, 2006 10:54 AM (jHhd0)

4 Jeez just a little racist around here?

Posted by: Aaron at July 29, 2006 11:42 AM (cDyCv)

5 Maybe she is hooking up with Ken Hill on European getaway. hahahaha

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 29, 2006 11:46 AM (Xiqvi)

6 Aaron.....you're on to us, buddy! You've discovered our little cabal of evil racist scum; our true nature concealed only by a thin veneer of politeness. We fool most people, but not you - you're just too smart. It must be such a burden to be so enlightened and morally superior. Where do you find the strength?

Posted by: Liebermann at July 29, 2006 11:58 AM (nESrU)

7 So while she's working for the Irish and being paid by the Irish, is she also being paid by you Canadians? Somebody's getting cheated. Okay, maybe everybody.

Posted by: Jay at July 29, 2006 12:47 PM (+OEIf)

8 "Did the Irish government seek her out?" Maybe they did, given her performance in Caledonia. That and her loyal officers. The ones who stood by and refused to do anything? Sounds like they got the right person to cover up, I mean investigate, their own senior officers whom she is being tasked with reporting on. And how long is her appointment supposed to last? I get the sense the former Commissioner is supposed to read the report and make reccommmendations, the end. She could be done by October. Then what? As far as being on our dime, she is probably using up banked time. But I am curious as to the length of her appointment and the timing of her resignation.

Posted by: Cheri at July 29, 2006 01:51 PM (RusDc)

9 Jay - Hey, you're right! She's double-dipping!

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 29, 2006 03:29 PM (WbyLl)

10 Nice leg work Steve, Dalton McGuinty is running out of feet to shoot, soon he will be shooting inward, now that the wagons have circled. The Justice Ministry must think the main stream media are brain-dead trying to float this ridiculous, politically correct Petard. Forget Jay-low, the guys a poster boy for the wanna' be Cultural Elites Club, an OPP 'token house boy', excuse the crude metaphor, perhaps lap-dog for the tainted status quo would be a more apt description. I wouldn't want to be labeled a 'racist' or 'intolerant', but only of incompetence. As you know, race has absolutely nothing to do with it. Lord knows, there more than enough of that to go around Steve. These guys are the Kings of double-speak, all weasel words and vapid rhetoric. Worse than the Keystone Cops, leadership wise. A grave disservice has been perpetrated on the rank and file members, they deserve much better for not outing their leadership for the useless entity they are. Tits on a Bull my be more useful than the command structure Gwen left behind, ousted like a bad disease for her rank incompetence. The Â‘Indian RevolutionÂ’ has begun in earnest, thanks to the Den Mothers steady, peaceful hand, except for a few 'Young Turks' with attitude and it's a fragile one at that. Stools for milking this kind of 'political' work have three legs, donÂ’t they? My FarminÂ’ Uncle Pete told me there was a reason for that, it escapes, for now. And Julian Fantino will get the nod as interim Commissioner to specifically unleash the 'Dogs of War' inward, take the heat and fall-out for the ruined careers, then step aside for the 'new' guy, whomever they find foolish enough to apply for this career limiting dead-end job of the century, as it will be painful reforms for the OPP from here on in, you can take that to the bank. Pretty soon the firing squadÂ’s 'gun barrels' will be smokinÂ’, theyÂ’ll be glowinÂ’ read hot well into a fortnight, thatÂ’s a fact. FantinoÂ’s gonnaÂ’ Â‘clean houseÂ’, now that the source of that Â‘smellÂ’ (Liberal taint) has left the room, open a window, quick!

Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at July 29, 2006 09:04 PM (uStux)

11 Aaron says "Jeez just a little racist around here? " Me thinks you're pulling your punches there in trying to not even offend the 'racists' with that powder-puff statement. If you mean what you say, feel free to say it without the sound of a political-correct tonal quality admonishment to it. (Incidentally, try leaving that statement with http://www.amren.com/ to experience more flak than you'd receive here) Unless you're colour-blind by convenience, most honest people call it like they see it...it's a Black & White issue...and a person's race accounts for 100% of employment-equity (reverse racism) standards, if you hadn't noticed. You might ask qualified White Canadian applicants to the R.C.M.P. about that one. Jay Hope, a Black man, has been touted as the next token O.P.P. commissioner who will stand as an example of our 'progressive tolerances' for minorities. His rapid promotions through the O.P.P. ranks has not been accidental....the politicos need a Black 'poster boy' and he has been tapped on the shoulder as was the incompetent political-appointed Gwen Boniface, the first female O.P.P. 'poster-girl' commissioner. Qualified White men need not apply in today's political-correct climate and promotions based on merit alone are non-existent.

Posted by: Victor at July 30, 2006 10:35 AM (O/dTp)

12 To the posters claiming that Gwen Boniface was unqualified for the top O.P.P. job, that she took the job away from a more deserving White Man, and that she was appointed only because of politically correct tokenism: do you also believe that the Irish Garda Inspectorate, after an exhaustive international job search, decided that yes, indeed, though this Boniface woman is clearly unqualified to oversee the operations of a major police force, we should hire her anyway, because what the Government of Ireland really needs now is a politically correct token hire to appease their local Canadian Aboriginal women's lobby.

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 10:35 PM (YK2nB)

13 To the posters claiming that Gwen Boniface was unqualified for the top O.P.P. job, that she took the job away from a more deserving White Man, and that she was appointed only because of politically correct tokenism: do you also believe that the Irish Garda Inspectorate, after an exhaustive international job search, decided that yes, indeed, though this Boniface woman is clearly unqualified to oversee the operations of a major police force, we should hire her anyway, because what the Government of Ireland really needs now is a politically correct token hire to appease their local Canadian Aboriginal women's lobby?

Posted by: A at July 30, 2006 10:36 PM (YK2nB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 28, 2006

Yasmin Ashareh: An arrest

An arrest has been made in this gruesome murder:

On Friday, July 28, 2006, William Imona-Russel, 32, of Toronto, was arrested and charged with First Degree Murder.

He is scheduled to appear at Old City Hall courts, room 111, on Saturday, July 29, 2006, at 10 a.m.

We'll learn more tomorrow.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:39 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Hope for the OPP?

The official word on finding a replacement for OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface is that a search will begin:

An extensive, Canada-wide search will begin shortly to fill the position.

Boniface has been feeling the heat over the handling of the Caledonia land dispute. Now a new hand will be at the wheel.

Strangely, though, I have heard that this "search" is for the benefit of the media, and for proles like you and me.

The frontrunner is Jay Hope, the deputy commissioner of the OPP.

Is he the best hope for the OPP? Or a false hope?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:19 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1289 words, total size 9 kb.

1 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/07/28/1708019-cp.html Thought I might link to this news item. If it is not allowed, please just delete and accept my apologies. I was quite upset when I read the line that aboriginals don't recognize Canadian law and that more violence around the country may result. Could these be the words of criminals or traitors? Is this the literal understanding that we must now draw from these comments from a "spokesperson" for the natives? Is this land worth blood then? And how can one have an agreement enforced with groups that don't recognize their legal obligations? ---Janie Jamieson, spokesperson for the aboriginals occupying the subdivision, said Boniface understood the dynamics of the dispute and didn't enforce the law blindly by forcibly evicting protesters who remain at the site. "It's a shame," Jamieson said. "She seemed really dedicated to having patience and letting the land issue be resolved. Hopefully the next person will have the same peaceful resolve she had." A new commissioner who fails to understand that aboriginals don't recognize Canadian law could be risking rebellion across the country from those who support the occupation, Jamieson added. "That's all it would take," she said. ---

Posted by: mike s at July 28, 2006 06:05 PM (WgxhF)

2 ...wonder if the new commissioner will be forced to wear a tutu...

Posted by: tomax7 at July 28, 2006 06:55 PM (jHhd0)

3 "An afterthought: Gwen Boniface is an aboriginal Canadian woman" where do you get this shit?

Posted by: at July 29, 2006 11:53 AM (INU3C)

4 No way Jose, Jay won't get the job, Fantino will, it's already a done deal, ask Michael Bryant, he's been involved since the get go, why else would the OPP shoot themselves in the foot?

Posted by: Mark-Alan Whittle at July 29, 2006 06:18 PM (uStux)

5 Are Canadians not up to their 'eyeballs' with enough political correct minority-hires already? The last high profile position (govenor-general of Canada) was doled out to Black woman who was replacing another visible-minority woman (Adrienne Clarkson). Now the fix could be in for a Black O.P.P. commisioner in the name of Jay Hope who would be replacing an out-going woman police commissioner. Why are all the qualified white men being relegated to the back of the bus in these plum assignments to make room for a minority? Last time I checked with Stats Canada census, Canadian Whites represented about 86% of our entire population with white males accounting for approx. half that percentile. In contrast, male and female Blacks represented about 2% of Canada's population with one-half of those being foreign-born. So what are the numerical odds of having both, a Black G-G and possibly a Black O.P.P. commissioner? To demonstrate our 'un-racism' through employment-equity standards by gratuitously placing people in influential government posts because of their skin colour is sending the wrong message here. How many more-qualified White candidates will have to forego an important promotion to satisfy the gods of political correctness? There is little doubt that Jay Hope is to be displayed on the political stage as their next poster boy in Canada's enforced 'multi-culturalism' experiment.

Posted by: Victor at July 29, 2006 10:05 PM (O/dTp)

6 Jay is a great person and a good friend of my dad, i want to become just like him.

Posted by: Unknown at July 29, 2006 10:41 PM (Z6edX)

7 ...in PC non-speak, I remember a time when quite a few of the bus drivers in Calgary were, um, turbanites. Come to find the HR department had a few 'dot in the forehead' female types, but that's not reverse discrimination right? And I wasn't being discriminated against when I tried joining the RCMP and couldn't because as the recruiting sargeant said - sorry, word is Ottawa isn't hiring WASP's... ..and that ain't speaking about a bee for all the PC types. But I wish Mr. Hope the best and hopes he does a lot of house cleaning to restore the pride and fellowship of the OPP. Akin Sidney P. in "To Sir with Love"?

Posted by: tomax7 at July 30, 2006 03:43 PM (jHhd0)

8 I come from a family of four generations in Canada, specifically Ontario. Therefore, the search for the next OPP commissioner has my attention. I canÂ’t recall a commissioner race which has started this way. Gee, I wonder why?! At first glance the posting Â“New Hope for the OPPÂ” seemed like a well written examination. However, upon closer inspection there are holes the size of the British Isles! Hope canÂ’t control what the media and others, including you focus on. Like the quotes you have decided to include in your posting to emphasize your point that Hope only seems to know diversity. I remember hearing about him all the time for years for some pretty darn good traffic programs in the GTA which protected not just blacks but us good white folks too. Perhaps, Hope was chosen specifically to speak on topics of racial profiling and public services representing demographic realities. In regards to Hope having a victim culture where he referenced it was the failure of leadership to coach and mentor black officers, does seem provocative. However, the transcript of that speech betrays your sophomoric manipulations. In fact, Hope went on to list a number of insights most of which point to the individualÂ’s responsibilities for promotion. Although at first your comments about HopeÂ’s attempts to make police culture more black did illicit the intended anger but your supporting quote did not support your argument. Hope called for police services to include racial tolerance testing to weed out racists in the hiring and promotion process. To follow your logic that this process will only allow blacks to pass is to say that all white people are racists! If that is the truth you are spewing, then racial profiling, preferential hiring/ promotions of whites etc is, therefore, real and practiced. And so, then is your true fear of exposure? Next is the matter of QueenÂ’s Park. I remember the file clerks who you speak of: the strikers as not so docile as your revisionist retell might suggest. I remember among other things, aggressive angry strikers spitting on QP employees and MPPs as they tried to go to work. Further, the result of the inquiry pointed fault with the communication capabilities of the old building. Never did the findings indicate that Jay Hope ordered his officers to do anything like whack protestors or worse. I recall the judge saying that the original sin was with the protestors not the police. More of your revisionist history refuted. In addition, please consider another view; like the OPP always wanted out of QP and welcomed the recommendations. But that doesnÂ’t support your skewed point of view either I suppose. Finally, the Commissioner of the OPP is not aboriginal. She is a white female, daughter of a white male, wife of a white male and mother of a white male. You seem to worry about policing in Ontario but as with most Canadian institutions white males are pretty safe and the overwhelming majority. In fact, of the 60 police departments 58 are run by white males and none are run by blacks! SO WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT!! RELAX BUDDY WITH A LITTLE MORE EFFORT YOUÂ’LL EITHER PASS THOSE POLICE EXAMS AND GET HIRED AND GO ON TO RUN THE JOINT SOON ENOUGH OR PASS YOUR PROMOTIONAL EXAMS AND GO ON UP THE LADDER. Signed, Fed-up in the not-so-great white north!

Posted by: S. Jones at July 30, 2006 09:17 PM (Ffvoi)

9 The reference to your "family of four generations in Canada" appeared to be incongruent to the topic unless you omitted 'Black' in your opening line. Could there also have been some 'Hope' lacking as well, despite a throw-them-off-the-scent reference to "us good white folks too"? You cited some reasoned debating points that could bear closer scrutiny but I found your hackneyed comment of ".......police services to include racial tolerance testing to weed out racists in the hiring and promotion process" as a feeble attempt of guilt-mongering. Racism has become such a diluted word that it could even apply to a disagreeable 'look' at someone of a different race. However, if we're really honest with ourselves, we're all 'racists'.... meaning that we're more comfortable mingling with members of our own tribe without the p.c. multi-culti hounddogs sniffing out for state-sponsored infractions. Then you destroyed a good post by 'shouting' [higher-case] your rant in an atypical style from your previous paragraphs.... Puzzling!

Posted by: Victor at July 31, 2006 10:57 AM (O/dTp)

10 It is interesting that individuals choose to focus on JayÂ’s actions at the Legislature with the individual OPSEU protesters who breached security, were responded to and received injuries. Fast forward a couple of years and when the protesting poor & homeless breach security at the Legislature and are injured/arrested, no one is concerned about the colour of the officer who was in charge at that time, why? The sophisticated articulated racism by individuals that speak of Â“reverse racismÂ”, Â“employment equityÂ”, Â“special interest groupsÂ” and Â“political correctnessÂ” disgust me. It was fine when Â“BlackÂ” Jay Hope risked his life for the people of Ontario as an undercover officer investigating drug dealers, but now its not ok for the same very qualified and well rounded (in policing) Â“BlackÂ” Jay Hope to be a leader in the OPP? Some things donÂ’t change.

Posted by: R. David Mitchell at July 31, 2006 11:06 AM (nOgeH)

11 R. David Mitchell says "The sophisticated articulated racism by individuals that speak of Â“reverse racismÂ”, Â“employment equityÂ”, Â“special interest groupsÂ” and Â“political correctnessÂ” disgust me." You're free to wallow in your 'disgust', as that is your right, but censuring 'individuals' for speaking freely of Â“reverse racismÂ”, Â“employment equityÂ”, Â“special interest groupsÂ” and Â“political correctnessÂ” is quite unreasonable. It appears you are trying to impose sanctions on anyone who has the moxie to think, speak or write too frankly about race. It's been stated before that the modern definition of 'racist' is somebody who is winning an argument against a liberal. So, further to your rhetoric of "t was fine when Â“BlackÂ” Jay Hope risked his life for the people of Ontario as an undercover officer investigating drug dealers, but now its not ok for the same very qualified and well rounded (in policing) Â“BlackÂ” Jay Hope to be a leader in the OPP?" The cynic within me has grave doubts that any uniformed or undercover policeman is altruistically inclined to risk his life for any province or city. Being a policeman is a job/career and a paycheck that comes with a certain ego-related prestige as a bonus reward. So your "isking his life" statement is employing more hyperbole than is necessary. As you have 'outed' yourself as a 'Jay fan', I can almost assure you that he'll be the next O.P.P. commissioner not because he's the most qualified, but because of his racial minority status. Boniface was the first woman commissioner and now it's a Black man's turn at the wheel......that's how (dare I say it) the political-correct standards of the day works.

Posted by: Victor at July 31, 2006 10:46 PM (O/dTp)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Minor tweaking

Continuing to do some spring cleaning. Sometimes I just enjoy moving stuff around.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 02:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

Head of the OPP shuffled out the door

With all the criticism leveled at the Ontario Provincial Police over their handling of the Caledonia land dispute, it is hard to interpret the news of OPP Commissioner Gwen Boniface taking on a new job overseas as anything but a poorly disguised firing.

Is the Ontario government dumping an embarrassing problem on Ireland?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:06 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 602 words, total size 5 kb.

1 ...one can wonder, but at the same time, leaving in October is more or less a saving face for everyone in the upper OPP crust and Ontario Liberals. Colour me chauvinist, but two female police chief's doing a review of Ireland's policing practices? What I think St. Boniface is lacking it real world perspectives, as seen with Caledonia. What works on paper and in elite' thought patterns, doesn't always work in the real world.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 28, 2006 10:56 AM (jHhd0)

2 Intesting Steve, in the Irish newspaper article dated 27 July at bottom says: "...and former Ontario police commissioner Gwen Boniface." As in either this was a prophesy, or slip of the tongue... IN other interesting news, guess who's speaking at the Feminist Majority Foundation... http://www.feminist.org/other/ncwp.asp

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 11:10 AM (jHhd0)

3 Not to hog the postings, but here's another intersting development... Ottawa's Police Chief Vince Bevan Steps Down - a man with good morals announces his retirement on the same day his police force is announced to be investigating the OPP affair in Caledonia (comment from Officially Screwed blog). http://cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=1&nid=41172

Posted by: tomax7 at July 28, 2006 11:23 AM (jHhd0)

4 Tomax7, I think Bevan's resignation has more to do with him shooting off his mouth at a press conference following the arrest of Jennifer Teague's murderer. Bevan went on and on about the suspect confessing, and about the suspect knowing details only the killer would know, etc... The defence lawyer is now claiming Bevan has tainted the case and he wants a change of venue (at the very least). Bottom line is I don't think Bevan wants to be police chief when this trial starts since he will undoubtedly be slammed by the suspect's lawyers.

Posted by: Rob at July 28, 2006 11:38 AM (FNdsD)

5 ...thanks Rob, that's why I like this blog, people can find out as Paul Harvey says - "the rest of the story".

Posted by: tomax7 at July 28, 2006 11:53 AM (jHhd0)

6 Another question that needs to be asked: Is it possible that Boniface was hampered by any officials from the Ontario government ? It would not be a big stretch to imagine that the McGuinty government, fearful of another Ipperwash incident, might interfere with the OPP's handling of the situation.

Posted by: Concerned Torontonian at July 28, 2006 12:00 PM (8hDo1)

7 So Gwen Boniface been Gaglianoized (sorry, I couldn't help).

Posted by: GM at July 28, 2006 12:00 PM (gGdIM)

8 Tomax7, No problem - just wanted to bring another angle to Bevan's resignation. But back to the real story here... Why are the provincial Tories so quiet on this whole Caledonia issue? Are they afraid of being hit with the "all-you-want-is-another-Ipperwash" tag? The Tories even have Justice Marshall on their side. All they have to do is parrot his complaints about the AG and the OPP.

Posted by: Rob at July 28, 2006 12:05 PM (FNdsD)

9 John Tory was on Newstalk 570 today, on the Jeff Allan show. He was speaking out against McGuinty's "see-no-evil" way of handling things, and criticizing Monte Kwinter for saying that there is no occupation any more; just a 'symbolic' one.

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 28, 2006 01:16 PM (jg943)

10 Ding dong the witch is dead. Which old witch, the boneyfaced old witch.

Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 28, 2006 01:50 PM (Xiqvi)

11 More shady McGuilty politics? From Small Dead Animals... "You can toss a few other facts into the mix. 1) Ottawa Police PSS are now in charge of investigating the OPP situation where the officers allegedly stood by while a camera crew was beaten 2) Dalton McGuinty and Ottawa Mayor Bob Chiarelli are both staunch Liberals and Mayor Bob has supported Dalton by campaigning for him door to door. 3) The day the above investigation was announced, Ottawa Police Chief Vince Bevan resigned unexpectedly. One would think the police force in the Premier's riding investigating an OPP case regarding the Caledonia standoff, a case McGuinty is in charge of, would be a conflict of interest. Any other police PSS would have been better and acceptable. Posted by: TrustOnlyMulder at July 27, 2006 11:22 PM" ************** Between the Caledona version of Adscam and now the alleged evidence of conflict and manipulation of the OPP, I have to wonder - is John Chretien living in McGuilty's basement? Or is corruption just in every Liberal's Operating Manual?

Posted by: SickandTired at July 28, 2006 03:06 PM (rnIxt)

12 Kinda smells the same as the Mike Harris Tories handling of Ipperwash situation don't you think "SickandTired" ?

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 05:09 PM (qKQG5)

13 Given the hatchet job the Ontario Libs did on Mike Harris in the Ipperwash affair, McGuinty is at a loss for words, let alone action. He has himself in a wee bit of a bind, but he'll worm out, no doubt there's a scapegoat out there. This is inner-sanctum stuff with the OPP, we won't be privy to the details of the Boniface resignation/dismissal/ get out of town/ hell, get out of the country. It's a maze of mystery.

Posted by: Liz J at July 28, 2006 08:07 PM (yi/jW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 27, 2006

Canada and the UN: Past time for a change

A Canadian under UN command has died in the fighting in the Middle East. Should Canadians reconsider the relationship between the UN and their country?

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:29 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Steve, while I wouldn't go as far as you I too have some issues with the UN. And if you'd like to revisit Canada's role in the UN, that's perfectly valid. However, I think the premise you start your post with is flawed: A Canadian under UN command has died in the fighting in the Middle East. Should Canadians reconsider the relationship between the UN and their country? Those are two seperate things. If you want to debate Canada's role in the UN, fine, but why does the death of a Canadian soldier on a UN mission make that debate more necessary. Either we believe in the mission or we don't. By your same apperant logic, we should re-examine our role in Afghanistan, or in NATO, with each death of a Canadian soldier there. I don't think that's the case, I doubt you do either. Debate the UN, fine, but let's leave dead Canadian soldiers out of it, shall we?

Posted by: BCer in Toronto at July 27, 2006 09:50 PM (rxmyj)

2 Fair enough, but sometimes these things need a trigger.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 27, 2006 09:55 PM (bd2ES)

3 My father served for 25 years in the Canadian Forces. He ended up spending a lot of time away from home in places such as Egypt, Lebanon, Cyprus, and even Bosnia. He views the time he spent on his peacekeeping tours as the proudest moments of his life. He always told me that there was no better use of a soldier than to try and ensure peace. His father was so proud of his work as a peacekeeper that his tombstone reads "Proud father of a UN peacekeeper". It takes a special type of soldier to be able to stand between two fighting factions with basically your hands tied behind your back, but these people do it willingly and are proud to do it. I do not think the peacekeeping mission is something those who do not take part in can truly understand. I do not understand it completely even though it was a huge part of my fathers life. I agree with you that the political parts of the UN have become corrupt and complacent and great strides should be made to ensure that reform is made for the organization, however the mission that the Canadians perform may mean little to some people, but for those who serve, it can be their lifes mission. I just think that the effort should be pushed into UN reform , and not removing Canada from its proud heritage as promoting peace. There are occasions where that of course is not possible, but throwing away such a proud part of Canada just because of what is basically corrupt politicians seems a little too extreme.

Posted by: nrw at July 27, 2006 10:31 PM (dk8IK)

4 Israel bombs and kills a Canadian and three others - which is clearly either a deliberate act by the Israeli military, given the constant bragging we hear of "precision munitions", or one of reckless incompetence - but somehow it's the UN's fault? Or the fault of its secretary general? I think it IS time for "Canada to say enough is enough". Enough Canadians have been killed by Israel - nine at last count! Now that they've killed one of our soldiers, putting them in the company of such lovely folks as the Taliban, are we still going to sit here like a bunch of wimps, blaming Kofi Annan? Or are we going to demand some JUSTICE for the PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLING CANADIANS!

Posted by: Ade at July 27, 2006 10:42 PM (4p91Z)

5 This latest tradgedy is CLEARLY the fault of the U.N. Why was there peace keepers in a location where there is no peace? Once hostilties began, those observers should have been pulled. and even prior to that, once the terrorists were using the U.N. bunker as a launching point of rockets into Israel, they should have been re-located. Being 'used' as human shields is not part of the U.N. mandate.....unless they were being 'used' by the U.N. as sacraficial lambs to further a hidden agenda, a.k.a. make Israel look like the villian. either way, they observers should never have been in a position to either shield the terrorists, OR be put in harms way. The blame is not Israel's, but the U.N. for dropping the ball AGAIN. They have a dismal dismal record in the last few dozen years...lots of talk, and what little action they do, turns to shit right from the get-go.

Posted by: arctic_front at July 27, 2006 11:14 PM (L4T3I)

6 I agree with artic_front. I would say CF are best used for UN missions when they can set their own conditions to a degree as in Bosnia. It should be remembered that in that case, Candian Forces went in armed somewhat to their own satisfaction, and used them as needed.

Posted by: Monty_inBC at July 27, 2006 11:55 PM (sM9DF)

7 The previous should read "former Yugoslavia", not Bosnia.

Posted by: Monty_inBC at July 27, 2006 11:58 PM (sM9DF)

8 very true, monty....I suggest reading a book called "Ghosts of Medak Pocket" to learn the facts on the mission to Yugoslavia by the CF....

Posted by: arctic_front at July 28, 2006 12:06 AM (L4T3I)

9 Obviously you're counting dead Lebanese-Canadian human shields Ade, but does your tally include the two Israeli-Canadians who died fighting Hezbollah? The blood of Major Hess-von Kruedener is on Hezbollah-legitimatizing Kofi Annan's hands, and to accuse Israel of deliberate murder shows what a Jew hater he really is - as does it you. News Flash: Canada IS saying enough is enough. Enough liberalism, enough socialism, enough islamism, enough terrorism.

Posted by: Barnstormer at July 28, 2006 12:28 AM (p6JlJ)

10 awesome Barnstormer.....well said!

Posted by: arctic_front at July 28, 2006 12:35 AM (L4T3I)

11 Canadian troops should be pulled out of UN operations. The risk is unnecessary because UN operations are so obviously useless.

Posted by: philanthropist at July 28, 2006 01:35 AM (7pBiD)

12 The UN is NOT the same UN that it was 20-30 years ago. Today I'm sure that to just have Anan at the head must be really horrible if your serving with them. Ugh!!

Posted by: Pat at July 28, 2006 02:04 AM (AJywV)

13 How many Canadians are serving in UN peacekeeping missions today? Of that number, how many are 1. In Lebanon-Israel-WestBank-Syria area? 2. In observer missions? 3. In other unarmed missions? One possible reason that might have been in the balance for continued presence in the area north of Israel's northern border: holding the UN outposts which are very valuable in the battlefield. Now, that makes the units inside those posts very vulnerable, for sure. Both Hezbollah and the IDF would want to use those vantage points for all kinds of purposes. So there would be no doubt that the UN positions were going to be bones of contention once the fighting broke out. Another possible reason: Lend assistance to the civilian stragglers who need the help of UN units which have some chance of communicating the requests for humanitarian corridors -- with either side -- while the battles rage on. I don't know if these are weighty enough reasons to justify the continued risks that these UN units are taking each day. I do think that their field reports have shed light on what is going on and that's been useful in assessing the immorality of the Hezbollah tactics. Again, I am not so sure this is a good enough reason. Still, some of these UN feet on the ground are serving bravely and with a great deal of skill and tenancity. I just wish we could have armed them so they could keep the rotters away from the outposts. Maybe that would be more dangerous, I dunno.

Posted by: F. Rottles at July 28, 2006 02:49 AM (jcZ2c)

14 A Canadian soldier died because the UN(now actually the UNgo) observer teams had become too cosy with Hezbollah. It is well established that Hezbollah had set their posts adjacent to UN observers posts all over Lebanon, for a long time. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of a much too cordial relationship between Hezbollah and the UN observers. It doesn't take a general (well, maybe it does) to figure out that in the event of open hostilities, observers sharing acreage with the perceived enemy are going to become collaterals if they stick around. Duh. A better question is why was the Canadian there? The major is described by his colleagues as a capable, well trained, dedicated, tough soldier. But a major at an observer post? The UN has been a failure practically everywhere it goes, and certainly, after 28 years, its presence in Lebanon can only be described as a liability, not an asset. As to those who criticize Israel for piling up the body count, get over it - this has been a long time coming, and the world is not done with it yet. The islamists have been poking the west with a stick for the last 15 years, particularly at Israel, and notice is being served that bullshit walks. The patience of the west for islamic hegemony has ended.

Posted by: Skip at July 28, 2006 05:03 AM (3mCNo)

15 I've spent some time at Babble and the quality of discussion is very low: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=13&t=001958 Is there somewhere else in the Canadian blogosphere where the leftwing is better represented with substantive arguments? I ask because it looks like a little more than half of Canadians, in a recent survey, agree with Harper's policy, as it has been shaping up, on Israel. And probably on the UN as well. At this blog I can see substantive arguments that represent one half of public opinion. Where do you folks generally go when you want to get a feel for the better arguments made by the other side? The pragmatic need for a more hardcore Canadian role in these hotspots is going to grow, I think, and how Canadians respond to that need is going to grow in importance to the country's friends and allies. My read is that Harper is taking things far more seriously than the Liberals had in the past. But can he bring the country to his view of things? What is he up against on the other side? This UNIFIL incident is probably a very good test case.

Posted by: Chairm at July 28, 2006 05:34 AM (jcZ2c)

16 Skip -- I find your insinuation that UN and along with it Canadian Forces members being "cozy" with Hezbollah incredibly insulting. Are you seriously suggesting that the men and women who serve Canada use their peacekeeping missions to further the cause of terrorism and thus deserve to be killed? I have read and re-read your comment multiple times, hoping that I am not seeing it properly, but it still looks like that is exactly what you are implying. That the UN observer force, and along with it the Canadians who serve under it are acting in the interests of terrorists and not with their original mission. I suppose you are entitled to whatever opinion you have, but that is a pretty inflammatory statement you have made, and backing it up with "There is anecdotal evidence" is a little bit lacking for such a major statement.

Posted by: nrw at July 28, 2006 05:57 AM (dk8IK)

17 Steve, its interesting how conservatives want to cut and run from UN peacekeeping missions. As Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener noted in her press conference last night, not only is a well-marked UN bunker the safest place to be when the shooting starts, there isn't really anyplace safer they could get to without braving Israeli fire (remember, the troops who came to save them wre fired on too). Frankly, I think you and S. Harper and some of the other Blogging Tories are close to talking treason when you run down Canadian soldiers working for the UN. And all to defend Harper's pathetic non-response to the fact that Israel offed one of our guys. Note too that talking like this is a good way to convince the Canadian populace that Conservatives are a bunch of crazed war mongers from the Hills out West who cannot be trusted with the keys to government. Note the latest Decima poll shows a plunge in support in both Ontario and Quebec. But its not really about polls, is it? Todays generation of Conservatives are a bunch of punks who learned too many theories about the UN and etc. by watching Rambo movies and FOX tv. Please be careful when you trash your country and her soldiers. There are some of us that are proud of her peacekeeping tradition, and see our foreign policy as something a bit nobler than being led around by the nose by the U.S.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 05:57 AM (zfDNY)

18 Not a bad point, bigcitylib. Am I doing the equivalent of cutting and running? My argument is that Canada is not leaving the UN, but the UN has left the UN. Put that way, it sounds stupid, of course. But the point is that the UN has lost whatever capacity for good it once had. Some of it because of changes in geopolitics. End of the Cold War, the rise of Islamic terrorism (not tied to nation states), etc. But much of the blame has to be put at the feet of the UN itself. Can you imagine the UN today going to war against an aggressor? In happened in 1953 in Korea, in part because of a miscalculation by the Soviets and the fact that China was represented by Taiwan, but also because the UN still saw itself as taking sides in a way that mattered. Compare the date to the list. Today the UN is frozen. Vetos ensure few positive resolutions can be passed. The ones that are passed are usually ignored. Most tellingly they are ignored by the UN itself. The UN passes resolution 1559 demanding Lebanon take control of its territory, that Syria leave, and that Hezbollah disarm. The UN does nothing to make it happen. Finally Israel goes to war two years later to go after a Syrian-armed Hezbollah operating in Lebanon in full defiance of the UN. Israel is now disarming Hezbollah, destroying the links between Lebanon and Syria, and by all accounts, readying to vacate the area once an international force is ready to move in to control the area on behalf of Lebanon. Any thanks from the UN? No. Instead, the UN complains bitterly. Canadian blood and treasure is too precious to waste on an institution that seems to have lost its way. It was not always like this, but it seems to be the case now. Canadian ideals might not have changed much, but the UN is no longer the means to put those ideals into action. I suggested NATO as an organization through Canada can act. Maybe there are others. Maybe we need a new one. But not the UN. Or to be more generous, I think it's time that we stop assuming our continued membership in the UN, but instead have a debate about whether UN membership is consistent with Canadian ideals (and Canadian political goals -- realism has a big role to play here too). In we decide the UN still has a role to play, we should debate what level of participation is appropriate given the quality of UN leadership and effectiveness of the UN as it is currently structured.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 28, 2006 08:07 AM (pFrk8)

19 Steve, can the horsehit. The current Conservative hard-on against the UN is all due to the fact that countries like Canada, working through the UN, stood up to the Americans in the runup to the Gulf War. The UN told Bush: 1) Iraq was cooperating with inspectors. 2) There were no WMDs. And of course Bush didn't listen, and walked into a quagmire, and the Yanks have been out to get even ever since. (One funny thing in regards to this whole oil-for-food thing is how congressional investigations simply wrote out any hint of U.S. involvement: Republican VP candidate Jack Kemp was up to his ass in it). In any case, you dodge in a most despicable and disgraceful manner the only real question in this episode. Why did the Israelies shell a well marked post for six hours and then take out the bunker with laser guided bombs, and then shell the people who came to dig out possible survivors? As a Canadian, the natural and correct response to this is to demand answers from the people that pulled the trigger, the Israelies. But I guess Conservatives have let their ideology twist their hearts into such a knot that their first response is to excuse the killers. By the way, you've made my daily post as a sample of possibly treasonous Blogging Tories. Have a nice day.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 08:21 AM (6GsB3)

20 Typical BCL BS

Posted by: RNC at July 28, 2006 08:23 AM (4zSLv)

21 Steve, You're a big idiot to even suggest this ridiculous proposition. You have lost every bit of respect from me in regards to your ability to produce anything in the way of competent analysis. Stop toeing other people's fucking lines and produce an original, creative, unique argument. Pathetic.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 28, 2006 08:29 AM (0fM5W)

22 "Is there somewhere else in the Canadian blogosphere where the left wing is better represented with substantive arguments ?" Chairm, the fact that you have to ask around to find a left-wing site that makes sense, should be telling you something. bigcitylib's comments are pretty representative of a liberal argument: "Conservatives are a bunch of crazed war mongers from the hills out west..." Not much in the way of facts in his post, but he's pretty good at name-calling. The assertation that a well-marked UN bunker is the safest place to be is pure nonsense. UN outposts are routinely targeted by both sides in many places. There is plenty of excellent material available on the missions in Cyprus, Yugoslavia, Rwanda and the Middle East. I've long believed that Canada should either get out of the UN completely or take operational control of any missions where Canadian troops are being put into harm's way. I also fully support Israel's right to defend herself. Neither Stephen Harper nor myself need the Americans or anyone else to tell us how or what to think, thanks all the same. Yes it's a shame that Canadians have been killed there. It's a shame that ANYONE is being killed over there, but the Neville Chamberlain school of diplomacy simply does not work. It never has. Israel is dealing with people who have openly declared their desire to finish what Hitler started. People who are willing to use their children as suicide bombers to achieve that end. Somebody please explain to me how one negotiates with people like that ? Israel's response is "disproportionate". Yes. Catchy term. I believe "disproportionate response" is the modern PC term for "winning the war". I don't think everyone who condems Israel's actions is an anti-semite. But I can't help but wonder how many of them are simply afraid of how it makes them look when compared alongside of people who actually have enough spine to defend themselves when it's necessary.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 08:31 AM (blKYQ)

23 BigCityLib: You conveniently forgot: 3) Iraq disregarded COUNTLESS UN resolutions. Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13? And what of those memos that stated Hussein was playing hide and go seek with his weapons programs and in cahoots with known terrorists? I guess that wouldn't fit into your neat little view of who's right and wrong, though. A Liberal advising on foreign policy - now that's rich. Do you come from the Chretien school of poking sticks in the eyes of our allies or the Martin school of predicating shifting policy on whatever right or left wing kook wrote a letter to the government that day?

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:14 AM (x4k8S)

24 Whoever the last guy was, those memos are junk and you know it. The right wing blogosphere hasn't even bothered to waste much breath over them. Up North you appall and disgust me. Israel might have just murdered a Canadian soldier and you're willing to let them off the hook and bring up alot of drivel about how Canada relates to the UN. Remember, in this country you're required to be Canadian first, Conservative second.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 09:31 AM (zlkxG)

25 "Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13?" Actually, I believe it was closer to 17. But please don't cloud the issue with facts (it upsets liberals when you do that). Actually, I found a liberal calling conservatives treasonous to be one for the books. Still, my favourite line was how BCL goes on about how he's "proud of our peacekeeping tradition". Right. Not proud enough to fund the military properly. Not proud enough to take the time to learn about what goes on on those missions. In true liberal fashion, he's content to stay stunned and apathetic and let others (our soldiers) do the heavy lifting while he pats himself on the back for being Canadian. Balls. Libs didn't even PRETEND to care about our soldiers until a Yank accidently dropped a bomb on a bunch of them -and then all of a sudden they were a precious national asset -which meant that liberals now had 4 coffins to use as soapboxes to bash the Americans from. No liberal is ever going to tell me that they give one flying you-know-what about our soldiers. Ask any Canadian soldier what they think about peacekeeping. Better yet, try referring to one of the guys over in Afghanistan as a "Peacekeeper" -then duck. Successive prime ministers have eroded our military over the years while getting good people killed needlessly -just so that they could chase after that elusive Nobel Peace Prize (and hey -who wouldn't want to be in the same exclusive club as Yasser Arafat ?). And people like BCL have been cheering them on.

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:34 AM (leWs5)

26 "Wasn't the number something like 12 or 13?" Actually, I believe it was closer to 17. But please don't cloud the issue with facts (it upsets liberals when you do that). Actually, I found a liberal calling conservatives treasonous, to be one for the books. Still, my favourite line was how BCL goes on about how he's "proud of our peacekeeping tradition". Right. Not proud enough to fund the military properly. Not proud enough to take the time to learn about what goes on on those missions. In true liberal fashion, he's content to stay stunned and apathetic and let others (our soldiers) do the heavy lifting while he pats himself on the back for being Canadian. Balls. Libs didn't even PRETEND to care about our soldiers until a Yank accidently dropped a bomb on a bunch of them -and then all of a sudden they were a precious national asset -which meant that liberals now had 4 coffins to use as soapboxes to bash the Americans from. No liberal is ever going to tell me that they give one flying you-know-what about our soldiers. Ask any Canadian soldier what they think about peacekeeping. Better yet, try referring to one of the guys over in Afghanistan as a "Peacekeeper" -then duck. Successive prime ministers have eroded our military over the years while getting good people killed needlessly -just so that they could chase after that elusive Nobel Peace Prize (and hey -who wouldn't want to be in the same exclusive club as Yasser Arafat ?). And people like BCL have been cheering them on.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:36 AM (leWs5)

27 Oh damn. Steve: sorry for the double post. Can you eradicate one of them for me please (if that's not considered a disproportionate response).

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:39 AM (leWs5)

28 BigCityLib: Further to my last post, you also state that "countries like Canada, working through the UN, stood up to the Americans in the runup to the Gulf War". You make it sound so altruistic. I'm sure the fact that Jean Chretien's ties (including his daughter being married into the Desmarais family) to Power Corp. had NOTHING to do with Chretien's vehement opposition to the Gulf War. The fact that Power was negotiating a deal with Hussein at the time is just a coincidence, right? Interesting that a Liberal who can't question his own leader's motives can hypocritically accuse Conservatives of same. But then again it's the Liberal politically correct mindset of flaccid leadership that is the root cause of the UN's woes today. Despots laugh at "resolutions" while the overpayed self-congratulatory lot that comprise the UN think they have any real sway in world affairs...

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:39 AM (x4k8S)

29 Up North: I support your wish to remove one of your posts (actually I got quite a chuckle out of it). It is a measured response, alhough I'm sure BCL will make the case that Angry is censoring posts if he removes it. And then we'll be privy to more tired Bush analogies, Harper as war-monger, save the UN cause it's the only trough left that the Liberal piggies can still sink their snouts in, yadda yadda yadda.

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 09:49 AM (x4k8S)

30 I've appalled and disgusted a liberal. You know guys, this is turning out to be a pretty good day after all. BCL try this: "But also I'll be asking for his full cooperation in getting to the bottom of this." That'd be Prime Minister Harper ("Steve" to his friends) speaking in the Toronto Star on July 26 about waiting to hear back from Israel's PM. No one is letting anyone off the hook. Those 4 soldiers should have been pulled out. BCL, you seem quite content to see Canadian soldiers put into dangerous situations without giving any thought at all as to whether they should be there in the first place. I'd hate to see what you'd be like if you DIDN'T like our soldiers !

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 09:50 AM (leWs5)

31 further to my last: I brought up a lot of drivel about how Canada relates to the UN. Wasn't that the original topic here ? "Canada and the UN: Past time for a change" Is it just me ?

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 10:02 AM (leWs5)

32 A massive bone of contention for many liberals is that many conservatives, while having no qualms about (rightly, if exuberantly) condemning wartime foes for killing Canadian soldiers, they too often appear almost stubbornly unwilling to raise even a slightly critical finger at Canada's wartime allies who--whether through negligence, malicious intent, or the fog of war--take out a Canadian's life. Surely, we can agree that all sides are complicit in, and must share the moral responsibility of, the deaths of these 4 peacekeepers--Hezbollah, for using them as shields; the UN, for not doing more to protect their peacekeepers; and yes, the IDF, for pulling the trigger.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 10:12 AM (Oee6D)

33 Steve, the UN is a unique institution, with a unique global scope and mandate. No other institution has the resources, logistics, or political clout to do what it is capable of doing (here, I'm thinking of its on-the-ground humanitarian work in particular). Its original purpose, as embodied in its charter and other key documents, is inspirational. Surely, there is no great divergence between its values and Canada's. Let me be clear: I agree that the UN is bloated with bureaucracy and burdened by elements of corruption and apathy. Like you, I'm absolutely in favour of UN reform. Even the UN (www.un. org/reform) is in favour of UN reform. Granted, many (including myself) would advocate more drastic structural reforms than the UN may be willing to make, but everyone agrees that the status quo cannot continue. At least two things must happen: (1) Major bureaucratic reform. Like any other massive institution, public or private, too much red tape means nothing gets done, oversight is lost, and corruption is allowed to fester. A favourite example of this is the Liberal Party; I would also add any of the recent US or overseas companies embroiled in corporate scandals. (2) A renewed commitment by member nations to recognize the authority of a UN resolution. To a large degree, it's this lack of commitment that has rendered the current UN General Assembly largely impotent, especially with respect to global security issues (but also in other areas, like the speed and scale of its humanitarian responses). A UN resolution isn't a product of the UN per se, it's the de facto product of a global vote--the will of the planet, you might say. Some fault must therefore lie with those member nations who flagrantly disregard any resolution that causes them to rein in (even slightly) their own national interests. However, the abolition of the UN is not an option, unless a similarly mandated global institution is ready to take its place. If world peace remains at all a goal (however idealistic and utopian) that we wish to collective striving towards, then the UN as an idea is too valuable to lose entirely. NATO is primarily a military alliance, focused on security and crisis intervention. There continues to be a place for NATO, and Canada should continue to sit at that table too. But NATO membership is not a substitute for UN membership.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 10:25 AM (Oee6D)

34 UN transports Hezbolah terrorists. watch the video. http://youtube.com/watch?v=AqGjz7iJTns&mode=related&search= I support IDF! Canada out of the UN.

Posted by: wuberman at July 28, 2006 10:26 AM (3Inia)

35 So many comments running thru my mind, so little time. The UN couldnt organize a grudge f**K in a brothel with a fistfull of credit cards. I know for a fact as a serving member of the CF that when word of UN mission comes up people duck and run for cover because you already know they will handcuff you with ROE's that prevent you from doing you job. When they are ask to make a decision they wont because no one will be there as it will usually occurs on the same day as thier annual bowling tournament which allows them to take credit if your decision works out and to roast you if it dosnt. As for Maj HVK and I know this man, read his email that he sent to CTV. If your military you understand what he was trying to say. The Hez has co located at the UN OP and the UN should of forced them off. This couldnt be done by four un-armed observers but by the UN in New York. I can also tell you with out a moment of hesitation that if that had been a CF controlled peace keeping OP, those observers would of been evacuated on day one.

Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2006 10:43 AM (AM2QK)

36 But, up North, the origonal topic was a dodge by Conservatives to change the discussion from the people that pulled the lever that dropped the bomb that killed the Canadian soldier, to whether he should have been in the path of that bomb in the first place. My position is that it was wrong for the Israelis to bomb the UN observers; yours, and Steve's, it seems to be, is that, well, even if the IDF deliberatly snuffed 'em, its okay because they were working with the UN. As to Chretien keeping us out of the Iraq War (whoever posted on that topic), this is the old "we stayed out for the wrong reasons" clap trap. The fact is, we have not been sucked into that ridiculous war and whoever kept us out for whatever reason deserves nothing but praise. In fact, I don't think Conservatives have ever actually apologized to Canada for their support of the U.S. in Gulf War II (certainly S. Harper never has). In my opinion, every Conservative in Alberta ought to be force marched to wherever in Quebec Chretien is staying and made to kiss his ass.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 10:45 AM (zlkxG)

37 Ken, Doubts have already been expressed about MacKenzie's interpretation of the e-mail. See my Blog for details.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 10:47 AM (zlkxG)

38 BCL. I truly understand your post on your blog. What I wish for you to understand is I have served on both peacekeeping and NATO missions before and alot of the time due to political realities you talk in veiled code that is totally understandable to members of your own force. If the IDF was targeting close to the OP but not at as Maj HVK stated for tactical reasons then as a fellow CF member who has been on tour with Wolf he was saying excactly what Maj Gen McKenzie was stating. They had neighbors and the UN in NYC should of either withdrawn the observers or forced them to move away rather then using the OP for protection.

Posted by: Ken at July 28, 2006 10:56 AM (AM2QK)

39 As a member of the CF that spent six months on the Golan Heights during Gulf War Two, I agree with Steve's point about re-examining our role in the UN. My experience with the UN has demonstrated that the UN is mostly useless. Don't get me wrong, UN soldiers try to do the right thing and make it work, but the UN civilians are the worst. Appearing (to a soldier) to be very lazy and more focused on the red tape, it takes an exceedingly long time to get anything done. One example, during my tour there were some old UN vehicles that were being cut up for parts. They had been working on that contract for 3 years and even then, I got less than 2 days notice that they were coming to cut the things up. UN civilians are being paid outrageous amounts of money to do nothing. The civilian guy in charge on our camp was quite happy. He was getting paid in excess of $80k US (tax free) to run the civilians there (about 7 people). He was living on the Syrian side (very cheap to live) and had been there about 8 years. You could not have gotten him out of there with dynamite. I never did figure out what he did during the day and on my occasional surprise visits to see him I caught him surfing the net, and the stuff he was looking at did not appear to be UN business. I think the most likely response you will get from soldier about UN missions is that they are good ideas but poorly executed, particularly the longer they run. The Golan mission has been monitoring a cease-fire for 32 years. When is that cease fire going to become peace? The UN just allows each side to ignore the situation. And a bunch of lazy civilians to get great gobs of money to do nothing. Reform it now or Canada should get out. In fact, I suggest, since Canada is known as such a big supporter of the UN, we should threaten to pull out of the UN unless it is reformed and set a deadline. If the most UN loving country has had enough of UN incompetence and corruption, maybe someone will take notice of this problem.

Posted by: MB at July 28, 2006 11:07 AM (WM45z)

40 Ken, given that, for example, the rescue team that came afterwards was shelled, where do you think they could have moved to without getting shot at in process? (the Irish fellow who, I think, commanded the sector, made this point on the radio last night). Also, the email, even if rightly interpreted, does not give any reasons as to why the shells were falling on Tuesday. It does not prove by any means that the IDF got the observation post in the process of shooting at hezbollah. Finally, this war kicked up exactly 17 days ago and it has been difficult to guage since then just how long it was going to go on for, partly because the IDF has been flailing about so ineffectively that its doubtful if the Israelis know. Difficult to second guess the UNs opinion as to how long they should try to stay in place for (especially since they might have got killed trying to get out of the area). As the Globe is now reporting, the forward OPs will be abandoned for the time-being. Unfortunatly, this may be what the IDF wants and what the whole episode was really about. No more witnesses if they want to turn South Lebanon into a free-fire zone, which is what they've been hinting at.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 11:18 AM (zlkxG)

41 A, your last 2 posts -particularly the first one- are fair comment right down the line. I can't bring myself to disagree with you. Well said. bcl, the original topic is the ORIGINAL TOPIC. The idea of Canadians who have no use for the UN is nothing new. It's just that we're finally getting a chance to discuss it in a public forum. As the moderator pointed out, the death of our soldier happens to be the trigger for that discussion. That man was put into a dangerous situation by the UN. He had no way of defending himself because the UN ordered that he be unarmed. He was left in that situation -when he should have been pulled out at the start -by the UN. Hey, call me crazy, but I think that merits some discussion of the UN. No one is taking a cavalier attitude about the death of one of our soldiers. Don't you dare sit there on your high horse and and accuse conservatives of not caring about our soldiers. What you seem to be saying (and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that Israel deliberately murdered those UN soldiers. What I believe is that Hezbollah was using them as human shields (a favoured tactic of theirs) and they got killed in the crossfire. Your position would be like blaming the cops if an innocent child wandered into the middle of a gun battle between cops and gang members and got killed (by a bullet from a cop's gun). We'd all grieve, but you seem to want to disarm the cops while I'd like to see the gang members killed off, and Steve Janke is wondering where the kids parents were. (Hope that makes sense -it does to me anyways, and as long as ONE of us is reasonable...) And please...enough about your hero Jean Cretien. Canadian servicemen have died because of his neglect of the military (Lt. Chris Saunders comes immediately to mind) and as far as his "really showing 'em" by staying out of Iraq because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN -that kinda puts Kosovo (Canadian troops on the ground, CF-18's doing air strikes) in a different light now doesn't it ? (Kosovo, as you well know, also did not have UN approval) I guess Cretien's morality depends on whether or not the sitting president is a golfing buddy of his.

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 11:27 AM (UiYrv)

42 Kosovo was the result of a deal whereby a multinational force was put together with the UNs tacit approval,or non-non-approval, but without its having to make an explicit stand. Iggy's actually good on this topic in Virtual War. So it was politically messy but the result is what counts. And yes I do stand on my high horse and note that, when an alleged ally kills a Canadian soldier, Conservatives seem to be following the lead of Harper and blowing it off because the guy was working with the UN. The Fins are pissed with the IDF; so are the Chinese and the Austrians and so are even the Irish. Our boy goes up there limp-dicked and says he's sure all those laser bombs and shells and then the shells that kept falling after the rescue party arrived (and are still falling, apparently they can't even get at our guy's body)were just a big mistake and somehow it was the UNs fault. Disgusting.

Posted by: bigcitylib at July 28, 2006 11:44 AM (zlkxG)

43 bigcitylib, I realize you approve of hiding behind the UN skirts, hiding in schools, hospitals and mosques. I realize that Israel is the Devil, and Hezbollah is the model of Sainthood. You have made your point abundantly clear.

Posted by: the Dragon at July 28, 2006 12:04 PM (7LZ2O)

44 "So it was politically messy, but the result is what counts." I see. But only Kosovo right ? Not Iraq. Sometimes I was I was a liberal. Everything would be just so ...convenient. And again (man -I feel like the Miracle Worker here !) nobody is blowing it off. You're saying the Israelis deliberately murdered them. I'm saying that it is the UN's fault that they were there in the first place. The Israelis made it abundantly clear -in advance- that anyone in close proximity to any Hezbolla fighters was in grave danger and should probably leave. The UN knew that, and yet they left those poor bastards out there, in the middle of a war -knowing full well the danger they were in. And you see nothing wrong with that ?

Posted by: up north at July 28, 2006 12:04 PM (UiYrv)

45 If the United Nations is ineffective, most of the blame falls on the United States, which has systematically and intentionally tried to dilute its power and influence, and which constantly vetoes UN security council resolutions - since 1972, more frequently than any other nation.

Posted by: Ade at July 28, 2006 12:54 PM (4p91Z)

46 BigCityLib: Wow. I guess Chretien's personal greed inadvertently led to us being able to avoid the quagmire, and that's ok by you. It is heartening to see that Liberal apologists still believe in the paper-bags-full-of-money ends-justify-the-means style of governance. I guess Martinites are the only ones who dither on policy. Forgive me for not standing behind you in the line-up to kiss Chretien's derriere. You still did not address how you the Oracle of Delphi would have dealt with Saddam's repeated violations of UN orders. We know the Liberal tool kit is filled with task forces, commissions and now Irish foreign postings....

Posted by: at July 28, 2006 01:05 PM (x4k8S)

47 Ahh, there it is, Ade. Let's conveniently forget that the majority of those vetoes were used to stop attacks on Israel. Let's also forget that those vetoes were also used to prevent such lovely things as UN-controlled trade, UN-controlled redistribution of wealth, and general communist policy. Yeah, it's the U.S. to blame for the U.N. being so bloody ridiculous.

Posted by: Yukon Gold at July 28, 2006 01:44 PM (ykaSK)

48 yeah, the u.n. does a great job in these situations. well, at least they aren't into the sex trade in lebanon yet. http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060717-084229-3601r.htm http://volokh.com/posts/1153523571.shtml http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realitycheck/20060724sheppard.html http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20060721/bs_ibd_ibd/2006721issues http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2UxZjI3MTRhNGM5YTc1MDkyM2NkZmVhZjdiYzUzODU=

Posted by: allen at July 28, 2006 03:58 PM (wVqGI)

49 Thanks upnorth. I continue to live in hope of finding a leftie blog that adds substance to the various disagreements that are presented.

Posted by: Chairm at July 28, 2006 04:53 PM (jcZ2c)

50 NRW: You need to separate "the Canadian Forces" from the UN. CF are not the UN. CFrs have distinguished themselves all over the world trying to do the moral right that the UN is supposed to be about. I don't need to explain further the coziness comment: do your homework on the web and you'll find all the proof you need. 28 years in Lebanon and in a major assault the UN doesn't have enough good sense to order its boys (our boy, in this case) out of danger. Its telling that they issued that order after we lost a guy and the world screamed about it. The UN is always too little too late. Canada needs to immediate re-evaluate all long term deployments of CF on UN "endless" peacekeeping missions. As many have pointed out, the UN has changed. It has been fully co-opted by a variety of private and personal interests and dosen't even come close to the altruism that prevailed in Cyprus and Suez. IMO, Cyprus was the last real UN stand with honour. (Again, distinguish the UN from the CF - they are not interchangeable terms). As much as I hate to nuance the liberal v-word, The major was a victim, a victim of an organization that places its self-interest over that of the people its supposed to serve. Canadians sometimes get killed because they're gullible. Altruistic enough to believe that they can help (bless their hearts, because they frequently do) and gullible enough to believe that orgs like the UN and NATO really care about that.

Posted by: Skip at July 28, 2006 06:16 PM (3mCNo)

51 BCL I knowÂ… the US/Israel is to blame for Bigfoot, the ice age, Atlantis sinking and more recently, the tsunami disaster, Lets blame them for everything, its much easier than taking any responsibility for our own actions/inactions. People like you don't seem to be able to acknowledge the fact that you have become a bigot. Your kind is particularly abhorrent because you hate people for who they are, instead of what they do. What is truly disgusting here is your ignorance of history. I beseech you to show me a single battle in history where friendly fire has not been an issue. The UN, and everyone else, was warned by Israel days before to get out of the area, as there intention was to eradicate the Hezzies. Anan ignored the warning, and the chips fell were they may. Grow up dude, you really need to move out of your motherÂ’s basement and learn about the realities of life.

Posted by: Missing Link at July 28, 2006 06:32 PM (4ock/)

52 Skip -- Thank you for the update, I understand and appreciate your position much more than before. Sorry for the miscommunication.

Posted by: nrw at July 28, 2006 08:54 PM (dk8IK)

53 For those who believe that UN "reform" is the solution, what exactly do you mean by that term, and why do I have the sneaking suspicion that it involves more government spending? I've heard many a socialist claim that we (or the U.S.) should first attempt reforms with the UN before withdrawing membership or funding, and yet none of them are able to clearly define this nebulous term or provide any realistic suggestions. What makes one think that these mysterious reforms would even be possible, given the current state of the UN? If they already don't represent Canadian/American interests, why would they accept Canadian/American-driven reforms? There is only one UN reform I can think of that could ever reduce the current corruption: kick out the repressive regimes and put an end to the ridiculous notion of every tinhorn dictator in the known universe having a say in how world affairs ought to be conducted. Other countries could request UN assistance and that would be fine, but only democratically-elected leaders can truly claim to represent their people, and hence only democratically-elected leaders should be given voice or influence. This is, of course, not a perfect solution (Hamas was elected "democratically"), but neither is democracy a perfect political system; it's simply the best we've got right now. At least we wouldn't have Syria making decisions about "human rights". I'm not suggesting that we silence all other voices, just that we don't have them making decisions about "international law", since for all intents and purposes they are accustomed to being above the law and will bring that attitude with them wherever they go.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 28, 2006 08:55 PM (1xiB4)

54 People, the UN is a useless haven for despots and dictators and the sacred shrine of the Left. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are no doubt salivating over the soon to be open position as head honcho when the esteemed Kofi leaves, either one could go seamlessly into the post. All kidding aside either would be somewhat of an improvement. Chretien could use his talent as a jester to win consensis while Martin could use his bombastic phrase "let me tell You....." while doing the impression of a windmill Sorry, got carried away!

Posted by: Liz J at July 28, 2006 08:56 PM (BF9I6)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ujjal Dosanjh tries to trick fellow Liberal MP into helping a convicted terrorist [update]

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh tried to fool a fellow Liberal MP into getting a visa for a convicted terrorist.

Just how seriously does the Liberal Party take the problem of international terrorism?

Update: It looks like a former Conservative MP has a role in this story, too.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 09:52 AM | Comments (41) | Add Comment
Post contains 1677 words, total size 12 kb.

1 Slimey underhand behaviour from Dosanjh? I'm shocked .......

Posted by: Dave at July 27, 2006 11:28 AM (sBW5i)

2 No, it's not so surprising that Dosanjh would try to get another MP to do this, rather than doing it himself. Remember that Dosanjh is the highest ranking federal Liberal in B.C. (Hedley Fry doesn't quite have the rank), and as such would command a sizeable delegation at the upcoming leadership convention. His bargaining power would dry up if people learned he tried to get his assailant out of the country, so he can't afford to get tied up in scandal, whereas an ignorant backbencher would suffer far less damage.

Posted by: PhantomObserver at July 27, 2006 11:41 AM (caIEL)

3 Well, if you're a known terrorist, why wouldn't you go to a Liberal for help? It's well known that they're the most terrorist friendly party in Canada. Makes sense, since his MP is Nina Grewal... a member of the most anti-terrorist party in Canada.

Posted by: Christian Conservative at July 27, 2006 11:45 AM (9wHsi)

4 Just when you thought you heard it all this comes up. The Liberals are crooked corrupted to the core and always will be. In the end I thank Mr. Dosanjh for keeping my opinion of the Liberals sliding through the gutter. Keep it up buddy.

Posted by: wuberman at July 27, 2006 11:54 AM (3Inia)

5 I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you to hear that a Dipper turncoat/Librano party hack would do such a thing! The real question is why is Dosanjh doing this at all? What does Atwal have on him?

Posted by: Backseat at July 27, 2006 12:04 PM (2Qx/x)

6 As it turns out, Mr. Atwal appears equally at ease in turning to the Conservative Party for help, and at least one party member appears equally at ease in giving it. According to this second article, also by intrepid CanWest reporter Kim Bolan, Mr. Gurmant Grewal, while serving as MP in 2002, wrote a letter of recommendation that evidently helped Mr. Atwal secure full parole. Balwant Singh Gill, president of Surrey's Guru Nanak temple, whom you recall was earlier "shocked that the Liberals would be trying to intervene on behalf of Atwal," now asks, "Why is [Mr. Grewal] writing this letter?" I suspect that the answer might be, "For the same reasons Mr. Dosanjh rang up Mr. Bell for a favour: it's just what politicians do, regardless of their political stripe."

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 12:21 PM (Oee6D)

7 I like Dosanjh claiming ignorance of Atwal's history. That's like putting up a big sign over your head that says, "If you are a murderer/assassin and you want to go to a country you are not allowed into, come to me because I won't even bother looking into your past." I'm sorry, but bad enough being caught trying to help a murderer get into a country he is banned from, but to then admit that you never bothered to do your job and look into WHY this guy isn't allowed into India? Gotta love these Liberals... they seem to think that being derelict in your duties is something to take pride in!

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 12:22 PM (+tET0)

8 Screw the exit visa - let's go directly to a deportation order.

Posted by: Dagny Taggart at July 27, 2006 12:33 PM (/WgcG)

9 The brush is broad enough that I wouldn't put all the culpability on the Liberals. The Grewals' involvement, although not as incriminating, is suspicious. This looks to be more like Indian politics entering the Canadian realm. I hate to say it, but I think voters should look closely before electing any politician with close ties to India.

Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2006 01:14 PM (D2c8R)

10 Careful Ben... some lefty is bound to take that comment as being indicative that we shouldn't elect East Indians and that it is some kind of proof of the right being racist. Not that your statement says that in any way.

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 01:51 PM (+tET0)

11 Ben, Maybe that should be "any Vancouver-based politician with close ties..."?

Posted by: Another Sean at July 27, 2006 01:56 PM (l/VhR)

12 dual citizens sbould not be in government

Posted by: george at July 27, 2006 02:37 PM (mG30q)

13 To hold any public office...from municipal all the way up to federal... You should have been born here in Canada ..AND.. show proof of at least 18 years of residency. Otherwise,.. run for office in your own/old country. We have too many politicians from other countries, who have brought their ancient battles to Canada. Unless you were born here and grew up with a Canadian education, you can't possibly understand what it means to be Canadian...! Ok...start the howling.!

Posted by: William at July 27, 2006 03:07 PM (W1+de)

14 Who"s surprised? Ujjal Dosey, the sly rather stunned looking guy? Looks like he's up to something? Well be sure he is, it's the Liberal way and looks like he made the perfect transition from his other life as an NDPer, no cultural shock there. The Conservative involvement is probably due to aiding the specific "community" involved. The Grewals have been having difficulty , probably a lot of pressures from the ethnic component of their riding. No doubt the media will focus on Nina Grewal if there is a story.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 03:36 PM (V0OQR)

15 Surecure, I am aware of how my comments could be taken. And let me say that I have no doubt that an east Indian politician can perform his/her duties competently and circumspectly (i.e. without corruption) just as anyone else can. Furthermore, and I am for Canadians of all racial stripes to be involved in politics. I'm just pointing out a pattern that seems to be emerging with east Indian politicians bringing baggage associated with how politics are done in their country of origin. The bizarre shenanigans outlined in this post are just one case in point, and it does not just happen in Vancouver. Perhaps William has a point. Notice that there is nothing racist about his restrictions--the rules would apply to all races equally. The current situation actually leads to low-level racism. I am sure I'm not the only one to see the pattern I just mentioned, and many voters will do some form of "racial profiling" to see who their candidate is beholden to.

Posted by: Ben at July 27, 2006 03:57 PM (D2c8R)

16 ROTFLMAO This is one of the funniest things I have read....not because I think it false but because the entire folly is so likely to be true. Nice find, brightened my day. Of course UD's chances of being PM, which are still alive in his own mind, are so far from likely now. Give him more time, I am sure there is something else that is sordid. Man oh man, helping the guy who beat you over the head with an iron bar.....that on its own is proof of stupidity.

Posted by: Stephen at July 27, 2006 04:16 PM (wtbPM)

17 Oh, I absolutely understand Ben... I was just kind of heading the lefties off at the track as it were. :-D

Posted by: Surecure at July 27, 2006 04:21 PM (+tET0)

18 Leaving Town? As you may be aware. Hezbollah continues to raise money here in Canada and the US with seeming impunity. -ttp://TonyGuitar.blogspot.com There was an event here in Courtenay recently where ME people took over a Hotel and several businesses. The hotel, cafÃƒÂ©, beer parlour, night club, and beer and liquor store next door were all doing a brisk business, yet just months under the new owners and suddenly everything was closed down and boarded up. With added military payrolls, our economy is vibrant. Curious thing is that the new owners vanished, or so I am told: -ttp://BendGovernment.blogspot.com I wonder if small business groups are being taken over in other Canadian small towns by ME operators and then if new owners are vanishing with all the proceeds and suppliers unpaid.. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:45 PM (2GVBQ)

19 William, I think that you would pour a child with a bath water with your approach. Just because these particular guys exhibited a bad judgment or have some hidden skeletons in their closets, it doesn't mean that ALL immigrants to this country should be disqualified from taking a public office. A lot of them are bringing something very valuable to the table and pay taxes just as you do. I am one of those immigrants, have lived in Canada for almost 17 years and am as far-right in my political convictions as a majority of other people reading this blog. Just because I haven't been born here makes me less worthy a Canadian as you are? Adam

Posted by: Adam at July 27, 2006 04:49 PM (hgTG/)

20 We have learned that beating a Liberal over the head with a pipe does nothing to them, or for them--this is the acid test--Liberal skulls are so thick there is no braincells there at all. Dosanjh has to be the biggest waste of skin and oxygen. His total defence for every accusation is that "he knows nothing, he sees nothing"--he is still stuck in the Laugh-In age. He missed his calling--he is a comedian--albeit in black humour-- Sadly, Ben is right in the Dosanjh behaviour. Another multiculti gift we have from the Liberals--bring your wars to Canada and we will support you! No one should be surprised that Dosanjh et al are just an extension of politics East Indian style.

Posted by: George at July 27, 2006 05:42 PM (vN4FH)

21 Liz J: Are you so blindly partisan that even when two politicians--one Liberal, one Conservative--are both exposed at the same time as having used their positions of power to provide assistance to a convicted criminal, that you can still find rationalizations to condemn the former and excuse the latter? Seriously, are you truly not aware of your own hypocrisies, or are you aware but merely unwilling to admit that, sometimes, even Conservative Party members can behave badly? Ben, George: I'm unfamiliar with this concept of "politics East Indian style." Care to enlighten me on the details of this style of politics? Also, can anyone provide me with a definition of racism? Because I always thought it meant something like 'discrimination or prejudice based on the assumption that a person's abilities, behaviours, values, and other components of their essential character are determined by his or her racial and/or ethnic membership, and that stereotypes associated with that racial/ethnic group can therefore be applied reliably to that person.' Like when people claim that Mr. Dosanjh's bad behaviour (and do I need to emphasize that I am not defending his recent actions in any way?) must have something to do with his being of Indian descent, so much so that he apparently possesses an East Indian style of politics (whatever that means) or that he brings 'baggage associated with how politics are done in their country of origin' (even though Mr. Dosanjh left India at 17 to study in England, and has lived in Canada for almost 40 years, and served in the Canadian public service for the past 15). But apparently, that's not what racism is, or as Surecure would have it, that's what racism is only if you're a 'lefty.'

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 07:05 PM (YK2nB)

22 No Name: Don't know why your dwelling so much on ethnicity. People involved in specific activities of the covert, shady variety, can and do come from any race. We are talking politics in this case. People in the riding expect their reps to help them with a variety of things. Just because a politician is of a particular race doesn't exempt him/her from honesty and decency. In this case Ujjal Dosanjh is a very experienced politician,Nina Grewal less so, let's wait for more facts. It's great you have an outlet for your rants on racism, hypocracies, etc. It's better than a soap box, it's anonymous, no name required. What could be better? Enjoy.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 08:19 PM (nhShX)

23 Ben, the comment regarding East Indians might be stated better as: beware voting for those who have offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada. A truly free press would help uncover and illuminate such entanglements for the benefit of the entire electorate. Since this is something we more or less lack in Canada, we're fortunate that excellent blogs such as this one are available.

Posted by: Shaken at July 27, 2006 08:36 PM (JyC7p)

24 Liz, never once in my posts did I try to exempt Mr. Dosanjh from honesty and decency, due to his race or anything else. I'm no fan of his, and I think he was caught red-handed, no excuses. In fact, in my first post, I tried to point out that BOTH Mr. Dosanjh and Mr. Grewal are equally were equally guilty of pulling political strings. BTW, that Nina Grewal is relatively inexperienced politically is beside the point. It's her husband, who has sufficient experience at the federal level to know better, who has committed the same political faux pas as Mr. Dosanjh. If you condemn one, you must by your own standards condemn the other. In my second post, I dwelled on race because posters like Ben & George insist on referring to Mr. Dosanjh's race & ethnic background in condemning his actions. I believe this is a form of racism, and stated as much. If it is indeed the case that "people involved in specific activities of the covert, shady variety, can and do come from any race" (and I agree with you that it is), then there should be no reason for Ben or George to bring up race in the first place. I agree wholeheartedly with Shaken's suggested wording: "beware voting for those who have offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada" (in contrast to "voters should look closely before electing any politician with close ties to India"). You will note that this makes no reference to race/ethnicity, and thus quite easily sidesteps any accusations of racism. Insofar as my second (and now my third) posting is a "rant", it's because others on this blog rarely opt to engage me (or anyone else, for that matter) in an actual dialogue about politics, race and racism, security and terrorism, and whatever other topic Steve considers worthy of blogging. I would much prefer an honest and open-minded discussion, but this is contingent on people not hurling out casually racist or otherwise inflamatory remarks. By the way, I had stopped listing my email in these blogs not because I prefer my soapboxes to be anonymous, but because it seems some person(s) who disagreed with one of my comments on an earlier thread decided it would be funny or just desserts to subscribe my email address to a third-party website's spam newsletter without my authorization.

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 09:53 PM (YK2nB)

25 Ujjal had a house he owned and rented out busted for a grow-op. Funny how you do not hear that bandied about. East Indian style politics in BC is all about mass sign ups. Organized at the temples, they very much have the political bosses of old. It is about East Indian voters and not about anyone else. Ethnic and religious problems are brought over from the old country. How much time Ujall has spent out of India is irrelevant because he very much is tied to India for his base. In his village he is hailed as a great man and went on a victory tour to India during his tenure as BC premier. I think it is time to debate immigrants role in Canadian politics. When I see a man with conficting allegiances such as Ujall as the defense critic, it drives me crazy. Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics? Single citizenships perhaps at the federal level? A PM of Canada must be a Canadian citizen only. One allegiance to one country. enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 12:09 AM (xTvBC)

26 A, I knew (like Surecure) that my comments would get me in trouble. Am I a racist? I certainly don't advocate prejudging a person based on skin colour. And, using your definition, I don't believe that one's "abilities, behaviours, values, and other components of their essential character are determined by his or her racial and/or ethnic membership". Nor do I believe that "stereotypes associated with that racial/ethnic group can therefore be applied reliably" to judge a person. However, should we assume that one's conditioning, background, and (perhaps most of all) connections have no effect on one's decision-making? Unfortunately, what little I know about East Indian politics leads me to believe that it is indeed based on race and ethnicity (not to mention religion), and one is expected to toe the line of the group to which you belong. Certainly, "East Indian politics" is a lot more violent than I would like, as Mr. Dosanjh's "friend" illustrates. How many cabinet ministers in Canadian politics have been shot at lately (let's not bring up beatings for the time being)? How about one who gets shot at once, survives, and then killed a few years later? Call me old-fashioned, but there are some political "values" I would prefer not to import. I have no problem voting for a candidate of any colour or ethnic group, but (as this sordid story illustrates) one had better not overlook ethnic connections because they're likely to play a part when the candidate is elected.

Posted by: Ben at July 28, 2006 12:17 AM (D2c8R)

27 Truth IS stranger than fiction. I was wondering what this guy could have on Dosanjh to get him to agree to help him, but now I'm wondering if maybe Ujjal is using him? He had a dirty deed that needed doing, and knew just the guy to go to?

Posted by: Cheri at July 28, 2006 12:24 AM (RusDc)

28 I linked to your story

Posted by: Winston at July 28, 2006 12:58 AM (nZW43)

29 Fair enough, Ben. I realized from your 2nd post that you weren't some lunatic anti-immigration racist (the way 'Enough' appears to be -- "Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics?"(!!!)). And I agree that "one's conditioning, background, and (perhaps most of all) connections" DO have an effect on actions and decision-making. I just wonder whether this episode is about East Indian politicians and their ethnic ties, or just politicians being corrupt and unprincipled. That is, conditioning, backgrounds, and connections are multidimensional concepts not limited to ethnicity. Dosanjh has an Indian background, but he also has a middle-class background, for example. He is also conditioned as being "male," and as a British Columbian. He has connections with the East Indian community (this being Vancouver, every politician has connections with the Indian community), but he also has connections with, say, the B.C. lawyers' society. My point is, it's very easy--especially in this case, when the three central players are of the same ethnic background--to focus on that most salient common characteristic between them, and then extrapolate all conclusions based on that apparent "fact." This is dangerous to do, however, because it's never clear that it was their common ethnicity that motivated them. Insofar as one should "not overlook ethnic connections because they're likely to play a part when the candidate is elected," I think this scrutiny should be limited ONLY, as 'Shaken' notes above, to "offshore political entanglements that could interfere with or harm Canada." It shouldn't be the 'ethnic' part that invites closer investigation, it's the 'connection' part. After all, least we forget, Caucasian is a race/ethnicity like any other. Likewise, Caucasian-dominated American politics is more violent than Canadian (think JFK and others). And Jewish politics likewise (think Yitzak Rabin and others). So should we scrutinize ANY white politician-white constituent (or Jewish-Jewish) relationship, simply because there's an "ethnic" connection there? This notion is ridiculous, so why is it deemed acceptable when it's a visible minority ethnicity in question? I say, instead, that ANY connection--be it ethnic, racial, economic/business-related, religious, familial, personal, etc.--that could potentially harm Canada should be subject to equal scrutinized. That would avoid accusations of discrimination, and also strengthen Canadian politics at the same time.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 07:38 AM (YK2nB)

30 How very PC of you A. "lunatic anti-immigration racist" You may disagree but to question is not rascist. Immigration is not the problem. No such thing was proposed as to limiting immigration, typical lefty dissembling. No specific race was targeted. Caucasian is exactly what race? Sounds steriotypical to lump all "white" as a race. The Italians, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish, Belgians do disagree with you. What was questioned was limiting the role of immigrants in Canadian politics. Why is it not correct to question this? The US president must have been born in the US. How many on the left would argue against an amendment that allowed Arnold Schwartzeneger to to be President? Would they too be rascist? Societies inevitably change. How fast or slow this happens can damage these societies. BC changed dramatically in the mid 80's with a large asian immigration. That is fine in itself but ethnic youth gangs flourished, violence between these gangs became a huge issue and it took at least a decade for BC to regain equilibrium. Vancouver still has East Indian gangs fighting Vietnamese and Chinese gangs killing off each other. 20 years ago this was virtually unheard of. The left way is not to question. Unlimited immigration, throw money at the multicult stuff and ignore any problems. Brand anyone who questions immigration a rascist. Why does someone come from another culture then feel free to tell everyone else what to do? Why the sense of entitlement? Grewal mass signed up to take over his and his wifes riding. The left did not like that and railed against that. They did not raise a concern when the Liberal or NDP did that. enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 09:30 AM (ucHAZ)

31 To hold any public office...from municipal all the way up to federal... You should have been born here in Canada ..AND.. show proof of at least 18 years of residency. Well, then you're saying that a politically involved guy like me can't ever run for office... thanks to that pesky detail of being born in Britian 9 months before I came over here. Thanks a bunch William. ;-)

Posted by: Christian Conservative at July 28, 2006 10:36 AM (9wHsi)

32 We need more immigrants involved in politics. That does not change the facts regarding how politics are conducted in other countries. I admire Swiss democracy. I don't admire Indian democracy. I know Indian politics well. My wife is well enough connected that my father-in-law offered her a job as a MP there. Only in a grossly unfair system is that possible. I won't bore you with all the other considerable political connections. At its core, Indian politics are about 3 things; identity and winners & losers. People are elected based on race, class, caste, tribe, religion, clan and family. The elected official is then beholden to those groups. If you support a loser, you get nothing. There is no common good. No representing all your constituents. Try that and you won't even get a party nomination. I want every politician of Indian origin to reject the cultural pull of that type of politics. Neither Dosanjh and Grewal did. One down. One to go.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 28, 2006 11:04 AM (F47cQ)

33 No such thing was proposed as to limiting immigration... No, you merely proposed limiting the Section 3 Charter right of first-generation Canadians (I assume we're talking about those, like Mr. Dosanjh & Mr. and Mrs. Grewal, have since acquired Canadian citizenship) to participate fully in the democratic process, which includes running for political office. That, in my book, is an anti-immigrant and racist position to take. The US president must have been born in the US. How many on the left would argue against an amendment that allowed Arnold Schwartzeneger to to be President? Would they too be rascist? First, that's the US, not Canada. Second, "born in the US" applies only to the Presidency, not Congress, the House, governorships, mayoral offices, etc. Third, whether it's discriminatory or not depends on what the arguments are. If it's "People born in Austria can never be fully loyal to the US", then yeah, discriminatory. Fourth, so would you be OK with one of Mr. Dosanjh or Mr. Grewal's Canadian-born children becoming PM one day? Caucasian is exactly what race? Sounds steriotypical to lump all "white" as a race. The Italians, Spanish, Ukrainian, Polish, Belgians do disagree with you. First, let me note that 'race' is itself a dubious distinction, with no significant parallels at the biological and genetic levels. However, since it is a real social construct, with real social & political consequences, I will retain its use here. So, first I should clarified my own statement. I meant to say that 'Caucasian' is a race, within which are many Caucasoid ethnicities, such as Italians, Polish, British, etc, rather than just "Caucasian race/ethnicity." In any case, I didn't use "Causasian" to stereotype anyone's behaviour. My point at the time was that some people in this thread appear to support extra scrutiny of East Indian-Canadian politicians because of their ethnic backgrounds. By this logic (and I'll state this with painful specificity), a Canadian politician of Caucasoid race and, say, Irish ethnicity who freely enters into a business/political relationship with a Canadian citizen of Caucasoid race and Irish ethnicity should arouse similar scrutiny over potential collusion based on their ethnic ties or baggage. But this would be ridiculous, right? Like 'Shaken', I propose an alternative approach, which is to not look at ethnicity per se (which is too general), but at the particular details of the connection/relationship to discern whether potential harm to Canada exist (which is specific). Why does someone come from another culture then feel free to tell everyone else what to do? Why the sense of entitlement? If they become citizens of Canada, they're as entitled to an equal voice as any other citizen. They may exercise this right through voting and by entering political office, among other options. As free citizens, they should also be entitled to try to tell everyone else what to do, but they have no right to make everyone else do it, and everyone else has an equal right to ignore them. If you wish to acquire the same level of political clout as a Mr./Mrs. Grewal or Mr. Dosanjh, I encourage you to run for office. Likewise, assuming those who signed up in Grewal and his wife's ridings were Canadian citizens, then how can you have an issue with their support for Grewal? It's the very definition of democracy, for local constituents to come together and elect the member of their community that they believe best represents their interests and needs, whatever those needs happen to be. I hadn't realize the left railed against Grewal mass-signing up people, but even if I had, I certainly wouldn't have been among the protesters.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 12:57 PM (Oee6D)

34 A, You can call rascist any act you desire. It does not make it so. I ask for debate free of shrill cries of rascism. Is it a reasonable question? I think it is. Should it apply to all levels of government? That is up for debate. I am questioning possible limits on immigrants involvement in politics. Not specific ethnic limits. It is the left that likes ethnic divides as shown by native indiana and reservations. The US was used as an example. Are you limiting our decisions to acts and examples as provided only by Canadians? Venezuela also limits the presidency to native born Venezuelans. Lebanon reserves government positions based on religon. The NDP have sometimes wished to reserve positions by gender. The charter says they are allowed an equal voice. The charter is a construct of people who did not take a long term view of the results. It IS up to us to debate the charter and modify it as needed. It appears to be a holy document of the Liberals but it was thrust on us relatively recently and Quebec still does not approve it. Typical to shutdown debate when the left wishes to. East Indian politics in BC is well known for busing in non citizens to riding association meetings and taking over the riding. Slippery way in the back door seeing as these people choosing the candidate are unable to vote in elections. We have residency requirements for voting, we have age requirements and we used to limit the vote of convicts. Why is this not up for debate without knee jerk accusations of rascism? enough

Posted by: enough at July 28, 2006 01:52 PM (ucHAZ)

35 I ask for debate free of shrill cries of rascism...I am questioning possible limits on immigrants involvement in politics. Fine, I will take you at your word. No more cries of racism. Why not restrictions on immigrants participation in politics? Single citizenships perhaps at the federal level? A PM of Canada must be a Canadian citizen only. One allegiance to one country. First, in our Parliamentary system, qualifications for the position of PM are basically the same as qualifications for federal MP, the PM traditionally being whomever is the leader of the party with the most House of Commons seats. The PM's Office isn't even formally acknowledged as a separate entity in the Constitution. So, unless we reform our parliamentary structure as well, any qualification restrictions you might like to see applied to the PM would also be applied to MPs. So, you call for restrictions on immigrants participation in politics, and also for federal politicians to be single citizenship Canadians only. These are two separate issues, since one can be an immigrant and also a single citizenship Canada, or conversely a dual-citizenship Canadian but not an immigrant. On the first issue, what specific restrictions on immigrant political participation do you suggest? You need to specify more details before we can debate them. On the second issue, my main concern is that requiring possession of single citizenship alone will not necessarily improve or guarantee greater allegience to Canada. Requiring the PM to carry only Canadian citizenship while renouncing others (say, British dual citizenship) might be a nice symbolic gesture, but it doesn't offer any actual guarantees that, when push comes to shove, he/she no longer feels any allegience to the UK. The charter is a construct of people who did not take a long term view of the results. It IS up to us to debate the charter and modify it as needed. The Charter's formulators very much took a long-term view. In fact, they opted to supercede the Bill of Rights (which is legislation, and hence relatively easy to amend) with the Charter (which is a constitutional document, and hence relatively difficult to amend) precisely because the rights and freedoms enshrined within it were deemed so fundamental to the Canadian way of life that they needed to be protected by constitutional (as opposed to merely statutory) authority. Yes, we should continually review and debate its contents. But as is so with any other constitutional document, modifications should be proposed only with extreme care and diligence. Also note that where the Charter has been amended, it is usually been to add or further protect rights (i.e., s.16.1 & s.25), not restrict them.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 03:52 PM (Oee6D)

36 Uh, guys, I think it's more of a cultural thing than a race or ethnic thing. And Canada is officially multi-cultural. This has nothing to do with how long someone has been in Canada - but most certainly has to do with Canada being a battleground for some culture's, usually religious, war. For example, Jaspal Atwal says he has been here 36 years, so I guess he arrived in 1970. In 1987 he made the attempt on the life of India's minister responsible for Punjab, Malkiat Singh Sidhu on Vancouver Island. Well, this puts him in Canada for over 15 years prior to using Vancouver Island as a cultural battleground. The court's gave him 20 years for that incident and Canada's culture "allowed" him to serve 6 years jail-time. Then allowed visits back to the Punjab - the visa has since been pulled because he did a drive-by shooting of his brother's house. What's the answer? If religion is involved, double the real-time jail sentence? If it was done in Canada due to for foreign terrorism, make the charge treason to Canada? Require the rest of your parole to be served in some other culture's ghetto? - because the one you were in certainly taught you some bad manners. This is really, really nasty stuff leading to a really slippery slope.

Posted by: lindsay at July 28, 2006 04:22 PM (JjcUU)

37 "Oh Lord it's Hard to be Humble When Yor Perfect in Every Way".....any takers? "A" No doubt your a very good person, you mean well, but for god's sake and for the sake of debate, you've gotta get off your obsession with racism, it can be linked to the time of day if you try hard enough. Canada is made up of so many races, some with whom we have a long history with and some a very short history. Those with whom we have shorter history with have closer ties to the countries from which they came. Some are here fighting for causes back in their homeland. Some have brought the heavy baggage of hatred. We have to come to grips with it as best we can and pray it will work out, no guarantees. Racism is far more complicated than the occasional mention of someone's ethnicity.With your attitude we would never get past G'day.

Posted by: Liz J at July 28, 2006 07:01 PM (whNfu)

38 Canada is made up of so many races, some with whom we have a long history with and some a very short history. Those with whom we have shorter history with have closer ties to the countries from which they came. Some are here fighting for causes back in their homeland. Some have brought the heavy baggage of hatred. For the sake of debate, Liz, specifically which races/ethnicities/countries would you be referring to?

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 07:46 PM (Q+Bei)

39 I think Liz has done absolutely the right thing in not naming the races/cultures in question. I think we all know which ones they are, but asking for the specifics only serves to cloud the discussion, unless you are prepared to debate the real issues (i.e. statistical and philosophical facts) pertaining to said races/cultures, which I've seen no indication of so far. For the sake of debate? No. For the sake of straw-man arguments and squelching debate, perhaps. The Charter did not supercede the Bill of Rights because the Bill of Rights was short-sighted. Far from "protecting" any previously-overlooked rights, the Charter merely "protects" certain left-wing ideals from rational debate. It enforces multiculturalism as a policy irrespective of the elected government, and thus enforces balkanization as an end result. Good for Liberals, bad for our country. I doubt very much that our Prime Minister is ballsy enough to do anything about that right now, but I personally would vote for anyone willing eradicate that abomination and reinstate the original Bill of Rights as our constitution.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 28, 2006 09:16 PM (1xiB4)

40 C'mon, Aaron, "A"'s just trying to get "Liz J" to lay all her cards on the table. Seems fair to me that she give the specifics of who she's talking about. We all know she isn't no racist. In fact, I think she oughta just come right out and name them, and then challenge "A" to try and debate the real issues about race without resorting to the old liberal "racist card". Don't think he can do it.

Posted by: Bach at July 28, 2006 11:45 PM (Q+Bei)

41 Trudeau forced the Charter on us with no approval by the Canadian people. 15. (1)of the charter does not mention sexual preference. It was debated and left out. Even though courts have now interpreted this document that is relatively young and with many of those involved writing it still alive. Ask the writers for an "interpretation". A well written law would not be "interpreted" so soon after creation. Bringing hatred and the baggage from their homelands is common. Tamil terrorists, Sikh terrorists, IRA terrorists, islamic terrorists the list could go on. Overwhelming immigration without any attempt to ensure immigrant acclimate to Canada ensures that these problems continue and even flourish. That has been a result of Canadas multicultural policies. It can take 3 generations for the integration of immigrants. In the meantime Canadian culture gets swamped or overwhelmed. In Vancouver wholesale movement of long term Canadians out to the suburbs and farther and large ethnic enclaves. enough

Posted by: enough at July 29, 2006 12:19 PM (xTvBC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Gerard Kennedy's mysterious riding association

This is probably a minor thing, but there is something strange about the registration of the leadership website of Gerard Kennedy, a leading candidate for the leadership of the federal Liberal Party.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:52 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 516 words, total size 4 kb.

1 I'm sorry, what's the story here? Yawn. And if you don't have a problem with public servants playing ball, why do you bring it up? Stop it.

Posted by: James Bowie at July 27, 2006 08:33 AM (OO9+l)

2 The riding association might be miffed. So might CIRA. It seems minor, I know, but it's quite possible that some people will be annoyed (or worse) by sloppy record keeping like this.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 27, 2006 08:45 AM (pFrk8)

3 This is such a non-story! How do you even look up the registration record on a website anyway? Doesn't seem readily accessible to the average person. Did you actually spend time pouring over the technical specs behind all the Liberal leadership websites, hoping to find something--anything!--even remotely anomalous so that you could spin it as yet another instance of Liberal deceit?

Posted by: Godel at July 27, 2006 09:00 AM (Oee6D)

4 Has Gerhard committed to challenging Peggy Nash in the next federal election (whether he becomes leader or not)?

Posted by: Joan Tintor at July 27, 2006 09:15 AM (Johs2)

5 Too much time on your hands. Too much time...

Posted by: hangin to the left at July 27, 2006 02:23 PM (zXEKo)

6 Close him down! Oh waitr this canada there is no attempt at equal treatment.

Posted by: DrWright at July 27, 2006 02:39 PM (sf7h6)

7 Ontario ridings mirror federally and provincially. So Parkdale is Gerard's old provincial riding. I presume Andrew is involved with the board in that riding association - most likely they registered the domain when Gerard was still an MPP hence the organization.

Posted by: Dan at July 27, 2006 04:41 PM (5yvvP)

8 It takes all of about 6 seconds to look up the registration info on a domain. But I guess only a member of the VRWC would know that, right? :-) Steve *might* have been doing whois lookups on every single Liberal site on the internet. Then again, he might have gotten a tip from someone, or been acting on a hunch. I didn't hear any of you complaining when the Star was digging up whatever dirt they could find on Stephen Harper (which was precious little) to claim evidence of his "hidden agenda". Seriously, what's with this "doesn't seem readily accessible to the average person" and "too much time on your hands" stuff? I would've pegged this as a non-story too, but the weird defensiveness from Libs in this thread is going to make it into a story.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 27, 2006 07:16 PM (1xiB4)

9 "but the weird defensiveness from Libs in this thread is going to make it into a story." Huh?

Posted by: Dan McKenzie at August 02, 2006 12:06 AM (QerMm)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ken Hill's bail conditions

Ken Hill has made an appearance in court.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 07:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 388 words, total size 3 kb.

July 26, 2006

The Brookstreet Blog

The new Brookstreet Blog is up and running at the Blogging Tories. Check out the conservative notables who have posted.

I am planning to check back frequently to see who else is going to contribute.

The blog is named after the Brookstreet Hotel in Ottawa, by the way, which has played host to important meetings for Canadian conservatives over the years. It is not an exaggeration to say that much of the recent success of conservatism in Canada can be traced to the Brookstreet.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:36 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 90 words, total size 1 kb.

On the lookout for spies and terrorists (but being discreet about it)

In World War II, people were left in war-ravaged Europe for fear of Axis spies using a flow of refugees as a means of infiltrating Allied countries. Today, people caught up in the fighting in Lebanon are coming to Canada instead of being left in that mess. History is not repeating itself. But that doesn't mean the risks are not the same, and CSIS is on the lookout for spies and terrorists amidst the flow of people being rescued.

It would be irresponsible not to be worried about the possibility, and then not to do anything about it. But do it quietly, or else the accusation of racial profiling might put an end to the effort.

more...

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:42 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 952 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I've had the same concerns for a while now: http://71.18.16.165/2006/07/targets-positioning-assets.html

Posted by: Richard Evans at July 26, 2006 10:05 AM (sYwXz)

2 Banning Muslim immigrants is a band-aid solution that will accomplish little: 1) What does a Muslim look like? It's pretty easy to hide one's religious affiliation when attempting to enter a nation. A regular Muslim is not likely to bother, but a terrorist could easily pass himself off as a Lebanese Christian or even a Jew. 2) Racial profiling simply criminalizes an entire population, creating more possible sympathizer or at the very least a population where terrorists can easily operate (as they are no longer differentiated from regular citizens) 3) Islamic extremist groups have already expressed interest in recruiting Anglo-Saxons to their cause. Some are courting the extreme right (eg the Aryan Nations) while others are recruiting the "angry loner" types. The obvious advantage is that a WASP with a local accent will easily evade all the "profiling" and do more damage due to their knowledge of the local culture. Stephen Harper knows all of this, which is why he quickly KO'd any idea of placing relgion-based or race-based restrictions on immigration. Hillbilly profiling solutions cannot substitute for proper intelligence gathering and infiltration. Instead of playing to the fears of the masses, why not increase funding for CSIS, the RCMP and other agencies that are properly trained to combat terrorist networks.

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 10:40 AM (49GF0)

3 "In World War II, people were left in war-ravaged Europe for fear of Axis spies using a flow of refugees as a means of infiltrating Allied countries. Today, people caught up in the fighting in Lebanon are coming to Canada instead of being left in that mess." Were the people left in war-ravaged Europe citizens of the country they were trying to return to?

Posted by: balbulican at July 26, 2006 11:47 AM (pNbix)

4 Canada, Islam in conflict: Leger Poll (Ottawa, July 25) A majority of Canadians hold a negative view of Muslim countries. Surprisingly, in Quebec for example, 67% have a negative view. So it would seem one writer here, fortunately for Canada's sake, is in the minority. A moratorium on Muslim immigration is not difficult to execute. Obviously not allowing in those from Muslim dominated countries would take care of most of the problem. Further, Canada could adopt more stringent screening processes like Denmark and Germany have for example. Recruitment of Anglo Saxons? Ha, 1500 years would prove otherwise. And I doubt skinheads have anymore love of Muslims than they do for Jews. "racial profiling simply criminalizes an entire population..." I'd say chopping off peoples heads does a better job of that. Not to mention certain suras in the Quran. And did I mention Mohammad's life example? The rest of your post makes even less sense and isn't worth commenting on.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 12:39 PM (MkblT)

5 1) The Aryan nations are not skinheads 2) The Aryan Nations leadship HAS been speaking to radical Islamacists. White supremacists like Jared Taylor (American Rennaisance) and Nick Griffin (BNP Party) have been speaking to Jews 3) "I'd say chopping off peoples heads does a better job of that. Not to mention certain suras in the Quran. And did I mention Mohammad's life example?" - What does any of this have to do with what I said? Stay on topic. 4) "A majority of Canadians hold a negative view of Muslim countries. Surprisingly, in Quebec for example, 67% have a negative view." - Meaning what? Blind discrimination is therefore ok? My post doesn't make sense to you because you refuse to look at the situation as being anything besides a simplistic racial campaign. If you want to beat up on Muslims that's one thing, but it has little to do with fighting terrorism. But since you clearly know something that Israeli intelligence, Stephen Harper, the FBI, etc do not, why not inform them that the solution to the terror problem is as simple as banning Muslim immigration ... since "no one likes them anyway"

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 12:48 PM (49GF0)

6 Stay on topic? As I said, your posts, including your lack of logic and facts are not worth commenting on.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 01:04 PM (MkblT)

7 That's because you don't understand them. Not my fault. You pull that "lack of logic" line every time your grade-3 level solutions are countered by reality. Better do some googling on those "facts" I lack yet somehow posted. And Irwin I'm quite serious about your tendency to racialize everything: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/003957.html

Posted by: Cynapse at July 26, 2006 01:10 PM (49GF0)

8 I get nervous when I read stories about creeps like Professor Ghazi Falah...and that extremely kooked political science prof at UBC. These are the 'academic elite' of our Islamic immigration..I have no doubt they think less of me than I do of them. I wasn't shocked when I read the chat transcripts of the women related too the Toronto terror plot. The hate filled diatribes were as as bad as anything one would read on some white supremacy board. Maybe even worse. A majority of muslim immigrants have had it pounded into their brains since kindergarten that they're the chosen ones...and we are less than human. We on the other hand, are now generations of Trudeau indoctrinated Happy poeple.. Oblivious to the disdain that some, not all, immigrants have for us.

Posted by: Levesque at July 26, 2006 01:22 PM (Kr2nu)

9 Of course you're serious. People of your ilk always pull out the race card as a last resort, attempting to stifle any debate, at the same time attempting to take the moral high ground. However, Islam is not a race, further proving the ill-logic of what one might loosely refer to as your mind.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 26, 2006 01:45 PM (MkblT)

10 It is very easy to turn the taps off as the government did it to the UK and other European countries back in the 70's

Posted by: ian at July 26, 2006 01:45 PM (KqGpk)

11 It's not about "racial profiling", it's about "terrorist profiling". Big difference. The fact that at the moment the greatest threat comes from olive-skinned retards doesn't make it a racial issue.

Posted by: potato at July 26, 2006 01:55 PM (zTXCu)

12 It seems common sense to profile people from the source of whatever the threat is whether it's country, ethnicity, religion or broadly racial. With terrorism it's very wide in scope, these dangerous bastards can be anywhere, we have imported them bag and baggage with their hatred and old fights along with them. How can anyone think any security organization does not profile? They do, they don't talk about it. The media, the ones who are engaged in covert activities love the term "racial profiling" and it's always used as a last refuge for scoundrels.

Posted by: Liz J at July 26, 2006 03:22 PM (IAFEF)

13 Irwin: the survey numbers you cite are wrong. You are referring, I presume, to this report. Among its findings: Across Canada as a whole, a majority (63%) of the population reported a generally positive view of Muslims. Granted, less so than Christians (81%) and Jews (79%), but a majority nevertheless. In Atlantic provinces together, 82% positive, 11% negative. In Ontario, 68% positive, 16% negative. In Quebec, 40% (not 67%) negative, versus 53% positive. In fact, in every region surveyed, more people had generally positive views rather than negative ones. In a second survey, 67% of Quebecers perceive the relationship between Muslim nations and Western nations as negative. Perhaps that's where you got the figure from. Of course, surveys and statistics tell us only so much. I agree with Cynapse -- even if a majority held negative attitudes towards Muslims (which they do not), it still wouldn't justify discriminatory immigration policies.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 03:59 PM (Oee6D)

14 Levesque: you equate the hate-filled online rants of a few Muslim women with those commonly found in white supremacist websites -- fair enough, as both are equally despicable. But if you then argue that these women are somehow representative of the average Muslim (as you insinuate in your very next paragraph), then to follow your peculiar logic, you'd better be willing to argue as well that white supremacists bloggers are equally representative of the average white Canadian too. Unless, of course, you hold Canadians of Muslim faith to a different standard to that of other Canadians. Then you wouldn't be hypocritical, merely prejudiced.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 04:21 PM (Oee6D)

15 Liz J: Please refrain from paraphrasing that overused and oft-abused Samuel Johnson line. It's been (mis)applied, usually without merit or context, to both liberals and conservatives so often as to drain it of all meaning and punch. The problem with profiling people based on 'country, ethnicity, religion or broadly racial' background arises when only a single criterion is used in the profile. It may still feel superficially like 'common sense,' but it's far too broad to be useful for security purposes, and also a slippery slope for law enforcement. Additionally, it is hugely offensive to the target group, and shames all of society for allowing it. Subjecting all Muslim persons who pass through our borders to 'special screening,' because they're Muslim and hence possibly terrorists, is no different than police officers randomly pulling over black males because they're black and hence possibly gang members. Single-dimension 'profiles' (whether based solely on race, faith, or whatever) aren't threat profiles at all--they're just reflections of our own prejudices and insecurities.

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 07:00 PM (YK2nB)

16 A: Try to comprehend...Canadian White supremicists aren't a product of the national education system. Islamofascists (born outside of Canada,but immigrating here)are a direct product of their national education systems. Nowhere did I say that a majority of muslim immigrants are Islamonazis...I stated that they have all have been indoctrinated to the principles. Whether they liked it or not. You should do research on overseas Islamic schools. Especially at the primary level.

Posted by: Levesque at July 26, 2006 08:20 PM (Kr2nu)

17 Levesque, it would be helpful if you could cite some evidence to support your apparent claim that the average Muslim immigrant to Canada has received a hate-filled national education system, has been consciously or unconsciously indoctrinated by anti-Westernism, and therefore qualifies for the label 'Islamofascist'. What do you think of Indonesia, which despite being home to more Muslims than any other country and having a sizeable Islamic school system, has not only managed to create a stable, secular democratic republic, but has also developed a state ideology (which all primary school children learn) known as Pancasila, which among other things emphasizes social justice, human dignity, and civility? What about the Lebanese state education system, in which the Ministry of Education has mandated a uniform curriculum comprising compulsory classes like Arabic, English/French, Math, History, Sciences, Music, Art, and Computers, among others? What about my friend W, who was born in Afghanistan, attended the primary and secondary state school system there, emigrated at 17 to Canada, earned a B.A. at U of Toronto, and has now been accepted to Oxford U in England to study sociology and human rights? Are all these examples (some factual, some anecdotal) simply exceptions to the Muslim majority of which you speak? Is the fact that (knock on wood) none of my Muslim friends have yet to denounce my wicked Western ways, but instead have welcomed me into their homes and lives, simply an anomaly in your theory? And when you say things like 'We on the other hand...' and 'Oblivious to the disdain that some, not all, immigrants have for us,' what do you mean by 'we' and 'us'? Because it sickens me to think that you presume to speak in any way on my behalf.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 09:52 PM (YK2nB)

18 9/12 driving in the car @ the 400/401 interchange in Toronto, and I happen to tune into an Urdu language radio call in program. I hear a kid (10ish) call in. I turn to my wife, "Did that kid just say what I think he said?" "He praised Allah for Osama bin Laden and wished death on America." The host said nothing. He never cut the kid off or interrupted his 2 minute rant. He had no comments, just took the next call. Lots more of similar sentiments in the next calls. My wife made me switch the channel. One of our Pakistani friend told me his Urdu/Punjabi speaking detective friend paid a visit to TO's newspaper editors. They were told to tone it down or they were in danger of hate crimes prosecution. Sure, 90% of Muslims in Canada are great people. I gave our Afgani friends their first Christmas in Canada 8 months ago. Wonderful people. However, there is a radical 10% who are allowed to spew dangerous stuff. This is a present day, global phenomena. It is the worst sort of moral relativism to say that this affects all religions equally. It hasn't even affected Islam equally. There are large Muslim sects that appear to be unaffected by this, except that they are victims as opposed to perpetrators. The world has many problems. One of them is a radicalized and violent strain of Islam that is gaining in influence and ability. From the Philipines to Thailand to Nigeria to New York to France to Israel this obvious to everyone. There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 27, 2006 10:57 AM (F47cQ)

19 In a multi-cultural, open and free society, there are few social and cultural controls to prevent anti-social behaviour. It's mainly criminal justice, enforcement and intelligence. Post WW II we let in numerous Nazis. They stayed here, hidden for decades. However, they came here to hide and leave their old life behind them. What if they had been sent to continue the struggle? The first principle of contamination control is CATS, Control At The Source. If proper screening isn't done in the immigrant's/refugee's source country then we are creating a big problem. As an immigrant sponsor, let me tell you proper screening isn't done. The security clearances are a joke. Our overseas RCMP & CSIS are understaffed. Immigration Canada decisions are influenced strongly by the local centres of power. Simple question; did Canada give a more thorough interview and screening to refugees from the Soviet Union then we gave to those from other countries? Yes because they were a potential source of spies for the Soviets. Now we are dealing with a non-nation state threat.

Posted by: PlaidShirt at July 27, 2006 11:09 AM (F47cQ)

20 A: The Leger poll findings are not "wrong" (insert arrogant know-it-all here). Unless of course you know more about this poll than the pollster and the Hamilton Spectator. In fact it says that only 25% of Canadians show any favourable view towards Muslims at all. What I'm saying is that more and more Canadians are becoming negative towards Islam, and so they should. CSIS and the RCMP can't deal with the troubles we already have from the existing Muslim population, let alone adding more through immigration. I'm also saying that the 17 accused are 'homegrown.' From that, one can certainly observe that Islam is a fertile ground for creating terrorists regardless of where they were born or live. That's why I believe a moratorium on Muslim immigration is critical. Canada needs time to understand and integrate Muslims already here and to weed out potential terrorists and the ideologues who motivate them. I've known enough kind hearted and decent Muslims. But every one was a non-practicing Muslim only by birth. When you take kids and teach them from the Quran, of course they will be prone to violence. "Strike off their heads" (Quran 8:12) and hundreds more verses order the true followers of Mohammad to do just that.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 27, 2006 02:32 PM (MkblT)

21 No Name Post, July 26, 2006, 07:pm : The terrorism we are dealing with today is coming from radical factions of Islam. It's not prejudicial to make that statement, it's a fact. If security are not screening, (profiling), people from counties that sponsor and breed terrorism they are not doing their jobs. "a slippery slope for law enforcement"?? If a white person commits a crime the cops will not waste time looking for a black person and vice versa. One very glaring problem for law enforcement lies in the judicial system, well stacked with ideologies of the Left. Thank you for your haughty request re the quote from Samuel "Dictionary" Johnson, always helpful to have things sorted by an expert. Freedom of speech can often be insufferable but so can insufferable gall, even on blog ramblings.

Posted by: Liz J at July 27, 2006 03:52 PM (PCCRt)

22 Oh, and Irwin, since you seem so fond of citing passages of the Qur'an out of context, I thought I'd do the same with the Christian Bible. You cited specifically a passage of Qur'an Ch. 8, Al-Anfal, which deals with the conduct and spoils of war, so I shall do likewise and cite Deuteronomy 20:10-18(New International version), which also deals with the conduct and spoils of war. I've helpfully CAPITALIZED my favourite parts. To wit: "When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, PUT TO THE SWORD ALL THE MEN IN IT. AS FOR THE WOMEN, THE CHILDREN, THE LIVESTOCK AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE CITY, YOU MAY TAKE THESE AS PLUNDER FOR YOURSELVES. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby. However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, DO NOT LEAVE ALIVE ANYTHING THAT BREATHES. COMPLETELY DESTROY THEMÂ—-the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and JebusitesÂ—-as the Lord your God has commanded you. Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic school, wore the uniform and everything. Can't say that I have an insatiable urge to smite my enemies with the edge of my sword, though. But I suppose you'd say that Islam is inherently more violent than Christianity, right? Because fanatical Islamic terrorists derive all their anger and resentment and hatred and bloodlust from the Qur'an, and it has nothing to do with aggressive Western foreign policies or anything secular like that. Or maybe I'm just not a true follower of the Lord our God.

Posted by: A at July 27, 2006 04:05 PM (Oee6D)

23 Liz J: You're right, "The terrorism we are dealing with today is coming from radical factions of Islam" is not a prejudicial statement. But it is prejudicial (not to mention hugely inefficient and generally ineffective) to use a security/threat profile whose sole criterion is "Muslim." Here is the Ontario Human Rights Commission's definition of racial profiling: "any action undertaken for reasons of safety, security or public protection that relies on stereotypes about race, colour, ethnicity, ancestry, religion, or place of origin rather than on reasonable suspicion, to single out an individual for greater scrutiny or different treatment." A more narrow definition, used by a study published in the Canadian Review of Policing Research, is "a racial disparity in police stop and search practices, customs searches at airports and border-crossings, in police patrols in minority neighbourhoods and in undercover activities or sting operations which target particular ethnic groups." Racial profiling is not about pulling over blacks (or whites, or Asians) when a crime involving a black (or white, or Asian) suspect is committed. Racial profiling occurs when blacks are disproportionately stopped at random, in the absence of a crime having been committed in the immediate vicinity or time, on the stereotyped assumption that blacks are just more likely to be up to no good. And this is no Liberal media fantasy -- it actually happens (summary of findings, p. 73). Likewise, stopping Muslims at the airport just because they're Muslim IS a form of racial profiling, because no immediate crime has been committed requiring customs agents to look for suspects. They are stopped on the presumption of future crimes, not present ones. And it's a slippery slope, because it gives law enforcement agents a carte blanche to arrest and detain anybody they want, since they can always claim the stop was justified by some nebulous "profile".

Posted by: at July 27, 2006 04:30 PM (Oee6D)

24 Link above refers to "Final Report - Professor Scot Wortley - 15 September 2005" (PDF), available at www.police.kingston.on.ca

Posted by: at July 27, 2006 04:33 PM (Oee6D)

25 This stuff is going on and leads to my suspicions expressed below.. In order to finance the training of these *volunteers,* as well as the seemingly endless barrage of rockets that have rained down on Israeli cities, Hezbollah has established an extensive fundraising infrastructure in the United States, as well as in Canada, South America, Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Supplementing the nearly $100 million Hezbollah reportedly receives from Iran, Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. have engaged in a litany of criminal activities, including credit card fraud, cigarette smuggling, counterfeiting, drug running, and organized retail theft, that provide millions to the Shiite terrorist organization. *snip* Despite Al-Mabarrat-USA’s direct link to a Fadlallah-controlled organization, to date, the U.S. branch continues to operate unfettered. In fact, the organization appears to have gained a level of credibility in the U.S. as the Detroit Free Press reported earlier this month that *many Muslims in the region have donated to Al-Mabarrat.* MyRepublicanBlog = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:37 PM (2GVBQ)

26 Plot to undermine our Economy? Or is this just a BIG rip-off in a small town? A popular hotel, beer parlour , restaurant, nightclub and adjacent liquor sales outlet all suddenly now stand boarded up and closed here in Courtenay B.C. I wondered about how this happened when all those businesses were doing a brisk business. Speaking with someone connected with the city, I learned the following. The whole hotel complex had been under new ownership for the last three or four months. Suddenly, the new owners evaporated, left town, vanished. They left, I am told with a bundle , because none of the bills had been paid. Politically incorrect part…. Brace yourself! Before everything closed , I noticed while attending the restaurant and club that the new owners were Arabian. No idea if they were Shia, Sunni, or Iranian or Palastinian of course, but the thought did occur that this was a fast way to raise great amounts of money for say, a fundamentalist cause and damage your enemy economy at the same time. OK, you could suggest that I am overly suspicious, yet everything fits so well, there just seems to be a very real possibility that this could be happening in other small towns in Canada. Grand larceny on a grand scale? Knowing the MSM, we the peons, would be the last to know about it. Lawyers, notaries public, law enforcement and investigative professionals who read this could possibly find out if this pattern of rip-off has jumped recently in Canada. Those of you who have access to crime trends sites on the net could let us know if hotels and small complexes are being foreclosed due to fraud more frequently than average. This non-violent stuff never shows up in the press. My city contact said the new complex owners had suggested they were in the Middle East precious gems business and the impression that they had great wealth was unmistakable. I know, I know. All this is simply word of mouth and there is no documentation. This is in fact only a possible theory. However, I risk reprimand in mentioning it, because if this is happening in other places in Canada, there is no harm in being alerted. A conspiracy theory to be sure, but there is great logic behind it and what*s the harm in debunking it if this happens to just an isolated incident? In fact, I hope someone can assure us with authority, that this is not a growing trend in Canada. = TG

Posted by: TonyGuitar at July 27, 2006 04:40 PM (2GVBQ)

27 "A": It is Arabs who have been a part of Canadian culture since the 1800s, not Muslims. They are not one and the same. In fact, as has been discussed in some other posts, there is somewhat of a war emerging now between Arabism and Islam. Muslims intentionally use the terms interchangeably in order to further obfuscate the issue in Western cultures so that they can continue to "Islamify" them behind the curtains, with the intended result looking like France, Britain, Dearborn, or Montreal. Not all Arabs are Muslims, and not all Muslims are Arabs. They overlap but are not pseudonymous. Iran and Palestine are Muslim states. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are Arab states. You can see the clear difference in ideals with their respective treatments of Israel at this very moment. The point of what I'm saying is, most of the very-decent people whom we've all met and call Muslims are not, in fact, Muslims. They're not even non-practicing Muslims. They are Arabs or they are atheists/agnostics/deists/secularists, who have no real ties to Islam, and in many cases they or their parents left their home countries because they despised Islam. Why do you suppose so many Iranians avoid using the term "Iran" and instead call themselves "Persian?" Persia is an Arabic icon. Iran is a non-Arab, Muslim state. And to finally get to the relevance of this reply, so is Lebanon to a rather large extent, being under the control of the Iranian Hezbollah. Islam - not Arabism - is fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism. Whereas western law was largely built on a mix of altruistic and individualistic Christian and Judaic principles, Islam insists upon Sharia law where the only true form of altruism is martyrdom. It does not tolerate other religions, or indeed any dissent at all. Trying to convert a muslim is an offense punishable by death. So is depicting the prophet Muhammad in a drawing. So is a woman revealing virtually any part of her body in public. So is being a Jew. These aren't just in the Qu'ran, this is a form of law actually practiced in Muslim states. Read about the events in Somalia during the last few weeks. Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser extent) have both preached violence in the past and had to be involved in a lot of bloody wars before they moderated themselves. Islam, however, is excessively brutal, and has so far escaped the forces which moderated other religions and is now being shielded from those forces by the multicultural left. This is breeding ground for sleeper cells and other terrorist activity. There's a very real danger to letting in all these refugees and I hope that we have the resources to deal with the inevitable trouble that it will stir up. Does this mean that there are no decent Muslims in Canada? Of course not! Just that, statistically, Muslims are an order of magnitude more likely to be terrorists than anybody else in Canada, and we should therefore be paying extra-close attention to them. There is no evidence to support the assertion that terrorist profiling creates more terrorists, and no basis for referring to it as "racial" profiling other than to play identity politics and stifle honest debate.

Posted by: Aaron G at July 27, 2006 09:37 PM (1xiB4)

28 A: So I've taken the "Strike off their heads" verse out of context have I? Well then, the 17 who wanted to strike off the head of our PM must be out of context as well, huh? And by your reasoning all the video taped beheadings from Iraq are simply out of context, right? You're right, there is a lot of violence in the Old Testament. Ever heard of the new one?

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 28, 2006 12:07 PM (MkblT)

29 Aaron, thanks for your thoughtful reply. There is also a need to distinguish between Muslim states and Muslim people. Muslim states tend to adopt more radical/fundamental forms of Islamic law, due in part to the lack of separate between religion & state, and hence the ease with which the state may employ harsh religious laws as a tool of oppression. Islam - not Arabism - is fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism. Not so, at least not in all cases. Again, this depends on whether we're speaking of Muslim states or Muslim people. As an example of the latter, Indonesia is overwhelmingly Muslim, yet also a (nascent and still somewhat wobbly) democratic republic with capitalist intentions. More accurately, you could say that the radical strains of Islam that some Muslim states adopt are fundamentally at odds with democratic capitalism. Likewise, not all practitioners of Islam insists on Sharia law. For a homegrown example, in 2004, the moderate Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada urged the Ontario Government to bar the specific use of Sharia law in voluntary faith-based family arbitration. While they supported faith-based arbitration, they recognized that Sharia law could be used to oppress women and others. This is a nice example of moderate Muslim groups striking a balance between maintaining their faith and supporting Canadian values. Islam, however, is excessively brutal... Again, I would argue that mainstream Islam, especially as practised by those in Canada, is hardly brutal at all. According to the 2001 census, 579,640 Canadians self-identified as Muslim, and I can only assume based on reported crime data that the vast majority of those observe their faith, attend service, etc., yet also hold down regular jobs and raise families without causing any trouble. The fact that the category 'moderate Muslims' even exists at all indicates that the average Muslim Canadian is tolerant and peace-loving. I suspect something similar goes overseas. If Afghanistan were populated uniformly by fanatics all intent on overthrowing democratic capitalist societies, then there'd be no military force strong enough to even enter the country, as the entire Afghan population would rise up in arms against it. But most Afghani citizens appear to want the same simple things everybody else wants: to have enough to eat, earn a living, raise a family, etc. Isn't this even the official line of Canada, the US, the UK and others, that the average Afghani or Iraqi person is hard-working and decent, and that the role of our military forces is to weed out the radicals in their midst? Last point, I promise... ...letting in all these refugees... Technically, the Lebanese evacuees are not refugees. They are Canadian citizens by birthright or immigration. The fact that many had not lived in Canada for some years does not take away from this.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 02:08 PM (Oee6D)

30 [sigh] No, Irwin, the videotaped beheadings from Iraq, in and of themselves, are not "simply out of context." It would be out of context, however, if someone were to play one of those video clips and then claim that it alone is sufficient prima facie evidence that all followers of the Qur'an are "prone to violence." You're right, there is a lot of violence in the Old Testament. Ever heard of the new one? That was exactly my point, Irwin! Citing the Bible out of context would mean ignoring all the positive teachings in the New Testament and focusing only on the violent stuff in the Old Testament, just as citing the Qur'an out of context meant ignoring all of its positive teachings (believe it or not, they're there if you care to look for them) and focusing only on violent phrases like "Strike off their heads." I really don't know how to make it any clearer than this.

Posted by: A at July 28, 2006 02:37 PM (Oee6D)

31 For posterity (since this thread has been catalogued) I will say this to A: 'Out of context' has been a meme used by Islamic teachers for quite some time. The problem is they can't prove the sura 'in context' simply applied to a particular period of time or if it applies to all time. And they have all too few verses to refute the hundreds of verses that call the Islamite to violence against the Infidel. Hence, Muslims are still cutting off the Kaffir's head in 2006. Perhaps you should tell them they're taking their own book out of context? The second part of your argument, if you so loosely call it that, is ridiculous. "That" was not your point, otherwise you would have made it. Other than appearing some 500 years after the NT, the Quran has no new testament and no reconcilliation. It is violent and demands violence of it's adherents through and through. Oh, with the occasional 'positive teaching', as the imams like to use 'out of context' to deflect the questions about violence.

Posted by: Irwin Daisy at July 31, 2006 01:03 PM (MkblT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 25, 2006

Did Big Brother blink?

The story of the blocked web site is just getting weirder.

Recall this in this posting, word came that the Ontario Provincial Police had blocked access to a web site highly critical of the force's performance during the Caledonia land dispute. A comment from another reader implied that access to the website was not barred only for police computers, but for all Ontario government employees.

Then I get another email from yet another government employee that says that he has no problems seeing the site.

One more twist, and this story might form the script for the next M. Night Shyamalan movie.

Well, get the popcorn ready, because I received that next twist via email from an employee at another Ontario government ministry:

I work for the Ontario Ministry of Finance.

Up until yesterday (July 24) access to the Caledonia Wake Up Call website was blocked.

As of today (July 25) access to the Caledonia Wake Up Call website was no longer blocked.

An interesting coincidence.

Did Big Brother blink?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 03:41 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 178 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ...truly the power of information is something we need to respect. Again, probably a knee jerk reaction done by a listless management. Wonder if they blocked the defenceless poor-me-done-in-by-whiteman native sites... http://video.gogle.com/videoplay?docid=-7656369446563615988 add another "o" above

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 04:02 PM (jHhd0)

2 One point no one's brought up - Doesn't the government pay employees to work? Why are government workers surfing anti-native or pro-native sites during work hours? Your Ontario tax dollars at work ...

Posted by: Cynapse at July 25, 2006 05:31 PM (49GF0)

3 Oh come on, give them a break, they're not slaves, let them check the occasional random website. Can't imagine my workday without an occasional random website break.

Posted by: Meany at July 25, 2006 05:47 PM (Y4/UC)

4 I bet rabble.ca isn't blocked.

Posted by: Levesque at July 25, 2006 05:55 PM (Kr2nu)

5 My personal experience is that government employees are quite adept at taking breaks. As for the censorship ... anyone with even a minor amount of tech saavy can get around most work firewalls. Anonymous proxies are the key. Nonetheless, another victory for Steve. The website has a lot of questionable material, but that does not excuse politically-motivated censorship.

Posted by: Cynapse at July 25, 2006 06:02 PM (49GF0)

6 Good job Steve, you might have made him blink!

Posted by: CanForce 101 at July 25, 2006 06:58 PM (BRXB/)

7 tis a small victory yet a(nother) victory nonetheless, keep fighting the good fight angry

Posted by: kelly at July 26, 2006 12:04 AM (6EOd+)

8 Steve, the Ontario government computer system is not monolithic so possibly some subnets have been closed to the site and some haven't, or some were and now they aren't. That the site was banned and that the OPP tried to get it shut down surprises me not at all. Typical socialist response, shut off the flow of information immediately, then stall, deny, lie and bury evidence. I'd be very surprised if the OPP didn't have the ability to block pretty much any site they want at any time. It might not be legal but that's never slowed them up before. The question I have is, since when does the Premiere or the cabinet (or the OPP hierarchy)have the power to quash a court order? The judicial branch is distinct, Duhlton shouldn't be able to do what he's been doing.

Posted by: The Phantom at July 26, 2006 01:47 PM (nAMT1)

9 steve, it would alleviate all your catchup and reversals if your sources would revert to their traditonal publishing venues: urinal walls.

Posted by: Ottawa Core at July 27, 2006 01:27 AM (INU3C)

10 See the mess that has been caused because of the Ontario Government's failure to act decisively? Now, we have a new controversy, this time over a freedom of speech issue with Big Brother. The OPP brass have failed their troops miserably; as did the Ontario government. The army should have been called in to crush these criminals a long time ago. And it all started with some criminal native scumbag protesters, who are getting away with criminal activity. These natives in Caledonia are human scum. They are not even worth a pile of excrement. They all need to be driven out of their barricades with the utmost force.

Posted by: Donno at July 27, 2006 06:29 AM (b8I0n)

11 Hmmm Donno ... I agree with Ottawa core ... go back to writing on urinal walls ... in your own excrement... you are not ready for the real world yet!

Posted by: saga at July 28, 2006 09:27 AM (iKp7h)

12 The OPP and the Prov.Gov. has had a grip on all information viewed by all Gov. sites over the WWW for years. ( I use to work for the Gov. )by filtering web sites, or words, THEY deem you should not use. This will put a stop to obvious sites that should not be viewed in public. eg: An OPP officer can NOT view other police web sites that provide info on various organized crime groups due to the graphics or language used on some of thoes sites. They do NOT allow any comments or inference to anything racial or prejudice agains any group. ( Even Bad Guys ) The OPP will discipline any officer that violates these blocked web sites. So they can without much haste censor what ever they want ...

Posted by: ALfer at July 29, 2006 12:19 PM (R4Udo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

July 24, 2006

Is the fabric of democracy unravelling in Ontario? [More updates]

After my musings on the disturbing story about how a website critical of the performance of the Ontario Provincial Police during the land dispute in Caledonia was blocked, an even more disturbing comment was posted:

Steve

I am an OPP officer who regularily surfs your site (from home). I know for a fact that the OPP has blocked the Caledonia web site from being viewed from any computer on the Ontario Government network.

The original story alleged that the site was made inaccessible to police computers only. But this comment indicates that all provincial government computers are subject to the restriction.

I'm hoping for more confirmation from other people who work for the Ontario government, in particular those who do not work for the Ontario Provincial Police.

The comment says it clearly. No one who works for the Ontario government -- from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Education to the Ontario Provincial Police -- can access Caledonia Wake Up Call.

Consider this carefully. A website keeps a careful record of the actions (or lack of action) of the OPP, and the OPP somehow removes the ability to access this site from all government employees. Just when did Premier Dalton McGuinty decide to hand the power to make decisions concerning the flow of information over to the OPP?

As far as I know, the Ministry of Health has not blocked access to the Freedom Party webpage that advocates private health insurance. Maybe it's just a matter of time.

Back to the OPP-related website though. Let's consider one very specific, immediate, and practical implication of this. Put aside the unsettling philosophical question of how a police force stung by criticism can dictate internet policy to the government as a whole. Recall that the questions being posed about the OPP are quite valid, and are the subject of court proceedings:

An Ontario judge is again demanding to know why his orders to police to end the aboriginal land dispute in Caledonia haven't been carried out.

Justice David Marshall today called into court representatives from provincial police, the Ministry of the Attorney General, and the aboriginal occupiers.

Marshall is hearing legal arguments about why the protesters remain at the housing development.

"This is a matter at the very heart of the administration of justice," Marshall said in court.

"If court orders can be disregarded the whole fabric of democracy falls to pieces."

Here's the practical question I want you to consider. Justice Marshall and his clerks will be considering the actions of the OPP (actions that have already deeply frustrated the court) and part of their research might include scouring the web for reports of the events in Caledonia, web surfing that will be done from Ontario government computers installed in these provincial court offices.

What if the court decides to follow a link to Caledonia Wake Up Call, then finds out the site can't be reached from the provincial government computer by order of the OPP?

I wonder how Justice Marshall will react.

I bet he won't be too happy. And maybe just a bit more worried about the fabric of democracy.

Update: Maybe it is just the OPP computers after all:

Hi Steve, I work for the Government of Ontario, in a Ministry head office. I'm not sure where "mapleleaf4ever" got his information from, but I can access the Caledonia Wake-Up Call website just fine. As a matter of fact, I'm looking at it right now from my work computer (latest updates are "Jul 24 - Internet Polls" and "Jul 25 - Four Males Arrested in Caledonia Disturbance"), which is directly hooked up to the government network, behind the Ministry's firewall and everything.

Interesting. So there is some confusion about just what is being blocked and where. I'd like to hear from more people about whether the site is indeed blocked, and whether the ability to reach the site has changed over the last few days.

Update (again): Now an email from another government employee. Before today, access was blocked. Today, access is available. Did Big Brother blink?

Posted by: Steve Janke at 10:42 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 695 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I hope you're wrong amigo. This is some bad mojo...

Posted by: Richard Evans at July 25, 2006 12:18 AM (sYwXz)

2 Steve...you do realize how serious an issue this would be if your title rings true..."fabric of democracy unravelling"? I know you do, but before we start ringing the bells and yelling the sky is falling - putting a site on a restricted list isn't the end of civilization - just a bad admin or management decision. Meaning, this is something akin to a knee jerk reaction. However, it does show a lack of leadership and avoiding facing the music. Democracy unravelling in Canada isn't new - remember Cretien sending the RCMP to an Ottawa reporters home a few years ago? Or RCMP with their fingers in AdScam cash for Musical Rides? But...if lawlessness does continue, and native teens and young men roaming around looking for trouble, Clockwork Orange won't be too far off in Caledonia. And that is bad mojo.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 12:57 AM (jHhd0)

3 I don't pretend to understand the finer points of the Canadian view of free speech and political censorship but from down here, south of the border, this looks pretty frightening. Then again, I was surprised at how you all seemed to accept the "blackout" on news of the investigation of Labor's corruption. I'm trying to get a handle on this but my family(most of it) left Canada long enough ago that we retain little understanding of your strange and alien ways.....it's almost like a whole different country!!!

Love you guys, Tim

Posted by: TBinSTL at July 25, 2006 01:32 AM (bYmT0)

4 TB...the irony is we Canadians have to use US and offshore hosting to get around publication bans. The other irony is during the blackout Captain's Quarters exposed a lot of what the Liberals were doing, and helped (i hope) caused their demise and removal from the Canadian landscape. But as you see with OPP and Caledonia 'blackout' things still need to be fixed up here. Had the Liberals won the last election, coupled with Kerry in the US, I'd give blogs maybe 2-3 years before they'd get shut down. You know, National Security type thing. Right.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 01:56 AM (jHhd0)

5 For the title of the piece, I was quoting Justice Thomas. He has witnessed his court order ignored for months by the police, and he is worried that the "fabric of democracy", as he puts it, is coming apart. It struck me that the business of the website is part of the same larger picture, as well as having a potential immediate effect on Justice Marshall himself, given that he is a provincial employee.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 25, 2006 06:35 AM (bd2ES)

6 I don't understand why the opposition parties are so silent on all of this. To me, it would be perfect political fodder for the 2007 election. A threat to our democracy is a fundamental concern.

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 25, 2006 07:27 AM (vZsPM)

7 Shades of Big Brother? The rank and file OPP members are as powerless as we are to stop this behaviour on the part of our elected 'leaders'. We have let our country down with our apathy. What to do?

Posted by: George at July 25, 2006 08:01 AM (oOJN8)

8 If only there was some way to contact Justice Marshall directly and tell him of what is going on. I dropped a message on John Tory's site, but who knows what good that will do.

Posted by: Surecure at July 25, 2006 09:01 AM (+tET0)

9 I'm glad people are finally getting it. McGuinty and his ironically named Liberal party are anything but. They want to control as many aspects of your life as possible and don't seem to be reluctant to erode your rights to achieve that end. To be honest, I find the Caledonia website rather strident and poorly written. It would appear that the person who runs it has an axe to grind with the OPP, which is OK by me, everyone should be able to publish their views. By restricting access to the site, the Fibs are inadvertently promoting it. I expect the restriction came from McGuinty/Bryant, not the OPP. McGuinty would probably be happy to see no coverage whatsoever of the shocking situation in Caledonia. The problem with the Fiberal gang is that they don't understand a simple aspect of human nature: the more you ban, restrict and try to control things, the more attractive these things tend to become.

Posted by: Selma at July 25, 2006 09:46 AM (GSEHF)

10 Selma: "...who runs it has an axe to grind with the OPP" ...I too feel this way. Was going to offer to revamp his site n/c, but the OPP bashing doesn't sit easy with me and if anything discredits any valid points he may have. As I posted in another stream it's akin to getting a spam email with EVERYTHING IN CAPTIAL LETTERS, wanting you to TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW type thing. The OPP aren't totally to blame, they are just puppets for a listless regime. Having said that, the last thing the OPP wants to be felt sorry for, but that's all they are going to get from a lot of law obiding citizens if they don't stand up for law, order and justice. Unfortunately they are the 'fall guy' in this act. Time to change directors.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 10:40 AM (jHhd0)

11 I think this just goes to show how flaccid the whole notion of a provincial government is. There are already calls for Harper to step in. Is there anything the provinces can do without needing the Feds to play the heavy? Law enforcement - nope. Securities regulation - nope - fly by nighter stock scammers move with impunity from province to province. Provincial trade - nope - there are more inter-provincial barriers to trade than there are between the Canada and the US. I say remove the provinces and split the powers between the municipalities and the Feds. Time to downsize government...

Posted by: at July 25, 2006 10:57 AM (x4k8S)

12 Hi Steve, I work for the Government of Ontario, in a Ministry head office. I'm not sure where "mapleleaf4ever" got his information from, but I can access the Caledonia Wake-Up Call website just fine. As a matter of fact, I'm looking at it right now from my work computer (latest updates are "Jul 24 - Internet Polls" and "Jul 25 - Four Males Arrested in Caledonia Disturbance"), which is directly hooked up to the government network, behind the Ministry's firewall and everything.

Posted by: A at July 25, 2006 11:36 AM (Oee6D)

13 I can confirm that all OPP computers are blocked from viewing our site - it appears Government computers still can. Of the 1100+ web pages on my site, a couple dozen are on the OPP Â– this is hardly holding something against them. This all started a week ago when OPPA (the union) threatened to sue if I didn't change one web page out of the 1100+. This I did along with posting their lawyer's letter for all to see. Five days later the OPP themselves banned all Computers from viewing my site - it appears to me they have a problem with me. It is the people of Caledonia who have a problem with them. I'm just pointing out the various criminal stories that the OPP are trying to say never happened - coverup? They want everyone in Ontario to believe everything is calm in Caledonia. They do not want news stories about Caledonia. Regarding the capital letters - get over it, it is called marketing - only one page had the capital letters Â– wow! Of course, I am trying to draw people's attention - crimes are being committed without anyone being charged. Doesn't that deserve CAPITAL LETTERS?

Posted by: Gary McHale at July 25, 2006 12:17 PM (CdxYW)

14 I just pray that Justice Marshall reads these blogs. He is the only one that seems to care about democracy and justice in Ontario. He is our only hope.

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 25, 2006 12:25 PM (vZsPM)

15 ...seeing I'm the one who brought up CAPTIAL LETTERS... Gary, we can discuss your site via email if you wish, but your site does look 'hokie' and can be passed off as amaturish and as extreem. BTW, speaking of Marketing, who or what is your target market - the National Inquirer rag mag readers, or the common people of Ontario and the rest of the country? Big difference in how you present something.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 01:17 PM (jHhd0)

16 The Ontario Liberals are basically Communists...it would be no surprise if they do the same things that the Chinese government does...maybe next they'll be making a special Google for gov't employees and start filtering stuff out like 'freedom of speech' and 'civil liberties'

Posted by: Sticky at July 25, 2006 01:38 PM (WGeU1)

17 ...oh, and I heartily agree with the no-name comment above that it's time to get rid of a redundant layer of government. All this subdivision came from the horse and buggy days...we now live in speed-of-light mass communications and speed of sound travel and no longer need all these autonomous regions.

Posted by: Sticky at July 25, 2006 01:44 PM (WGeU1)

18 Sticky, can you name a single other state with anywhere near the same levels of geographic, economic, demographic, or cultural diversity that Canada has that operates only a two-layer (i.e., federal and municipal) government structure? There may be some merit to shuffling around government responsibilities and power, but it's inane to suggest simply eliminating provincial political administrations entirely.

Posted by: A at July 25, 2006 01:59 PM (Oee6D)

19 ...can you imagine how Canada would look right now on this two layer system if the Liberals were in power? I shudder just thinking it...

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 02:49 PM (jHhd0)

20 I work for the Ontario Ministry of Finance. Up until yesterday (July 24) access to the Caledonia Wake Up Call website was blocked. As of today (July 25) access to the Caledonia Wake Up Call website was no longer blocked. An interesting coincidence

Posted by: Anonymous at July 25, 2006 02:54 PM (LFgW2)

21 A: What areas do you think should remain under the purview of the provincial governments? I for one am tired of the premiers and their ministers looking more like panhandlers than leaders every time they have one of their brainstorming sessions. Every time a province has some sort of woe, ten fingers point in the general direction of Ottawa anyways. I gave law enforcement, securities regulation and interprovincial trade barriers as three examples where the provinces should be stripped of their responsibilities - surely you can conversely come up with some worth defending instead of some nebulous assertion. Tomax7: I agree that the Liberals have wreaked havoc on the nation and that will take some undoing. However, the provincial NDP parties have managed to do way more damage during their tenure in Ontario, BC, and across the Prairies (save for Alberta)...

Posted by: at July 25, 2006 04:36 PM (x4k8S)

22 "provincial NDP parties have managed..." SSDP. ;-) - same, uh, stuff, different pile.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 25, 2006 04:48 PM (jHhd0)

23 tomax7: There's a lot of difference between the two. The NDP is like a 16 year old kid who just got his license - the parents (voters) will give him the family beater (provincial office) and expect him to return it worse off than when he took it out. There's no way the parents trust him enough with the keys to the new car (federal office). The Liberals are more like the 20 year old neighbour who's courting someone's (voters again) 16 year old daughter (i.e. federal money). No matter how flashy and genuine they try to come across, you can't help but see their underlying motives (i.e. name your scandal).

Posted by: at July 25, 2006 05:15 PM (x4k8S)

24 McHale's website looks hokey? Holy cow, I just checked out yours! McHale is just a concerned citizen, you're attempting to pass yourself off as a web designer. Who do you design sites for, the church choir/bake sale? now that's funny. to be sure McHale's website is no lump of gold - I wouldn't be surprised if he learned how to publish it on his own. But you're mocking him? Your site looks like it fell out of some archive circa 1996!

Posted by: Anonymous at July 25, 2006 07:37 PM (PUL+0)

25 Anonymous: how about the big ones, for starters? How do you imagine the health care system or the education system would operate without provincial administration? Would the feds run a country-wide thing from Parliament Hill? Or would every single last municipality (whether a big city or a tiny hamlet in the north) get a share of federal funding and be left on their own to hammer out a school or hospital network? Would you also amalgamate (or conversely, dismantle) all the provincial physician & surgeon and nurses colleges? They both operate in parallel with the provincial governments, after all. Try imagining the state of our country's highways if maintenance were left entirely to Ottawa. A federal social services & welfare system--how inefficient and overburdened and abused would that be? How about the energy grid? And should there just be a giant federal penitentiary network, or should Calgary or Montreal or Digby (N.S.; population 2,111) have to fund and build their own? You mistake as the source of your ire inefficient government laws, regulations, and funding arrangements with government itself. These are hardly the same thing. As I stated earlier, there may be merit in reorganizing what the feds, provinces, and municipalities are each responsible for, as well as in how funding moves between those three levels. But removing the middle tier altogether? A ridiculous notion.

Posted by: A at July 25, 2006 08:16 PM (YK2nB)

26 A: Not to go off the deep-end, but Canada "only a two-layer (i.e., federal and municipal) government structure?" Boy you won't be making any friends on the municipal level if you don't consider their work to be "governing"... Besides, all your ranting about the negative aspects of Federal government taking more governing power on a Conservative leaning site is a bit rich. With the exception of the anonymous poster, isn't that like preaching to the converted?

Posted by: Surecure at July 25, 2006 10:12 PM (5xF7M)

27 A: I stand by what I said. During the election debates, Gilles Duceppe did come up with one valid point...there are 10,000 medical people in various bureaucracy positions in Ottawa and not in hospitals...I would call that massive redundancy. Canada needs to get over the idea that it's a BIG COUNTRY...it's not...it's a small country of 28 million and declining. We NEED to be more efficient. More people live in New York City and Los Angeles than in our WHOLE COUNTRY. So yes...time for a merger and a downsizing...we can hire 'Chainsaw Al'

Posted by: Sticky at July 26, 2006 12:17 AM (6p7WD)

28 Ok, I'll bite Anonymous: "Your site looks like it fell out of some archive circa 1996!" I'll be the first to agree with you, I'm not really a flashy kinda guy, plus my 15+ clients don't seem to have an issue with it either. Besides, most of my sites rank #1-4 spots in Google, Yahoo, Ask, and MSN...hey guess who ranks #1 with "web design notes" as a key phrase? But hey, seeing you don't know how to put one's name to their posting maybe you need a little cheering up. Type "please laugh" in Google. While I'm in #1 spot I think you're being referred to in #2 spot... ;-)

Posted by: tomax7 at July 26, 2006 01:55 AM (jHhd0)

29 ok, I confess, I was wondering who the other person who visited my site today was. ;-)

Posted by: tomax7 at July 26, 2006 02:18 AM (jHhd0)

30 Surecore: It was Sticky (and Anonymous), not myself, who proposed eliminating provincial government and reducing Canada to a federal-municipal-only system. I was merely challenging him to name another country with the same vastness and diversity as Canada that operates a two-layer government structure like the hypothetical one he proposes. Also, as it is Anonymous and Sticky who propose eliminating the provincial tier of government, it's they who are encouraging the Feds to take on more governing power (and on a Conservative leaning site, to boot).

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 08:39 AM (Oee6D)

31 Sticky: NYC (pop. 8 million) does not in fact have a larger population than Canada. Indeed, NY State (19 mil.) does not have a larger population than Canada. Neither does LA proper (4 mil.) nor metro (13 mil.), though California (37 million) does (all figures from 2005 US Census Bureau). You may be thinking of Greater Tokyo (36 mil.), though Tokyo itself is quite small (8 mil.). But your point is taken--Canada's population is not huge. Its landmass, however, is. It's also geographically vast, and regionally and economically diverse. So we need administrative regions (i.e., provinces) in between the federal and municipal levels to support this diversity. One purpose of provincial governments, after all, is to streamline local processes. It'd be far more inefficient if each municipality operated as a self-contained city-state. I agree with both Mr. Duceppe and you that there are 'massive redundancies' throughout the system. However, these redundancies exist primarily WITHIN each layer of government, not BETWEEN them. There are ways to make government leaner without cutting out its middle. If you're running a business, you don't improve efficiency by firing all the middle managers, leaving just the board of directors and the factory floor workers. You improve it by cutting red tape, shuffling responsibilities, and reorganizing staff in each level. Given that you're the one advocating getting rid of provincial governments altogether, how is it that you're calling me 'Chainsaw Al'?

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 09:24 AM (Oee6D)

32 A: I would argue that with all three levels of government currently with their hands in the till, the social services function is more subject to abuse as it exists now. I'm not enough a soulless conservative to think that the less fortunate in society don't deserve our attention but I do think the poor would be better served with one agency instead of the plethora that exist now. Less money for civic, provincial and federal bureaucracies would mean more money in their pockets. Vis-a-vis healthcare - are you actually espousing the merits of TEN different colleges of physicians & surgeons? Do you think these myriad fiefdoms ensure that someone in Digby is getting the same standard of care as in Kenora or Prince Rupert? We can thank the Liberals for the current state of the Trans Canada Highway - it is up to the voters to hold the Feds accountable. If a gas tax is levied in the name of infrastructure improvement, there should be ramifications when these taxes slip into general revenues and the wallets of parasitic ad execs. Regarding allocation of hospitals, etc. - how is the municipalities hammering out where a new hospital or jail will go any different than the municipalities currently engaging in lobbying the provinces to situate a hospital/jail in their population centre? The municipalities would have to do what is best for the overall interest of their contituents and not just engage in rent-seeking politicking at the Legislatures. One of the fundamental tenets of the fiscal conservative is less government so I don't understand how you can be surprised that someone would espouse the virtues of same on this site.

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 09:35 AM (x4k8S)

33 A: BTW, I also question your analogy of the municipalities being the front line workers, provinces being middle management and the feds being upper management. Given that they all operate relatively independently of one another, they are more akin to three different companies delivering a service called government. Do you have three different phone companies giving you phone services? Do you routinely shop at three different stores simultaneously to buy groceries?

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 09:54 AM (x4k8S)

34 My mistake A. And by the way it's Surecure (U at the end), not Surecore (O at the end).

Posted by: Surecure at July 26, 2006 10:33 AM (+tET0)

35 Caledoniawakeupcallsite does not provide accurate information. They do not post links to some original articles, but only copies ... copies can be doctored to say what they want them to say. They were exposed for doing this once already. The information on the site is not reliable ... it may be misleading. It is a smear website.

Posted by: saga at July 26, 2006 11:11 AM (iKp7h)

36 I should add that Gary McHale of wakeupcall said he got the article from Steve Janke, from this site ... it is as yet unclear who doctored the report, but both claedoniawakeupcall and angryinthegreatwhitenorth used it.

Posted by: saga at July 26, 2006 11:14 AM (iKp7h)

37 Surecure: No worries. Apologies for the typo. Anon: True, the analogy of government-as-single-company is flawed. However, for a given service (say, health care), all three levels do work together in a somewhat vertical fashion (e.g., Feds provide money, provinces provide policy/infrastructure, and services are delivered locally). Again, not perfect (e.g., municipal gov't isnÂ’t directly involved), but the point is, you need multiple levels of organization to keep things efficient. Welfare distribution can and should be improved. But a single, federally-run social services system would be administratively insane and arguably no more efficient. Same rationale applies for having separate licensing bodies for MDs. Improvements are needed to ensure that Digby gets the same standard of healthcare as Kenora or Prince Rupert, but I'm pretty sure that a single federal regulatory body responsible for Digby, Kenora, AND Prince Rupert (as well as the thousand+ other municipalities in the country simultaneously) would fare far worse. And would you rather each municipality lobby Ottawa individually and directly for prisons and hospitals? Ditto for roads. True, the TransCanada (the only highway the Feds are partially responsible for) needs more work, but if Ottawa can barely manage one highway, imagine if they were responsible for all of them. Or, if it's up to the municipalities, who'd take care of rural roads that connect remote communities? My overarching point, Anon, is that less (or at the very least, more efficient) gov't is one thing. But realize that espousing the complete elimination of provincial gov't means, for all practical purposes, eliminating the notion of provinces entirely. There'd be no such thing as B.C. or Alberta or Newfoundland -- just Â‘CanadaÂ’ and thousands of individual municipalities. Is that really what you're proposing?

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 11:19 AM (Oee6D)

38 A: There are obvious places where provincial politics are hindering our ability to compete internationally - i.e. securities regulation. It is embarassing to see the SEC step in on the provincial regulators before faith can be restored in our financial markets. We fear American influence but when it comes to sovereignty in our OWN capital markets, it takes an American (national not state-based) institution to bring justice to the likes of Conrad Black, etc. Perhaps the total eradication of provincial governments is a stretch but I would argue that the branches of provincial responsibility require a chainsaw more than they need a slight pruning. So I guess I support a radical overhaul and not necessarily complete eradication of the provinces. You raise some interesting issues but I am sure they could be dealt with with the proper implementation. I still don't understand your contention on provincial licensing bodies for doctors. How upset would you be as a consumer if you saw two heads of lettuce and just as you were about to pick one, you were told that as an Ontario resident you were trying to get a head of lettuce destined for Quebec. We wouldn't tolerate this on mass consumer products (except for margarine in Quebec - another example of provincial politics gone awry) - why would we accept this on something as important as health care or education? Shouldn't we have a set standard for these important items irrespective of geography and/or provincial politicking?

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 01:10 PM (x4k8S)

39 Anon: I'm not familiar with the inner working of provincial securities regulations, though if it's like other areas, I'm sure there's always room for substantial improvements. I can agree that the public good is too often undermined by petty political squabbling, which can be endemic at any levels. As for licensing bodies, as a consumer, I'd only be upset if the head of lettuce I'm unable to access is clearly superior to the one available to me. As long as both are fresh and crunchy, what does it matter that I my lettuce is licensed in Ontario? Province-based medical licensing makes logistical sense as long as the provinces are responsible for administering health care services. Is there reason to believe that some provincial licensing bodies hold their doctors and nurses (and lawyers and teachers and pharmacists and veterinarians and foresters and land surveyors...) at a higher standard of practise than others?

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 02:49 PM (Oee6D)

40 A: If all of these professionals are held to the same standard, then ten different licensing bodies for each profession makes no intuitive sense. If there is no difference, then surely there is no issue to amalgamating them all, right? Oh wait - we get into the issue of fiefdoms... We should work to harmonize laws and standards to facilitate the mobility of these professionals. As was previously stated in someone else's post, the provincial structure was predicated on an old paradigm where people were not as mobile and communications were antiquated. If all provincial standards are as similar as you have asserted, why does a lawyer have to register to practise law in EACH province? Shouldn't they just autmotically recognize that this individual is competent enough to practise his/her profession? By your own logic the only purpose that differing redundant governing bodies serve is to hamper the interprovincial mobility of professionals. That in my books is another criticism of the current system.

Posted by: at July 26, 2006 04:00 PM (x4k8S)

41 Standards of practise may be equally ambitious across all provinces and territories, but that doesn't make separate licensing bodies redundant, because of non-standards-related idiosyncrasies in each jurisdiction. There is more to licensing bodies than just setting abstract standards of practise, codes of ethics, etc. At the very least, maintaining separate provincial licensing bodies makes sense from administrative and fiscal perspectives, assuming that provinces also exist. Example: since provinces pay doctors, it makes sense to have some agency at the provincial level to monitor and regulate how many doctors are practising in each province, if only for budgeting purposes. Licensing fees and processes in each province also serve the purpose of encouraging professionals to commit to their chosen jurisdictions, which promotes stable service delivery. This is a particularly good thing in smaller communities that have only a handful of doctors and can ill-afford to have them suddenly bugger off to another province, and is only a slight use of the stick on the part of the regulatory bodies. Another example: different provinces have different laws, regulations, and legal practises (say, for example, Ontario's Courts of Justice Act, and associated regulations). Since law societies self-regulate, it administratively more efficient for Ontario lawyers who violate a regulation to be sanctioned by their own licensing body, who best understand these convoluted pieces of legislation. Amalgamating all law societies into a single one could work in theory, but this single law society would have to wrestle with 13 different sets of rules governing the administration of justice, thus negating any efficiency improvements. I agree that processes could and should be streamlined to enable professionals to more easily transfer their practises from one province to another. In the case of lawyers, provisions already exist in many jurisdictions. This agreement, which you'll note continues to recognize the role of individual provincial law societies, acknowledges that lawyers trained in one province is well-qualified to practise in another, and are therefore exempt from having to write transfer examinations. This model could be emulated in other professions.

Posted by: A at July 26, 2006 06:07 PM (YK2nB)

42 ...i don't know if this site is unravelling or the topic at hand...

Posted by: tomax7 at July 26, 2006 10:50 PM (jHhd0)

43 A: I guess we'll agree to disagree, although I admit it's been fun. Tomax7: I don't think the thread was hijacked - the current structure of the justice system is partly to blame for the situation in Caledonia. If McWimpy can go all Neville Chamberlain and still manage to deflect the blame to Harper, do you think he has any impetus to act? This incident just shows how useless the provinces are in many instances...

Posted by: at July 27, 2006 09:47 AM (x4k8S)

44 I,m really tired of the natives crying this is their land, it,s not.Many years ago they fought a battle , they lost so, sorry.Now they get free money, free health care, don,t pay taxes,they are free to hunt and fish whenever they want(depleting the fish stock as they fish at spawning season with nets and spears), doesn,t sound to bad for losing a war. I wonder if we would have gotten half of that if we had lost?When ever they put up a road block I say hold back their checks put up our own road blocks to the hospitals, and liquor stores and i,d bet their road blocks would come down soon.I know that some people won,t like this comment but I know a lot of people feel that the same way.

Posted by: bill at July 28, 2006 12:19 AM (3/HJI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

More tweaks

I am progressing on some of the improvements to the blog.

First, I've finally coded up the function to pull MT entry keywords and parse them up in order to build a Technorati tag list. Going forward, I'll be using Technorati tags for most of my posts.

Second, you'll notice that the Digg.com link functions somewhat differently. What I've been doing is selecting stories that I think are worthy to submit to Digg. Of course, you can submit a post of mine as well. The button for doing this is the greenish one that reads "Digg This Story".

But what if it has already been submitted by you or by me? Then you get an error that says that the story has already been submitted. If you've registered with Digg, and you like the story, you want to vote for it, right? This is a bit of a kludge, but what I've done is that if I know that the story has been submitted (either because I went ahead and did it myself, or because I see someone else has), I change the coding to display the Digg counter and voting button instead (it's a trick with the keywords, if you are interested).

The Digg counter tells you how many people have voted for the story. If you haven't voted for it, you have an opportunity to do so by clicking "Digg it!", but if you have voted for it, the button reads "dugg" and is disabled.

How do I know if the story has been submitted? That's a bit of a problem. Ultimately, the Digg API will provide that information (I hope), but for now I will occassionally search Digg for postings from my blog. If any have been added by you, my readers, I'll make the keyword change necessary to flip the Digg link from submission to voting. Of course, you can let me know by email or by a comment that you've submitted the post.

If any of you are Digg users, try the various links out and let me know if it works.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 01:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

July 23, 2006

The OPP follows a poor example

The Ontatio Provincial Police have been taking a public relations beating over their handling of the protests in Caledonia, where Native activists have occupied the Douglas Creek Estates housing development claiming the land as their own. The OPP has refused to execute court injunctions, have been accused of ignoring violence being committed in their presence, ignoring acts of intimidation, and generally letting the Natives run rampant.

Fingers have pointed to the top echelons of the OPP. Claims have been made that OPP officers on the scene have been directed from the highest levels to take little or no action.

A website, Caledonia Wake Up Call, that has been highly critical of the OPP reports receiving this email:

We received this quote from a confirmed source:

From XXX (An off-duty OPP Constable who has not been to Caledonia)

"I read your website at home and off-duty. I have never been to Caledonia but before it is over I might get sent there. I have learned a lot from your website about what happened there and I am surprised that native criminal activity has been overlooked apparently. The other day while at my detachment I wanted to see what was new on your web pages, but the OPP has blocked your website so none of us can read what is really happening in Caledonia except at home. No matter, we can all read it at home. And we all do."

Let's assume that this is true, that OPP staff can no longer access Caledonia Wake Up Call from OPP computers. I have to say I struggled with this.

At first, I was sympathetic with the OPP. Most organizations have rules to limit access to certain types of websites. Generally those are broad categories, of course. Adult sites, warez sites, that sort of thing.

But limiting access to one specific website?

There is the question of morale, I suppose. But as the email suggested, every OPP officer will read up on the latest at home.

So what is the point? None really.

But then leaders are not always known to act rationally. Faced with criticism, the natural reaction would be to keep the information away from the troops. Why? Because the more hapless the leadership appears to be, the danger that the troops will ignore orders increases.

And when I realized that, it struck me what had really been bothering me about this. It was the historical comparison that was on the edge of my consciousness.

It is a comparison with the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy student demonstrators by the Chinese Communist dictatorship in 1989.

We all know that the army was sent in and probably thousands were killed. But what is often forgotten is that the units used were brought in from remote areas of China because the local Beijing units were considered unreliable. The local units had heard a great deal of criticism leveled by the demonstrators at their leaders. It could not be helped. But in Communist China, where information flow is tightly controlled, remote army units knew very little of what was happening in Beijing except that anti-revolutionary elements were agitating. Deliberately kept in the dark by a leadership extermely sensitive to criticism, these units killed hundreds, if not thousands of demonstrators (and bystanders) without compunction, having no reason to have doubts about the infallibility of their leaders.

Before anyone else says anything, I am not for a moment suggesting that the OPP is like the PLA, that Liberal government at Queen's Park is the equivalent of the Chinese Politburo, or any other literal parallel you care to draw from this.

But I am pointing out that when the senior commanders attempt to clamp down on information flow to their troops, information that is critical of those commanders, you have to wonder. Are they not confident in the quality of the leadership they provide to trust the troops to listen to the criticisms and then dismiss them? Or are they concerned that the criticisms hit too close to home? Are they concerned that the troops will start to question whether the leadership deserves their loyalty?

Do they have reason to worry?

Ironically, this ham-handed move to block the website is likely to be seen as desperate by the OPP rank-and-file. Unlike Communist China in 1989, where this sort of information control worked very well, in Ontario in 2006, it is likely to make a bad situation worse for the leadership already under pressure from within and without.

Posted by: Steve Janke at 08:20 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 762 words, total size 5 kb.

1 When I look at the Wake Up Call site, I feel like I'm reading transcripts from Jews in Warsaw 65 years ago. Sort of Leon Uris-ish. People seeing things they can't believe, their policmen getting beat up by thugs. And the natives are wearing the brownshirts.

Posted by: Brian Lemon at July 23, 2006 08:39 PM (PjbIr)

2 This is truly frightening. I can't believe it is happening in Canada.

Posted by: Joanne TB at July 23, 2006 08:52 PM (jm9xR)

3 Steve, it is unlikely that you've been blocked by the OPP. It is far more likely that this person tried to access you when MuNu was having one of its interminable problems. Have you considered, now that you are somewhat "big time", moving to a server that isn't run out of some guy's basement and named after a manga character? RG

Posted by: RightGirl at July 23, 2006 09:04 PM (CYK5/)

4 It wasn't my site that was blocked. I've rewritten a portion of this post to make it clear. It was Caledonia Wake Up Call. I'm ashamed to say I've never been banned by anyone -- the Saudis, the Indians, the OPP -- no one.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 23, 2006 09:17 PM (bd2ES)

5 ...Steve, maybe clarify for the readers, or at least, reader (me) that your confirmed source can be seconded by another OPP cop, or different detachment. Are all detachments on the same network? Do all function with the same GPO (group policy object)? Maybe it was coincidence, WakeUp site was down? Then again the Union did want to shut down Wake Up's site at the hosting level. Indeed the emperor OPP lady has no clothes. I am very saddened this is happening in Canada. Nothing good can come out of covering up PC mistakes.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 24, 2006 12:14 AM (jHhd0)

6 ..wow just surfed over the the WakeUp site and all I can say is "wow". Is there no civil action that can be taken? Even a public inquiry? 1984 has nothing over what is going on in Ontario, if this festers, I'm afraid either we will see a full scale revolt or more officers either moving away, or worse yet committing suicide. They can't go against their concious. Hard to sleep when you know your management is acting in a sulking and cowardly way.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 24, 2006 12:23 AM (jHhd0)

7 I want to thank Steve for this post, personally. I am the owner of CaledoniaWakeUpCall and am, at my own expense, trying to give a voice to the people of Caledonia. I received many stories each day from people who email me Â– their stories go unreported in the Media and unreported by the OPP. All stories are confirmed by multiple sources before posting. The OPP position of limiting information is in fact a way of discounting all blogs - They neither accept that blogs offer a service to the public nor will they communicate with blog owners. They only want Media to have whatever small bits of information they release. They know most media will move on to another story quickly whereas blogs are a pain. Please visit our site: http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/

Posted by: Gary McHale at July 24, 2006 12:25 AM (CdxYW)

8 Gary, on your OPP lies page, you end with: "We will also bring you examples of OPP pressure tactics to get residents to change crime reports or to drop their reports altogether." If that is true, then the OPP are worse than the Native Terrorists.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 24, 2006 12:48 AM (jHhd0)

9 I haven't been able to confirm this story at all. I will try though. I did point out that I was assuming that it was true and followed it to the logical conclusion. Given the legal fight between the OPP and this site (one that I understood was resolved with the removal of "wanted posters" naming OPP officials) I thought it was reasonable, even likely, that the site was blocked I should also point out that I'm not working with Gary McHale. I appreciate his thanks, but I'm following my own path with the Caledonia problem. I quote stories from his site that interest me, and skip others. For instance, I haven't been following the Gwen Boniface angle because I'm not convinced her personal background is a factor here. That's just my opinion. Also, most of the investigative work I've done with regards to Caledonia have been independent activities. Just in case people might be thinking that AGWN is plugging for McHale or my that my Caledonia stories are being dictated by him -- neither is true. Nevertheless, I wish McHale the best of luck, and for anyone looking for news and rumours about events in Caledonia, I heartily recommend using his site as a resource.

Posted by: Steve Janke at July 24, 2006 07:40 AM (pFrk8)

10 ...maybe it's me, but Gary's WakeUp site looks a bit hookie. Meaning akin to getting spam/hoax email ALL IN CAPTIAL LETTERS wanting you to TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW type thing. While he may have valid points et al, the presentation needs a bit of polish to make it more chewable.

Posted by: tomax7 at July 24, 2006 01:55 PM (jHhd0)

11 Update on Caledonia. Ontario judge wants to know why nothing is being done against Indian occupiers. Link below. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060724.wcaledonia0724/BNStory/Front/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20060724.wcaledonia0724

Posted by: Rob at July 24, 2006 02:05 PM (FNdsD)

12 I wonder if this situation is going to hang around until the next provincial election. The native thugs have shown themselves to be quite cunning in their actions (the timing of the Ipperwash scandal and their use of the media) so I would be surprised if there was a deal before the next election. McGuinty knows he is over a barrel with his gitch at his ankles so he'll send the farm (or the development) to get any kind of deal done. To have this in the news during election time would be disastrous. It is he who has to move because the natives sure as hell aren't (they know he hasn't the balls to move them). This is going to be interesting...

Posted by: NorthBayTrapper at July 24, 2006 02:49 PM (ca1kN)

13 If anyone thinks the OPP are acting without orders they are a fool. The police in Canada are under very tight political control. The OPP lack of action is a direct result of the Provincial governments orders to ignore criminal activity. The whole idea is to let the OPP take the heat while the politicians go for the ethnic and liberal votes

Posted by: Bruce at July 24, 2006 06:23 PM (+fvpG)

14 Steve I am an OPP officer who regularily surfs your site (from home). I know for a fact that the OPP has blocked the Caledonia web site from being viewed from any computer on the Ontario Government network.

Posted by: mapleleaf4ever at July 24, 2006 07:26 PM (g8nss)

15 As someone who has followed Gary and his wakeup site since the begining, I can tell you that the articles he has posted are completely legit. Furthermore, he not only gets flak from the O.P.P. but also from the natives, the non-native people of Caledonia as well as a lot of flak from other bloggers and website owners. I personally think he should be commended for trying to post the events surrounding the O.P.P.'s inability to do their jobs.

Posted by: Ed at July 24, 2006 10:10 PM (zDSj3)

16 Well done! My homepage | Please visit

Posted by: Maggie at July 26, 2006 01:10 AM (v2VkH)

17 Re caledoniawakeupcall completely legitimate ... buried in the screaming tabloid, you may find articles without links to the original because they ahve been copied onto his site. Legitimate msm news articles can be changed if they are copied. Gary McHale and Steve Janke (Taylor) have both used a doctored media report to implicate someone else ... to defame. Two laws broken. I would be checking with original sources when using Angry or cwuc website ... if you want the truth, that is. Steve and Gary (or whoever you are) ... call me a liar ... please!! I would be happy to post the doctored report here ...!!!

Posted by: saga at July 27, 2006 04:24 PM (iKp7h)

18 Oh ... and I do note your attempt to distance yourself from Gary, Steve. Makes snese ... since when I exposed the defamatory doctored media report, he blamed you for it!!! No love lost there!

Posted by: saga at July 27, 2006 04:30 PM (iKp7h)

19 Regardless of the information on any form of media we should all make our own minds up about what is going on. This is not the first time the Indians have used the media and the bleeding heart liberals to fool the public. ( eg: Oka, Ipperwash, & on & on ) This is the first time I have seen the OPP BAN there people from viewing a given site. Does Gwen not think her people have the abbility to separate the wheat for the chafe? And if the Gov had loocked out all of there computers then I guess Montey Kwinter ( Min. Public Safety) was right when he said he had no knowledge of what was going on in Caledonia. Aren't you glad you elected him ??? Then why did he give that statement when two things have taken place in the highest office of the OPP. 1) Gwen just signed a 3 year contract to stay on with the OPP. June 06 2) As of July 27 she has been removed from that office on a sudden and wonderfull life long dream of working for the police in Ireland ???? I wonder if Montey had anything to do with this if he did not know what was going on in Caledonia.

Posted by: ALfer at July 29, 2006 12:48 PM (R4Udo)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

383kb generated in CPU 0.0859, elapsed 0.1726 seconds.
111 queries taking 0.1068 seconds, 622 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 11803
Files: 27
Bytes: 138.1M
CPU Time: 10:54
Queries: 1030941

Content

Posts: 3596
Comments: 36932

Feeds

July 31, 2006

July 29, 2006

July 28, 2006

July 27, 2006

July 26, 2006

July 25, 2006

July 24, 2006

July 23, 2006

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds