There are very few news stories that get me as angry and as sad as hearing about people abusing animals. Not only is there no excuse for it, it is totally unfair to the creatures whom we share this planet with. I am personally a huge supporter of the humane society in Newmarket and adopted my dog "Lily" there. It was important to our family to give an abused animal a second chance at a loving home. Lily was left tied to a poll over night at the Newmarket humane society where workers found her the next day. Today she is a crucial part of our family. There are currently two private members bills before federal parliament. I do not believe we should interfear with agriculture, but something has to be done about stories such as the one that published today and many others we are all aware of. It is time to put partisanship aside and get to work on some extremely tough legislation. This can and should be done at both the provincial and federal levels. People who hurt or mistreat animals without reason are among the lowest members of our society. It is time to put them in jail!
Thanks for reading...
Darryl
**********************
Dog left to die in stairwell
Feb 27, 2007 04:30 AM OTTAWA–The gruesome discovery of a dog tied to a railing in an apartment building stairwell and left to die is being called one of the most horrific cases of animal cruelty witnessed in Ottawa in years. It has prompted the Ottawa Humane Society, for the first time in its known history, to offer a reward – $500 – for information leading to charges in the case of the dead 1 1/2-year-old Boxer-type pup. The dog's body was found Feb. 18 by police officers called to a break-in. The humane society was called and has taken over the investigation. Humane society executive director Bruce Roney says an autopsy was unable to determine how long the dog was tied in the stairwell, but from the appearance of the scene, it seems to have been quite awhile. "Clearly the dog had panicked and was suffering and was scratching and I would imagine was barking at one point," Roney said. He called it "one of the most horrific cases that I have seen here, and I have been here about 6 1/2 years." Canadian Press
*******************
Politicians dither as animal cruelty goes on
Old laws are too weak but new legislation stalls Feb 24, 2007 04:30 AM Thomas Walkom
What does it take to get a little bit of justice for animals? For more than seven years, successive parliaments have promised to amend the animal cruelty laws to make them somewhat more humane. For more than seven years, they have failed to do anything. Now, the entire issue is in limbo again. Two private member's bills are before the Commons. One, sponsored by Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering) would reintroduce a bill that managed to get through the Commons – but not the Senate – once before. The other, a Senate private member's bill sponsored in the Commons by another Liberal MP, New Brunswick's Charlie Hubbard (Miramichi), would do nothing substantive except increase the penalties for deliberate cruelty. Animal welfare not being a priority for the current Conservative government, it's not clear if either will come to a vote. The history of the proposed animal cruelty amendments is enough to make a human weep. The difficulty with the current law is twofold. First, it is hard to enforce. Second, even those charged with cruelty receive penalties that amount to, at best, a slap on the wrist. In one particularly gruesome case, two young Toronto men convicted of torturing a cat in 2001 (they videotaped their actions) were handed outrageously minimal sentences – 90 days to be served on weekends, in the case of the ringleader. The Liberal government of Jean Chrétien promised amendments to the 1892 animal cruelty provisions of the Criminal Code. But it took them a year just to draft a bill. When it finally came to the Commons in late 1999, it ran into a firestorm of organized opposition. Members of the Canadian Alliance, now Conservative party, filibustered against the bill. Some of the Liberals own rural backbenchers weighed in as well. Their fear was that the bill might prevent farmers from engaging in what they call normal agricultural practices, such as sawing the beaks off chickens. (It didn't.) Angling and hunting groups also got into the act. Fishermen claimed the bill would stop them from impaling worms on hooks. Hunters feared it might interfere with their right to stage so-called canned hunts, whereby large animals are released into pens for the enjoyment of sportsmen, who then shoot them. Eventually, a compromise was found that allowed the now somewhat watered-down bill to pass the Commons. But then the same interest groups bogged it down in the Senate. Animal researchers demanded that they be exempted from the bill, as did hunters and chicken farmers. Fairground owners said the bill would interfere with educational activities such as alligator wrestling. Inuit groups said that restraints on "brutal or vicious" treatment of animals could compromise their traditional hunting practices. Jewish and Muslim groups joined forces to demand exemption for ritual slaughter. The senators looking into all of this sympathized with the critics. Liberal Serge Joyal mused that as a child he had pulled the legs off grasshoppers. Conservative Anne Cools warned darkly that those who want tough animal cruelty laws are trying to engage in social engineering. Throughout all of this, governments rose and fell. Chrétien was replaced by Paul Martin, Martin by Stephen Harper. In December, the Senate passed a private member's bill that virtually gutted the entire seven-year exercise. Bill S-213 did do some things. Like the original Commons version, it would increase the penalties for cruelty from two to five years in jail. Maximum fines were also increased. But otherwise, it left the 1892 laws substantially intact. As the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies noted, the Senate bill did nothing to solve the greatest problem of the existing law: that too often, it is unenforceable. As well, says Shelagh MacDonald, program director for the federation, the old law contains loopholes – particularly in the area of neglect – that consistently allow animal abusers to avoid conviction. Now, Hubbard is trying to get the Senate version passed by the Commons. That would effectively kill any substantive reform for another 115 years. From the other side, his caucus-mate Holland is attempting to resurrect the original, tougher bill by having the Commons pass the version it agreed to once before. Meanwhile, life and death continue apace. This month, a woman living near London was charged after humane society inspectors said they found 18 animals, including a lion, in grisly shape on her property. Last month, a Kincardine couple was charged after inspectors said they found two dogs and three cats at their home without sufficient food, water, space or medical care. On it goes.
After weeks of controversy I finally think this issue is closed. I would like to send kudos to Brian Patterson for having the courage to stand up for what is right. It is completely unacceptable that outsiders would come from Toronto and stir up racial tensions in this community. This mosque has absolutely nothing to do with the "war on terror". In fact Mr. Weinstein should be explaining his views to the community as they are clearly extreme if not outright racist against Muslims. That is why mainstream Jewish organizations refuse to associate with the JDL who was one of the groups behind this along with the Hindu Conference Centre and Mackenzie Institute. Signs shown in the Era Banner protest photograph outside of Newmarket town hall were obviously over the top and ignorant. I am all for supporting the war on terrorism but I will draw the line when it turns into a war on innocent Muslims. It is not fair how this community has been portrayed. Why should they not be entitled to a place of worship as others enjoy?
I would also like to congratulate Joan Ransberry on her most recent article. I think she clearly saw through this protest for what it was. I think this story will be helpful in drawing the line between legitimate concerns about the political views of Zafar Bangash while at the same time embracing the diversity and tolerance that makes this nation and now our community great. The past couple of articles have been very balanced and have done a great job of building a bridge between faiths and helping Newmarket residents better understand the mosque issue, the Muslim faith and the real people behind the project. I retract some of my earlier comments about the Era Banner's coverage of this issue. I think in the long run this issue will go along way in eliminating fears and misconceptions, therefore making our community better as a whole.
Zafar Bangash is no longer part of this project and has clearly been shunned by the local Muslim community with regards to the day to day actitivities of this mosque. Many of the protesters who had real concerns are now satisified and willing to move on and take the Newmarket Muslim community at their word. I wish the more extreme protesters who live outside Newmarket would do the same.
Hopefully this will be the end of this sad chapter. It is time for this community, the media and our elected officials to move on to the issues of higher concern in York Region. How many people know that 78,000 people in York Region currently live below the poverty line. When will we address the growing homeless population? What can we do about gridlock? Public transportation? Property Taxes? Environment? Clearly it is time to get our priorities in order. There are real problems that we should be and need to be focusing on.
About the Film "Regardless of the war, the administration, or the various sophistries for expending human lives as a matter of government policy, profiteering from it universally offends all citizens, whether they are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, other parties or no shows." Read more → --Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is the story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war. Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.
Brave New Films are both funded and distributed completely outside corporate America. Over 3000 people donated to make Iraq for Sale, and it is up to you to distribute it. Give copies to co-workers and organize a screening in your neighborhood. Get involved →
It looks like even the Oscars were painted green. Will this win be the stepping stone for Gore to run for president? He is generating a cult like following recently. Looks like global warming will continue to dominate the front pages and politics in Canada. Slowly it appears the Americans are about ready to follow suit. Yesterday, Gore's win was a huge win for the environment and political documentaries.
Darryl
************
Inconvenient Truth Trailer:
************
Gore uses Oscar speech to plug environmental cause POSTED: 1249 GMT (2049 HKT), February 26, 2007 Story Highlights
• Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," wins Oscar for best documentary • Movie has put the former vice president back into the political spotlight • Gore spoofs speculation over whether he'll run in mock "announcement" Adjust font size: Decrease fontDecrease font Enlarge fontEnlarge font
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Sure, the White House slipped from former Vice President Al Gore's grasp, but how many politicians end up on stage at Oscar night?
"An Inconvenient Truth," which turned Gore's lectures on the threat of global warming into a highly touted theatrical release, won the Academy Award for best documentary feature Sunday night.
Singer Melissa Etheridge also received the Oscar for best original song, "I Need to Wake Up," which was written for the movie.
Gore used the award as another opportunity to plug the environmental cause, telling the Hollywood audience and an estimated 1 billion television viewers that resolving the threat posed by a warming climate is "not a political issue, it's a moral issue." (Watch Gore talk about his cause and his movie Video)
"We have everything we need to get started, with the possible exception of the will to act," he said. "That's a renewable resource. Let's renew it."
Gore shared the stage with the film's director and executive producer, Davis Guggenheim, who said the producers "were inspired by [Gore's] fight for 30 years to tell this truth to all of us."
After eight years as vice president, Gore's bid for the presidency ended in 2000 in court battles over recounting votes in Florida. Though Gore led George W. Bush in the popular vote, Florida's electoral votes ultimately decided the race for Bush.
Since leaving office, Gore has advised a Los Angeles,California-based investment firm on biotechnology and computer issues and lectured at Middle Tennessee State University, his father's alma mater. His continuing efforts to raise public concern about the environment led to the presentations that formed the core of "An Inconvenient Truth."
A U.N. report released in January predicted global temperatures increases of 3.2 to 7.1 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius) by 2100. Human activity -- specifically, carbon emissions from fossil fuels -- are "very likely" the culprit, the report found.
Gore's environmental advocacy and his early opposition to the 2003 invasion of Iraq have raised questions about whether he'll run for president again. He has said he has no plans to mount a new campaign but spoofed the speculation during an earlier appearance at the Oscars.
When actor Leonardo DiCaprio asked him if he planned "any other kind of major, major announcement" Sunday night, he said he hadn't planned on one.
But as he started to read from a piece of paper that he would "formally announce my intention ... " the orchestra started playing -- the signal that an award recipient's time for his acceptance speech is up.
Jehane Noujaim's film makes it clear that the information war is as important as the war on the ground. "Control Room" shows Western reporters and reporters for the Arab news network Al Jazeera covering the early days of the war. As the military works to spin the news for both audiences, differences in coverage reveal the depth of the cultural divide - an understanding of which should frame your viewing of any other documentary about the Iraq War.
In what started off as a bet, led to me shaving my head and raising money for Rotary. Thank you very much to the staff at Jonas Software for supporting me. Below you can view the movie of me losing my hair. Clearly I do not look as good as Britney Spears but at least it went to a great cause.
This week the Supreme Court struck down security certificates and the Liberal government flipped flopped on renewing Canada's anti-terror laws. While parliament and the media are focused on if Harper owes Bains an apology, a Saudi group last week threatened Canada again, this time our oil facilities. This should be a wake up call for Canadians that terrorism still is a threat even on our own soil. For our MPs in parliament, I think it is time to stop bickering and get something passed that protects Canadians.
Darryl
***********
Canadian oil facilities on Saudi group's hit list
Updated Wed. Feb. 14 2007 3:11 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
A militant Saudi group is calling for attacks on all oil suppliers to the United States, listing Canada among its targets.
In a message posted on its website, the al Qaeda Organization says Canada's oil and natural gas facilities should be attacked in order to "choke the U.S. economy."
"It is necessary to hit oil interests in all regions which serve the United States not just in the Middle East. The goal is to cut its supplies or reduce them through any means," reads the posting on the organization's Arabian Peninsula e-magazine.
"We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States ... like Canada."
Canada is the main supplier of both oil and natural gas to the U.S. Mexico and Venezuela are the other western nations singled out in the group's call to arms.
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service says it's aware of the posting, but will not comment on whether they consider it a legitimate threat.
Foreign affairs expert Eric Margolis said while the news is cause for some concern, this particular organization has proven "quite ineffective and inefficient" in its attempts to take out oil facilities in the past.
"This group has adopted the name of al Qaeda but it's not part of al Qaeda," Margolis told CTV Newsnet in an interview.
The organization was behind the failed February 2006 suicide attack on the world's largest oil processing plant at Abqaiq in Saudi Arabia.
"A lot of its members have been killed or arrested by the Saudi government. Their attack last year on a major oil refinery was a fiasco," Margolis said.
"Threats coming from them cannot be taken too seriously."
"Clearly, economic targets are high priority for Osama bin Laden. The head of al Qaeda has said that the only way to really strike at an American power and drive it out of the Mideast, which is his objective, is to strike at America economically," said Margolis
"It's done very well so far. The U.S. bill for the so-called war on terrorism is closing in on US $700 billion. Oil is obviously the next step."
*********************
Eric Margolis
Sun, February 18, 2007
Is Alberta oil, gas at risk?
Al-Qaida in Arabia has warned it will target energy producers who supply the U.S.
Canadians were issued a reminder yesterday by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that her country's fight on terrorism provides significant security benefits for other nations, too.
Ms. Rice, whose country has been criticized in Canada for the way in which its officials detained and deported Maher Arar to face torture, made the remarks after a high-level meeting of cabinet ministers from Canada, the United States and Mexico to discuss border and trade issues.
After the day-long meeting, Ms. Rice was asked about the issue of Mr. Arar and also about the role of courts in interpreting the two countries' terrorism laws.
The Supreme Court of Canada yesterday struck down portions of Canadian law applying to security certificates.
While Ms. Rice did not answer specifically why Mr. Arar is still on the U.S. watch list, she later noted that the United States's efforts to battle terrorism help other countries.
"I might say that, very often in the actions that we take, we find that we're protecting not just the citizens of the United States, but the citizens of other countries as well," she said.
Ms. Rice said that, while the United States respects Canada's decision on Mr. Arar, it has its own information upon which to base its decision to keep the Canadian software engineer on a watch list.
"We respect the decision of the Canadian government concerning Mr. Arar. The United States, of course makes decisions based on information that we have and based on our own assessment of the situation."
At the meeting, ministers agreed to push forward with a series of priorities under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, including protection against avian and pandemic influenza, a quick opening of the border in the event of an emergency, and the streamlining of certain trade irritants. Ms. Rice said that the two countries' distinctive views on issues such as Mr. Arar shouldn't get in the way of a smooth-running relationship.
"Sometimes we will have different assessments of situations; it should by no means diminish the excellent co-operation we have," she said.
Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said the three countries have a unique relationship and that Canada and the United States agree to disagree.
"We share the objective North America is the most desirable place to live, the safest place to work, to raise a family and to invest in the entire world," he said.
Ms. Rice said the group also discussed how the three countries would respond to natural disasters, resolve environmental threats and how to secure dependable supplies of clean energy.
"This is a broad agenda that's going to make life better for our people. It is the only way in which we can achieve security and prosperity."
The leaders of the three countries will meet in August.
Separately, 30 chief executive officers from across North American tabled a report in Ottawa recommending 51 ways to further integrate the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in order to prevent anti-terrorist measures and foreign competition from eroding businesses' competitiveness.
The North American Competitiveness Council, jointly appointed by Ottawa, Washington and Mexico City, targeted three concerns of business: slow and burdensome border crossings, access to energy supplies and the lack of harmony in regulations and standards among the continent's three countries.
The report, which the Canadian Council of Chief Executives helped craft, includes calls for better border infrastructure, faster customs-clearance times, regulatory harmonization in financial services, transport and food, plus a crackdown on digital video disc piracy.
The CEOs also urged the U.S. government to test the idea of allowing North American nationals to use a driver's licence, or passport substitute, instead of a passport when entering the United States.
The report also called on Canada and Mexico to accelerate efforts to import temporary Mexican energy workers to alleviate the skills shortage in Alberta and other provinces as oil sands development ramps up.
*********************
Security certificate system to be revamped: Day
Updated Sun. Feb. 25 2007 10:45 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Canada may move towards the British system of a special counsel model to deal with those detained under national security certificates, suggests Public Safety minister Stockwell Day.
"I think this is a bit early, but I think these provisions are something that's attainable, again, if we can get support from the Liberals," Stockwell Day told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
Day was reacting to Friday's Supreme Court of Canada decision which struck down key provisions of national security certificates, used to detain suspected terrorists and others who threaten national security.
The court unanimously ruled the certificates used violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because they didn't allow those held access to the evidence against them.
But after the ruling, Day seemed to downplay the impact of the court's decision. He said the government will review the decision and suggested that it should be read as upholding the "general principle" of security certificates, while requiring some reforms.
Day said he agreed with an editorial in Saturday's Globe and Mail, which said the high court still maintains it is legitimate to detain, indefinitely, non-citizens suspected of being terrorists -- "as long as they have a meaningful review process."
The certificates had allowed government officials to use secret court hearings, indefinite prison terms and summary deportations when dealing with non-citizens accused of having terrorist ties.
The court is now giving Parliament one year to fix the law. The ruling suggested the special counsel approach.
Neil Finkelstein of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada explained the British independent counsel approach this way: "The special counsel is independent of the detainee. He receives the secret evidence, reviews it, can cross-examine the government witnesses in camera. So you have an adversarial process that excludes the detainee."
Day said he believes within that time, his government will be able to put in a "meaningful review process" for these detained individuals, and to ensure they have "special counsel that can review the security information that's being held again them."
Mahmoud Jaballah, one of those detainees, told CTV News from Millhaven Penitentiary: "Of course I am hoping to go to a fair trial. And I hope to see the evidence against me because I am not a terrorist man, I am an innocent man."
Jaballah's wife is struggling to raise their six children in Toronto. Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis has visited Jaballah in prison three times.
"This is going to be an election issue that's going to reflect the values that Canada wants and the reform agenda of Mr. Harper," he predicted.
In a separate interview on Question Period, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said it would be "his duty as a parliamentarian" to help make the law work.
"The Supreme Court said these certificates, the way they are designed, are not respecting the basic human rights like the right to know why you are in jail, what is the evidence against you?" said Dion. "Or if it's not you, a lawyer on your behalf must be aware of the reasons why you are there.
"I'm not surprised that the court is saying that. I didn't like the certificates the way they were."
With a report from CTV's Rosemary Thompson
*******************
Fighting terrorism requires sacrifice: Harper
Updated Mon. Sep. 11 2006 11:12 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The scourge of terrorism can't be stopped "unless some among us are willing to accept enormous sacrifice and risk to themselves," warned Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
He used the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States to remember the 24 Canadians who died that day, and to reinforce why Canadian soldiers are fighting in Afghanistan.
Harper said he remembered watching the second tower of New York's World Trade Center collapse on TV with his wife Laureen.
"As the enormity of the events began to sink in, I turned to her and said, 'this will change the course of history'," he said, according to remarks released in advance of his Monday night speech.
Since then, there have been bombings carried out in Bali, Indonesia, Madrid, Spain and London in Great Britain, to name a few, he said.
Many more plots have been foiled by security forces the world over, including Canada, he said.
"The targets and tactics were different in every case, but the objective is always the same: To kill, maim and terrify as many people as possible," Harper said.
"Not in the name of any idealistic cause, but because of an ideology of hatred."
While the war on terror has shown what humanity is capable of at its worst, Harper praised the goodness that flowed from ordinary people after the 9/11 attacks.
"Something which was on display for all to see when Canadians opened their arms and homes to thousands of travellers whose flights were diverted," he said.
Nations must confront the scourge of terror, Harper said.
And that is why the countries of the United Nations, with unprecedented unity and determination, launched their mission to Afghanistan," he said.
Operations to overthrow the Taliban -- which harboured the Islamist militant group al Qaeda, responsible for the 9/11 attacks -- began in October 2001.
Since the overthrowal of the Taliban, womens' rights have improved and children are going to school, he said.
"There are Canadian heroes being made every day in the desert and the mountains of southern Afghanistan. These are the stories that we don't hear -- the countless acts of courage and sacrifice that occur every day on the battlefield," he said.
"And in the towns and villages where Canadians are reconstructing the basic infrastructure of a shattered nation. Because of their efforts, the Taliban is on the run, not the charge."
Inside the House of Commons' Hall of Honour, Harper had families who had lost loved ones on 9/11 or who have loved ones serving in Afghanistan sitting behind him as he delivered his speech.
"Their presence here reminds us that real people -- Canadian men and women with families and children -- are courageously putting themselves forward to make that part of the world a better pace."
The prime minister asked Canadians to keep in their thoughts and prayers those whose loved ones perished on 9/11 and "the personnel and families of the extraordinary people in Afghanistan and elsewhere who have put themselves on the line so that the world is a better and safer place for all of us."
Analysis
In recent polls, Canadian support for the Afghanistan mission has been tepid. In a poll conducted between July 13-16 by The Strategic Counsel for CTV and The Globe and Mail, 39 per cent of respondents said they supported sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan versus 56 per cent who opposed the move.
CTV's chief political correspondent Craig Oliver told Newsnet the prime minister tried to emotionally link the events of 9/11 with current Canadian involvement in Afghanistan.
Oliver said the speech comes at a time when the Canadian mission in Afghanistan is in a bad patch.
"If you and I were in a street fight and we had to turn to onlookers and say, 'please give us help here', we wouldn't be said to be winning.
"And we've been forced to go to NATO and say, 'we are up against it here'," he said.
A year ago, the Taliban operated in hit-and-run raids. Now they are fighting in large groups, almost like conventional warfare, he said.
With the current talk of bringing in tanks, Oliver said military told him four years ago that tanks shouldn't be used because they separate our troops from Afghan population.
While Harper made an effective presentation, he didn't address many of the questions that should be asked about this mission, Oliver said.
**************
PM's attack on Liberal fuels bedlam in Ottawa
Harper gets shouted down for suggesting anti-terror reluctance is meant to shield MP
BRIAN LAGHI and CAMPBELL CLARK AND BILL CURRY
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
OTTAWA — Prime Minister Stephen Harper set off an unprecedented political storm in the House of Commons yesterday after he suggested the Liberals are refusing to extend anti-terrorism measures in order to protect one of their MPs.
Responding to unrelated criticism about the way his government chooses judges, Mr. Harper attempted to read from a newspaper report saying the father-in-law of Ontario MP Navdeep Bains would not have to testify at the criminal investigation into the Air-India bombing if the measures are allowed to die.
"Obviously, the Liberal Party opposes the change we have made . . ." he said of the judicial-selection process. "I am not surprised, given what I am reading in The Vancouver Sun today, when I realize this is how the Liberal Party makes decisions."
He then began reading: "The Vancouver Sun has learned that the father-in-law of the member of Parliament for Mississauga-Brampton . . ."
Related to this article
Prime Minister Stephen Harper talks to reporters outside the House of Commons in Ottawa following Question Period on Wednesday. (Tom Hanson/CP)
The Prime Minister was howled down by the Liberals, who cried "Shame! Shame!" and said he was tarnishing the reputation of Mr. Bains and members of his family.
According to the report, Mr. Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses who could be compelled to testify under the legislation.
The Conservatives have been trying to exploit a split in the Liberal Party over whether to extend the anti-terrorism provisions, which were introduced by a Liberal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.
After the outrage in the Commons, Mr. Harper's press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, told reporters the Prime Minister was not suggesting the Liberals' decision to oppose the measures was linked to Mr. Bains's father-in-law.
The Liberals weren't buying it.
"The Prime Minister has just confirmed that to him partisan advantage is everything. The truth does not matter; it is the allegation that counts," House Leader Ralph Goodale said. "He just proved his devious and deceitful behaviour."
Mr. Harper shot back that while the Liberal Party can ignore the article, "what they should not ignore is the fact that even the Air-India families say that the position that they are now taking will jeopardize the police investigation in the Air-India terrorism act."
Outside the Commons, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said the leak of Mr. Saini's name was proof that the anti-terrorism measures should be deleted.
"This is supposed to stay private. And now we have a reputation that is tarnished at the face of the nation like that. This is very unfortunate."
Mr. Bains asked for an apology in the Commons, and when he didn't get one, accused Mr. Harper of tarnishing his reputation for political gain.
"He's playing politics with families. And, I mean, when this tragic event took place I was nine years old," Mr. Bains told reporters. Mr. Bains said he didn't know Mr. Saini was on a list of potential witnesses.
Mr. Saini has been a member of a Sikh fundamentalist group called Babbar Khalsa (Panthak). In 1988, Mr. Saini helped Harkirat Singh Bagga enter Canada as a refugee.
Mr. Bagga was later sentenced to 14 years in prison for the attempted murder of Tara Singh Hayer, the publisher of a Canada-based Sikh-language newspaper called the Indo-Canadian Times.
A representative of the Canadian Arab Federation called the matter crass politics.
"Do you think all of the Liberal Party decided suddenly to vote against [the provisions] because a relative of an MP might be suspected?" asked Mohamed Boudjenane, the organization's executive director. "It's a low level for a Prime Minister and it's not very dignifying. . . . We're seeing the real face of Stephen Harper."
A member of one of the families affected by the tragedy said he is crestfallen by the developments.
"I'm so frustrated that something that could be used in the investigation of the Air-India Flight 182 bombing may disappear," said Bal Gupta, who lost his wife of over 20 years, Ramwati.
Vancouver RCMP Sergeant John Ward said the police do not release the names of people who may be subject to an investigation and would not confirm whether Mr. Saini is of interest to police for questioning.
Sgt. Ward confirmed the police were planning to use investigative hearings as a way of questioning people as part of the Air-India investigation. "They were a very valuable tool that we were planning on using," he said.
The two provisions are set to expire on March 1. Police sought permission for an investigative hearing related to Air-India in 2004, but an unidentified individual challenged the process in court, saying it violated Charter rights to remain silent and to protect against self-incrimination. The case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the provisions as constitutional.
The Liberals, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP all oppose extending the provisions, which would allow preventive arrests and special investigative hearings.
The Liberals have been on the defensive this week due to slipping poll numbers and open criticism by caucus members of Mr. Dion's position on the anti-terrorism provisions. Some MPs made a last-minute appeal to Mr. Dion yesterday that he change his position and others said they weren't properly consulted. However, several MPs said the majority of caucus supports the party line.
Mr. Bains, highly regarded inside the Liberal Party, was an important organizer for Gerard Kennedy's fourth-place bid for the party's leadership last December. He followed Mr. Kennedy's king-making move to support Mr. Dion.
Former Liberal leadership contender Bob Rae, who headed a review of the Air-India investigations and supports the extension of the anti-terrorism provisions, said that Mr. Harper cannot back up the link he is trying to draw.
Although the RCMP has said it wants to conduct investigative hearings, the names of potential witnesses have not been made known, and even Mr. Rae does not know who they are.
"There's no reason for any of those lists to ever become public."
With reports from Jane Taber in Ottawa and Oliver Moore in Toronto
******************
Editorial: 'Shame' on Harper? Hardly
Harper's remark about Navdeep Bains touched on what millions of Canadians are wondering themselves
National Post
Published: Thursday, February 22, 2007
Journalists employ a special term when a politician accidentally speaks a forbidden truth out loud: They call it a "Kinsley gaffe," after the legendary American editorialist Michael Kinsley, who pointed out in 1992 that the word "gaffe" is never really used by native writers of English except to describe such a situation.
The catcalls of "shame" that drowned out the Prime Minister in the House of Commons on Wednesday are the infallible sign of a Kinsley gaffe. Mr. Harper was about to describe an article from the Vancouver Sun pointing out that the father-in-law of an important young Liberal MP and organizer was once a spokesman for Babbar Khalsa, a group officially recognized by the Canadian government as a terrorist organization. This same individual is a potential witness in the Air India investigation — the very same investigation that will be shut down if Stéphane Dion prevails in his newfound and oddly passionate quest to kill provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act that permit such investigations.
None of the Liberals leaping to their feet to denounce the PM have bothered to deny the facts presented in the Sun by CanWest's Kim Bolan: given Ms. Bolan's international reputation as an investigator and chronicler of Sikh separatist activity, it would be foolhardy to try. It is supposedly the context in which the fact was brought up that bothers them. Or so they say.
No one -- including us -- is accusing the MP in question, Navdeep Bains, of any illegal behaviour. And Canadian voters are entitled to make their own individual judgments on whether the Prime Minister was engaging in dirty pool by opening the pages of the Sun in the privileged environment of the House of Commons. But they are well advised to ignore the slanted, indignant language that some other media outlets are trying to disguise as impartial reporting.
The PM is being accused of suggesting that the Liberals changed their policy on anti-terror legislation to protect Liberal Mr. Bains' father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini. In fact, it is only by clairvoyance that reporters can claim to know what Mr. Harper would have said in his complete reply. He was shouted down long before he had the chance to make the "suggestion" being freely attributed to him (and readers may wonder why the Liberals did not sit quietly and let him continue covering himself with "shame").
But even if Mr. Harper intended to suggest what he is being accused of suggesting, his only "shame" lies in saying what millions of Canadians are thinking. The Sikh voting bloc Mr. Bains dragged to the Dion camp (via Gerard Kennedy) at the Liberal convention in December is a critical reason why it is Mr. Dion, as opposed to Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, who now sits as Leader of the Opposition. Why would it be out of bounds to suggest that Mr. Dion's sudden and stalwart opposition to key anti-terrorism provisions -- even over the objections of many influential members of his own divided caucus -- might somehow be traced to those same provisions being potentially used to compel testimony from a close family member of a kingmaking MP?
We recall that in 2000, the Liberals used the same specious calls of "shame" to attack Reform politicians who questioned the Liberals about their party's stance on a Tamil terrorist group. Yet it was the Liberals themselves who were disgraced when it turned out Paul Martin and Maria Minna had attended a fundraising event for a group identified by the U.S. State Department as a front for the Tamil Tigers, which -- like the Babbar Khalsa outfit for which Mr. Bains' father-in-law once acted as spokesman -- is classified as a terrorist group under Canadians law (over Liberal objections, of course).
Even given the premise of Mr. Bains' personal unimpeachability -- a premise to which the Prime Minister's press secretary was glad to assent on Wednesday evening -- this may be a trickier question than it appears. The premise that a Member of Parliament's family connections are irrelevant can easily be carried to the point of absurdity. In gratitude for delivering the votes of his fellow Sikhs in Montreal, Mr. Dion appointed Mr. Bains to the party's national election readiness committee last month. If an equally important Conservative had a father-in-law who stood to benefit from a newfound Conservative policy, are we to believe that no reporter or opposition member would dare ask uncomfortable questions? No one can show that Bains' family connections to a possible Air India witness have played any part in the sudden Liberal rediscovery of civil liberties, but when did it become inappropriate for a politician to point out a potential conflict of interest amongst his opponents?
It seems to have happened right around the time the conservative parties reunited and formed a national government. We recall that some of the publications now lashing out at Mr. Harper were quite happy to wallow in "family legacies" when it came to Stockwell Day's Western-separatist father or Preston Manning's ancestral Social Credit connections. Could the apologies owed to these men have gotten misplaced in the mail?
********************
Sun, February 25, 2007
PM's 'House attack' aims to win over Sikhs
By SHEILA COPPS, SPECIAL TO THE EDMONTON SUN
Most political observers were shaking their heads when Prime Minister Stephen Harper attacked newly minted Liberal Member of Parliament Navdeep Bains.
How low could the prime minister go, railed opposition members. The prime minister had viscerally demonstrated to what depths he was willing to sink in search of the almighty vote. Mounting calls for an apology went unheeded as Harper laid the ground for a new debate on the terror bill. Harper succeeded in setting a trap that everyone fell into.
The anti-terror debate was about extending unused provisions of a bill, which could present an abuse of power. Syrian treatment of Maher Arar and the current Chinese incarceration of Canadian Huseyin Celil have raised questions about the treatment of Canadian citizens in a post-9/11 security climate -- and the extension of the anti-terror laws reinforced those concerns.
When the previous Liberal government introduced anti-terror limitations, a five-year sunset clause was included to guarantee a review of dubious legal remedies, including preventative arrests. In extending those legal provisions, Harper could have run the risk of appearing too close to George W. Bush.
Instead, the debate is all about the Liberals. By throwing the House into turmoil, the prime minister muddied the waters by casting Liberals in the role of protecting terrorists. His House attack was consistent with an ongoing campaign to portray the Conservatives as a law and order party that will protect Canadians at home and abroad, reinforcing expected Tory themes for the next election.
If, in the process, Harper promotes the image of Opposition Leader Stephane Dion as weak, that too meets Harper's political objectives. Exaggerated reports of Liberal party splits on the terror bill were designed to do just that. Dion was already under attack by negative Tory advertising before the prime minister tried to link him to terrorism.
NEWS STORY
Harper claims he was only repeating the contents of a published news story by Kim Bolan, an award-winning Vancouver Sun journalist, who last year penned the definitive Air India story entitled Loss of Faith: How the Air India Bombers Got Away with Murder. Last week she wrote a story claiming a relative of Bains was on the interviewee list for a potential Air India follow-up. She also linked Bains to a block of 250 Grit leadership votes that went to Dion via Gerard Kennedy. (That vote block was actually split between Sikhs and Muslims.)
Harper immediately picked up on the story, attacking the Liberals as soft on crime and terror. As his negative Dion ads showed, Harper is willing to run the gauntlet in return for future electoral gains. He is banking on the fact that most Canadians consider this odious approach a normal part of the rough-and-tumble of politics. Harper is also working hard to gain Sikh support in the lead up to a tight federal election.
The Sikh community is probably the most politically active minority group in the country. Like any other group, their views are not homogeneous. They run the political spectrum from those who support separation from India to those who don't.
In the past decade, the number of Sikhs supporting separation -- which was at the root of the Air India bombings -- has waned dramatically as their attention focuses on Canadian politics. With six Sikh MPs, from a community estimated at 278,000, they had sufficient influence in the last Liberal leadership to help determine the outcome. Sikhs also hold the balance of power in up to a dozen ridings across Canada.
Harper managed to cobble together his first minority with some Sikh support drawn largely from gay marriage opponents. He needs to do everything possible to build on that support since, historically and in current Parliamentary representation, Sikhs are generally Liberal voters.
Harper's antics this week were deliberately aimed at consolidating a fragile Sikh coalition. By tying Liberals to a failed Air India inquiry, Harper hopes to get the Sikh majority behind his party. Ironically, current inquiry problems are actually linked to a resistance by some government agencies to release pertinent documents.
POPULARITY DECLINING
Harper's antics could galvanize the entire community against him. Despite the recent polling frenzy, Conservatives are still less popular than when they formed a minority government. They have a long way to go to reach a majority.
Consolidation comes before growth. This week's ugly performance in the House was a deliberate, albeit risky, attempt at consolidation.
OTTAWA – Old battle lines within the Liberal party over Canada's anti-terror obligations have been drawn again, with Bob Rae and former cabinet minister Herb Dhaliwal the latest to weigh in.
At the core of the internal debate is a pair of Criminal Code provisions, one that allows police to arrest a person they suspect is about to engage in terrorist activity, and another that allows closed investigative hearings into possible or past terrorist attacks.
The measures were adopted in the aftermath of Sept. 11, but not without a vigorous debate within caucus. Pressure from the Liberal left wing resulted in sunset clauses being attached.
Now that they're set to expire by March 1, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion has declared they should be allowed to disappear. That should be fine with the NDP and Bloc Québécois, who were opposed to the measures from the beginning.
But a growing number of senior Liberals have said the measures should be renewed in the interest of public safety, including former ministers such as Anne McLellan and John Manley, who were behind the legislation in the first place.
Now Rae, who came in third in December's leadership race, says he has concerns because Air-India investigators have had plans in place to trigger the investigative hearings as part of their continuing work.
Dhaliwal, who broke ranks with McLellan and others at the time the Anti-Terror Act was introduced, sided with Dion. He said the measures were drafted in haste, an overreaction to the events in the United States – a claim that rankles McLellan and Manley.
The divisions are welcome fodder for the Conservatives, who are trying to persuade the House to salvage the measures.
"For the first time in history, we have a leader of the opposition who is soft on terrorism," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said during question period.
"He is refusing ... to back the ... provisions that his own government put in place."
***************
Liberal MP's in-law interviewed in Air India case
Ontario Liberal is son-in-law of former spokesman for Babbar Khalsa Panthak
A young Liberal MP who delivered Stephane Dion 250 leadership votes is the son-in-law of a man police have interviewed in connection with the Air India bombing case.
Navdeep Singh Bains, MP for Mississauga-Brampton South, shot on to the national stage after the December 2006 convention in which he delivered huge support to Gerard Kennedy and later to Dion, who won the Liberal leadership by 437 votes.
The Vancouver Sun has learned that Bains's father-in-law, Darshan Singh Saini, is on the RCMP's potential list of witnesses at investigative hearings designed to advance the Air India criminal probe.
But the ability to hold those hearings will be lost March 1 if parts of the Anti-Terrorism Act expire as expected, after the Liberals recently withdrew support for extending the provision being used to hold them.
Saini, former Ontario spokesman for the terrorist Babbar Khalsa Panthak, said in an interview that if he is called to the investigative hearing, he will testify.
"If they call me, I will see. I don't know about that," he said. "It is not that I hide anything. If something comes up again, that is that."
And he said his MP son-in-law's political positions have nothing to do with him.
"I can only speak for me. I cannot speak for my son-in-law," Saini said from Toronto.
Saini is listed as an alternative leadership delegate for Kennedy, according to documents obtained by The Sun. But he said he did not attend the convention because of medical issues.
Kennedy said Tuesday he has met Saini, but was unaware of his link to political events in the Sikh community in the 1980s.
"I had not been aware of it. And it certainly never came up within the course of any of the interactions I had," Kennedy said. "I have never had the opportunity to discuss it with him [Saini.]"
Nor has he discussed the issue with Bains, he said.
Saini was a controversial figure in the 1980s. He helped a young man named Harkirat Singh Bagga by giving him a place to stay for several weeks in 1988. Bagga left Saini's Ontario home that summer, travelled to B.C. and critically wounded newspaper publisher Tara Singh Hayer in the first attempt on Hayer's life. Hayer, who had offered to be a witness in the Air India case, was assassinated a decade later.
Court documents released during the Air India trial say Saini told the RCMP he had met Bagga in Pakistan in November 1987, along with Ajaib Singh Bagri, a Babbar Khalsa leader acquitted in the Air India bombing.
Bagri at one time was charged in the 1988 plot to kill Hayer and Saini was expected to be called as a witness, according to Air India trial documents, but the charge was later stayed.
Hayer's son Dave, who is a Liberal MLA in B.C., said he had no idea that Bains was related to Saini.
"I was really shocked to learn that a member of Parliament is closely related to someone who was living with the person who came to shoot my father," Dave Hayer said.
The RCMP has been preparing since 2003 to hold investigative hearings into the Air India bombing to compel people believed to have knowledge of events at that time to testify before a judge.
Bains, who is just 29, confirmed last week his relationship with Saini. He did not call back Tuesday to answer questions about the implications of Saini's possible involvement in investigative hearings.
He said earlier that he makes all his decisions as an MP based on what is best for Canadians.
He said he had not realized the impact of the change in the Anti-Terrorism Act on the Air India probe.
"It is very concerning," Bains said. "There is a debate that is taking place and it will continue to take place. There is no doubt about that. We will raise it among ourselves."
His family also has connections with the World Sikh Organization, another Sikh separatist group that made an address at the resumption of the Air India inquiry in Ottawa Monday.
Saini said he is no longer involved in the Khalistan movement.
"I am not very much into politics any more," he said. "My views are drastically different now."
Canada led the way when it came to banning land mines in the world. It is unfortunate that we have been slow to act with cluster bombs. Canada has no use for cluster bombs and we cannot justify our allies using them in civilian areas. From a moral and human rights standpoint, we should no longer turn a blind eye to these weapons that are still killing or injuring children and other innocent civilians.
Darryl
************* Canada yet to back ban on cluster bombs
GLORIA GALLOWAY
OTTAWA -- More than 30 countries have agreed that it is time to ban the worldwide use of cluster munitions -- massive packs of bomblets that have been used to deadly effect in Iraq, Kosovo and Lebanon -- but Canada is not yet one of them.
Unlike a decade ago, when then-foreign-affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy led a successful international effort to forge a treaty prohibiting the use of land mines, human-rights groups say, Canada has been a hesitant participant in the movement against cluster bombs.
"On the Canadian side, they have been lukewarm at best toward this initiative to get moving rapidly on cluster munitions," said Steve Goose, the director of the arms division of Human Rights Watch, an independent international agency.
When a review conference of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons in Geneva failed in November to reach an agreement to ban cluster munitions -- also called fragmentation bombs -- Norway urged other countries to embark on a separate treaty outside that convention. Print Edition - Section Front
Section A Front Enlarge Image More National Stories
* NDP grabs Liberal seat in Ontario by-elections * NDP grabs Liberal seat in Ontario by-election * Eerie moments of Pickton search described * It's too late to get a passport for March break * YOUR DAILY HOROSCOPES Lock * Transit wins big in budget * Go to the National section
The Globe and Mail
"We had 30 states agree during that review conference that . . . there should be negotiations on cluster munitions. Canada was not one of those, shockingly," Mr. Goose said in an interview yesterday from Washington.
The United States, China and Russia also held back.
The process to begin negotiations on the new treaty will start in two weeks in Oslo.
A spokesman for Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said there is no lack of concern on Canada's part. "We are attending the conference in two weeks time because we are interested in this issue," Dan Dugas said. "The minister looks forward to being briefed on what is being done on this front."
Although Canada was at the forefront of a campaign to rid the world of land mines, Ottawa is taking a back seat in global drive to stamp out deadly threat to civilians
They've been called the ultimate dumb bombs, spreading death indiscriminately or lying dormant to kill unsuspecting civilians years after a conflict has ended.
Today in Oslo, the Norwegian government is opening talks aimed at ending the production, use and stockpiling of cluster bombs, which are the most dangerous conventional weapons threatening ordinary people in war zones worldwide.
The campaign is similar to one Canada spearheaded a decade ago to rid the world of deadly anti-personnel land mines. But this time, human rights advocates say, Ottawa has not taken a front-row seat.
"Canada hasn't yet participated as a leader, by the humanitarian standards we have been used to," says Paul Hannon, executive director of Mines Action Canada. "From our perspective, they need to have a better discussion on the humanitarian problems this weapon causes."
Cluster munitions are packed into larger shells that scatter hundreds of bomblets over wide areas when dropped from planes or fired as artillery shells. Although designed to explode on impact, they have a failure rate that studies say can reach 25 per cent, leaving unexploded bomblets in populated areas.
Canada has sent a delegation to Oslo, where 48 countries will take part in the conference.
"It is an exploratory meeting that we believe will serve as an important first step toward the possibility of the development of a new legal instrument to address cluster munitions," said a spokesperson for the department of foreign affairs.
That's a low-key approach compared with the zeal with which the government attacked the land mines issue in the 1990s, advocates say. And they point out, there is no reason for Ottawa to hold back – although Canada has stockpiled some old cluster munitions, it has never used them, and has no plans to do so in the future.
"It has never even tested them, and it has already destroyed some of the old munitions," said Hannon in a phone interview from Oslo. "We expect the ministry of defence to get rid of the rest. There is no reason for Canada not to give the most vigorous support to a treaty."
Norway's conference was originally backed by 30 countries, and followed the example set by an Ottawa meeting that led to the mine ban treaty in 1997. Norway and Canada worked together on that treaty. However, Canada was not an early supporter of the cluster bomb talks.
"This is the new way of doing multinational treaties," said Annette Abelsen, a senior adviser in the Norwegian ministry of foreign affairs. "Canada has a long tradition of being a valuable partner and we hope it will continue that way."
Norway wants the talks to open the way for a ban by 2008.
The U.S., Russia, China, India and Pakistan are among those staying away from the conference, contending that cluster bombs should be dealt with by a United Nations convention. But Norway's move was prompted by the failure of countries that endorsed the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons to agree on launching negotiations to ban cluster munitions.
The U.S. has used cluster munitions in wars in southeast Asia and the Middle East, and exports them to at least two-dozen countries, according to Human Rights Watch. However, last week a bill was introduced in the U.S. Senate to prohibit their use in populated areas.
The U.S. is not the only country that makes use of cluster bombs. Britain has dropped them on Iraq, Israel on Lebanon and Russia on Chechnya. Hezbollah fired Chinese-made cluster munitions at Israel during the war last summer.
The weapons date back to World War II, when Soviet forces dropped them on German tanks. Since then they have been used by some 23 countries, and stockpiled by at least 73 states. According to Mines Action Canada, 98 per cent of the recorded casualties from cluster bombs are civilian, more than one-quarter of them children.
****************************
46 nations call for cluster bomb ban
Feb 23, 2007 08:39 AM
DOUG MELLGREN Associated Press
OSLO, Norway – A declaration calling for a 2008 treaty banning cluster bombs was adopted Friday by 46 out of 49 nations attending a conference in Oslo, officials for the Norwegian government and two non-governmental groups said.
Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen said Poland, Romania and Japan did not approve the final declaration. Officials for Human Rights Watch and the Cluster Munition Coalition also said those three countries dissented.
The gathering was snubbed by some key arms makers – including the U.S., Russia, Israel and China – but organizers said other nations needed to forge ahead regardless to avoid a potential humanitarian disaster posed by unexploded cluster munitions.
A declaration presented on the last day of the meeting urged nations to "conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument" to ban cluster bombs.
The treaty would "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians," the declaration said.
Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles, which scatter them over vast areas, with some failing to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years after conflicts end until they are disturbed, often by civilians.
As many as 60 percent of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, the Cluster Munition Coalition said. The weapons have recently been used Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon, it said. The U.N. estimated that Israel dropped as many as 4 million bomblets in southern Lebanon during last year's war with Hezbollah, with as many 40 percent failing to explode on impact.
Children can be attracted to the unexploded weapons by their small size, shape and bright colors, activists say.
Friday's declaration urged countries to take steps at a national level before the treaty takes effect. Norway has already done so, while Austria announced a moratorium on cluster bombs at the start of the conference.
"It is nonbinding. It is not a legal document. But it is a statement of political will," Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch said of the declaration.
Norway hopes the treaty would be similar to one outlawing anti-personnel mines, negotiated in Oslo in 1997.
The U.S., China and Russia have refused to sign the land mine treaty and oppose the Norwegian initiative on cluster bombs. They did not send representatives to the meeting. Australia, Israel, India and Pakistan also did not attend. Those nations say the weapons should be dealt with in other arenas, such as the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons, known as CCW.
Goose said the major powers don't need to be involved for the treaties to have an impact. Activists say the point is to stigmatize the weapons.
"If you need proof that you can conclude a treaty without the United States, Russia and China, look at the land mine treaty," he said. Goose said even though major powers have rejected the treaty, they have stopped deploying land mines, and that the number of civilian casualties have been cut in half since 1997.
Before the meeting, activist groups feared some countries would seek to water down, or even squash, a declaration by insisting on a longer or nonexistent deadline. But Nash said the first day of talks made it clear that there would be a declaration, with the 2008 deadline, even if some countries rejected it.
The declaration said work on the cluster bomb treaty would be carried out in Lima, Peru, in May or June; in Vienna, Austria, in November or December, and in Dublin, Ireland, in early 2008.
(WASHINGTON) — Israel likely misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon during the war against Hezbollah last summer, the State Department said Monday.
Spokesman Sean McCormack said a preliminary report has been sent to Congress on a U.S. investigation of the issue. He did not provide details of the investigation.
The United Nations said last summer that unexploded cluster bombs — anti-personnel weapons that spray bomblets over a wide area — litter homes, gardens and highways in south Lebanon. When Israel purchases cluster bombs and other lethal equipment from the United States, it must agree in writing to restrictions on their use.
The report, McCormack said, "is not a final judgment." He declined to speculate on what action may be taken against Israel if a violation is confirmed. He said Israeli officials have been cooperative in providing information.
The U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center has said that it is not illegal to use the cluster bombs against soldiers or enemy fighters, but the Geneva Conventions bar their use in civilian areas.
Relief organizations and the U.N. mine office have reported finding evidence that Israel used three types of U.S.-made cluster bombs during the 34-day war with Hezbollah militants, during which both sides fired rockets into populated areas.
The U.N. mine office said in a report that it had found hundreds of bomblets of the types made by the United States among unexploded ordnance recovered in nearly 250 locations in southern Lebanon. Israel also makes its own cluster munitions.
The Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on cluster-weapon sales to Israel in 1982, after a congressional investigation found misuse of the weapon during Israel's war that year with Lebanon. The Israeli army has said all weapons it uses "are legal under international law and their use conforms with international standards."
Cluster bombs are typically used against tanks and explode upon impact with steel. In the conflict in Lebanon, the shells were fired into urban and rural areas where Israel thought Hezbollah guerrillas might be hiding. Many hit the ground or pavement and did not explode.
Israel said it was forced to hit civilian targets in Lebanon because Hezbollah fighters were using villages as a base for rocket-launchers aimed at Israel. At least 850 Lebanese and 157 Israelis died in the fighting.
The Bush administration repeatedly warned Israel to avoid civilian casualties during the cross-border war, but refrained from direct criticism of Israeli tactics.
(OSLO, Norway) — A declaration calling for a 2008 treaty banning cluster bombs was adopted Friday by 46 out of 49 nations attending a conference in Oslo, officials for the Norwegian government and two non-governmental groups said.
A declaration presented on the last day of the meeting urged nations to "conclude by 2008 a legally binding international instrument" to ban cluster bombs. The treaty would "prohibit the use, production, transfer and stockpiling of those cluster munitions that cause unacceptable harm to civilians," the declaration said.
Norway's deputy foreign minister Raymond Johansen said Poland, Romania and Japan did not approve the final declaration. Officials for Human Rights Watch and the Cluster Munition Coalition also said those three countries dissented.
The gathering was snubbed by some key arms makers — including the U.S., Russia, Israel and China — but organizers said other nations needed to forge ahead regardless to avoid a potential humanitarian disaster posed by unexploded cluster munitions.
Cluster bomblets are packed by the hundreds into artillery shells, bombs or missiles, which scatter them over vast areas, with some failing to explode immediately. The unexploded bomblets can then lie dormant for years after conflicts end until they are disturbed, often by civilians.
As many as 60 percent of the victims in Southeast Asia are children, the Cluster Munition Coalition said. The weapons have recently been used Iraq, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Lebanon, it said. The U.N. estimated that Israel dropped as many as 4 million bomblets in southern Lebanon during last year's war with Hezbollah, with as many 40 percent failing to explode on impact.
Children can be attracted to the unexploded weapons by their small size, shape and bright colors, activists say.
Friday's declaration urged countries to take steps at a national level before the treaty takes effect. Norway has already done so, while Austria announced a moratorium on cluster bombs at the start of the conference. "It is nonbinding. It is not a legal document. But it is a statement of political will," Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch said of the declaration.
Norway hopes the treaty would be similar to one outlawing anti-personnel mines, negotiated in Oslo in 1997.
The U.S., China and Russia have refused to sign the land mine treaty and oppose the Norwegian initiative on cluster bombs. They did not send representatives to the meeting. Australia, Israel, India and Pakistan also did not attend. Those nations say the weapons should be dealt with in other arenas, such as the U.N. Convention on Conventional Weapons, known as CCW.
Goose said the major powers don't need to be involved for the treaties to have an impact. Activists say the point is to stigmatize the weapons. "If you need proof that you can conclude a treaty without the United States, Russia and China, look at the land mine treaty," he said. Goose said even though major powers have rejected the treaty, they have stopped deploying land mines, and that the number of civilian casualties have been cut in half since 1997.
Before the meeting, activist groups feared some countries would seek to water down, or even squash, a declaration by insisting on a longer or nonexistent deadline. But Nash said the first day of talks made it clear that there would be a declaration, with the 2008 deadline, even if some countries rejected it.
The declaration said work on the cluster bomb treaty would be carried out in Lima, Peru, in May or June; in Vienna, Austria, in November or December, and in Dublin, Ireland, in early 2008.
This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Military history may be able to help recruit one. If a more appropriate WikiProject or portal exists, please adjust this template accordingly.
A US B-1 Lancer releasing its payload of cluster bombs
Cluster munitions are air-dropped or ground-launched shells that eject multiple small submunitions ("bomblets"). Their primary purpose is to kill enemy infantry, although specialized weapons designed for anti-personnel, anti-runway, anti-armor and mine-scattering purposes have also been developed.
The first cluster bomb used operationally was the German SD-2 or Sprengbombe Dickwandig 2 kg, commonly referred to as the Butterfly Bomb. It was used during the Second World War to attack both civilian and military targets. The technology was developed independently by the United States of America, Russia and Italy (see Thermos Bomb). Cluster bombs are now standard air-dropped munitions for most nations, in a wide variety of types.
Artillery shells that employ similar principles have existed for decades. They are typically referred to as ICM (Improved Conventional Munitions) shells. The US military slang terms for them are "firecracker" or "popcorn" shells, for the many small explosions they cause in the target area.
A basic cluster bomb is a hollow shell (generally streamlined if intended for carriage by fast aircraft) containing anywhere from three to more than 2,000 submunitions. Some types are dispensers that are designed to be retained by the aircraft after releasing their munitions. The submunitions themselves may be fitted with small parachute retarders or streamers to slow their descent (allowing the aircraft to escape the blast area in low-altitude attacks).
Incendiary cluster bombs, also called firebombs, are designed to start fires. They are generally specifically designed for this purpose, with payloads of white phosphorus or napalm, but they are often combined with a payload of anti-personnel and anti-tank submunition to make firefighting efforts more difficult. When used in cities they were often preceded by the use of conventional explosive bombs to break open the roofs and walls of buildings to expose flammable contents for the incendiaries. This type of munition was extensively used by both sides in the strategic bombings of World War II. It was bombs of this type that were used to start firestorms such as those in Dresden and Tokyo.
Anti-personnel cluster bombs use explosive fragmentation to kill troops and destroy soft (unarmored) targets. Along with incendiary cluster bombs, these were among the first forms produced by Germany during WWII. They were most famously used during the Blitz with delay and booby-trap fusing to prevent firefighting and other damage control efforts in the bombed areas. They were also used with a contact fuse when attacking entrenchments.
Most Anti-armor munitions contain shaped chargewarheads to pierce the armor of tanks and armored fighting vehicles. In some cases, guidance is used to increase the likelihood of successfully hitting a vehicle. Guided submunitions can use either a shaped charge warhead or an explosively formed penetrator. Unguided shaped-charge submunitions are designed to be effective against entrenchments that incorporate overhead cover. To simplify supply and increase battlefield effectiveness by allowing a single type of round to be used against nearly any target, submunitions that incorporate both fragmentation and shaped-charge effects are produced. In United States Army and Marine CorpsField Artillery units, this is a common type of shell used in ground warfare.
Anti-runway submunitions such as the JP233 are designed to penetrate concrete before detonating, allowing them to shatter and crater runway surfaces. In the case of the JP233, the cratering effect is achieved through the use of a 2-stage warhead that combines a shaped charge and conventional explosive. The shaped charge is designed to create a small crater which the conventional explosive falls into and then enlarges by its explosion. Anti-runway submunitions are usually used along with anti-personnel submunitions equipped with delay or booby-trap fuses to make repair more difficult.
Mine-laying weapons do not detonate on contact, but scatter their cargo of land mines for later detonation. They come in antipersonnel and antitank forms. Antitank mines are nearly always used in combination with antipersonnel mines to make the antitank minefield more difficult to clear. Since such mines usually lie on exposed surfaces, the antipersonnel forms, such as the US Area Denial Artillery Munition normally deploy tripwires automatically after landing to make clearing the minefield more difficult. In order to avoid rendering large portions of the battlefield permanently impassable, and to minimize the amount of mine-clearing needed after a conflict, scatterable mines used by the United States are designed to self-destruct after a period of time from 4-48 hours.
During the 1950s and 1960s the United States and Soviet Union developed cluster weapons designed to deliver chemical weapons, ranging from lethal nerve gas like Sarin to defoliants and tear gas. International pressure has made the use of chemical weapons politically volatile, although both the U.S. and Russia retain such weapons in their arsenals.
An anti-electrical cluster weapon — the CBU-94/B — was first used by the U.S. in the Kosovo War in 1999. These consist of a TMD (Tactical Munitions Dispenser) filled with 202 BLU-114/B submunitions. Each submunition contains a small explosive charge that disperses 147 reels of fine conductive fiber; either carbon fiber or aluminium coated glass fiber. Their purpose is to disrupt and damage electric power transmission systems by producing short circuits in high voltage power lines and electrical substations. On the first attack, these knocked out 70% of the electrical power supply in Serbia. There are reports that it took 500 people 15 hours to get one transformer yard back on line after being hit with the conductive fibers.
Modern cluster bombs and submunition dispensers are often multiple-purpose weapons, containing mixtures of anti-armor, anti-personnel, and anti-materiel munitions.
A growing trend in cluster bomb design is the "smart" submunition, which uses guidance circuitry to locate and attack particular targets, usually armored vehicles. Some recent weapons of this type include the U.S. CBU-97sensor-fused weapon, first used in combat during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Munitions specifically intended for anti-tank use may be set to self-destruct if they reach the ground without locating a target, theoretically reducing the risk of collateral damage to civilians and non-military targets. Another limitation of the "smart" submunition is cost: such weapons are many times more expensive than standard cluster bombs, which are cheap and simple to manufacture.
98% of 11,044 recorded cluster munitions casualties that are registered with Handicap International are civilians. Cluster munitions are hotly opposed by many individuals and hundreds of groups, such as the Red Cross,[1] the Cluster Munition Coalition and the United Nations, because of the high proportion of civilians that have fallen victim to the weapon. Since February 2005, Handicap International called for cluster munitions to be prohibited and collected hundreds of thousands signatures to support its call.[2]
Cluster bombs pose a threat to civilians for two reasons: they have a very wide area of effect, and they almost always leave behind unexploded bomblets.
The area affected by a single cluster munition, also known as the footprint, can be as large as two or three football fields.[citation needed] Because of the weapon's very wide area of effect, they have frequently been documented as striking both civilian and military objects in the target area. This characteristic of the weapon is particularly problematic for civilians when cluster munitions are used in or near populated areas and has been documented by research reports from groups such as Human Rights Watch[1], Landmine Action and Handicap International.
The other serious problem is unexploded ordnance (UXO) of cluster bomblets left behind after a strike. These bomblets may be duds or in some cases the weapons are designed to detonate at a later stage. In both cases, the surviving bomblets are live and can explode when handled, making them a serious threat to civilians and military personnel entering the area. In effect, the UXOs can function like land mines. These are sometimes called triple-threat weapons[citation needed], because they can explode in the air, on the ground, or later when stepped on or disturbed.
Even with cluster bombs that are designed to fully explode there is a certain number of individual submunitions that do not explode on impact. The US-made MLRS with M26 warhead and M77 submunitions are supposed to have a 5 percent dud rate but in reality have a rate of 16 percent[2]. The rate for this type tested during the Gulf War was as high as 23 percent[3]. The M483A1DPICM artillery-delivered cluster bombs have a reported dud rate of 14 percent[citation needed].
Given that each cluster bomb contains hundreds of bomblets and are fired in volleys, even a small failure rate can lead each strike to leave behind hundreds or thousands of UXOs scattered randomly across the strike area. For example, after the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, UN experts have estimated that as many as one million unexploded bomblets may contaminate the hundreds of cluster munition strike sites in Lebanon[4].
In addition, some cluster bomblets, such as the CBU-87, are brightly colored in order to increase their visibility and warn off civilians. However, the color, coupled with their small and nonthreatening appearance has caused children to interpret them as toys. This problem was exacerbated in the United States military action against Afghanistan, when US forces dropped humanitarian rations from airplanes with the same yellow colored packaging as the BLU97. The rations packaging was later changed first to blue and then to clear packaging in the hopes of avoiding such hazardous confusion.
The US military is developing new cluster bombs which they claim have a much lower (less than 1%) dud rate[5]. However, in the past, new more efficient cluster bombs have not been made in sufficient quantities to push the older bombs out of the stockpiles and use.[citation needed] Sensor-fuzed weapons that contain a limited number of submunitions that are capable of autonomously engaging armored targets may provide a viable, if costly, alternative to cluster munitions that will allow multiple target engagement with one shell or bomb while avoiding the civilian deaths and injuries consistently documented from the use of cluster munitions.
[edit]Civilian deaths from unexploded cluster bomblets
In Vietnam, people are still being killed as a result of cluster bombs and other objects left by the US military. Estimates range up to 300 people per year.[3]
In post-war Kosovo unexploded cluster bomblets caused more civilian deaths than landmines.[4]
In Lebanon as many as 40% of the bomblets dropped may not have detonated since the end of the Israeli summer 2006 cluster bombings. [5]. During the offensive on Lebanon, Israel allegedly fired about 1,800 cluster bombs, containing over 1.2 million cluster bomblets, on Lebanese towns and villages being used as cover by Hezbollah during the last 10 days of the war, according to an unconfirmed report by an unnamed head of an Israeli rocket unit.[6] It is claimed that sixteen civilians have been killed and 100 wounded[7] by unexploded bomblets since the August 14, 2006 ceasefire in the 2006 Israeli-Lebanon conflict. The US State Department is inquiring into whether Israeli use of US-made cluster bombs during the conflict conformed with the terms of agreements between them as to the conditions of the munition's use. Israel has expressed readiness to cooperate and provided generalized maps as stated below, but has not provided detailed maps or coordinates of areas targeted with cluster munitions[8]. In August 2006, the UN's Mine Action Coordination Center in Tyre, Lebanon, raised an alarm over the post-conflict impact on returning civilians of unexploded cluster bombs allegedly used by Israel in HizbAllah occupied village staging areas.[9]. Israel immediately after the cease-fire gave the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) maps indicating the likely locations of unexploded ordnance, to aid the international attempt to clear these areas and avoid injury to the population. However, these maps only showed the general location of unexploded ordnance and were not useful for systematic clearance of areas contaminated by cluster munitions. This is most likely because they are proximity devices and not precision devices and exact impact areas cannot be determined. Immediately after the ceasefire, Israel distributed warning notices to the residents in the areas of warfare, and recommended that they wait a few days before returning to the south until the UNIFIL forces were deployed there and the area had been cleared of unexploded ordnance. Clearance experts (source needed) have estimated that it will take 12-18 months to remove the immediate threat from unexploded ordnance from southern Lebanon.Sep 2006.htm
[edit]Areas with significant cluster bomb UXO problems
Although covered by the general rules of international humanitarian law, cluster munitions are not currently covered by any specific international legal instrument. However, a number of sections of the Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War (Protocol V to the 1980 Convention), 28 November 2003 (http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/610?OpenDocument) address the use of cluster muntions, in particular Article 9, which mandates States Parties to "take generic preventive measures aimed at minimising the occurrence of explosive remnants of war". So far Belgium is the only country to have issued a ban on the use (carrying), transportation, export, stockpiling, trade and production of cluster munitions.[10]
There has been parliamentary activity on cluster munitions in several countries, including Austria, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland. In some of these countries, there are ongoing discussions concerning draft legislation banning cluster munitions, along the lines of the legislation adopted in Belgium. Norway has also committed itself to an international ban on cluster munitions and recently announced a moratorium on the weapon. Austria has also committed itself to an international legally-binding instrument on cluster munitions, after the Parliament passed a resolution on cluster munitions in July. On December 5, 2006, an Australian senator introduced a private bill, titled the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill 2006, to prohibit Australia's use, manufacture and possession of cluster munitions. This bill is not supported by the Australian Government and as a result is unlikely to be passed by Parliament. Moreover, the Australian Defence Force does not currently possess stocks of cluster munitions. In a move similar to Australia there have also been two private members bills introduced into the United Kingdoms parliament, one in the Lords the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition) Bill and another in the Commons the Cluster Munitions (Prohibition of Development and Acquisition) Bill. However again like Australia these do not have the support from the government, despite in the Lords bill passing though committee unopposed, and therefore seem unlikly to become law.
Other weapons, such as land mines, have been banned in many countries under specific legal instruments for several years, notably the Ottawa Treaty and the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Cluster bombs, however, are not yet banned by any international treaty and are considered legitimate weapons by some governments. International governmental deliberations in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons still revolve around the broader problem of explosive remnants of war, a problem to which cluster munitions have contributed in a significant way. However, despite calls from humanitarian organizations and approximately 30 governments, international governmental negotiations to develop specific measures that would address the humanitarian problems cluster munitions pose have not proven possible in the conventional multilateral fora.
Against this background, a new flexible multilateral process similar to the process that led to the ban on antipersonnel landmines in 1997 began with an announcement in November 2006 by the Government of Norway that it would convene an international meeting in early 2007 in Oslo to work towards a new treaty prohibiting cluster munitions. This announcement followed Belgium's decision to ban the weapon in February 2006, Austria's decision to work for an international instrument on the weapon and the international controversy over the use and impact of cluster munitions during the war between Hezbollah and Israel in July and August 2006. 48 governments attended the meeting in Oslo February 22-23 2007 in order to reaffirm their commitment to a new international prohibition on the weapon. During the meeting Austria also announced it would ban these bombs. The ICRC will hold an expert meeting on cluster munitions in April 2007 to clarify technical, legal, military and humanitarian aspects of the weapon with a view to developing an adequate international response.
In November2006, a new international law came into force requiring countries to undertake or facilitate clearance of explosive remnants of war and to provide information on location of explosive remnants of war in order to make this clearance possible, but the law includes no specific obligations on cluster munitions, which are not mentioned in the text of the instrument.[11]
CBU-100 Cluster Bomb, an American cluster bomb, known as the Rockeye, employed primarily in an anti-tank mode and displaying very high failure rates in combat situations.
JP233, a British cluster bomb delivery system designed to attack runways
CBU-97, an American submunition-based weapon system which contains a small number of individually guided submunitions. It is considered effective against groups of vehicles such as tanks and support vehicles and because of the guided nature of its submunitions, there is some debate over whether to consider it a cluster munition.
^ 1 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, "Unexploded Ordnance Report," table 2-3, p. 5. No date, but transmitted to the U.S. Congress on February 29, 2000
I am not sure if it is the responsibility of the government to dictate how private corporations charge for services, but I am on side when it comes to eliminating ATM fees. It is ridiculous that if you are a Royal Bank client you get charged if you use a TD, Scotia, CIBC or Bank of Montreal Machine. What is the justification for charging me for withdrawing my own money? Perhaps this could be a carrot for consumers in exchange for letting the banks explore mergers in order to profit in the global economy.
Darryl
*******************
Flaherty, banks to discuss ATM fees
STEVEN CHASE
Globe and Mail Update
OTTAWA — Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is meeting shortly with Canada's big banks and will press them again on why they charge a fee when other institutions' customers use their automated teller machines.
He challenged banks to follow the example of credit unions that levy no fee for inter-institution banking.
Mr. Flaherty noted he has powers under federal law to force banks to change their automated teller machine (ATM) fees but stopped short of saying he'd ever use them.
“We always are in a position given that the Bank Act is a federal statute but I much prefer to have a discussion about the goal of competition and choice in Canada,” Mr. Flaherty said.
“I like competition and choice for consumers. Among the big banks -- we'll see. I'm going to talk to them about that.”
The populist-minded finance minister said he's impressed by how some Canadian credit unions have managed to avoid charging fees at machines.
“I met with the credit union leadership and they explained to me that they have two networks in Canada -- one of about 1,600 machines -- where you can, if you're a non-customer of that particular credit union you don't have to pay a few of a dollar-fifty or whatever to use the machine,” he said.
“And I think that's good for Canada.”
Banks represent an easy target for federal political parties because of their recent good fortune.
Last year, Canada's six biggest banks reported combined profits of $19-billion. The previous high-water mark on combined bank earnings was $13.1-billion, set in 2004.
The Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) strongly defends service charges on automated teller machines (ATMs) as a user-pay system that covers the costs of transactions conducted by customers.
They said the charge levied on bank customers when they withdraw money from another banks' ATMs is "the easiest fee to avoid."
*******************
NDP calls for end to fees on ATM withdrawals
Updated Thu. Jan. 25 2007 11:33 AM ET
Canadian Press
TORONTO -- NDP Leader Jack Layton is accusing Canada's big banks of "gouging'' clients by charging ATM fees to access their own cash.
Layton says he wants the practice outlawed.
He says it's just not fair to force someone to pay $1.50 for withdrawing or depositing $20 or $30 from a bank machine.
Banks had $19 billion in profits last year and Layton says they don't need the cash.
Layton says bank fees have simply gone too far.
There was no immediate response from the banks to Layton's comments.
************************
Finance committee to study ATM fees
Updated Fri. Feb. 23 2007 10:38 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
NDP Leader Jack Layton is applauding the Commons finance committee's decision endorsing an NDP resolution to review the touchy subject of ATM fees.
"So far on ATMs, all we have from the government is conversations and chats and what we need is concrete action to stop the banks from gouging people when they're simply trying to take their own money out of the banks," Layton told reporters on Friday.
"We're happy that the finance committee is going to accept our proposal that there be an investigation and that we find out how it is the banks are being permitted to do this gouging so that we can lay out a plan that will stop it."
NDP Finance Critic Judy Wasylycia-Leis said she thinks the banks will come under strict scrutiny in the review.
"We'll have chance to thoroughly review the issue and put the pressure on the banks," she said Friday.
The committee will likely invite the major banks, the Canadian Bankers Association and representatives of credit unions to testify.
When asked whether she believed the bankers would be willing to face the committee, Wasylycia-Leis said she thought
Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has written to the major banks asking them to explain the charges.
Flaherty has said that he's had "fairly lively conversations about the subject with the banks" and that the government wants to promote choice and competition within the industry.
But Wasylycia-Leis accuses Flaherty of talking a lot and "doing very little."
The New Democrats have been pushing for an end to transaction fees at ATMs.
"We think it's quite doable to do away with the fees for using not only your own bank's ATM but, of course, a competitor's ATM," she said.
Wasylycia-Leis was unclear, however, whether the committee would have jurisdiction over private, so-called white label ABMs, which aren't affiliated any specific bank.
The NDP estimates ATM fees ding Canadians for $420 million a year, which Layton said is a lot for consumers but not for the banks, which made $19 billion in profits last year.
OTTAWA, Feb 20 (Reuters) - Canada's Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said on Tuesday he plans to meet with the country's major banks to discuss the fees they charge consumers who use automatic bank machines.
"I'm not only going to have a lively conversation with the banks but also I'm meeting with them in about two weeks to discuss this subject, among others," Flaherty said in the House of Commons in response to a challenge by the New Democratic Party to eliminate ATM fees.
The film tells the story of Ruhal Ahmed, Asif Iqbal and Shafiq Rasul (the 'Tipton Three'); three young British men from Tipton in the West Midlands who were captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in 2001 and detained as "enemy combatants" at Guantánamo Bay, without charge or legal representation, for nearly three years. As well as interviews with the three men themselves and archive news footage from the period, the film contains an account of the three men's experiences following their capture by the Northern Alliance, the subsequent handover to the United States military and their detention in Cuba. It contains several scenes depicting their alleged beatings during interrogation, the use of alleged torture techniques such as 'stress positions' and attempts to extract forced confessions of involvement with Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
The Tipton Three were all released without charge in 2004.
The torture depicted in the movie had to be softened from the detainees' accounts for the benefit of the actors; according to Rizwan Ahmed, they were unable to bear the pain caused by the shackles pressing on their legs, and had to have them cushioned. They were also unable to remain in the stress positions depicted for more than an hour; the Tipton Three were allegedly left in them for up to eight hours.
Despite all of the media hype associated with the movie Blood Diamond and also the documentary "Empire of Africa, the conflict diamond trade remains alive. As consumers we have a duty to make sure diamonds we purchase in the west, do not fund what is going on in Africa as seen in these movies. In Canada, a good way to start might be with our own mines in Ontario. The Kimberley process is a good start, but many holes still remain.
Darryl
****************
U.N.: Ivorian diamond trade goes on despite ban
POSTED: 1:37 p.m. EST, December 18, 2006
Story Highlights
• U.N.: Diamonds are smuggled out of the Ivory Coast via Mali and Ghana • Ghana risks suspension from the U.N.-backed Kimberley Process, U.N. says • The Kimberley Process fights "blood" or "conflict" diamond sales • No action can be taken against Mali as it was not a Kimberley Process participant
Adjust font size:
Decrease fontDecrease font
Enlarge fontEnlarge font
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (Reuters) -- Diamonds are still being smuggled out of war-divided Ivory Coast via Mali and Ghana in violation of a U.N. embargo despite rebel assertions to the contrary, according to a U.N. report.
U.N. experts identified Malian nationals who had been buying gems in the town of Seguela, which lies in the rebel-held north of Ivory Coast, and had observed "intensive mining" in the area during an aerial survey in November.
"The identification of these Malian buyers further underlines the significant smuggling of Ivorian diamonds to Mali in violation of United Nations sanctions," the group of experts said in a report to the U.N. Security Council.
The report, seen by Reuters on Monday, also said Ghana risked suspension from the Kimberley Process -- a U.N.-backed scheme to ensure "blood" or "conflict" diamonds are not sold on the black market to buy weapons -- after smuggled Ivorian gems were found among diamond exports registered as Ghanaian.
For example, diamonds of non-Ghanaian origin had been found in a shipment transported from Ghana to Dubai, an important international diamond-trading center, the report said.
It said a "detailed action plan" had been agreed with Ghana to strengthen its controls over the diamond sector. Progress would be evaluated by a Kimberley Process review team in February next year.
"If the evaluation team is not satisfied, Ghana could face suspension from the Kimberley Process," the report said.
No action could be taken against Mali as it was not a Kimberley Process participant.
Rebels seized the north of Ivory Coast in a 2002/2003 civil war and admit they smuggle cocoa -- the country's main export -- to neighboring states to fund their movement.
But they deny dealing in conflict diamonds despite allegations by U.N. experts that they generate revenue of between $9 million and $23 million from the trade.
The U.N. report also said criminal networks had been breaking an arms embargo on Ivory Coast, using international courier firms to import shipments of small arms.
"Currently the ports are wide open to abuse and the U.N. Operation in Ivory Coast has not conducted a port inspection since August," the report said.
*******************
ONTARIO OPENS ITS FIRST DIAMOND MINE DeBeers Investment Will Mean High-Skill Jobs, Prosperity For Northerners
ATTAWAPISKAT — Ontario families living in the north will benefit from hundreds of high-value jobs now that construction is underway on the province's first-ever diamond mine, said Premier Dalton McGuinty.
"The Victor Diamond project is great news for the people of Attawapiskat and the surrounding region," said Premier McGuinty. "DeBeers' investment here means more than just new jobs. It will provide more opportunity for families, local businesses and First Nations communities."
The Victor Diamond Mine will be built and operated by DeBeers Canada. The project will create 600 construction and 375 new, full-time jobs in Attawapiskat and nearby communities. It will also increase education, training and business opportunities for local First Nations communities. Over the long term, the project could generate up to 3,200 jobs across the province.
The mine is expected to begin production in 2008 and turn out about 6 million carats of diamonds. In total, DeBeers Canada will invest over $980 million in the project. It is estimated the mine could pump more than $6 billion into Ontario's economy.
Northern Development and Mines Minister Rick Bartolucci, Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and Natural Resources David Ramsay, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Chris Bentley, DeBeers executives and the local community joined Premier McGuinty at today's groundbreaking ceremony.
"The Victor Project sends a clear message around the world that Ontario remains a prime jurisdiction for mineral exploration and development investment," said Bartolucci. "It also signals that cooperation among First Nations, government and industry can result in mutually beneficial outcomes for all concerned."
"Our government wants to create opportunities and benefits in the resource industry to ensure a sustainable future for Aboriginal peoples, especially those living in the north," said Ramsay. "We encourage the mineral industry and Aboriginal communities to work together to build new partnerships and improved relationships."
"The jobs created by the Victor Project offer greater prosperity to the people of the James Bay Lowlands area," said Bentley. "We look forward to greater cooperation between local colleges and the First Nations' communities to build on and develop the range of skills needed to support DeBeers' investment."
Since coming to office, the McGuinty government has worked to create a favourable investment climate in Ontario. Provincial tax rates for mining are among the lowest in Canada. The government has also invested $15 million, over three years, for geological mapping in the far north.
Supporting the mining industry in northern Ontario is just the latest example of how the McGuinty government is working on the side of northerners. Other initiatives include:
* Investing $10 million for the Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation at Laurentian University * Investing a record $357 million to expand and upgrade the nearly 11,000-kilometre highway network in northern Ontario * Opening the first Northern Ontario School of Medicine to help alleviate the doctor shortage.
"An investment in northern communities today is an investment in Ontario's future prosperity," said Premier McGuinty. "By creating more opportunities for families across our province, we're making Ontario the place to be for years to come."
Ministry pages:
* Natural Resources * Northern Development and Mines * Training, Colleges and Universities
See also:
* Backgrounder: Supporting Ontario’s Mineral Sector
"John F. Kennedy's assassination on November 22, 1963 was the murder of the century and a defining moment in U.S. history. Over the last 40 years, numerous theories have emerged surrounding JFK's death and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Following three years of research, filmmaker Wilfried Huismann presents a new scenario based on compelling information that point to Oswald as a weapon-for-hire in the deadly duel between John F. Kennedy and Fidel Castro...
Wilfried Huismann's documentary presents an intriguing and potentially explosive answer to one of the biggest questions of the 20th century - one that has grown to mythological proportions: Who really killed JFK?
Rendezvous with Death: JFK & the Cuban Connection is written by Gus Russo and Wilfried Huismann and directed by Wilfried Huismann. It is a WDR production in co-production with NHK and nordmedia."
Cast & CreditsFeaturing: Kenneth Lay, Jeff Skilling, Lou Pai, Mike Muckleroy, Sherron Watkins, Red. James Nuter, Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind and others. Narrated by Peter Coyote.
Magnolia Pictures presents a documentary directed and written by Alex Gibney. Based on the book, The Smartest Guys in the Room: The Amazing Rise and Scandalous Fall of Enron, by Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind. Running time: 110 minutes. No MPAA rating.
Printer-friendly » E-mail this to a friend »
This is not a political documentary. It is a crime story. No matter what your politics, "Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room" will make you mad. It tells the story of how Enron rose to become the seventh largest corporation in America with what was essentially a Ponzi scheme, and in its last days looted the retirement funds of its employees to buy a little more time.
There is a general impression that Enron was a good corporation that went bad. The movie argues that it was a con game almost from the start. It was "the best energy company in the world," according to its top executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. At the time they made that claim, they must have known that the company was bankrupt, had been worthless for years, had inflated its profits and concealed its losses through bookkeeping practices so corrupt that the venerable Arthur Anderson accounting firm was destroyed in the aftermath.
The film shows how it happened. To keep its stock price climbing, Enron created good quarterly returns out of thin air. One accounting tactic was called "mark to market," which meant if Enron began a venture that might make $50 million 10 years from now, it could claim the $50 million as current income. In an astonishing in-house video made for employees, Skilling stars in a skit that satirizes "HFV" accounting, which he explains stands for "Hypothetical Future Value." Little did employees suspect that was more or less what the company was counting on.
Skilling and Lay were less than circumspect at times. When a New York market analyst questions Enron's profit and loss statements during a conference call, Skilling can't answer and calls him an "a-hole;" that causes bad buzz on the street. During a Q&A session with employees, Lay actually reads this question from the floor: "Are you on crack? If you are that might explain a lot of things. If you aren't, maybe you should be."
One Enron tactic was to create phony offshore corporate shells and move their losses to those companies, which were off the books. We're shown a schematic diagram tracing the movement of debt to such Enron entities. Two of the companies are named "M. Smart" and "M. Yass." These "companies" were named with a reckless hubris: One stood for "Maxwell Smart" and the other one ... well, take out the period and put a space between "y" and "a."
What did Enron buy and sell, actually? Electricity? Natural gas? It was hard to say. The corporation basically created a market in energy, gambled in it and manipulated it. It moved on into other futures markets, even seriously considering "trading weather." At one point, we learn, its gambling traders lost the entire company in bad trades, and covered their losses by hiding the news and producing phony profit reports that drove the share price even higher. In hindsight, Enron was a corporation devoted to maintaining a high share price at any cost. That was its real product.
The documentary is based on the best-selling book of the same title, co-written by Fortune magazine's Bethany McLean and Peter Elkind. It is assembled out of a wealth of documentary and video footage, narrated by Peter Coyote, from testimony at congressional hearings, and from interviews with such figures as disillusioned Enron exec Mike Muckleroy and whistle-blower Sherron Watkins. It is best when it sticks to fact, shakier when it goes for visual effects and heavy irony.
It was McLean who started the house of cards tumbling down with an innocent question about Enron's quarterly statements, which did not ever seem to add up. The movie uses in-house video made by Enron itself to show Lay and Skilling optimistically addressing employees and shareholders at a time when Skilling in particular was coming apart at the seams. Toward the end, he sells $200 million in his own Enron stock while encouraging Enron employees to invest their 401K retirement plans in the company. Then he suddenly resigns, but not quickly enough to escape Enron's collapse not long after. Televised taking the perp walk in handcuffs, both he and Lay face criminal trials in Texas.
The most shocking material in the film involves the fact that Enron cynically and knowingly created the phony California energy crisis. There was never a shortage of power in California. Using tape recordings of Enron traders on the phone with California power plants, the film chillingly overhears them asking plant managers to "get a little creative" in shutting down plants for "repairs." Between 30 percent and 50 percent of California's energy industry was shut down by Enron a great deal of the time, and up to 76 percent at one point, as the company drove the price of electricity higher by nine times.
We hear Enron traders laughing about "Grandma Millie," a hypothetical victim of the rolling blackouts, and boasting about the millions they made for Enron. As the company goes belly up, 20,000 employees are fired. Their pensions are gone, their stock worthless. The usual widows and orphans are victimized. A power company lineman in Portland, who worked for the same utility all his life, observes that his retirement fund was worth $248,000 before Enron bought the utility and looted it, investing its retirement funds in Enron stock. Now, he says, his retirement fund is worth about $1,200.
Strange, that there has not been more anger over the Enron scandals. The cost was incalculable, not only in lives lost during the power crisis, but in treasure: The state of California is suing for $6 billion in refunds for energy overcharges collected during the phony crisis. If the crisis had been created by Al Qaeda, if terrorists had shut down half of California's power plants, consider how we would regard these same events. Yet the crisis, made possible because of deregulation engineered by Enron's lobbyists, is still being blamed on "too much regulation." If there was ever a corporation that needed more regulation, that corporation was Enron.
Early in the film, there's a striking image. We see a vast empty room, with rows of what look like abandoned lunchroom tables. Then we see the room when it was Enron's main trading floor, with countless computer monitors on the tables and hundreds of traders on the phones. Two vast staircases sweep up from either side of the trading floor to the aeries of Lay and Skilling, whose palatial offices overlook the traders. They look like the Stairway to Heaven in that old David Niven movie, but at the end they only led down, down, down.
It is with great disappointment that I see the Newmarket mosque issue back in the local papers. This time the group the Jewish Defense League (type them into Wikipedia to find out more about this group) is coming to town to protest the mosque. This is happening despite the fact that Zafar Bangash is no longer going to be involved in any way with the day to day operations of the place of worship. George Cunningham's concerns have now been satisfied given the Newmarket Muslim Community's word that Bangash will not be involved. At this point any further "town hall" meetings or protests are nothing short of fearmongering, racism, intolerance and ignorance. The JDL still remains opposed and are planning a protest in Newmarket for today. Quite frankly it is this group that should be protested based on their track record. They are also based in Toronto and have no reason to get involved with this issue. At this point, there is absolutely no reason why this project should not go ahead. As a citizen of Newmarket I welcome this mosque to our town and appreciate the tolerance and diversity of our growing community.
Darryl
****************
Bangash not part of mosque: member Feb 22, 2007 Joan Ransberry
Former Senator, US Vice President, "Next President of the United States" and now Rock Star environmentalist Al Gore was recently in Toronto and Montreal where Canadians had the opportunity to see his slide show. Scalpers were charging as much as $500 per ticket for a chance to get inside. That is more than a Leaf playoff game! Gore has turned into a huge pop icon and is one of the reasons why climate change has become the biggest issue of our generation. Tonight Al Gore's movie "Inconvenient Truth" has the opportunity to win an Oscar. Today it is the red carpet...tomorrow is it the White House????
For more on Inconvenient Truth visit:
Darryl
*********************
Could Gore's road to the Oval Office begin in Hollywood?
POSTED: 0241 GMT (1041 HKT), February 23, 2007
var clickExpire = "-1";
Story Highlights
• Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" is nominated for an Oscar • Movie has put the former vice president back into the political spotlight • Movie's producer does not think Gore will announce candidacy • Political observers think an Academy Award could launch a "Draft Gore" movement
By Bill Schneider CNN Senior Political Analyst
Adjust font size:
LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- We've seen plenty of political moments at the Oscars before. But on Sunday, we could see the most unusual political moment ever.
Consider this scenario: It's Academy Awards night. Best documentary feature is up. And the Oscar is favored to go to . . . "An Inconvenient Truth," starring former Vice President Al Gore.
The audience roars its approval -- this is liberal Hollywood -- and Gore speaks.
"There's even some speculation that he would use his Oscar as the occasion to announce that he's running," Martin Kaplan, director of the University of Southern California's Norman Lear Center, told CNN. "Imagine that: a billion people worldwide! Take that Jay Leno, as an announcement venue!''
Could it happen? Gore's producer thinks a potential Gore speech would be a historic moment, but not the way Kaplan envisions.
"It's electrifying, not politically, because is Al Gore going to run or not going to run. There's nothing going to happen like that," Bender told CNN. "It's electrifying because the man who is responsible for solidifying the forces around global warming is going to'' be acknowldged.
But could an Oscar start the momentum for a draft-Gore movement? USC's Kaplan thinks it could.
"People think that he's paid his dues, he's had more of an impact on issues that people care about than many people who have been in office and there's a feeling that he's finally lost that student council condescension that was fingernails on a blackboard to a lot of supporters," Kaplan said.
Democrats are desperate to win. Doubts have begun to surface about the electability of the party's current front-runners. How's this for an argument? Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their party.
"He was right on Iraq. He was right on global warming. He has an issue that is so formidable and has attacked it, tackled it," Bender said. "So I would love to see him run, sure, but I don't see that in the cards."
But once that envelope is opened, there will be a new card to play.
Maybe Mr. Gore will get up and say, "I have new song to sing." After all, the film has been nominated in the best song category, too.
*********************
Recycled Gore a green icon
var imageL= '192131_3.JPG' if(imageL) { document.write(''); } else{ document.write(''); }
He doesn't walk on water. But, if he did, it would surely be Evian.
Al Gore – the man who coulda-shoulda been president – has, fittingly, recycled himself.
From "Gore the Bore'' to American Idol. And, with James Brown gone to soul heaven, inheritor of the title: Hardest Working Man in Showbiz.
Who needs the Oval Office when you've got a cosmic platform from which to preach the Gospel of Global Warming Warning?
Though White House Bid No. 3 there might yet be, once the other Democratic contenders knock themselves silly in the rope-a-dope leadership undercard. The evangelizing ecologist's road tour – hottest ticket on this poor, imperilled planet – landed in Toronto last night, wreathed in gassy emissions of adoration, a rock star for the Age of Apocalypse by weather and waste.
"Hello, I'm Al Gore,'' he said by way of introduction. "I used to be the next president of the United States.''
Ba-da-boom.
"I love Al Gore!" somebody yelled from the balcony.
Riffed a bit, self-mockingly, with his exquisite newfound sense of comic timing. Lauded Toronto, in those mellifluous southern tones.
Had the audience in his palm from the get-go.
"Heed the Goracle"!, urged one placard among many welcoming signs outside the University of Toronto's Convocation Hall, where pro-demonstrators (and a polar bear) held a candlelit vigil for Kyoto, just beyond the bank of gas-guzzling limousines.
Once a policy wonk stiffy, so wooden in crowds that he left splinters, Gore has been transformed into Father Earth, ardent advocate for the fragile eco-system, suddenly in sync – arguably catalyst for – a worldwide obsession with the climatic state of the planet.
"It's the difference between watching a video and seeing it on screen," said Tom Sheppard, a 22-year-old University of Waterloo student who was prepared to part with up to $60 for a scalper ticket, which was nowhere near enough for sidewalk entrepreneurs.
"I'll get a much more impassioned view, hearing it from Gore himself. Not that I need any convincing.
"Actually, I'm hoping to become an ambassador for climate change. That's one of his programs."
They could have just gone to see the movie – An Inconvenient Truth – those 1,500-or-so (at least 500 of them VIPs, ducat-bestowed, thus circumventing the online ticket sale crush that crashed the system in minutes), who settled into the rotunda for the evening.
The modest, even humble, slideshow documentary, nominated for two Academy Awards, has already raked in $44 million, a stunning hit that's made an iconic star out of both the narrator and the monde we inhabit.
But the travelling show version that first found an audience on campuses has the centre-stage presence of Gore himself, live and in full alarmist throttle, the Mr. Greenjeans guru becoming every day a more revered celebrity draw, such that like of tinsel celebrities, Cameron Diaz et al, hang off him.
"We've seen the movie but I thought it was important for the kids to have the experience of this event,'' said Julie Quenneville, who arrived with spouse and children in tow.
"I want my kids to embrace the environment because they're the ones who will inherit it. We've already done the damage.''
And, from Gobi Kathirgamantha, another awed spectator: "Gore brought the environment back onto the agenda.''
If this éclat could be retroactively applied, Gore would have made mincemeat out of George W. Bush in 2000, rather than conceding defeat in the hanging-by-a-chad election that went all the way to the Supreme Court for validation.
Instead, back then, he gave bland speeches, ticked off the Bill Clinton electoral machine and essentially botched a campaign that was his to lose.
"You win some, you lose some,'' he noted last night. "And then there's that third category.''
Indeed, the magazine cover-boy has been latterly portrayed as the ideal Democratic presidential candidate, just the thing for America in 2008 – even though he couldn't even take his own state of Tennessee in 2000.
He remains coy, claiming he can't imagine any circumstance under which he would run again. However, he's also said: "I am a recovering politician. But you always have to worry about a relapse.''
(We'd tell you more of what Gore had to say last night, but it was a strict no-media-coverage event; note-taking not allowed, as per the man's instructions, apparently.)
Gore-mania resonates particularly with Canadians, a natural constituency for the ideological left as delineated by his personal politics: Early and angry critic of the Iraq war, intrinsically multilateral and consultative, embryonic Earth-lover. "I wish Canadians could have voted in our elections,'' he observed, after the resounding applause.
In this particular proselytizing cause, Gore & Globe, he has been constant, a convert of yore to the neo-science of environmentalism. It was at Harvard, in the '60s, that Gore was pulled into the gravitational orbit of ecology-devotees, taught by Roger Revelle, the first scientist to monitor carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
Presumably, this was all happening simultaneous to the charmed existence of an Ivy League swain-on-campus, Gore once claiming he was the prototype for the Ryan O'Neal character in Love Story. Author Erich Segal, who was a classics scholar at Harvard at the time, demurred. Turns out Gore's roommate – Tommy Lee Jones – was the actual "Oliver'' model.
That episode was embarrassing for Gore. He's had quite a few – embarrassments – over the length and breadth of his career. Like, say, when he claimed to have invented the Internet, just a slight exaggeration.
Or that notorious kiss he planted on wife Tipper's lips after accepting the Democratic presidential nomination in 2000, a lung-buster PDA in which he bent the Missus so far back it looked like her spine would snap.
But look who's having the last laugh. In fact, a humour transplant has come to define the new and improved Gore, a guy now capable of taking the mickey out of his own public persona. He makes the late night talkshow scene, chatting charmingly and, on The Tonight Show last summer, even pretending to a feud with Lindsay Lohan.
He jokes about his star status: "Rin Tin Tin was a movie star. Not me.''
But he's Oscar-bound on Sunday and received one of the most rapturous ovations at the recent Grammy Awards. His book, Earth in the Balance, is a bestseller. (Another tome, The Assault on Reason – described as a personal meditation on solving problems – is scheduled for publication in May.)
He's been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize, received a plethora of international laurels and recently announced plans for a "Live Earth Concert for a Climate in Crisis'' lollapalooza this summer – a day of anti-global warming concerts, modelled on Live Aid, to be held on seven continents.
In between the razzmatazz, Gore continues to travel the globe, lecturing on climate change and catastrophic global warming, nerd come hipster, urging the public to take little steps – switch to fluorescent light bulbs, drive a hybrid, use a clothesline – and governments to take big steps.
(Personally, he uses "renewable energy credits'' – takes too long to explain – to offset the pollution he produces using a private jet for these engagements.)
Twenty-six years ago, when Gore first held congressional hearings on the subject, few took much notice.
Now everybody gives a damn, though critics often rebuke Gore for his "handpicked science''.
A couple of weeks ago, a miffed Gore also took a swipe at the Stephen Harper government, chiding Environment Minister John Baird for "mischaracterizing'' comments he'd made, making it sound as if he'd praised the Tories on their environmental portfolio.
"The comments I made were designed to encourage the Harper government not to abandon Canada's tradition of fighting above its weight class as part of the Kyoto process.''
See, Gore knows political flatulence when he sniffs it.
In the new Salary Cap NHL, there is no doubt in my mind that Winnipeg could support a NHL hockey franchise. Some have suggested that expanding the league by 2 teams is now possible. Perhaps Kansas City and Winnipeg with a Western Conference team moving to the East. Is there not some way the federal government along with the Manitoba and Winnipeg governments could work together to make something happen here?
Darryl
***********************
MTS Centre boost to NHL hopes: Doer
By ROCHELLE SQUIRES, LEGISLATURE REPORTER
Winnipeg Sun - Jan.27 2007
Winnipeg is better poised to become an NHL city again because of the new MTS Centre, says Premier Gary Doer.
"We have now a new entertainment complex, which has the luxury box seats and has proven to be an economic success in Winnipeg," Doer said yesterday. "It's now producing a number of events besides hockey and that is important."
Doer was responding to NHL commissioner Gary Bettman's assertion that Winnipeg could now likely support an NHL team.
"I believe, in an ideal world under the partnership we have with the players and the salary cap, that Winnipeg probably could support an NHL team," Bettman told Hockey Night in Canada host Ron MacLean on Wednesday.
Doer said there are a number of teams in the southern U.S. that are in trouble, and Winnipeg could offer the solution.
"We have two things going for us now. One, which we've always had, is hockey fans. And we have the new entertainment complex," said Doer.
A sly grin crossed Doer's face when asked by reporters if the province has had recent conversations with a hockey franchise about relocating.
"Any questions like that are better directed to (Manitoba Moose owner Mark Chipman)," said Doer.
University of Manitoba economist John McCallum said an improved economy in the province and surrounding region, as well as a salary cap for players, has made it more realistic for the city to support an NHL team.
"We are big enough and robust enough to support this kind of endeavour, especially with the controls they have on it now. We supported it once, and I think the terms are better now," said McCallum.
"I think we have the economic muscle to do this, if the people want it." ____________________________________________________________ ______
It's alive! It's alive! Life being breathed into dream of 'Peg NHL team
By TOM BRODBECK
WINNIPEG SUN NEWS Saturday, January 27, 2007
The dream of Winnipeg getting a National Hockey League team isn't just "still alive" as our front-page shouted out yesterday, following comments made by NHL commissioner Gary Bettman this week.
The dream has been inching closer every year over the past several years. So much so that even some of the skeptics in the local sports media world are jumping on the bring-back-the-Jets bandwagon -- acknowledging at least that bringing the NHL back to the 'Peg is now a possibility.
Talk of the NHL returning to Winnipeg was re-ignited in 2003 after the financially strapped Pittsburgh Penguins began musing about relocation.
We got our first boost when hockey sportscaster John Davidson suggested at the time that Winnipeg would be a good place for the Penguins to move. It wasn't much.
But it gave the corpse its first pulse.
Then, former Winnipeg Jets general manager John Ferguson said he believed the city, with its new downtown arena, could "definitely" attract an NHL club.
A year later, Hockey Night in Canada guru Ron MacLean said he believed Winnipeg could have an NHL team within five years.
That got the pulse beating a little faster.
Like now, NHL hockey was not selling well in a number of U.S. markets. And the thinking in 2003 was that if the stars aligned just right, maybe -- just maybe -- Winnipeg could pick up a team.
But there was still a major stumbling block, the same one that was largely responsible for the Jets leaving Winnipeg in the first place: run-away player salaries that long-ago priced this city out of the marketplace.
FALSE HOPES
Everyone agreed that without a salary cap and revenue sharing, it would be impossible to bring the NHL back to a city like Winnipeg.
The skeptics said it was dangerous to even talk about the NHL returning to Winnipeg because all it did was raise false hopes.
We were just setting ourselves up for disappointment, they said.
But then came the NHL lockout, the bitter infighting and, eventually, a new collective bargaining agreement that included a salary cap and revenue sharing.
Suddenly, a whole new world opened up for Winnipeg. Even the skeptics were forced to take a closer look.
We now had "cost certainty," as Manitoba Moose president Mark Chipman said, which allowed him and his colleagues to start doing some arithmetic on this baby.
Still, the league would never have us, the skeptics said. Gary Bettman hates us and wants nothing to do with another Canadian team.
But then, this week, the sea parted a little more.
"Even though we haven't done the homework, I believe, in an ideal world under the partnership we have with the players and the salary cap, that Winnipeg probably could support an NHL team," Bettman said on CBC-TV during the NHL all-star game.
The last time I heard Bettman utter the word "Winnipeg" is when he virtually wrote us off in 2004, saying the league had nothing to offer Winnipeg.
Tell me we haven't made any progress on this file.
The next day Chipman -- who would have to be at the centre of any new NHL team in Winnipeg -- released a statement which said he, too, believes Winnipeg could support a team.
"Mr. Bettman's assessment is consistent with the conclusions we have arrived at after examining the NHL's new framework for ourselves," said Chipman.
Hey now.
Even the skeptics had to climb aboard now, saying maybe it's worth keeping the dream alive after all.
Uh, huh.
Winnipeg is still miles away from getting an NHL team.
But we're miles ahead of where we were four years ago.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
The dream of bringing the National Hockey League back to Winnipeg isn't dead yet. A National Hockey League franchise has contacted city hall to inquire about possibly relocating to Winnipeg, The Sun has learned.
Deputy mayor Dan Vandal received a phone call last week from a representative of a United States-based NHL club, who wanted further information about the possibility of Winnipeg regaining a major-league team.
The inquiry did not come from the Pittsburgh Penguins, a franchise Vandal had courted during the past few weeks. However, the St. Boniface councillor refused to reveal which team contacted his Main Street office and left the voice-mail message while he was on vacation in Costa Rica.
"They're asking, 'How serious is Winnipeg? Because we're in trouble,' " Vandal said yesterday.
Vandal has since returned the team official's call but hasn't been able to reach him. Until he does, he won't identify the club.
He confirmed "it's a team that's not doing really well" financially.
Vandal said he plans to discuss the matter with fellow members of Mayor Glen Murray's executive committee.
"Why would we give up?" he asked of The 'Peg's hopes to put an NHL team into MTS Centre, seven years after the Jets left for Phoenix in 1996.
"There's no risk to us at this point. It's all about keeping the right position to catch a fly ball. Anyone who says we can't do that is short-sighted."
A lockout by NHL owners or strike by the players is widely expected before the start of next season, when the owners' agreement with the NHL Players' Association expires. Owners are expected to be willing to sacrifice up to an entire season to bring salaries under control.
Jim Ludlow, president of True North Entertainment, which operates Winnipeg's coming arena, said it's far too early to predict the city's NHL prospects.
Edmonton Oilers Governor Cal Nichols said he would welcome Winnipeg back into the NHL.
In Edmonton, a group of about three dozen small and medium-sized business people all own a share of the hockey team. Nichols said that formula would work well in Winnipeg.
"Hockey is Canada, Canada is hockey, and I think the game really does have legs here. Under the right economic circumstances, it can be viable," he said.
Former Winnipeg Jets general manager John Ferguson said he isn't surprised an NHL team would consider a return to the city.
"It would be an ideal situation to come back to Winnipeg," said Ferguson via telephone from Windsor. "There's a new arena being built, and the fan base is there. Winnipeg has probably the most knowledgeable hockey fans in the world.
ONLY GAME IN TOWN
"If some common sense comes out of the next collective bargaining agreement I don't see why Winnipeg shouldn't have a team. Hockey is the only game in town during the winter there -- you don't watch NASCAR and you're not that interested in basketball."
ABC sports hockey analyst John Davidson said Winnipeg deserves another NHL team.
"Salaries are going to come down. I'm hearing the players have already offered a 5% give-back, so that's the starting point for negotiations," Davidson said, adding owners will also push hard to curb the entry-level salaries of NHL rookies.
**********
Kansas City, Pittsburgh woo Penguins
Associated Press
1/4/2007 8:55:09 PM
PITTSBURGH (AP) - Penguins owner Mario Lemieux emerged from a ''very positive'' meeting with Gov. Ed Rendell and local leaders Thursday night without hinting whether the team will stay or move to Kansas City.
Hours after touring the under-construction Sprint Center in Kansas City, Lemieux returned to Pittsburgh for his first in-person meeting with government officials since a plan to fund a $290 million arena with casino money was rejected. Neither side offered specifics about the so-called Plan B deal to build a replacement for Mellon Arena, but Lemieux did not appear disappointed by the talks.
''Hopefully, we'll move forward in the next week or so and really evaluate where we're going. but I'm very pleased with both meetings today,'' Lemieux said. ''I've always been very optimistic (about staying in Pittsburgh). I've been here for 20-some years. But we have to evaluate all of our options and that's why we went to Kansas City to look at what they had to offer.''
Rendell did not talk to reporters after the meeting, but Allegheny County chief executive Dan Onorato said, ''It was very productive, very productive. ... We're going to continue to negotiate and, hopefully, the next time you hear from all of us we can give you details.''
Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl said another meeting with the Penguins has not been planned, but that discussions would continue. Both sides promised they would not negotiate in public.
Lemieux, one of most popular figures in Pittsburgh sports history, does not want to move the franchise - and the NHL does not want to abandon the city - unless there is no other option. But after seven unsuccessful years seeking a new arena, he is negotiating from a position of strength because of Kansas City's strong bid.
The Penguins, one of pro sports' hottest properties because of young stars Sidney Crosby and Evgeni Malkin, would pay no construction costs or rent in Kansas City. They also would become partners in the building, and thus gain access to all revenues streams, with no payment required. Initially, a US$27 million payment for those rights was discussed.
The initial Plan B proposal in Pittsburgh, made last March, called for the Penguins to pay $8.5 million up front, plus about $4 million per year. However, the Kansas City offer is all but certain to force Pittsburgh to offer a more lucrative deal, and Rendell said before Thursday's meeting there would be a more aggressive offer.
Earlier in the day, Lemieux, billionaire partner Ron Burkle and team president Ken Sawyer toured the $276 million Sprint Center, which is due to open in October without an anchor major sports team tenant.
William (Boots) Del Biaggio III, a San Jose-based venture capitalist and Lemieux acquaintance who nearly bought the Penguins in 2005, is expected to buy the team if it moves to Kansas City. He and Lemieux are partners in a minor league hockey team.
''We are not trying to steal the Penguins,'' Tim Leiweke, president of Anschutz Entertainment Group, said. ''We have been very respectful of their process. We understand that this is Pittsburgh's to lose, and we respect that.''
Leiweke expects a decision quickly. Lemieux is free to move the team after the Penguins' Mellon Arena lease expires in June.
''We will know within 30 days whether they are going to work out their issues in Pittsburgh and get an arena built, or whether they will ask the NHL for permission to move the team to Kansas City,'' Leiweke said.
Leiweke also said the new arena ''blew the Penguins away,'' but added, ''I don't think they want to move that team.''
The NHL has given every sign it wants the Penguins to stay in Pittsburgh, where it has played to nearly 94 per cent of capacity this season, as long as a new arena is built. Canadian businessman Jim Balsillie had a deal in place to buy the team last month, only to pull out on the apparent closing date when the NHL told him he couldn't relocate the team.
That pullout came only days before a plan in which Isle of Capri Casinos would build a $290 million arena for free if granted the license to build a downtown slots machine parlour was turned down by the state gaming board. It chose one of two competing bids, by Detroit businessman Don Barden, who has agreed to pay $7.5 million a year toward a new arena but won't totally fund it.
Kansas City had an NHL team from 1974-76, but it moved because of low attendance. That team spent six years in Denver as the Colorado Rockies, but moved to New Jersey and was renamed the Devils in 1982. Kansas City also lost an NBA team it shared with Omaha to Sacramento.
This was a positive announcement that shows Canada remains committed to playing a leadership role in the world with regards to HIV and AIDS. This is an important issue that gained a lot of attention during the most recent conference in Toronto. $139 million is a significant contribution to this potential vaccine and shows the Conservative government cares about the cause.
Darryl
*****************
$139M for HIV vaccine
var imageL= '191132_3.JPG' if(imageL) { document.write(''); } else{ document.write(''); }
CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS
Billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced funding for research into developing a vaccine for HIV.
Feb 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Les Whittington Ottawa Bureau
OTTAWA – Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist, is joining with the Canadian government in a $139-million project to accelerate the development of a vaccine for the virus that causes AIDS.
"Tackling AIDS is an incredible challenge," Gates, the chairman of Microsoft, said at a ceremony on Parliament Hill with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to announce the funding.
"Having the new resources that the Canadian government and our foundation are applying here should be able to make a big difference," Gates said.
He said that the long-term solution to the AIDS epidemic, which has infected 40 million people worldwide, is an effective, affordable vaccine against HIV, but "this will be one of the toughest vaccines ever to create.
"Year by year, we'll track the progress we make on this,” Gates said. “Most scientists think that it probably will take more than 10 years. We could get lucky, it could happen sooner than that."
Gates said the new funding announced today is an important step in the effort to find an HIV vaccine, and that he is optimistic one will be developed.
Ottawa is committing $111 million and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is contributing $28 million to the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative.
The research activities it will fund in Canada include identifying possible vaccines, strengthening the ability to do clinical trials, and producing actual vaccines for trials.
It looks like this week a major new documentary is going to come out and ask some serious questions about Jesus and Christianity. Pictured above is said to be a Jerusalem tomb with potential evidence that suggests it is the resting place of Jesus and his family. Should make for new Da Vinci Code style mystery. Upon visiting a local mosque near Canada's Wonderland, they produced literature suggesting Jesus may actually be buried in India. (http://www.tombofjesus.com http://www.alislam.org/) Should be interesting to see where this debates goes over the next few weeks. Canadian James Cameron is involved with the documentary.
Darryl
************
Christ's tomb found? PHOTO COURTESY DISCOVERY CHANNEL A tomb in Talpiot, Jerusalem seen in March, 1980, was found to contain at least 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, some of which may have belonged to Jesus Christ and his family.
Canadian filmmaker claims burial boxes belonged to Christ's family Feb 25, 2007 05:34 PM Stuart Laidlaw Faith and Ethics reporter
A Canadian documentary filmmaker will reveal at a news conference Monday that he has strong evidence a group of burial boxes unearthed in Jerusalem belonged to Jesus Christ and his family.
The discovery could have profound implications 2,000 years after the boxes were placed in the ground, shaking the foundations of modern faith and raising Da-Vinci-Code-like speculation that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene.
"It's mind boggling. It's an altered reality," Toronto documentary director Simcha Jacobovici told the Star last week.
The location of the press conference is being kept secret until Monday to prevent a stampede of people wanting to see the artefacts on display.
The documentary is called The Lost Tomb of Jesus and its claim that that the burial box of Jesus has been found along with his DNA, are sure to be met with scepticism, if not outright hostility, by church leaders. image TANNIS TOOHEY/TORONTO STAR Toronto documentary director Simcha Jacobovici
In an interview, Jacobovici said that while nothing in archaeology can ever be proven beyond doubt, there is "compelling evidence" that the tomb he explores under a Jerusalem apartment building is that of the holy family.
"You have to kind of pinch yourself," said Jacobovici, known as the Naked Archaeologist after a Vision TV series. "Are we really saying what we are saying?"
James Tabor, chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina and an expert featured extensively in The Lost Tomb, said that as an academic he has seen enough to convince him of the evidence, but admits to some trepidation about claiming that the tomb of Jesus has been found.
"There's a part of you that says, it's too amazing. How can this be true?" Tabor told the Star. "It's an archaeological dream."
Critics are already dismissing the documentary's claims.
"It's a beautiful story but without any proof whatsoever," Bar Ilan University professor Amos Kloner, who researched the tomb for the Israeli periodical Atiqot in 1996, told Deutsche Presse-Agentur on Friday.
Jacobovici says there is nothing in the documentary that should offend devout Christians, since he does not argue that Jesus did not ascend to heaven, at least spiritually, as told in the Bible.
"People who believe in a physical ascension — that he took his body to heaven — those people obviously will say, wait a minute," he said, adding he hopes the film sparks more scientific study of the tomb and the ossuaries found inside.
The tomb was unearthed in 1980 during construction of an apartment building and was first connected to the Jesus family in a 1996 BBC documentary. Jacobovici's documentary uses scientific methods, including DNA testing, statistical analysis and forensic examination, not available to the BBC 11 years ago.
It airs on Discovery in the U.S. and on Channel 4 in the U.K. on Sunday, and March 6 in Canada on Vision TV. A book, The Jesus Family Tomb by Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino, comes out this week. Titanic director James Cameron, executive producer of the documentary, wrote the introduction.
The film and book follow years of growing interest in the private life of Jesus, fuelled by the 2003 Dan Brown novel The Da Vinci Code, made into a movie last year, in which Jesus is said to have married Mary Magdalene and had a daughter, sparking a centuries-long cover-up.
The novel, denounced by church groups around the world, spawned a mini-industry speculating about the historical Jesus, his relationship to Mary and his family life. Church leaders, including the Pope, dismissed the book and movie as pure fiction.
Tabor, whose book The Jesus Dynasty last year raised many of the same questions as the documentary, says the film cannot be as easily dismissed as Brown's novel, even though it too suggests that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene.
"This is archaeology. We got the casket. We've got the bones," he told the Star. "I think we can say, in all probability, Jesus had this son, Jude, presumably through Mary Magdalene."
DNA tests conducted for the documentary at Lakehead University on two ossuaries — one inscribed Jesus son of Joseph and the other Mariamne, or Mary — confirm that the two were not related by blood, so were probably married.
"Perhaps Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married as the DNA results from the Talpiot ossuaries suggest and perhaps their union was kept secret to protect a potential dynasty — a secret hidden through the ages," narrator Ron White says over re-enacted scenes of a happy Jesus and Mary home life.
"A secret we just may be able to uncover in the holy family tomb."
The tomb was found in the Talpiot neighbourhood of Jerusalem during the construction of an apartment building in 1980. Archaeologists were given three days to document the tomb and excavate it for treasures.
Inside, they found 10 ossuaries and three skulls. Six ossuaries had names etched into them — Jesus son of Joseph, Judah son of Jesus, Maria, Mariamne, Joseph and Matthew — all Jesus family names.
At the time, however, the inscriptions raised few alarms. These were, after all, very common names at the time of Jesus. Besides, with all the construction around Jerusalem at the time, it was a boom time for uncovering tombs, and the Israeli Antiquities Authority could barely keep up.
Any connection to the holy family was not made until 15 years later, when a BBC crew researching and Easter special stumbled across the collection in an IAA storage room. They immediately began work on a new program, based on the tomb, which aired a year later.
That show, aired as part of the BBC's acclaimed Heart of the Matter newsmagazine, was dismissed by Biblical scholars as "laughable" for suggesting, as Jacobovici does, that the tomb was that of Jesus Christ's family.
Today, Kloner and others still argue that the names were so common that there is no significance to them being found in a tomb.
"The names that are found on the tombs are names that are similar to the names of the family of Jesus," he conceded. "But those were the most common names found among Jews in the first centuries."
In The Lost Tomb, however, University of Toronto statistician Andre Feuerverger calculates that while the names are common, the chances of them being found together are 600 to one.
His conclusion is based on a few assumptions: that the Maria on one of the ossuaries is the mother of the Jesus found on another box, that Mariamne is his wife and that Joseph (inscribed as the nickname Jose) is his brother.
As the documentary tells us, there is reason to make these assumptions.
Maria is the Latin form of Mary, and is how Jesus's mother was known after his death as more Romans became followers. Mariamne is the Greek form of Mary. Mary Magdelene is believed to have spoken and preached in Greek. Jose was the nickname used for Jesus' little brother.
As well, the Talpiot Tomb is the only place where ossuaries have ever been found with the names Mariamne and Jose, even though the root forms of the name were very popular and thousands of ossuaries have been unearthed.
This is not, however, the first time a Jesus ossuary has been found. The first was in 1926.
Another famous ossuary, inscribed James son of Joseph brother of Jesus, is also featured in the documentary.
Forensic testing of the patina on the Jesus ossuary and that of James conclude that they came from the same tomb — seemingly proving the authenticity of the often-questioned James ossuary and further increasing the likelihood that it is the tomb of the holy family.
Feuerverger calculates for Jacobovici that if James is added to the equation, there is a 30,000 to one chance that the Talpiot Tomb belonged to the holiest families in Christendom.
The documentary speculates that the James ossuary was stolen shortly after the tomb was found. The archaeologists examining the tomb 26 years ago found 10 ossuaries, but only nine are in storage at the IAA. In The Lost Tomb, it is alleged that the James ossuary is that missing box.
But there is one wrinkle that is not examined in the documentary, one that emerged in a Jerusalem courtroom just weeks ago at the fraud trial of James ossuary owner Oded Golan, charged with forging part of the inscription on the box.
Former FBI agent Gerald Richard testified that a photo of the James ossuary, showing it in Golan's home, was taken in the 1970s, based on tests done by the FBI photo lab.
Jacobovici concedes in an interview that if the ossuary was photographed in the 1970s, it could not then have been found in a tomb in 1980. But while he does not address the conundrum in the documentary, he said in an interview that it's possible Golan's photo was printed on old paper in the1980s.
*****************
February 23, 2007 6:55 Jesus: Tales from the Crypt Posted by Tim McGirk | Comments (1607) | Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email This
Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you 'The Titanic' is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity.
In a new documentary, Producer Cameron and his director, Simcha Jacobovici, make the starting claim that Jesus wasn't resurrected --the cornerstone of Christian faith-- and that his burial cave was discovered near Jerusalem. And, get this, Jesus sired a son with Mary Magdelene.
No, it's not a re-make of "The Da Vinci Codes'. It's supposed to be true.
Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua. Israel's prominent archeologist Professor Amos Kloner didn't associate the crypt with the New Testament Jesus. His father, after all, was a humble carpenter who couldn't afford a luxury crypt for his family. And all were common Jewish names.
There was also this little inconvenience that a few miles away, in the old city of Jerusalem, Christians for centuries had been worshipping the empty tomb of Christ at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. Christ's resurrection, after all, is the main foundation of the faith, proof that a boy born to a carpenter's wife in a manger is the Son of God.
But film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.
Ever the showman, (Why does this remind me of the impresario in another movie,"King Kong", whose hubris blinds him to the dangers of an angry and very large ape?) Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East (check out a personal favorite: Israelity Bites) Here in the Holy Land, Biblical Archeology is a dangerous profession. This 90-minute documentary is bound to outrage Christians and stir up a titanic debate between believers and skeptics. Stay tuned. --Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
A growing number of Evangelical Christians believe there is a revival underway in America that requires Christian youth to assume leadership roles in advocating the causes of their religious movement.
Movie: Lebanon - Fog of War . Shocking Documentary About Lebanon War & Qana
Best Lebanon War Documentary. Lebanese Doctors and Civillians Speak Out against the Terrorism they are facing from Israel. Chemical Weapons, Cluster Bombs, Massacres Shocking Documentary About the War in Lebanon and the tradgedy in Qana. Lebanese testimonials to the war there, please share this video! Doctors Speak Out Against War Crimes.
Newmarket Aurora-CPC Nomination: Kirk West vs. Lois Brown
In Newmarket Aurora, it is now official that Kirk West will challenge Lois Brown for the federal Conservative nomination. March 5 is the scheduled date for the nomination meeting. The winner will represent the Conservative government in the next election and face off against Belinda Stronach. For more information about these candidates please visit their websites below:
Frank Klees running provincially in Newmarket-Aurora:
In what is great news for residents of Newmarket-Aurora, Frank Klees will return to his home riding and represent John Tory's Progressive Conservatives in the October Ontario election. As of this point, provincial Liberals have yet to officially nominate a candidate to represent the Liberal Party.
Bill Kukulewich seeking federal Conservative nomination in Richmond Hill
Bill Kukulewich is seeking the nomination in Richmond Hill. Bill is a good friend of mine and I believe he would make an excellent candidate and MP for the Conservative Party under Stephen Harper. The Richmond Hill nomination meeting is March 15.
Would anyone object to a new stat holiday to get Canadians through the winter??? I personally would like to see a new stat holiday in February, June and also November 11.
Thanks for reading…
Darryl
**************************
Flag of Canada From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Flag of Canada Use National flag and ensign. Proportion 1:2 Adopted February 15, 1965 Design A red, white bicolour with a red maple leaf charged in the centre. The National Flag of Canada, popularly known as the Maple Leaf and l'Unifolié (French for "the one-leaved"), is a base red flag with a white square in its centre featuring a stylized, 11-pointed, red maple leaf. Before this flag, Canada used variants of the BritishRed Ensign with the shield of Canada charged in the fly. The Red Ensign that took familiar shape in Canada was introduced by Prime MinisterMackenzie King after the First World War. From the 1940s until 1965, Canada made several attempts to create its own flag by holding national contests, but the Red Ensign still flew for Canada. A serious debate about a flag change did not occur until 1964, when a committee was picked by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson. Out of three choices, the maple leaf design by George F.G. Stanley was chosen as the winner. The current flag was adopted in 1964. The flag made its first appearance on February 15, 1965, which is now celebrated yearly as Flag Day. Other than the Maple Leaf flag, several other flags have been created to be used by Canadian officials, government bodies and military forces. Most of these flags contain the Maple Leaf motif in some fashion; either by having the Canadian flag charged in the canton or by inclusion of maple leaves in the design. The Royal Union Flag is also an official flag in Canada, used as a symbol of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and of her allegiance to the Crown. The Royal Union Flag forms a component of the flags of several provinces.[1] In Quebec, the provincial flag (a blue cross with four fleur-de-lis) is often considered a national flag along with the Maple Leaf flag, as is the Acadian flag in the Acadian regions of the Maritime provinces.[2] Contents [hide] 1 Design 1.1 Symbolism 1.2 Technical description 2 History 2.1 Royal Union Flag 2.2 Great Flag Debate 2.3 Fate of the first Maple Leaf 3 Protocol 3.1 Flying the flag at half-mast 3.1.1 2006 controversy over military deaths 4 Government promotion 4.1 "One in a Million National Flag" Challenge 5 See also 6 External links 7 Footnotes // [edit] Design The Canadian flag flying at the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, located at Halifax, Nova Scotia The current flag of Canada was approved by the House of Commons on December 15, 1964 and by the Senate two days later. The flag was later approved by QueenElizabeth II, the Queen of Canada, an order which took effect on February 15, 1965.[3] The national flag is also employed as the naval ensign for Canadian ships and military vessels. [edit] Symbolism In 1921, KingGeorge V proclaimed the official colours of Canada as red, from the Saint George's Cross, and white, from the French royal emblem since King Charles VII. As early as 1700, the maple leaf served as a symbol celebrating the nature and environment of what is now Canada. The maple leaf on the flag is a sugar maple leaf. Sugar maples are native to Canada and have brilliant fall foliage. The number of points on the leaf has no significance; they do not, for instance, represent the ten provinces plus the territories. In fact, some of the very first Canadian flags made had maple leaves of variously 13 and 15 points. By a figure-ground reversal of the white square, the two upper corners of the square can be seen as silhouettes of two angry faces arguing. This has often been considered evocative of the nature of Canadian federalism, but was wholly unintentional. In Canadian culture, various patriotic comic book Canadian superheroes use the Maple Leaf flag as the basis for their costumes, much as Captain America's costume is based on the American flag. Hence, these characters' costumes are typically red and white with a red maple leaf as their symbol. Canadian superheroes who use this visual motif include Captain Canuck, Guardian and his successor, the Vindicator and Northguard. [edit] Technical description Construction sheet The ratio of the Canadian flag is 1:2, meaning the length of the flag is twice the width of the flag. The white field is a Canadian pale (a square central band in a vertical triband flag, named after this flag), and each bordering red field is exactly half its size. The Department of Canadian Heritage has listed the various colour shades that should be used when reproducing the Canadian flag, these include: Printing ink FIP red: General Printing Ink, No. 0-712; Inmont Canada Ltd., No. 4T51577; Monarch Inks, No. 62539/0 Rieger Inks, No. 25564 Sinclair and Valentine, No. RL163929/0. The following colours 0/100/100/0 in the CMYK process or PMS032 (flag red 100%) or PMS485 (used for screens) in the Pantone colour specifier can be used when reproducing the flag. In the Pantone Matching System, the colour used (not officially) is 186c.[4] In 1984, the National Flag of Canada Manufacturing Standards Act was passed in order to unify the standards in making the national flag for uses indoors and outdoors.[5] In heraldry, the flag has been blazoned as "Gules on a Canadian paleargent a maple leaf of the first."[6] [edit] History [edit] Royal Union Flag The Union Flag The Royal Union Flag, called the Union Flag (or, commonly, Union Jack) in the United Kingdom, was used as a de jure flag until the adoption of the current flag in 1965. It remains an official Canadian flag, being flown on certain specific occasions. Currently, regulations require federal installations to fly the Union Flag beside the Maple Leaf where physical arrangements exist (i.e., a second flagpole) on the following days: Commonwealth Day (the second Monday in March), Victoria Day (which is also the Sovereign's official birthday in Canada), and the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster (December 11). The Union Flag can also be flown at the National War Memorial or at other locations during ceremonies that honour Canadian involvement with forces of other Commonwealth nations during times of war. The Maple Leaf Flag always precedes the Union Flag, the former occupying the place of honour. The Union Flag is also part of the provincial flags of Ontario and Manitoba, forming the canton of these flags. A modified version is used on the flag of British Columbia. The flag of Newfoundland and Labrador is a stylized version of the Union Jack. Several of the provincial lieutenant-governors formerly used a modified Union Flag as their personal standard, but the Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia is the only one who retains this design.[7] The Union Flag and Canadian Red Ensign are still sometimes flown in Canada by veterans' groups and others who continue to stress the importance of Canada's British heritage and the Commonwealth connection. [edit] Great Flag Debate Main article: Great Flag Debate 1957 version of the Canadian Red Ensign that had evolved as the de facto national flag until 1965. First Flag Proposal to Parliament, the Pearson Pennant Flag of the Royal Military College of Canada Earlier (1964) version of the proposal that was adopted. In 1963, the minority Liberal government of Lester B. Pearson gained power, and decided to adopt an official Canadian flag, by act of Parliament. The idea of an official national flag had been discussed for decades in the 20th century, particularly during the Liberal governments of Mackenzie King; indeed, during the Second World War there was for a time an effort to create a national flag for Canadian troops to carry into battle, but in Pearson's words, "It was a ridiculous design by some heraldic expert in National Defence, with all sorts of symbols on it." But it was not until the 1960s that the debate intensified, and became a subject of considerable controversy culminating in the Great Flag Debate of 1964. The principal political proponent of the change was Prime Minister Lester Pearson. Pearson had been a significant broker during the Suez Crisis of 1956 (for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.) Pearson was disturbed when the Egyptian government objected to Canadian peacekeeping forces on the grounds that the Canadian flag (the Red Ensign) contained the flag (Union Jack) of the United Kingdom, one of the belligerents. According to Mike: The Memoirs of the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Pearson's principal concern was for the Canadian flag to be distinctive and unmistakably Canadian. The main opponent to changing the flag was the leader of the opposition and former prime minister, John Diefenbaker, who eventually made the subject a personal crusade. Pearson was leader on a minority Government and risked losing power over the issue; however, Pearson knew the Red Ensign with the Union Jack was unpopular in Quebec, a Liberal base of support. The Red Ensign was strongly favoured by rural English Canada, the heart of Tory support. On May 27, 1964, Pearson's minority Liberal government introduced a motion to parliament for adoption of his personal favourite design of a "sea to sea" (Canada's motto) flag with blue borders and three conjoined red maple leaves on a white field. This motion led to weeks of acrimonious debate in parliament, and the design came to be known as the Pearson Pennant. Diefenbaker demanded a referendum be held on the flag issue, but Pearson instead formed a 15 member multi-party parliamentary committee to select a new design. Through a period of study with some political manoeuvring, the committee chose the current design, which was created by George F.G. Stanley, inspired by the flag of the Royal Military College of Canada, in Kingston, Ontario. The ultimately favoured design with red bars and a single maple leaf was voted unanimously by the committee on October 29, 1964. The new flag was passed by a majority vote in the House of Commons on December 15, 1964. The Senate added its approval two days later. Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed the new flag on January 28, 1965.[8] It was inaugurated on February 15, 1965, at an official ceremony held on Parliament Hill in Ottawa in the presence of Governor General Major-General Georges P. Vanier, the prime minister, the members of the Cabinet, and Canadian parliamentarians. Since 1996, February 15 has been commemorated as National Flag of Canada Day. Despite the preceding acrimony, the new flag was quickly embraced by the Canadian public, and internationally the flag quickly became a welcome and easily recognizable marker of Canada worldwide. Attachment to the old Canadian Red Ensign persisted for quite a while for many people, especially veterans. In 1967 the Canadian Government first used the Canadian Coat of Arms (whose shield was used on the red ensign) on a red flag for the nation's centennial celebrations.[9] It was designed to appeal to those who were used to the Red Ensign and had not yet become accustomed to the Maple Leaf Flag. The Canadian Red Ensign itself can be frequently seen today across Canada, usually in connection to veteran's associations. Occasionally, the Pearson pennant itself can still be seen as a Canadian cultural marker. Most notably, in the 1990sMartin Tielli of the Canadian rock band Rheostatics often played a double-necked bass guitar with a modified Pearson pennant painted on it. [edit] Fate of the first Maple Leaf The first Maple Leaf flag was sewn by Joan O'Malley in November 1964.[10] After this flag was first raised in February 1965, it was said that Prime Minister Pearson gave it to the Liberal caucus. On February 15, 2000, a ceremony was held in which the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus presented Sheila Copps, then Minister of Canadian Heritage, with that flag.[11] However, what is also said to be the first Maple Leaf Flag was discovered in 2005. That Maple Leaf Flag had been given to then Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, Lucien Lamoureux. Mr. Lamoureux was later appointed as Canada's ambassador to Belgium. After his death and some delay, the flag was returned to Canada.[12] [edit] Protocol Several Canadian flags flying in Toronto, Ontario Officially, there is no law that dictates the proper use of the Canadian flag. However, Canadian Heritage released guidelines on how to correctly display the flag alone or with other flags. The guidelines deal with the order of precedence the Canadian flag is placed, where the flag can be used and how it is used and what people should do to honour the flag. The suggestions, titled Flag Etiquette in Canada, was published by Canadian Heritage in a book and online format, which had a last update at April of 2003.[13] With the weather permitting, the flag itself can be displayed on any day at buildings operated by the Canadian Government, airports, military bases and diplomatic offices, as well as by citizens, during any time of the day. When flying the flag, it must be flown using its own pole and must be superior to all flags, save for, in descending order, the Queen's Personal Standard, the Governor General's Standard, any of the Personal Standards of members of the Canadian Royal Family, or flags of the Lieutenant-Governors.[14] [edit] Flying the flag at half-mast When a flag is placed at the half-mast (or half-staff) position, it indicates that a period of mourning is occurring. To raise a flag in this position, the flag must be flown to the top of the pole first, then brought down halfway before the flag is secured for flying. When such a period occurs, all flags should be flown at that position or not be flown at all, with the exception of flags permanently attached to poles. In Canada, the decision to fly the flag at half-mast on federal buildings rests with Canadian Heritage. For the flag to be half-masted nationwide, one of the following deaths must be announced: The Canadian Monarch – from the time of announcement of the death up to and including the funeral. This clause includes members of the Royal Family related to the Sovereign by the first degree, such as a spouse, children, parents or siblings. The current or former Governor General of Canada The current or former Prime Minister of Canada A current minister of the federal cabinet Each province can make its own determination of when to half-mast the flag when provincial leaders or honoured citizens pass away. Canadian Heritage has the right to half-mast the flag under extraordinary circumstances, such as honouring former American President Ronald Reagan or for international events as the September 11th attacks in 2001. There are certain days every year that will call for the national flag to be flown at half-mast. These include: April 9 - Vimy Ridge Day April 28 - Workers' Mourning Day Last Sunday in September - Police and Peace Officers' National Memorial Day November 11 - Remembrance Day December 6 - National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women [edit] 2006 controversy over military deaths A controversy surfaced in April 2006 when the newly-elected Conservative government discontinued the practice, initiated by the previous Liberal government, of flying the flag at half-mast on all government buildings whenever a Canadian soldier was killed in action in Afghanistan.[15] The policy of half-masting upon every death had been initiated after the Tarnak Farm incident. The issue divided veterans' groups and military families, some of whom supported the return to the original tradition of using Remembrance Day to honour all soldiers killed in action, while others who felt that it was an appropriate way to honour the fallen and to remind the population of the costs of war. In spite of the federal government's policy, local authorities have often decided to half-mast the national flag since then to honour fallen soldiers who were from their jurisdiction. Examples include Toronto and Saskatchewan.[16] [edit] Government promotion Ever since the adoption of the Canadian flag in 1965, there have been programs sponsored by the Canadian government to promote the flag to their citizens and to the world at large. Two of the most famous examples is the Heritage Department's Parliamentary Flag Program and the flag program run by the Department of Public Works. The flag has also been featured on several definitive stamp series issued by Canada Post since 1989.[17] This increased exposure of the Canadian flag and the flag as part of the Canadian identity at home and abroad through the circulation of postage stamps. To increase awareness of the new flag, the Parliamentary Flag Program was set up in December 1972 by the Cabinet. The purpose of this program was to allow members of the Canadian House of Commons to distribute flags and lapel pins in the shape of the Canadian flag to their constituents. The program has been in operation since 1973.[18] Flags that are flown from the Peace Tower, the East and West blocks of Parliament Hill are packaged by the Department of Public Works and can be obtained free of charged from their offices. However, the program has a waiting list that lasts about 10 years and is available to Canadians only. [edit] "One in a Million National Flag" Challenge In 1996, Sheila Copps, as the Minister of Canadian Heritage instituted the "One in a Million National Flag" Challenge[19]. This program was intended to provide Canadians with one million new Maple Leaf flags in time for Flag Day, 1997. The program was controversial in that the program cost approximately CDN$45 million and the flags had no means to be hoisted or flown. The official numbers from Canadian Heritage put the expenses around $15.5 million, with approximately 1/7th of the cost being off-set by donations.[20] [edit] See also Flag Day, February 15 Coat of arms of Canada List of Canadian flags List of Canadian provincial and territorial symbols Flag Great Flag Debate George F.G. Stanley [edit] External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Flags of Canada National Flag of Canada (Department of Canadian Heritage) George F.G. Stanley's Flag Memorandum,23 March1964 Flag Etiquette in Canada Canada at Flags of the World Canadian Flag Clip Art Gallery CBC Digital Archives - The Great Canadian Flag Debate [edit] Footnotes ^Fraser, Alistair B.; The Flags of Canada ^Flag and emblems of Québec, An Act respecting the; R.S.Q. D-12.1 ^Department of Canadian Heritage: Birth of the Canadian Flag ^The National Flag of Canada: Colours Specification. The Symbols of Canada. Canadian Heritage (2003). Retrieved on May 20, 2006. ^National Flag of Canada Maufacturing Standards Act; 1984, c. 28, s. 1 ^The Canadian Encyclopedia: Emblems of Canada ^The Royal Union Flag. Flag Etiquette in Canada. Canadian Heritage (2003). Retrieved on May 20, 2006. ^Department of Canadian Heritage: Birth of the Canadian Flag ^Canadian Coat-of-Arms flag. CRW Flags Inc. (2004). Retrieved on December 22, 2006. ^The Making of the Canadian flag. The Symbols of Canada. Canadian Heritage (2004). Retrieved on December 22, 2006. ^CBC archives: First flag emerges from hiding ^CBC News: Original Maple Leaf goes on display, February 15, 2006 ^Department of Canadian Heritage: Rules for Flying the Flag ^Department of National Defence; The Honours, Flags and Heritage Structure of the Canadian Forces; pg. 477 ^CBC News: Peace Tower flag won't be lowered for military deaths; April 24, 2006 ^CBC News: Sask. flags at half-mast for fallen soldier; August 9, 2006 ^First Class Rate - Definitives (1989-2003). Canada's Flag On Postage Stamps. Knight's Canadian Info Collection (2006). Retrieved on December 22, 2006. ^Administration of the Parliamentary Flag Program. Our Mission. Canadian Heritage (2003). Retrieved on May 20, 2006. ^Announcement of "One in a Million National Flag" Challenge by Ministry of Canadian Heritage ^Department of Canadian Heritage: Canadians Meet the "One in a Million National Flag" Challenge; February 15, 1997
When I first started my blog, part of the design has a slide show at the bottom featuring world leaders who are constantly in the news. Above it reads the caption “What happens over there affects us over here.” Over the past few weeks, that has been proven true with an issue that has made local and national news regarding a local mosque coming to Newmarket. This issue raises several sensitive issues, has been the subject of many letters to the editor in the Era Banner and has packed council chambers with those who support and oppose councils decision to grant approval to this project.
For those unaware, local Muslims applied for a zoning change allowing for some internal renovations and an extended parking lot to a mosque on Muluck Drive in Newmarket. While no one has outright disapproved of the mosque being in Newmarket, many have expressed concerns with the political positions of Zafar Banglash and his potential role in the mosque. Zafar Banglash is the President of the Islamic Society of York Region (a registered charity), he is also an Imam in a Richmond Hill mosque and also a former editor of Crescent International. He has also worked with the Islamic Institute and Muslim Parliament of Great Britain. The main controversy stems from his support of the Islamic Revolution within Iran, his praise of Osama Bin Laden, his support of the Palestinians and his previous anti-Israel and anti-American writings. Bangash is a Sunni Muslim of Pakistani origin. There are currently 200 Muslim families in the area and on Monday, town council was addressed by some of those individuals who distanced themselves from Bangash’s personal views and also claimed that his organization (Islamic Society of York Region) provided funding to the mosque but would have little involvement beyond that. The views of Zafar Banglash have raised heavy concerns among many in the community and the Jewish Defense League was quoted in the local newspaper as planning a protest against this mosque. According to Wikipedia, the Jewish Defense League is “a militantJewish organization whose purported goal is to protect Jewish people and property from anti-Semitism. The FBI considers the organization to be a "right-wing terrorist group." [1] Mainstream Jewish groups oppose the JDL in some form, and do not associate.” It seems as though extremists on both sides have weighed in on this issue with the local community caught in the crossfire. Meir Weinstein of the Jewish Defense league said “I don’t believe this will be a house of prayer. It is a haven for terrorists”. He also said “I don’t believe this is a regular mosque. If its under (Mr. Bangash’s) leadership, it’s not only a den of hate, but possibly a den of terror”.
The local newspaper, the Era Banner first broke this story by publishing a story about the mosque and then including the views of Zafar Bangash (without seeking his own comments directly). The initial story, led to a series of nasty letters to the editor about the mosque not being welcome in the community. At a municipal council hearing on the issue of the parking lot expansion and internal renovations to the building structure, debate was restricted by Mayor Tony Van Bynen to the issues relevant to the zoning application. At the end of the day, the application received unanimous council approval and will now go ahead, at least for the time being. Here are some of the issues I believe are relevant to this local controversy.
1, Is this mosque a “haven for terrorists?”
I don’t think there are many people that will attempt to defend the views of Zafar Bangash. The bottom line though, is that even if town council believed he was an extremist with terrorist ties, there is little that could be done within their jurisdiction to stop this mosque from coming to town. Any hate speech of course should be prosecuted by the appropriate authorities. If he has any kind of association to terrorists abroad he should be investigated and obviously face charges under anti-terrorism laws. If he is inciting hatred and terrorism among the local youth based on his role in the Mosque, that obviously would be a serious concern and a potential security threat to the community. To be fair to Zafar Bangash, I am not aware of any problems associated with the mosque in Richmond Hill that he is also involved with. To my knowledge he has also not been prosecuted for hate speech nor is there any evidence that he has any ties to terrorist or extremist groups either domestically or internationally. He also claims his views were misrepresented by the local paper (and National Post) and has filed a lawsuit against the Era Banner. Bangash is supported by a holocaust survivor who claims to feel very welcome inside the Richmond Hill mosque and does not feel Zafar Bangash is an anti-Semitic. Even assuming the worst about Zafar Bangash, that does not mean that all 200 families share the same views as him. Internationally we are seeing problems in England regarding mosques and sermons that incite violence. London also suffered from a “homegrown” terrorist attack and this issue is of very serious concern overseas. While we cannot take the issue of terrorism lightly, we must also make sure that we are targeting the terrorists and not the Islamic faith or those who practice it peacefully. Hopefully as part of the new diversity committee and inter-faith committee, this mosque (and other religious institutions locally) will operate in a transparent fashion and insure that the communities concerns are addressed in an appropriate manner.
2, Separation of Church and State?
If Zafar Bangash is being prosecuted for his “extreme” political positions on Israel and the United States without evidence of preaching hatred or inciting violence/terrorism where will this take us in the future with regards to religion and politics. Where do we draw the line? Let us assume that this mosque was not granted approval based on Zafar’s views or that this particular individual was not allowed to associate with it through a restraining order. What precedent would this set for the future? How would we deal with other similar issues among other faiths wanting to come to Newmarket? For example, would it be appropriate to stop a synagogue from opening up in Newmarket if it planned to raise money and support Israel? Some people might say that this funding could go to supporting Israel’s occupation, settlements, collective punishment, illegal “security” barrier and weapons of mass destruction. On those grounds should it be boycotted or rejected in the community? Would it be appropriate to say that only Rabbis supporting a two state solution could preach to the youth? How would the town react if a gay couple used the courts or political legislation to force the Catholic church to marry them despite centuries of tradition on the grounds that the current policies are anti-homosexual? What if a female did the same in order to force the Vatican to allow women to be priests under the grounds of gender equality and discrimination? Should past priest sexual assault cases and their potential affect on Newmarket’s youth be a concern of politicians before granting approval of any new churches? If someone of the Evangelical faith had previously written harsh comments sympathizing with attacks on people who perform abortions or calling on George Bush to wipe out Iran would that be grounds to paint the entire community as extremists and block them from establishing a place of worship in the community? I think it would be very dangerous to blanket the views of an entire religious community based on comments or actions undertaken by a particular individual associated with a faith. For those who want our politicians to infringe on religious institutions I offer a very strong caution. Today it may be the Muslim faith being targeted…tomorrow it may be yours. I strongly support the rule of law, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of speech. I also strongly support the separation of church and state. I do not want to see politicians/courts intervene in the affairs of a religious institution without clear evidence that laws are being broken and other peoples rights or security are being threatened
3, Multiculturalism in Canada
Until 9/11 most Canadians were proud of the fact that Canada is a multicultural society as oppose to the United States that is proud to be considered a melting pot. Today this is being challenged with the arrests of 7 alleged terrorists who wanted to behead the Prime Minister, local terrorist arrests, fear of violence, the burka, movements to incorporate Shia Law into Ontario, and issues with other cultures such as the Sikh kirpaan (sword) in schools and turbans in the legion or RCMP. Last week we saw the rural Quebec town of Hérouxville adopt “a code of norms” for new Canadians. Riots in France, domestic Muslim extremism in England and the recent cartoon violence has raised some serious concerns about Islam and its ability to integrate within Western society. Holland now forces all new immigrants to watch a video with topless women and gay males kissing in an attempt to prepare newcomers for the liberal society values in which they will integrate. Those who have a problem with the cultural norms (or who fail to pass the test associated with the video) are not welcome into Holland.
4, Town Council in Newmarket
I applaud Mayor Tony Van Bynen and the Newmarket council for their handling of this issue. I think the council did the right thing by restricting debate to the issues within the jurisdiction of their authority. Municipal politics is not the forum to talk about Zafar Bangash’s political views, George W. Bush, Israel-Palestine, terrorism or Canadian multiculturalism. Having said that, I believe there is a need for a dialogue within an appropriate venue. Personally I would like to see Zafar Bangash (or representatives from the proposed mosque) hold a town hall meeting where a discussion can take place on his political views, his role in the project and the Muslim faith in general. This should be done independently and outside of government. I think there are some concerns among members of the town that should be addressed in some venue. I also look forward to the diversity committee and the interfaith committee being set up by Mayor Van Bynen. Newmarket is an understanding, tolerant and now diverse community. I welcome new places of worship including mosques, synagogues, temples and churches within our community and am very proud of our growing multicultural city.
Outside of this local issue, I would also like to see a greater maturity and openness with regards to debate and discussion, especially with regards to foreign policy. Sometimes we need to listen and recognize the legitimate facts presented by both sides and generate a dialogue that brings about real solutions. Taking sides and name calling (in this case anti-Semitic vs. anti-Muslim) contributes nothing to the discussion, negatively addresses the problems and widens the gap between the affected parties even further. Both locally and in foreign affairs we are all better off if we respect the opinions of others and address our differences through communication as oppose to violence. I also believe the media has a major responsibility in their role as an honest provider of news and information. Media covering these type of stories have a duty to consider the reputations of those they report on as well as the community they are writing about. Their power of influence should not be abused. I will keep you posted through this blog as this story continues to develop in Newmarket.
Construction of a proposed mosque sparked a heated meeting in Newmarket's town hall Monday afternoon. But the mosque itself is not the source of controversy. Instead, people in the community are worried about the imam. Members of the community packed the town hall, asking for a public meeting about the zoning of a proposed mosque. Residents are concerned by the imam's published views on controversial subjects, saying Zafar Bangash's comments could be considered hateful. "Diversity is welcome. Religion is welcome. We have no problems with any of that," neighbourhood resident George Cunningham said. "But what we don't want is someone with such radical beliefs as this gentleman." Bangash's critics say many of his comments and published writing could be interpreted as anti-Israeli and anti-American. The imam admits he has opinions on U.S. and Israeli policies and he is willing to discuss them. "I'm very happy to sit with anybody anytime, any place, to discuss my views," Bangash said after attending the meeting. "Of course I have certain views with respect to U.S. policy or Israeli policy, but I'm quite prepared to sit down and talk to people about that. But I don't express those views in the mosque. The mosque is something totally different." The proposed mosque is set to be built on Mulock Drive near Bayview. It is an area zoned as rural which allows religious institutions to be built there. A site plan approval process was launched at the town council because of a planned parking lot for the mosque. Newmarket town council approved the plan last autumn. The plan is waiting on a final approval. The residents' request for a public meeting was rejected by the council on Monday. The town council said granting the request would be inconsistent with how the town processes similar applications. With a report from CTV's Janice Golding
************************
York mosque wins approval
TANNIS TOOHEY / TORONTO STAR
Jackie Mintz of Newmarket talks with Zafar Bangash, after his mosque won municipal support yesterday. document.write('Email story'); Residents up in arms over imam's political views Feb 06, 2007 04:30 AM Leslie Ferenc Staff Reporter Long-time Newmarket residents mingled with their new Muslim neighbours but there was no Welcome Wagon waiting in the wings. They were on opposite sides of a simmering debate over a proposed mosque lead by a controversial imam and they squeezed into the town's council chamber yesterday to be seen and heard. Dozens of supporters attended Newmarket council's committee of the whole to back a plan for the town's first mosque, on Mulock Dr. near Bayview Ave., a proposal that has clearly divided the quiet suburban community. Opponents have taken great pains to point out they're not against the mosque but its leader. But many left the meeting upset that Mayor Tony Van Bynen had refused to hear their concerns about imam Zafar Bangash and his political views. They were equally upset by the committee's unanimous decision to approve a site plan that will allow the Islamic Society of York Region to convert the ranch-style bungalow it owns at 700 Mulock into a 1,700-square-foot mosque without holding a public meeting. Newmarket council is expected to approve the plan at its next meeting later this month. Under the town's zoning regulations, the building is on land that is zoned rural and a mosque or place of worship is an acceptable use. As a result, no public meeting is required. Before deputations were heard, the mayor warned the crowd and speakers to keep their personal views to themselves and stick to the issue as council's only mandate was to deal with the site plan. But that didn't stop heated discussions outside the council chamber after the committee approved the proposal. Opponents raised fears that Bangash, who is also the Islamic Society's president, will use the mosque to spread hatred. Jack Hurst, past-president of the Newmarket Ratepayers Association, said approving the mosque without first hearing residents' concerns showed "council is avoiding the issue." He noted controversial planning matters are often discussed at public meetings. "I think people today are upset by the process," he said, adding he wasn't there to block the mosque "because people should have a place to pray. "My main concern about this whole issue is Zafar Bangash and his views, which are anti-Semitic and extremely vitriolic. ... This individual is the main driver of the mosque. The town should not be focusing on the bricks and mortar, but the impetus behind it." Hurst said he's read Bangash's anti-American and anti-Semitic views and his support of Iran. "He will have you believe all these views will not be expressed in a mosque in Newmarket. I don't believe it at all." The imam has been most criticized for his strident views on Israel, Kashmir and his support for Iranian-style revolts in countries where Muslims are in the majority. In Toronto, he led protests against Danish editorial cartoons and is a proponent of sharia law. Area resident George Cunningham, who has been outspoken about the imam's political position, accused the mayor of "handcuffing me," by not allowing him to voice his concerns. A retired police officer, Cunningham asked the committee to hold a public meeting, noting that yesterday's turnout "is a good indication there's more than nominal interest." Rev. Bob Davies, chair of the Newmarket and York District Christian Ministerial Association and pastor at Christian Baptist Church on Main St., recommended council ask Ontario's Human Rights Commission "to review the situation and help you make a good decision. It's a way to clear the air." Outside the chamber, mosque supporter Peter Leibovitch, a long-time friend of Bangash, credited the committee for "doing a good job," adding the mosque "was following the rules," so its proposal to convert the bungalow and construct about 50 parking spaces on the site should be approved. "As to the question of Zafar's views, we live in a free society and have the right to different positions," said Leibovitch, a Jew, adding there are many in the Jewish community who don't support decisions made by the Israeli government. "And a lot of Jews are not happy with (U.S. President) George Bush's new militarism. "Zafar Bangash doesn't agree with American foreign policy nor do millions of Canadians. I didn't know it's a crime not to agree with George Bush." Leibovitch called on "reason to prevail," adding Bangash "is a gentle man in terms of life and service to the community. That can't be debated." Cantor Marty Steinhouse of Newmarket's Or Hadash Synagogue said the community continues to fight anti-Semitism in schools "because people are uninformed. "I'm afraid if what I read about Zafar Bangash is true and about the cause and effect it will have on the community." He called for an interfaith gathering "so we can get together and discuss mutual problems and fears." Engineer Hazem Gidamy, the project manager, told the committee the Newmarket mosque is a satellite location of the Islamic Society and will serve Muslims living in the northern part of the region. The society owns a 17,000-square-foot complex at Stouffville Rd. and Leslie St. in Richmond Hill which includes outdoor recreation facilities.
*****************************
Little mosque, big trouble By JOE WARMINGTON
NEWMARKET -- The story about the little mosque in the suburbs has been stirring up more than a little controversy. Throw in an Elvis impersonator priest and the producers of the hit show Little Mosque on the Prairie should be taking notes. But there is not a lot of humour here. In fact, angry words are flying around --including labels of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. It's normally so quiet up here. If you haven't heard of this situation, stayed tuned because it's about to hit the fan before city council here Monday. It's purported to be a meeting about the zoning of a new mosque on Mulock Drive, near Bayview. It sounds more like it's going to be a debate about whether the mosque belongs there at all. "Normally those meetings are kind of dull," said The Era Banner reporter Joan Ransberry. "I don't think that is going to be the case this time." The Era Banner had a recent front page headline: Mosque Welcome, Extremist Not, Neighbour Says. It quoted George Cunningham saying: "I don't want an Islamic extremist in my community." He's talking about Zafar Bangash --a well-known Islamic imam, who is director of The Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought. And he has thoughts -- some critics describe them as "hate." A lot of Bangash's comments could be interpreted as anti-Israel and anti-American -- heavy ideas for neighbours of 700 Mulock Drive to handle. Many didn't even realize Newmarket had its first mosque, which is really nothing more than a gutted bungalow on two acres, complete with pond. It still has a damaged Toronto Maple Leafs flag hanging from a pole and a rusted shinny hockey net. It's a start. The Muslim community has bigger plans for their new place of worship. "We have fully complied with the town's requirements," Bangash said. People have nothing to be afraid of, he said, adding much of what he is quoted to have said he actually didn't say. He is, though, the former editor of the Crescent International newspaper which after Sept. 11, 2001 did describe Osama Bin Laden as a person who "stands up to the West in the name of Islam" and that there was a "far greater tragedy taking place in Iraq, Palestine and now in Afghanistan." He insists stories where he is quoted as saying the U.S. knew about the potential attacks on 9/11 or that Canada is a "fully paid-up member of the Anglo-Saxon Mafia, which is responsible for most of the recorded genocides in the world" are not his. After reading this stuff, however, you can see why people might be concerned. Fresh off last summer's charges against 17 young Muslim men on an alleged terror plot, there's certainly nothing wrong with asking some questions. "Are you a racist? Are you are terrorist?" is what I asked him. Might as well clear the air, is what I thought. "Absolutely not," he said. "Not at all. Of course not. I think it's important people understand we neither advocate violence of any kind, nor do we spread hatred." He says not many are upset at all. "I don't think there are too many," he said. "What has happened is some people have misread things and that has been deliberately done. There are some groups who are themselves racist, essentially, and don't want to see a mosque going up in Newmarket." The more I questioned him the more defensive he seemed to get. His calm demeanor became more agitated when he said: "I am opposed to Israeli state policies. They are perpetrating terrible crimes against the Palestinian people." I asked if he considered that a radical opinion? "How could that be radical? Is it permissible to starve millions of people?" For many locals, what's happening in the West Bank is a long way from York Region. Even Pakistan-born Bangash, with whom I left on amiable terms, agrees. "These are my personal views and have nothing to do with the mosque," said the Canadian for 33 years. Meanwhile, well-known Rev. Dorian Baxter, aka Elvis Priestley, thinks the debate is "actually an opportunity." Over lunch at Pam and Debbie's The Maid's Cottage Restaurant on Main St. he said "it's an opportunity for Christians and people of Islamic and Jewish faiths to get together. We have more in common than we don't." We'll find out if that happens Monday when the little mosque on Mulock is on the agenda at Newmarket city council.
*********************************
Michael Coren Sat, February 10, 2007
Problem? Judge for yourself By MICHAEL COREN
Mosque building made simple: Satisfy the local building codes and do not make excessive noise. Oh, and don't preach anti-Semitic garbage and call for violent world revolution. Which is where an otherwise anonymous new Muslim temple in Newmarket, Ont., might have got it wrong. A type of culture clash, by the way, that is being replicated throughout Canada and most of the Western world. Protesters have emphasized that it is not the mosque that bothered them but the fact that its leader, Zafar Bangash, is a notorious extremist. Bangash disagrees. So, in the best of Canadian traditions, you judge for yourself. He edited a newspaper called Crescent International for 20 years. In 1998, the paper stated that Canada is a "fully paid-up member of the Anglo-Saxon mafia, which is responsible for most of the recorded genocides in the world." After the 9/11 mass murder it claimed that Osama bin Laden was someone who "stands up to the West in the name of Islam" and that there was a "far greater tragedy taking place in Iraq, Palestine and now in Afghanistan." So regarded is the man by Islamic extremists that the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) awarded him a media excellence award in 2001. I use the term extremist because in 2004 the president of the CIC, Mohamed Elmasry, said on my television show that every Israeli over the age of 18, irrespective of gender, was a valid target for death. Not sure where Bangash stands on that issue but he has said that, "there will be no room for a Jewish Israel. Zionist thugs will have to vacate every inch of Palestine if there is to be justice (and therefore peace) in that tortured land." He also told an audience that, "for people like politicians George Bush and Tony Blair, there would be peace if the whole world was pumping oil to satisfy America's voracious appetite for black gold. But for the state of Israel, peace would mean when all the Palestinians have been put into the graveyard, six feet down." Discussing the Ayatollah Khomeini, the imam wrote, "the imam's designation of the U.S. as a great Satan was very precise. It emerged from a very careful study and understanding of the behaviour of the United States government and its policies down the generations." He continued, the U.S. works "under the guise of delivering democracy and freedom when tens of thousands if not hundred of thousands of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Similar crimes are being perpetrated in Palestine by the U.S. support of the Zionist occupiers of Palestine." Writing of Sayyid Qutb, one of the founders of The Muslim Brotherhood, he stated that he, "lives in the hearts of millions of Muslims worldwide. His books have been translated into virtually every language that Muslims read, and remain hugely influential ... he was an Islamic intellectual and leader of rare insight and integrity." Qutb was hanged for his activities and was an anti-Western militant who believed in international Islamic war against the West, Jews and even Muslims with whom he disagreed. He embraced violent jihad and bloody revolution. So we judge for ourselves. Surely just another little mosque in Canada, with fun and laughter and good cheer all round. And if anyone dare criticize they are just a nasty Islamophobe.
*************
We should nuke Iran By MICHAEL COREN
[Darryl's Note: Who is really the extremist Mr. Coren?]
It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace. Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran. Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand. The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war. Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives. The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable. Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy. Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons: The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms. Iran is also developing enormous propellant ballistic missiles and began a space program almost a decade ago that will enable it to bomb the United States. It is also assumed in intelligence circles that Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian scientists. Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair -- to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region. Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth. A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years. The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938. They were clearly wrong then. They would be just as wrong now.
*****************************
Newmarket’s first mosque welcome, says Council NEWMARKET, Ontario, February 5, 2007 — At today’s Committee of the Whole meeting, Newmarket Council heard deputations from members of the community on the arrival of Newmarket’s first mosque at 700 Mulock Drive. At the outset of the meeting, Mayor Tony Van Bynen clarified to the audience that Council’s jurisdiction on this subject is strictly related to the site plan approval process. “Anyone who has met the site plan criteria is equally eligible and entitled to come to Newmarket.” He also stressed that, “Council will not tolerate statements of hearsay, assumptions, discussions of personal views or comments about identifiable individuals.” During today’s meeting, individuals in attendance asked that a public meeting be held prior to the final site plan approval of the mosque. Council members did not support this request. “We encourage public input by way of letters, phones calls and informal meetings, but the request to hold a public meeting on the site plan of this application would be inconsistent with how we process similar applications” stated Mayor Van Bynen. The property at 700 Mulock Drive is appropriately zoned for a place of worship and does not require a zoning amendment or public meetings to convert the house to a mosque. Site plan approval was required by the Town of Newmarket due to the request for 50 onsite parking spaces. The Mulock property’s existing 1700-square-foot house is located on four acres of land and will undergo interior alterations to convert the dwelling to a place of worship (mosque). The site plan was approved in principle by Council in late August 2006, and the final site plan is expected to come before Council within the next few months. In a presentation to Council today, a representative of the Islamic Society of Regional Municipality of York stated that the mosque on Mulock with be a satellite location of the Society’s 17,000-square-foot mosque in Richmond Hill. The representative also explained that Muslim’s are required to pray five times a day and the mosque on Mulock is needed to serve the local needs of the Muslim community in the Newmarket area. The presentation also highlighted the community services offered by the Society in the Richmond Hill mosque. These include: hosting interfaith dinners and meetings with Mennonites, the United Church and Jewish organizations; organizing food drives for the homeless; and donating to the Diabetes Foundation. “Diversity of race, religion and lifestyle help define and set York Region apart from other regions in Ontario. The establishment of Newmarket’s first mosque is simply a sign that our town’s cultural composition is changing, and Council welcomes this change. A diverse community represents a strong community,” says Mayor Van Bynen. Council expressed interest today in holding a public meeting to discuss the changing diversity in Newmarket and to build a better understanding of lifestyles and cultures that exist in the community. -30- Media contact: Crystal MossActing Manager of Corporate CommunicationsTel: 905-953-5300 ext. 2042 E-mail: cmoss@newmarket.ca
****************************
WIKIPEDIA: ZAFAR BANGASH
Zafar Bangash From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Zafar Bangash (Urdu: ظفر بنگش) is a noted Islamic Movement commentator and analyst. He is also a community leader in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He is Director of the Institute of Contemporary Islamic Thought (ICIT), and president of the Islamic Society of York Region in Ontario, Canada. He is imam at the Islamic Society of York region's mosque and community centre in Richmond, Ontario. He is a former editor of the Crescent International newsmagazine, and a Trustee and formerly assistant director of the Muslim Institute, London, where he worked with Dr Kalim Siddiqui (1931-1996), the founder of the Muslim Institute and Leader of the Muslim Parliament of Great Britain. Zafar Bangash is best known for his strident analyses of current affairs while editor of Crescent International, and as a columnist and contributor to Crescent since he moved on to become Director of the ICIT. Although he is a Sunni Muslim of Pakistani origins, he (and the bodies that he is associated with) are known for their support for the Islamic Revolution in Iran. For example, he has suggested that there is greater intellectual freedom there than in the United States, having told an Iranian news agency that "I have been in the Islamic Republic of Iran many times and I get a lot of information that is being circulated and there is open discussions, people express their views openly, discussions taking place all the times. All kinds of issues are discussed. There is no comparable level of discussion taking place in the US ..." .[1] He is also particularly known for his commentaries on Pakistani affairs, his support for Palestinians, and his opposition to the United States. He has also written on Islamic history and political thought. He is currently engaged in research on the political aspects of the Seerah (life) of Muhammad. [edit] References ^ 1 [edit] External link IRIB radio 1989 three-way interview with Norman Finkelstein and Wolf Blitzer Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zafar_Bangash"
***********************
WIKIPEDIA: JEWISH DEFENSE LEAGUE
Jewish Defense League From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search JDL logo. The motto "Never Again" refers to the Holocaust The Jewish Defense League (JDL) is a militantJewish organization whose purported goal is to protect Jewish people and property from anti-Semitism. The FBI considers the organization to be a "right-wing terrorist group." [1] Mainstream Jewish groups oppose the JDL in some form, and do not associate. Contents[hide] 1 Founding 2 History 2.1 JDL Chairmen 2.2 Imprisonment and deaths of Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel 2.3 Schism, and its immediate aftermath 3 JDL activities 3.1 Anti-Soviet activities 4 Controversies 4.1 Terrorism 4.2 Hebron massacre 4.3 Reactions to the JDL 5 See also 6 External links // [edit] Founding The JDL was founded in 1968 by RabbiMeir Kahane. Its goal was to protect Jews, initially in New York City, and to protest local manifestations of anti-Semitism. [2] [edit] History [edit] JDL Chairmen 1968-71- Rabbi Meir Kahane. 1971-73- David Fisch, a religious Columbia University student, who later wrote articles for Jewish magazines, and who wrote at least one book, "Jews for Nothing." 1973-74- No Chairman. There was infighting and chaos until Rabbi Kahane returned in August1974 to straighten things out. 1974-76- Russel Kelner, originally from Philadelphia. Formerly a US Army lieutenant trained in counter-guerrilla warfare, he moved to New York to direct the JDL's paramilitary camp JEDEL, and later to run the national office as chairman. 1976-78- Bonnie Pechter. September 1978- December 1978- Chaim Ben Pesach, then known by his his English name Victor Vancier. He had to step down when he went to jail for bombing Egyptian targets in a failed effort to stop Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula. 1979-81- Brett Becker, originally from South Florida. He came to New York to become Chairman. 1981-83- Meir Jolowitz, originally from Arizona. He also came to New York. 1983-84- Fern Sidman. 1984-1987- Chaim Ben Pesach. Starting in 1985, Irv Rubin also claimed to be Chairman but none of the JDL chapters outside of Los Angeles supported him. After Chaim went to prison, and Rabbi Kahane was assassinated, Irv Rubin took full control of the Jewish Defense League until his death in 2002. [edit] Imprisonment and deaths of Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel On December 12, 2001, Irv Rubin, JDL International Chairman, and Earl Krugel, a member of the organization, were charged with conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism. Authorities claimed that the two planned attacks on Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa's office, and on the King FahdMosque in Culver City, California. Rubin maintained that he was innocent, and was reportedly eager to wage a vigorous court battle in his defense. On November 4, 2002, at the federal Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California, Rubin fell 18 feet to the concrete floor below. He was in a coma for 10 days before dying on November 13. The prison's official report was that he slashed his own neck before throwing himself over the railing. [3]. Many have noted that this was an unusual method of committing suicide, and although the incident has been ruled a suicide, some of Rubin's supporters have alleged murder. On February 4, 2003, Earl Krugel pled guilty to conspiracy and weapons charges stemming from the terrorist plot, and was expected to serve up to 20 years in prison. He was murdered by another inmate while at the Federal Correctional Institution in north Phoenix, Arizona on November 4, 2005. [edit] Schism, and its immediate aftermath The Jewish Defense League became mired in a state of modest upheaval a couple of years after Rubin's death. After Rubin's death, Bill Maniaci became Chairman. When Maniaci retired, Matt Finberg took his place. After Finberg resigned, Ian Sigel took his place. In October 2004, the JDL split into two separate factions, each vying for legal control of the associated "intellectual property". During that period the sides operated as separate organizations with the same name, while a lengthy legal battle ensued. In April 2005 the original domain name of the organization, jdl.org, was suspended by Network Solutions due to allegation of infringement; the organization went back online soon thereafter at domain name jewishdefenseleague.org. In April 2006 news of a settlement was announced in which signatories agreed to not object to "Shelley Rubin's titles of permanent chairman and CEO of JDL." The agreement also confirmed that "the name 'Jewish Defense League,' the acronym 'JDL,' and the 'Fist and Star]' logo are the exclusive intellectual property of JDL." Opponents of both groups claim that these symbols are Kahanist symbols and not the exclusive property of JDL. The agreement also states: "Domain names registered on behalf of JDL, including but not limited to jdl.org and jewishdefenseleague.org, are owned and operated by JDL." Meanwhile, the opposing group has formed B'nai Elim. Most members of the former JDL under Irv Rubin now support B'nai Elim. Other former JDL members now support Chaim Ben Pesach's Jewish Task Force. JTF is against both B'nai Elim and Rubin's organization. In France there exists an organization, Ligue de Défense Juive (LDJ), that is similar to the originial JDL. It is not connected in any way to the current JDL organization. [citation needed] [edit] JDL activities [edit] Anti-Soviet activities The Jewish Defense League during the early seventies campaigned to allow the emigration of Soviet Jews from the Soviet Union. The organization was linked with a 1970 bomb explosion outside of Aeroflot's New York City office, and a 1971 detonation outside of Soviet cultural offices in Washington, D.C. Also in 1971, a JDL member allegedly fired a rifle into the Soviet Union's mission office at the United Nations. In 1972 two JDL members were arrested and charged with bomb possession and burglary in a conspiracy to blow up the Long Island residence of the Soviet Mission to the UN. The two JDL members pleaded guilty and were sentenced to serve 3 years in prison for one, and a year and a day for the other. In 1975, JDL leader Meir Kahane was accused of conspiring to kidnap a Soviet diplomat, to bomb the IraqiEmbassy in Washington, and to ship arms abroad from Israel. A hearing was held to revoke Kahane's probation for a 1971 firebomb-making incident. He was found guilty of violating probation and served a one year prison sentence. JDL activities were condemned by Moscowrefuseniks who felt that the group's actions were making it less likely that the Soviet Union would relax restrictions on Jewish emigration. On April 6, 1976, six prominent refuseniks, Vladimir Slepak, Alexander Lerner, Anatoly Shcharansky, and Iosif Begun condemned the JDL's activities as "terrorist acts," stating "Such actions constitute a danger for Soviet Jews... as they might be used by the authorities as a pretext for new repressions and for instigating anti-Semitic hostilities." [4] During the 1980s, the then JDL Chairman and current Jewish Task Force Chairman Chaim Ben Pesach led a campaign of bombing Soviet targets which he credits as the reason for the complete removal of the ban of Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union and as well as the reason for the fall of the Soviet Union. He has said that the bombings brought strains in US-Soviet relations which he says helped the cause. [edit] Controversies [edit] Terrorism The Federal Bureau of Investigation has described the Jewish Defense League in Congressional testimony as a "violent" and "extremist" group. In a sidebar in its "Terrorism 2000/2001" report, the Bureau said, "The Jewish Defense League has been deemed a right-wing terrorist group." It identified the group in a 1999 terrorism report as the perpetrator of several bombing and arson incidents that took place between 1980 and 1989. Mary Doran, an FBI street agent, described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group," though Doran also acknowledged that she is not involved in "policy and administrative decision-making processes." In 2001 JDL leaders Irv Rubin and Earl Krugel were charged with planning a terror attack against the office of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa. [5]. The Jewish Defense League denies that it is a terrorist organization or a sponsor of terror. Its website states: "The Jewish Defense League unconditionally condemns terrorism of all forms. Terrorism is never a legitimate means to the furtherance of political goals."[6] Nevertheless, on a number of occasions the JDL has expressed support for acts of vengeance in reprisal to Arab terrorist attacks on Jews. On October 26, 1981 after two firebombs damaged the Egyptian Tourist Office] at Rockefeller Center, JDL Chairman Meir Kahane said at a press conference: "I'm not going to say that the JDL bombed that office. There are laws against that in this country. But I'm not going to say I mourn for it either." The next day, an anonymous caller claimed responsibility on behalf of the JDL. A JDL spokesman later denied his group's involvement, but said "We support the act."[7] [edit] Hebron massacre On 25 February 1994, a JDL member opened fire on Palestinian Muslims kneeling in prayer at mosque in the West Bank city of Hebron, killing 29. The incident is referred to as the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. A statement on the official website of the JDL glorifies Baruch Goldstein and his crime, claiming him as one of their own: "Dr. Goldstein was a brilliant surgeon, a mild-mannered Yeshiva-educated man who was promoted to the rank of major in the IDF. He was warned by his superiors in the military to prepare an open field hospital in anticipation of another murderous attack by the hostile Arab population of Hevron during the Jewish festival of Purim. Many of these Arabs were standing outside Goldstein's synagogue in the Cave of the Patriarchs and yelling "Slaughter the Jew." Goldstein had lost 30 close friends in the last few years; they were murdered by Arabs in the Hevron-Kiryat Arba area. One of those was the son of his best friend, Mordechai Lapid; as Goldstein rushed to give the young man medical aid, he was held back by the Arabs on the scene and the young man died. Additionally, as there is proof that the Arabs were hoarding food and supplies in response to a Muslim call for a massacre on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we feel that Goldstein took a preventative measure against yet another Arab attack on Jews. We understand his motivation, his grief and his actions. And we are not ashamed to say that Goldstein was a charter member of the Jewish Defense League." [8] Goldstein is revered as a saint by extremist Zionists and his tomb was converted into a shrine by his supporters until its dismantlement by the Israeli authorities in 1999. [9] [edit] Reactions to the JDL The JDL has been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for presenting a "gross distortion" of the real situation of American Jews. The ADL also states that JDL's founder, Meir Kahane, "preached a radical form of Jewish nationalism which reflected racism, violence and political extremism" and that those attitudes "were replicated" by Irv Rubin, the successor to Kahane [10][11]. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has added the JDL to its list of watched "hate groups". [edit] See also Kach and Kahane Chai Kahanism Jewish Task Force Jewish Defense Organization [edit] External links Jewish Defense League JDL group profile from MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base Security Management's page on terrorist allegations Criminal Complaint in US v. Rubin and Krugel. Was Irv Rubin Killed in 9-11 Mop Up? Jewish Defense League Unleashes Campaign of Violence in America from the Washington Report on Middle Eastern Affairs The Jewish Defense League has split into feuding factions from CultNews.com JDL Member Imprisoned in Bomb Plot Killed - ABC News account of the death of Earl Krugel Terrorism in the United States 1999 FBI terrorism report Books by Rabbi Kahane Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League" Categories: Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007All articles with unsourced statementsHistorical political movements of the United StatesJewish organizationsKahanismPolitical organizationsDesignated terrorist organizations
**********************************
***********************
Glad to be Canadian, Muslims say Last Updated: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 8:13 AM ET CBC News
More than 80 per cent of Canada's roughly 700,000 Muslims are broadly satisfied with their lives here and only a very small percentage — 17 per cent — feel that many or most Canadians are hostile toward their religion. According to a new Environics poll conducted in association with the CBC, a much larger proportion of Canadian Muslims is satisfied with the way things are going today than is the case in Europe. The proportion is greater even than the 61 per cent of Canadians who generally feel their lives are on the right track. Cold weather topped the list of things about Canada that Muslims polled like the least.(CBC) At the same time, there are clearly different perceptions between the Muslim community and other Canadians over such flashpoint issues as integration, the role of women and the wearing of headscarves. And despite intensive efforts by the Stephen Harper government to reach out and recruit prominent Muslims to its cause — witness the recent floor-crossing of former Liberal MP Wajid Khan — there is little sense that this is yet taking hold. Asked whom they intend to vote for in the next federal election, 54 per cent of Muslim respondents said the Liberals, 13 per cent said NDP, and only seven per cent said the Conservatives, which is virtually the same way they voted in the last election. These are some of the key findings of a wide-ranging new survey of Muslim attitudes in Canada as well as attitudes toward them.
The survey — conducted by Environics Research Group in conjunction with the CBC and other clients — interviewed 500 Canadian Muslims and 2,045 members of the general population between Nov. 30, 2006 and Jan. 5, 2007 and is said to be accurate within 4.4 percentage points and 2.2 percentage points respectively, 19 times out of a 20. In general terms, the poll found that 73 per cent of Canadian Muslims describe themselves as "very proud" to be called Canadians, even if many of them see their religion as coming first in certain instances. As well, they have very little sympathy for extremists or terrorist groups and they aren't crazy about the northern climate — it tops the list of things they like least. Asked about the arrests last summer of the 18 Muslim men and boys who were allegedly plotting terrorist attacks in southern Ontario, 73 per cent of the Muslim respondents said these attacks were not at all justified and 82 per cent said they had no sympathy for those who wanted to carry them out. "The good news," says Environics vice-president Keith Neuman, is that despite everything that's gone on over the past few years, "these numbers do not suggest a minority that is feeling isolated and resentful." Canada's Muslims have different priorities, the poll suggests. Unemployment and immigration issues are more important to them than the health care and environmental concerns that are driving other Canadians. There are also differences over how much and to what extent minority communities should "blend in" with the Canadian norm. Almost half (49 per cent) of the general Canadian population feel new immigrants should blend in with the rest of the country, while 40 per cent feel they should be encouraged to maintain their religious and cultural practices. For Canadian Muslims, these numbers are 15 and 65 per cent respectively. The differences are more pronounced when it comes to women: 81 per cent of non-Muslim Canadians feel ethnic minorities should adapt to mainstream Canadian beliefs about the rights and roles of women, whereas only 36 per cent of Canadian Muslims feel that way, the poll suggests. A majority of the Muslim respondents (53 per cent) would also like to see Islamic Sharia law adopted for divorce and other family disputes, and a much larger number, 86 per cent, of Canadian Muslims do not feel governments should ban the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women in public, including public schools. Many of these concerns are more strongly backed by young Muslims under 30, the survey suggests, and Haideh Moghissi, a York University sociologist who has worked extensively in this area, says these should probably be seen as more of a "political gesture than a religious one" by those who have felt their community "bearing the brunt of this suspicion and fear" since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In fact, almost 60 per cent of Muslim women do not wear any kind of covering on a regular basis, the survey found. And 72 per cent of the respondents said they were not too worried or not worried at all about Muslim women taking on more modern roles in Canadian society.
Book Review: “Hegemony or Survival – America’s Quest for Global Dominance” by Noam Chomsky
This year during his famous speech calling George W. Bush the devil at the United Nations, Hugo Chavez presented a book that he said was recommend reading for everyone in the world, especially Americans. I purchased the book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” shortly after that UN speech to see what was written by Noam Chomsky that would justify Chavez’s harsh comments against George W. Bush and the “American imperialist empire”.
On September 11, 2001, I was attending the University of Windsor in my second year. Although I was studying business, all of my electives were in political science. I remember being glued to CNN for days and aside from the images of the towers collapsing, people jumping and the firefighters risking their lives to save others; there is one image that constantly replays in my memory. That image was watching some parts of the Arab world celebrating following the attacks on 9/11 despite the loss of life and targeting of fellow human beings. At the time I really didn’t understand why this was happening and I was determined to know more about the roots of this. Why do the terrorists hate America? This question was never once asked in the media so I attempted to find the answer myself. The following semester I loaded up on courses in American foreign policy and the politics of the Middle East. I wanted to learn why the terrorists were targeting the United States and why people could actually celebrate and attack on a country that seemed completely out of the blue on a democratic peaceful nation. Obviously there is no justification for acts of terrorism either morally or politically, but ultimately there are facts available that provide an understanding and alternative perspective about why the United States government is so isolated in the world today and why so many people don't trust or like George W. Bush or American imperialist foreign policy.
Documentaries such as “Why we Fight” and “the Corporation” begin to address some of the issues associated with American foreign policy and American government and the impact these policies have on the rest of the world as well as the United States itself. I have read many books on the Middle East and American foreign policy, but nothing I have read presents a more controversial, yet informed analysis of American foreign policy than “Hegemony or Survival – America’s Quest for Global Dominance” by Noam Chomsky. This book is a must read for anyone interested in politics, human rights and international affairs. I would challenge anyone to refute the points made in this book by Noam Chomsky without resorting to name calling.
In his best selling book, Noam Chomsky reviews American foreign policy since World War II and also covers America’s past records in Latin America, Turkey, Cuba, Vietnam, Kosovo, and the Middle East to present the argument that America’s foreign policy has consistently been about maintaining global military dominance and little else. It uncovers America’s support for dictators (including Hussein) and the impacts this support has had on the local populations affected. He points out shortcomings and hypocritical statements about achieving democracy, nuclear weapons, peace, human rights and a better standard of living for others around the globe by using Bush’s current statements and applying them to the actions of the United States including in the UN through its use of the Security Council veto and manipulation of the mainstream media. Chomsky also writes about the American media and multi-national corporations and how they influence the actions of the American government and the wealth distribution of globalization. The book also sends a sobering message with referenced facts about unilateralism and attempts to dismantle international agreements and institutions and the impact that this is having on other world powers including Russia and China. Finally he argues that America’s leaders (under various political parties) are willing to risk our very survival for the dream of imperialism as demonstrated with the Cuban Missile Crisis and also through emerging issues such as climate change and the weaponization of space. Chomsky than analyses America’s record of “state terrorism” and the difference in standards that the United States applies to itself as compared to its “enemies”. He argues the best way for America to defend against terrorism is simply to stop engaging in it themselves. The most recent version of the book also has an Afterward focusing on the war in Iraq. The purpose of this book is to bring awareness to the relevant historical events that have taken place in the world, taking us to where we are today. Chomsky also attempts to encourage the American people to take back control of their government through grass roots democracy and political pressure and demonstrates where that has had a positive affect. I would give Chomsky’s book five stars out of five and consider it recommended reading for anyone, regardless of their knowledge of current events and political history. This book has the power to change your views and should be read with an open mind regardless of your preconceieved opinion on Chomsky himself. Similar books can also be found at: www.americanempireproject.com
An immediate national bestseller, Hegemony or Survival demonstrates how, for more than half a century the United States has been pursuing a grand imperial strategy with the aim of staking out the globe. Our leaders have shown themselves willing -- as in the Cuban missile crisis -- to follow the dream of dominance no matter how high the risks. World-renowned intellectual Noam Chomsky investigates how we came to this perilous moment and why our rulers are willing to jeopardize the future of our species. With the striking logic that is his trademark, Chomsky tracks the U.S. government's aggressive pursuit of "full spectrum dominance" and vividly lays out how the most recent manifestations of the politics of global control -- from unilateralism to the dismantling of international agreements to state terrorism -- cohere in a drive for hegemony that ultimately threatens our existence. Lucidly written, thoroughly documented, and featuring a new afterword by the author, Hegemony or Survival is a definitive statement from one of today's most influential thinkers.
Other Reviews:
Amazon.com
Noam Chomsky is considered the father of modern linguistics. In this richly detailed criticism of American foreign policy, he seeks to redefine many of the terms commonly used in the ongoing American war on terrorism. Surveying U.S. actions in Cuba, Nicaragua, Turkey, the Far East and elsewhere over the past half a century along with the modern American war in Iraq, Chomsky indicates that America is just as much a terrorist state as any other government or rogue organization. George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq drew worldwide criticism, in part because it seemed to present a new philosophy of pre-emptive war and an appearance of global empire building. But according to Chomsky, such has been the operating philosophy of American foreign policy for decades. Opponents of the Bush administration's tactics consistently point out how the American government supported Saddam Hussein for many years prior to the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (pictures of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand are easy to come by) as a means of pointing out how the United States is happy to fund despots when it's in American interests. But Chomsky, armed with extensive historical notation, takes this notion further, arguing how the repression of other nations' citizenry is, in fact, the very reason Americans support certain foreign leaders. The charges made throughout the book are severe, as are the dire consequences he posits if current trends are not reversed, and Chomsky is no more likely to make friends or gain supporters from the mainstream now than he's ever been. But Hegemony or Survival is relatively dispassionate. Instead of relying on camp or shock value or personal attacks as some of his contemporaries have done, Chomsky drives his well-supported points steadily forward in an earnest and highly readable style. -
-John Moe From Publishers Weekly
In this highly readable, heavily footnoted critique of American foreign policy from the late 1950s to the present, Chomsky (whose 9-11 was a bestseller last year) argues that current U.S. policies in Afghanistan and Iraq are not a specific response to September 11, but simply the continuation of a consistent half-century of foreign policy-an "imperial grand strategy"-in which the United States has attempted to "maintain its hegemony through the threat or use of military force." Such an analysis is bound to be met with skepticism or antagonism in post-September 11 America, but Chomsky builds his arguments carefully, substantiates claims with appropriate documentation and answers expected counterclaims. Chomsky is also deeply critical of inconsistency in making the charge of "terrorism." Using the official U.S. legal code definition of terrorism, he argues that it is an exact description of U.S. foreign policy (especially regarding Cuba, Central America, Vietnam and much of the Middle East), although the term is rarely used in this way in the U.S. media, he notes, even when the World Court in 1986 condemned Washington for "unlawful use of force" ("international terrorism, in lay terms" Chomsky argues) in Nicaragua. Claiming that the U.S. is a rogue nation in its foreign policies and its "contempt for international law," Chomsky brings together many themes he has mined in the past, making this cogent and provocative book an important addition to an ongoing public discussion about U.S. policy.Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.
United States is in the process of staking out not just the globe but the last unarmed spot in our neighborhood-the heavens-as a militarized sphere of influence. Our earth and its skies are, for the Bush administration, the final frontiers of imperial control. In Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky investigates how we came to this moment, what kind of peril we find ourselves in, and why our rulers are willing to jeopardize the future of our species. With the striking logic that is his trademark, Chomsky dissects America's quest for global supremacy, tracking the U.S. government's aggressive pursuit of policies intended to achieve 'full spectrum dominance' at any cost. He lays out vividly how the various strands of policy-the militarization of space, the ballistic-missile defense program, unilateralism, the dismantling of international agreements, and the response to the Iraqi crisis-cohere in a drive for hegemony that ultimately threatens our survival. In our era, he argues, empire is a recipe for an earthly wasteland. Lucid, rigorous, and thoroughly documented, Hegemony or Survival promises to be Chomsky's most urgent and sweeping work in years, certain to spark widespread debate. Download DescriptionThe United States is in the process of staking out not just the globe but the last unarmed spot in our neighborhood-the heavens-as a militarized sphere of influence. Our earth and its skies are, for the Bush administration, the final frontiers of imperial control. In Hegemony or Survival, Noam Chomsky investigates how we came to this moment, what kind of peril we find ourselves in, and why our rulers are willing to jeopardize the future of our species.
Hello again and thank you very much for sticking with this blog. I apologize that there have been so few updates over the past week. Things have been very busy. I am just getting settled in a new role with my real job and Saturday attended a great holiday party at the Marriott in downtown Toronto. Two weeks ago I shaved my head to raise money for the Newmarket Rotary Club. I am vocational director on the Newmarket Rotary Club and am serving on a committee for Camp Enterprise. This is a business camp for high school students in York Region that prepares them for life as an entrepreneur or a career in business. I participated in Camp Enterprise in grade 11 and later went on to study business earning a BCOMM and MBA at the University of Windsor along with a BA in political science. Camp Enterprise and grade 11 marketing class were the primary early motivations to study business. The Newmarket Rotary Club is sponsoring six students from high schools in Newmarket and surrounding areas. I also had the opportunity to attend a Rotary district conference in Oshawa where I saw a great presentation on hurricane Katrina and the current situation in New Orleans. The presentation convinced me that more needs to be done to help the people in this city and I personally want to help. I am hoping to use my vacation time to attend a Rotary sweat equity project in New Orleans for a week this summer. I believe Rotary is a real vehicle for change in the world. Rotary International was largely responsible for eliminating polio in the world by providing vaccines to people in need. I am very proud to be a Rotarian.
In politics I attended two Ontario Progressive Conservative conventions and earlier this year attended the OPCYA conference in Toronto. I am excited about John Tory’s vision and the prospect of Frank Klees running in Newmarket-Aurora. These conferences have provided great campaign training, networking opportunity and motivation to fight an important election battle this October. I think the PC election machine is ready and the conferences speak strongly to the professionalism of this party. I also got to see a preview of the upcoming campaign in Markham campaigning for the Tory candidate Alex Yuan in Markham. It was a good experience. Last night the federal Conservative nomination committee had the opportunity to interview both Kirk West and Lois Brown as potential candidates in the next election. I think both candidates represented themselves well against what were really tough questions meant to prepare them for a campaign with high media attention in Newmarket-Aurora against Belinda Stronach. To maintain neutrality and keep confidentiality I will not endorse a candidate or blog about the details of the process itself. March 5, Newmarket-Aurora Conservatives will nominate a candidate and will immediately be prepared for any election timing that will result from this minority parliament. In Richmond Hill, I am working with Bill Kukulewich who is a great candidate seeking the federal Conservative nomination in Richmond Hill. You can visit Bill’s website at http://www.billkukulewich.ca/ It is nomination season for both the provincial and federal Conservatives in York Region.
Tonight I had the opportunity to speak with Tony Van Bynen the mayor of Newmarket. I was proud to work on his campaign in the last municipal election and have been pleased to see his strong performance this far as mayor. Focusing on a strong fiscal platform, handling himself well under media and community pressure regarding the mosque issue and showing his approachability to residents, sports clubs and service groups. These are all very strong signs that he will make a great mayor for Newmarket. I saw first hand how committed he is to keeping all of his election promises that he made to the people this past fall. Tomorrow I will attend a tribute dinner in honour of former Aurora mayor Tim Jones with proceeds going to South Lake Hospital. This should also be a very good event.
Last night was also the Super Bowl where I saw the Conservative commercial about Dion’s leadership for the first time. Anyways I am hoping updates will be more frequent in the weeks to come.
GARTH TURNER TO THE LIBERALS:
Today is a sad day for democracy. As many of you know despite being a loyal Conservative, I supported Garth Turner, digital democracy and his populist approach to confronting the traditions of Canada’s political parties. At the time he was kicked out and still today, I was angry that he was tossed for his moderate views and blog entries. His blog provided a great insiders view of how our government works. Interactive polls, quick email responses, MPTV, his newswire, frequent town hall meetings and hard working staff members have resulted in an MP who has served his constituents better than any MP I am aware of in recent memory. His attack on the party system and its backroom elites was refreshing and I always believed he was able to maintain his integrity and consistency in positions as an independent. Of all the ridings in Canada, none was I more interested in than Halton. Would voters reward the individual candidate for his hard work, public service, passion, accessibility and populism or would they care more about party labels preferring blind loyalty to the leadership. Had Garth Turner lost, it would have been a sad commentary on the electorate and their awareness of political issues. Had Garth Turner won, it had the potential to change politics as we know it in Canada. Chuck Cadman, Carolyn Parrish, David Kilgour and Andre Arthur proved independents could play a major role in a minority parliament. Garth Turner was beyond this type of profile however because he gave the average engaged voter someone to believe in. Turner was constantly in the media, became a national name and gained a respected reputation as a maverick, he had a clear message and was a true democratic reformer with a revolution to change the system. This earned him my respect and admiration. I was even prepared to give up a weekend or two campaigning in Halton and certainly was willing to make a financial contribution given his challenges to issue tax receipts as an independent candidate. He was inspiring young people to get into politics and do it in a different way. He was campaigning for more independents in the House to encourage alternative ideas with less partisanship. He was offering new ideas and a transparent approach that helped address the fact only 7% of people trust politicians and see it as among the least honest professions possible. With Garth the issue wasn’t so much what he was saying or what his positions were, but the fact he represented real change in the way Ottawa works. Today he has slapped his supporters in the face, given credibility to his critics and deflated hopes of brining real reforms to Ottawa. Andrew Coyne recently wrote an article “Selling the Conservative Soul” in the National Post. He basically asked the question is Conservatism dead? Unfortunately I think the more appropriate question should be is our Democracy dead? Turner got himself in trouble by attacking floor crossers Belinda Stronach, David Emerson and Wajid Kahn. He also attacked Michael Fortier and proved he was a man of integrity and willing to speak out against what was wrong with the democratic system and culture of being forced to bring Ottawa to the people as oppose to the other way around. Lobbying for income splitting tax cuts, the environment and against social issues being revisited were consistent with the positions of many Conservative members. Today by joining the Liberal caucus Turner now becomes part of the problem and a sad commentary of politics today. More importantly, it is hard to tell what he really believes in anymore.
Do I completely blame Garth Turner? Absolutely not. I still believe he should have never been kicked out of the party at the time and thought it was completely inappropriate for national party to decide he never has the right to seek a Conservative nomination again. This is an insult to the grass roots who nominated him twice and many Conservatives within our broad tent political party that do not always share the same positions as the leader on every issue. Many people were angry that he chose to attack the party aggressively in his blogs after becoming an independent. Again I stood up for Garth Turner and said he must campaign against a Liberal and a Conservative. He needs to get his message out and differentiate himself from the other major candidates. I wasn’t so much interested in the partisan attacks but the attacks on partisanship he was blogging about. Up until 5pm I was hoping the media was wrong. Maybe Garth Turner would be so disgusted by Dion’s attempt to buy his integrity for political gain that he would agree to the press conference and than embarrass Dion by joining the Greens during the joint media event. Had he joined the Greens in this manner, I would have been excited and approved of his decision. Historically he would be their first MP, he would guarantee the Greens a spot in the debate and he would be a central focus and additional symbol about the need to do more on the environment file that he was championing. Based on the comments on his blog from readers, I think many would have accepted this choice. Unfortunately it wasn’t meant to be.
As far as deciding to go Liberal, given his past statements and positions, this move does not make sense. How can he justify joining a party he campaigned against less than a year ago? Obviously he did this to improve his chances of keeping his own seat. This hurts his credibility and makes it impossible to continue doing what made him great. He is now forced into whipped votes. He must stay consistent with national party message. While his blog will likely not be censored by the leader’s office, it will be self censored as he attempts to prove Liberal credentials and advance his standing in his new party.
Below are some comments from Garth Turner’s official press release located at http://www.garth.ca/
"As a former Progressive Conservative MP and cabinet minister, I believe in being careful on money issues, but also generous on social ones," Turner says. "I have found Mr. Harper's party to be too far right for this community, while the Liberal Party now closely reflects those Progressive Conservative values I've always believed in." Turner added, "Stéphane Dion clearly knows the kind of MP I am, my track record and my goals. This move will allow me to continue my agenda, while gaining more resources in Ottawa, and providing a chance to resume unfinished Parliamentary work."
The comments above are evidence of the usual Liberal spin and how Turner’s independent game is over. Critics of Turner said that he was bitter about not receiving a cabinet post, began undermining the leader in the media in order to enhance his own ego and profile and that his belief in supporting the voters over political parties was simply a gimmick to mask his own selfish ambitions. Today it seems their point has been proven. Turner and the Liberals leaked this story to the media hours in advance driving up coverage to Garth’s website. On that website there was of course no public debate or opportunity for input on the issue, no vote and the issue was never previously discussed on his blog. Instead there was a press conference called, new red banner for the website and slogan, blog entries timed with the 5pm announcement and rehersed partisan statements for maximum political affect. “The Conservative Party no longer has room for moderates”, “joined the Liberal party to better serve constituents”, “I just realized the Liberal party better reflects my values after a long talk with the leader”. In Newmarket-Aurora this sounds very familiar and everyone knew the HRDC and Democratic Reform cabinet posts were the real price and catalyst for the partisan political move. In fact it also sounds like Emerson and Kahn all over again. Emerson was not a partisan guy and wanted to better serve his constituents in cabinet. Today Garth also said he is willing to run in a by-election on the condition Emerson, Kahn and Fortier do the same. Of course he knows full well that is not going to happen. Therefore he is not a hypocrite? Turner may have been kicked out of his original party but that doesn’t make his move any less cynical than the other floor crossers. For the hell of it Harper should call his bluff and set up 4 by-elections followed by floor crossing legislation. Canadians deserve their vote be respected.
Do the words CF-18 mean anything to you? No? How about Bristol Aerospace? $1.3-billion maintenance contract? Brian Mulroney? Ah. Now you recall: It was the Mulroney government's 1986 decision to award the contract to a Quebec firm, over a clearly superior bid from Bristol Aerospace's Winnipeg plant, that touched off the prairie fire of protest that was to become the Reform party. Well, here we are, 20-odd years later, the Reform party has come and gone, and nothing has changed. A Conservative party is back in power, largely on the strength of Western support, and again the party seems to have forgotten what it stands for -- or, Westerners might say, who put it there. Only now there is no prospect of a Reform insurgency. Then, the conservative movement in this country was still in its infancy, still full of fresh ideas. If the nominal Conservative party was not responsive to their concerns, they'd soon put that right. Hell, they'd start a whole new party if they had to. So they did, and they had some success, but then they got impatient for more, and they started tinkering around with various unsuccessful efforts at rebranding themselves, until at last what remained of the old Reform party was merged with what remained of the old Conservative party to form ... the Conservative party. But it was not the same as the old Conservative party, was it? It had a leader, after all, who'd left the Conservatives to help found Reform, and even if it seemed inordinately concerned with reassuring everyone it was a "moderate, mainstream" party, that was mostly for show, wasn't it? Underneath beat the hearts of true conservatives, committed to fundamental changes in the way this country is governed -- for example, in the abuse of defence contracts for pork-barrel purposes, or the crude regional power-plays that had been the Liberal stock in trade. And for a time it looked that way. When the National Post ran a series in the fall of 2005 on the theme "Is Conservatism Dying?" the question seemed to me absurd, and in my own contribution to the series I said so. "Oh, dry up," I began, pointing out that the Conservatives controlled five of the 10 provinces and were on the cusp of victory federally. "One more heave, and they are over the top," I concluded. In retrospect I was quite wrong. After a year of Conservative rule, it is now clear, conservatism isn?t just dying--it's dead. And it's the Conservatives who killed it. It was one thing for their political opponents to denounce conservative ideas. At least they got a hearing, and as often as not the Liberals would steal them. But when Conservatives themselves hasten to renounce them, they have no outlet. And after two decades invested in the Reform experiment, there is nowhere else to go. So when the Public Works minister, Senator Michael Fortier from Montreal, intervenes in the procurement process for some desperately needed military cargo planes to demand a greater share of the "industrial benefits" go to Quebec, there is no vehicle for dissatisfaction to express itself -- should it even occur to anyone to protest. The Liberals aren't going to raise a fuss, or not seriously: They'd do the same. And whatever Conservatives remain who still believe in free market principles are either too reluctant to rock the boat or too exhausted by the fight to bother. That, or they have grown too accustomed to capitulation. For there isn't much left of conservatism nowadays, is there? Spending? The Finance Minister's fall economic statement projects spending to rise to levels never approached by any Liberal government, and yes, that's after allowing for inflation and population growth. Taxes? The party that once campaigned on a flat tax, then on broad-based tax cuts, now sprays tax credits hither and yon, such as that for children's sports. (Which sports? Teams of experts have been retained to advise whether the kids are sweating enough to qualify.) Corporate welfare? Once upon a time, conservatives wanted to abolish subsidies to business. No longer. Agricultural quotas? No danger of reform there. Privatization? Don't make me laugh. Much of this dilution took place in advance of the last election, notably at the party's triumphant founding convention in 2005. But the process has only accelerated post-election, in pursuit of the coveted majority. The more the party has chased the middle, however, the faster it has seemed to recede; with each abandonment of its principles, the opposition and the media, those arbiters of the status quo, simply yawn and move the goalposts a little further down the field. So that even so humiliating a climb down as the past week's reinstatement of the very Liberal environmental programs the Tories abolished in their first weeks in office wins them no points whatever. Quebec, missile defence, China, health care, regional development: It's very hard to tell what the Conservative position is any more, or how it differs from the Liberals, or what it will be a week from now. And the result? 31% in the last poll. Sell your soul, you'd think you'd at least get paid. Ac@andrewcoyne.com
***********************
Who do you trust?
Airline pilots: 81 per cent.
Doctors: 80 per cent.
Police officers: 69 per cent.
Teachers: 69 per cent.
Armed forces personnel: 65 per cent.
Day care workers: 61 per cent.
Accountants: 54 per cent.
Judges: 52 per cent.
Chiropractors: 49 per cent.
Financial advisers: 47 per cent.
Charitable organization employees: 41 per cent.
Environmentalists: 39 per cent.
Plumbers: 39 per cent.
People who work for religious institutions: 37 per cent.
Judicial system employees: 33 per cent.
Television and radio personalities: 29 per cent.
Real estate agents: 28 per cent.
Journalists: 26 per cent.
Lawyers: 25 per cent.
Auto mechanics: 25 per cent.
New home builders: 23 per cent.
Other members of the press: 22 per cent.
CEOs: 21 per cent.
Union leaders: 19 per cent.
Local politicians: 12 per cent.
National politicians: 7 per cent.
Car salespeople: 7 per cent.
Former Tory Turner to join Liberals TENILLE BONOGUORE Globe and Mail Update
Outspoken federal MP Garth Turner has announced that he will join the Liberal ranks. The Ontario MP entered this sitting of Parliament as a Conservative, but was thrown out of the caucus in November after his criticism of party policy and the actions of the Prime Minister's Office saw him accused of violating caucus confidences. Mr. Turner resigned from the party and has since been sitting as an independent. Rumours surfaced last week that Mr. Turner was speaking to other parties, and in an interview he admitted life as an Independent was wearing on him. Related to this article
Independent MP Garth Turner is turning to the Liberals, reports say. (Dave Chidley/CP files) Internet Links Garth Turner's weblog Follow this writer Add TENILLE BONOGUORE to my e-mail alerts Latest Comments 316 reader commentsJoin the conversation Green Party leader Elizabeth May said she had discussed the possibility of Mr. Turner becoming the first Green MP in the Commons, but said on Tuesday that she supports his move to the Liberals. “I think it's a good choice for Garth. As an independent, he's been making some good contributions to parliamentary discourse and debate and conducting himself in a way that I think is admirable,” Ms. May told CBC TV. “He had his time to think over what his constituents wanted him to do. This must be the message he got from his constituents.” But given Mr. Turner's turbulent year, she hasn't ruled him out of Green contention. “He remains welcome to join the Green Party of Canada should Mr. Dion throw him out of caucus,” Ms. May said. Former Liberals David Emerson and Wajid Khan have also crossed the floor to the Conservatives since the last election. With Mr. Turner's move, the new standings in the House of Commons will be: Conservatives 125, Liberals 101, Bloc Quebecois 51, NDP 29, and one independent; there is one vacancy.
When David Emerson was elected as a Liberal in Vancouver-Kingsway on January 23rd, then turned around joined the Conservative cabinet on Fenruary 6th, I said that was wrong. If he wanted to be a Tory, he should have gone back and been elected as one. When Stephen Harper, espousing democratic reform and an elected senate, made party bagman Michael Fortier both a senator and an unelected cabinet minister, I said that was wrong. He should get elected. When Wajid Khan, elected as a Liberal in Mississauga, became a Conservative a few weeks ago, I said it was a good thing a federal election was coming soon, so his decision could be ratified by his constituents. Today I announced I’m joining the federal Liberal caucus, after having sat as an Indie for the past four months. As I expected, there was a howl from critics who, fuelled no doubt by the PMO, are calling for my head. Resign, they say, as you wanted Emerson to so, and run in a by-election. To do any less, they say, would render me a hypocrite. Maybe even worse, a politician. So, did I reflect on this as I contemplated going from independent to Liberal, a move I think makes me a more effective MP? You bet I did, because once anybody loses their principles, they have lost their way. So, have I lost mine? Well, first, I did not walk away from my party. It quit me. Mr. Harper tossed me out for refusing to support him without reservation, and for refusing to stop talking to Canadians. After being a Progressive Conservative my entire life, an MP, cabinet minister and leadership contender, Stephen Harper took my party away. Second, I have sat as an independent MP for the last four months, after saying I would use this time to talk to everybody, and figure out the best strategy going forward. During this time I’ve tried to go everything possible to make being an Indie work. It’s been frustrating and revealing. I concluded that this is a poor way to make an impact on a House of Commons which is divided into teams. Third, I am not crossing any damn floor. Prior to 5 pm today, I was not a member of any political party. Fourth, seems to me we will be having a federal election right quick. I expect the Conservatives will force this to happen somehow, or let it happen, not long after the March 20th budget. That could mean a national vote three months from now. So the people of my riding will have a very early chance to tell the rest of the country of they think I am a desperate opportunist, or if I have made a reasonable move to represent them better. Last, I am most happy to run in a by-election along with Emerson, Fortier and Khan. Fair is fair, and I challenge PMSH to set a date. I’ll resign 36 days earlier and campaign with pleasure. Bring it on. posted by Garth Turner on 02.06.07 @ 4:46 pm 240 Comments
One hell of a ride posted by Garth Turner on 02.06.07 @ 4:46 pm 35 Comments Well, it’s another day in my evolution. PC. Harper Conservative. Maverick MP. Outcast. Indie. Liberal. To say the past year has been one hell of a ride would be a political understatement. Never expected it, even though many people say I am the architect of my own destiny. Today I’m accepting that view more than ever, since the decision to join Stephane Dion and the Liberal caucus is entirely mine. It did not come easily. But it’s unquestionably the right thing to do. I’m convinced of this since I define this job with one question: How can I be the most effective MP for the people? For the past year the answer has been to be as ethical, principled and issue-driven as possible. I told folks I would work for them, not the party. This put me on an immediate collision course with Stephen Harper, who has an entirely different view of what an MP is. We clashed a week into this job, and it never let up. I was threatened, but didn’t give in. I did not, for example, shut this blog do
document.write('
document.write('
document.write('
'); } else{ document.write('
'); }
'); } else{ document.write(''); } 
