Thomas Mulcair, newly elected leader of the NDP, is playing a very dangerous game of blaming the West and especially the Tar Sands for the loss of manufacturing jobs in especially voter-rich Ontario, hoping to cash in with the voters and with Quebec form an axis of power. This Liberals had used this to dominate power in the past century, which led the West to believe that its resources was being used to enrich Central Canada and it was.
The growth of protest movements in the form of the Social Credit PAarty and the CCF (fore runner to the NDP) and "western alienation" resulted as well as the demand "the West wants in" and of the Reform Party.
The West (from Manitoba to B.C.), started to change when OPEC was created and oil became king. Prices and demands went up and together with the demand for natural gas and potash gave new strength to Sasketchewan and Alberta. B.C. also grew as the wealth from its agriculture and forestry and minimg began to flow. There was westward migration as people flocked to these provinces in search of a better life. "The West wants in". It wanted its fair share.. The Trudeau government's Energy Policy and the creation of Petro-Canada was seen in the West as another grab for its new-found wealth, but this time they were defiant not compliant. Their newly-gained financial clout and the emergence of leaders as Lougheed, Blakeney, as well as a new movement led by Preston Manning saw to this.
The West was almost totally lost to the Liberals (who were seen as favoring Quebec and Ontario) and this was concreted when Trudeau gave them the "finger". The patriation of the constitution was opposed by the West and only agreed upon when concessions were won (protection of provincial rights etc.).
Brian Mulroney, formed a coalition of the West (anger/alienation) and Quebec ( distinct society/patriation) and trounced the Liberals in 1964 and 1988 elections (Harper would form a coalition of rural/suburban Ontario and the West to do the same in 2011). Mulroney got rid of the Energy Policy and Petro Can. for the West and for Quebec he gave them Meech Lake Accord. He also negotiated the Free Trade Agreement and got rid of FIRA, saying that "Canada is open for business" and so it was.
The immediate and lasting effect was that Canada's manufacturing sector was an undefended target (for example, before the FTA, in the auto industry, the Auto Pact was the rule from the mid-sixties when it was signed....for every car sold in Canada, one will be made in Canada with 60% Canadian content. This gave an advantage and protection to the auto industry which was lost after FTA and later NAFTA .Under these agreements there could no longer bwe this advantage and protection.
American branch-plants no longer had to operate in Canad in order to avoid duty on products. They can be made in Mexico and be sold duty-free in Canada. Branch plants and jobs moved out. The auto industry was almost destroyed and othe manufacturing sectors also suffered. It was cheaper to produce eleswhere. Then came globalisation and the whole world turned to China, which became the "manufacturer to the world".
Jobs were lost and the dollar plunged. The Liberals, led by Jean Chretien, rode that to power in 1993 and set about with austerity and belt-tightening to repair the economy. Gradually it was revived (along-side great growth in the USA under Clinton). The Liberals stayed in power for 13 years (9 with Chretien as leader), but fatigue, leadership conflicts and scandal brought them down.
, Harper won the last election and the NDP finished in a surprising second place and after the deathof their leader Jack Layton, elected Thomas Mulcair as their new leader. He brings a new style, abrasive, aggressive and prickly. He seems to have a chip on his shoulder and is always angry. Thus his petulance in refusing to meet Western provincial leaders and his blunt assessment that it is the West and especially the Tar Snds that are responsible for the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector nad for the rise of the Canadian dollar.
His use of the term 'Dutch disease" is more a cliche and for scoring points for being informed about things foreign, but it's not very bright. Yes, the Dutch currency rose when natural gas was discovered. So what? The Dutch should have forsaken this new-found wealth because it made their currency more valuable and their life more comfortable? So Alberta, B.C and Sasketchewan should stop selling their oil, gas, potash, forestry products, wheat and other resources because it made the Canadian dollar rise in value and made Canadian products more valuable? That these provinces should deny themselves so that Ontarions can live in style? That USA and China and others should do us a favor and not buy our products because it made us wealthier on the whole?
What kind of buffonery is this? Get rid of globalisation because it takes jobs away to places that work cheaper? because it is not good for Cnada? Should we live in a cocoon, sheltering/insulating ourselves from the world and its demands for our products? What nonsense.
Mulcair needs to hone up on his economics, before he opens his mouth and say something foolish. There is a real world of wants and needs and we, in Canad have what they want. Yes, we must act responsibly and do our share on things like global warming, environmental degradation, melting ice-caps, dead dolphins and honey bees, because afterall we are CANADIANS.
He needs to lighten up and not play politics with Canadian unity. Playing the game of "divide and win", may have short-term and personal appeal, but there is a heavy price to pay in the long term. Playing for votes in Ontario by demonising Alberta and the Oil Sands will not work but, will cause increasing tension in Canada. In the past all concern was with the threat of Quebec separation and any talk of Western separation was shrugged off as a pipe dream. No more. It is there bubbling under the surface, waiting to burst out and it has the wealth and the confidence. All it needs is a reason.
Thw 11th government has fallen to defeat in Europe and the Socialists , led by Francois Hollande have been returned to power after 17 years. The voters opted for a gentler, kinder and more inclusive France and rejected the appeals to nationalism, racism, religious bigotry and more austerity measures. They have grown tired of the budget-cutting, increased taxes, less government services and continued high unemployment.
Hollande has promised to increase spending, tax the wealthy, withdraw trops from Afghanistan this year and " a new direction", of setting main policies, moving away from the day-to day micro-managing of Sarkozy (usually the President is not as involved as Sarkozy was, leaving himself some wiggle room, so that if policies fail, the Premier and Cabinet take the fall. In this case, however Sarkozy quite rightly got the blame). In vain he moved more and more to the right, "wearing" the Tricoleur, as the champion/protector/defender of French identity and culture against the 'advancing hordes" of Muslims and their halal meat and other immigrants from Europe and Africa, blaming them for France's problems. It failed and hopefully that narrow-minded poison had had its day.
Hollande has to act quickly and show clearly that his "new direction" is more than an election ruse. Domestically he needs to put his cabinet in place, especially his Finance minister and follow through with a budget to increase spending, end budget cuts as well as cuts in services and reduce taxes on the middle class while raising taxes on the wealthy. The French constitution gives the President wide-ranging and powerful powers, from appointing the Premier and the Cabinet to emergency powers, where he can rukle by decrees, but Hollande has to be careful how and if he uses these powers (Charles de Gaulle tried to in 1968-69 and he was forced out of office). Elections to the National Assembly is in June, so there is no honemoon period. He has to act and do so quickly.
These policies will bring him up against the German-dominated austerity measures in the euro-zone. This will not suit Angela Merkel, who had found a friend in Sarkozy and who has her own domestic politics to worry about. She had led the drive against the euro-debt with budget cuts, increase taxes, reduced services and reduced spending. It will be interesting to see the dynamics/ reltionship unfold. Don't expect it to be as cosy.
Hollande has to deal with President Obama on the issue of NATO and of French troops in Afghanistan. He has the Group of Eight meeting on May 18-19, where economic matters will be discussed and then there is the NATO summit meeting May20-21, where he is expected to announce the pull-out of French troops by the end of the year. He will be pressured to change his mind. Merkel in Europe and Obama in Chicago, two weeks after election. Whew and good luck.
Meanwhile in Greece, the two major parties have suffered demoralising defeats. Socialist PASOK, which in 2009 won 44% of the votes got only 13.6% and Conservative New Democracy 20%, while the Left Coalition got 16.2% and the extreme right Golden Dawn 7%, which will see it get seats in parliament for the first time since the military dictatorship of 1974. This is a disaster. The best that can be expected is a weak, fractured and fractious coalition going nowhere. " The Perirclean principle of happy versatility, running down the streets of Athens"....mob rule or as we call it...democracy at work.
The French are expected to elect a new president on May6. He is Francois Hollande, the Socialist winner of the 1st round. He faces Pres.Nicolas Sarkozy who was able to fend off the challenge of the far right Marine Le Pen, by moving more and more to the right on issues such as immigration, hallal meat and French identity and culture. Hollande would be the first Socialist president in 15 years (Mitterand).
In contrast to the on-going, never-ending , media-soaked money- driven American presidential election, where years of campaigning and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on a diverse set of "candidates" with a wide-ranging set of "ideas", permeated with religion, regions and race, the French election is strictly controlled from the standpoint of money spending and media coverage.
In the 1st round there are a large number of candidates, with a wide range of issues, ( foreign policy, immigration quotas and limits, threats to culture and identity, Euro and Euro Zone, Muslims, refugees, hijab/niqab, hallal meat etc), from the extreme left to the extreme right parties, as well as independents, anyone who meets the qualification rules. There are two ballots to select president; if no one wins on the 1st ballot, then the two leading candidates face off two weeks later on the second ballot, and a winner emerges. There is a srtict limit on election spending, in order to ensure that money does not give an unfair advantage to wealthy candidates and their sponsors, as in the USA, where Mitt Romney was able to oulast and outspend his opponents for the Republican nomination. In France candidates can spend only $22 million and have equal media time guaranteed by law to ensure that no one gets an advantage by outspending the other ( Romney was able to swamp his opponents with media ads blitz). On the second ballot, they can spend up to $30 million, no polls are published and there is no media time that candidates can buy and the media have to ensure that their coverage is even-handed. Official monitoring takes place to ensure this. In this way the two candidates and their teams have to spend a lot of time "harvesting" votes directly. They have to take their message directly to the voters. They have to be front and center and not hide behind "attack ads".
This is participatory democracy/ Popular Sovereignty, where "Vox Populi, Vox Dei", really do mean something. Vive la France.
Sole head-to head debate is on May 2. This will be Sarkozy's last chance to save himself. Expect sleaze against Hollande
On April 17, 1982, the Canadian constitution was patriated (brought home to Canada from Britain where it had resided since July 1, 1867, under British control. It was an Act of the British Parliament and could only be changed/amended with British consent. So much for Canada being a sovereign, independent nation/ country). Previous attempts to patriate it, like in 1965 had been unsuccessful, because of the inability of the federal government and the provinces to agree on an "made -in Canada", amending formula. They came close in 1965, but at the last moment, Premier Jean Lesage under heavy pressure from the opposition in Quebec caved in and said no. On being re-elected to power in 1980, with a large majority ( the minority Conservative Clarke government on Dec.13, 1979 was defeated on a vote of non-confidence), Prime Minister Trudeau initiated discussions with the provinces to bring the constitution home, but they could not come to an agreement. Trudeau, then threatened to go it alone and patriate the constitution unilaterally with a Charter of Rights and an amending formula. This formula was called the Victoria formula, amendment would require the consent of the four regions of Canada. Eight provinces, led by Stirling Lyon of Manitoba and Brian Peckford of Newfoundland (Ontario and New Brunswick agreed with "Victoria"), formed a common front and came up with the Vancouver formula, which called for amendments to be made with the consent of two-thirds of the provinces, and with the right to opt out of a constitutional change and be financially compensated so that they can set up their own programme.
Trudeau was prevailed upon to "refer" the matter to the Supreme Court (reference cases are rare and only occur when as in this case, there is some doubt as to the constitutionality of the matter) . The Court ruled that nothing in the written constitution prevent unilateral action, though it would be against the unwritten/ constitutional conventions to do so. A meeting of provincial premiers was held in November 1981 to try and reconcile differences and here is where it gets interesting and two versions will emerge as to what took place and who did what.
The Quebec version was that Rene Levesque was isolated and that the agreement of Nov.5, 1981 was as a result of the nine province and the federal government ganging up against Quebec and from henceforth will be referred to as "the night of the long knives". The other version which is closer to the truth (and the notes that I have kept and which I have used for years ( at least 25 yrs.up to my retirement), teaching Canadian Politics, bear this out. Levesque made it very clear that he was attending the meeting only to protect Quebec's interest and that he was not interseted in the 'renewal' of Canada. He however had found some of the premiers were adamantly opposed to Trudeau's plan and he decided to work with them, the Gang of Eight ( Conservative Premiers Peckford and Lyon were opposed to the Charter of Rights, because of its emphasis on individual rights, NDP Premier Blakeney of Sasketchewan wanted stronger rights for women, Premier Lougheed of Alberta wanted protection for provincial resources etc), and agreed to the Vancouver formula as Quebec will be able to opt out of future constitutional amendments and be compensated financially. When Trudeau heard about this deal, he offered Levesque another deal. This one call for a referendum to settle constitutional issues, if after three years of discussions no deal was reached. Levesque accepted. The now " Vancouver Seven" felt betrayed and were keen for another deal. In any case Levesque left the conference and went to his hotel in Hull ( he liked the image of himself not hob-nobbing with the "Anglos" in Ontario), to play poker.
While he left the conference, thinking he had a deal which he could successfully sell to Quebec, a meeting was held over coffee, convened by Jean Chretien, Trudeau's Justice Minister. With Chretien was Roy Romanov, the Atty. General of Saketchewan and the Atty. General of Ontario Roy McMurtry and they came up with another deal, which would address the concerns of the Gang of Seven. This deal will allow for the patriation of the Constitution, with an amending formula and with an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a "notwithstanding clause" and would change the way in which Canadians would henceforth be governed.
Levesque was missing and thus the "deal' was made with him being absent. He gambled that he had achieved his objective of protecting Quebec but he was out-bluffed in the end and he left the conference a bitter man and blamed it all on the "night of the long knives"and was able to sell that version to his followers and that myth has grown as the years have gone by, especially amongst those who wanted to protect his reputation. He gambled on the future of Quebec, thought he had gotten the best of the others. Even Trudeau had to cave in to him, with his offer of a referendum and then it all went wrong. What if he had remained in Ottawa? What if he had been less conceited? No, his victory was too sweet and then it became a bile. He was furious. He had lost the 1980 referendum and now this.
Part 11...The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This Charter allowed, first of all, for the marriage of parliamentary supremacy with judicial review. Parliament would still be the supreme lawmaking body, but the Supreme Court can declare acts of Parliament to be unconstitutional (ultra vires). The constitution is not as rigid as the American's or as flexible as the British. It can be called a mixed constitution. It allows for the clarity, coherence and consistency of written laws, while at the same time makes it possible for it to grow and remain relevant through amendments.
Section 33 is the 'non obstante" (the notwithstanding) clause, by which parliament is allowed to make laws affecting Sections 2, Fundamental Freedoms; Section 7-14, Legal Rights and Section 15, Equality Rights of the Charter. Many have argued that these are some of the most important Rights and Freedoms in a democracy and make a democracy, democratic and that these Rights and Freedoms should not be subjected to the whims of elected politicians and they are right but the past thirty years has seen little use of this clause (about 5 times, mostly in Quebec). When people are aware of their Rights and Freedoms, it is very difficult to take away or limit them, especially when there is a Supreme Court to protect them. The years have seen thousands of uses of the Chater by individuals, especially the above-mentioned three. In Canada, at least so far, our courts have not been driven or appointed through ideplogy as is the case in the United States, which have led to cases being judgred on legal merits and not ideology.
The Charter is also tempered by Section 1, which allows parliament to make laws " subject to such reasonable limits .......that are deomnstarbly justified in a free and democratic society"; by Section 6, which protects Canadian citizens by allowing them "to enter, remain or leave Canada", also allow for the free movement within Canada without discrimination, but allows provinces with a higher unemployment rate than the national average to give preference to its residents; by Section7's "life , liberty and the security of person"( abortion laws stuck down for example and rights to fair and speedy trial, to be presumed innocent, to counsel, to jury trial , against self-incrimination, double jeopardy etc have expanded rights; Section 15, Equality Rights, embodying the "rule of law" expressly prohibiting discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability ( in the USA for example, the 14th amendment states simply that everyone is entitled to "equal protection" and 'due process of law", not as precise, which courts prefer; the protection of Minority Language Educational Rights in Sec.23; equality of sexes in Sec.28 (women have same rights as men re-emphasised; defeat of ERA denied this to American women); protection of Aboriginal Rights in sec.25 and 35 AND THERE ARE MORE.
The Constitution Act, 1982, in which the Charter is entrenched, is based on three principles; the equality of all Canadians; the equality of all cultures and cultural origins ( recognition of Canada as multi-cultural); and the equality of all provinces but it is the Charter which has had the greatest impact. It has become the model for other countries like South Africa and it has created a greater sense of pride and identity (together with our medicare system) amongst Canadians. We are all better for this, from the weakest to the strongest; from the poorest to the richest; from native born to recent immigrants.
The Battle of Vimy Ridge gave Canada a sense of nation; the Charter has given us a sense of national pride and a greater belief in our ability to be better. Nice, eh?
The two pillars of Parliamentary democracy are the supremacy of parliament and the fusion of legislative and executive powers. The first is based on the principle that parliament can make or repeal any laws and that no other authority is above parliament ( in theory the Governor-General, the Queen's representative has veto power, but that has fallen into disuse ,1942) . In Canada however, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this supremacy is limited and allow the government (federal as well as provincial) to pass laws "not withstanding" this supremacy of parliament in the areas of Fundamental Freedoms(2), Legal Rights (7-14) and Equality Rights (15). The courts are also allowed to, though the process of judicial review, to declare laws unconstitutional (ultra vires), if they are deemed to be in conflict with the constitution. This "power" has been used sparingly (mostly in Quebec).
The second principle of fusion of legislative and executive powers is key to the working of the parliamentary system. Govenments are not directly elected by the people, individual members of parliament are, and from these members of parliament, the government is chosen, that is the Prime Minister and his Cabinet ministers. This is done through the process of an election of competing political parties. Shpuld any party emerge with the majority of seats, the leader of that party is called upon by the Governor General to form a government. He does this by appointing members to his Cabinet and together they govern at the will/consent of parliament. If parliament withdraws its support, non-confidence is declared and the government must resign. This is not a law but a convention, based upon custom and usage and strictly respected.
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet also function on the basis of convention (the office of Prime Minister was never created by law but developed over the centuries of British practices. The Cabinet is also based on those practices and operate as the active part of the Privy Council, and is beholden to the PM who appoint and can thus dismiss them. They serve "at his pleasure".
The Prime Minister and the Cabinet are bound by the principles of collective and ministerial responsibility. This means that they are responsible, and held accountable for their actions. Collectively the Cabinet and individually each minister has to answer to parliament and if they are found wanting, parliament can take various actions against them. They can be reprimanded or they can be forced to apologise or they can be suspended or they can be expelled and even imprisoned. Ministers usually accept responsibility and thus spare the government any embarassment and a possible vote of non-confidence, though this is almost impossible when the Government is a majority. In this case the Opposition can raise questions and use the public forum to harass and expose them in parliament and the media or through a Commission of Enquiry , as was the case of the last Liberal government, who suffered an ignominious defeat in the last election over the revealations of the Gomery Commission.
Government accountability is crucial to the survival and success of the parliamentary system. Without it, govenment can run rampant, become arbitrary and lose legitimacy. They cannot lie to or mislead parliament. They must be answerable to parliament and respect the rules and accept the responsibility when things go wrong.
The Harper government and the Defence Minister Peter MacKay are being accusedof lying to and misleading parliament over the cost of the F-35 fighter jets. So far they have been desperately fighting against these accusations, but as more and more details are revealed, the pressure will build for someone to take responsibility. If it were anyone else other than Mackay, he would have been(like Guerges) served up as scarifice. Mackay is a different "can of beans". He was the one who led the Conservative Party (as leader) into a union with the Reform Party and so has clout (previous questionable actions, like using military helicopter to go fishing, has seen Harper defending him).The heat that the Opposition can generate and the extent of public outcry will determine his fate. One thing is certain and that is Harper will not take responsibility even though as Prime Minister it is his responsibility. Collective responsibility or individual responsibility? Both but Mackay can do the "honorable" thing and "fall on his sword". Don't bet on either but on the Government toughing it out to the detriment of "parliamentary democracy"
A new dawn is on the horizon after almost 60 years of isolation and repression for the people of Myanmar, thanks to the determination, fortitude and leadership of Aung San Suu Kyi. A limited election (only 43 of 664 seats are to be contested, by-elections created as a gesture to the world, that the ruling regime wants to change to a more open society ) has been held and the "Lady" is expected to win her seat and lead a sort of in-house opposition, that may eventually lead to full open and fair elections. In the last such election, she was detained prior to the election but her party won 80% of the seats for a committee to draft a new constitution in 1990. The military stepped in and rejected the results.
The military dictatorship that took over, ran the country with an iron fist and tolerated no dissent, even from the Budhist monks who regularly protested by setting themselves on fire. Sanctions were imposed and the country became more and more isolated and the people's life became more and more bleak. A constitution drafted by the army in 2008, was rejected by Suu Kyi and an election in 2010 was boycotted and was won by the army-backed party led by Thein Sein.
Suu Kyi, 66 years old, has spent over 15 years under house arrest and continued to be the focal point of protest. She is the daughter of Gen. Aung San who helped lead "Burma" to independence from British rule in the late 40's. She won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, after which she became established in the West as the voice of the people.
In Aug. 2011, she had a meeting with Thien Sein and a compromise was reached, whereby 43 by-elections will be held and her party will be allowed to freely participate. Those elections have been held and this nation of 64 million awaits the result with great expectations.
The future seem bright. More freedom for the people and with the lifting of sanctions, a better life beckons, given Myanmar's richness of natural resources, including natural gas and gold. Foreign companies such as General Electric are poised to invest in what is one of Asia's last untapped markets. Also Maynmar, situated between India and China will become very attractive to the United States and this may spell trouble as there will be a tug of war for influence and thus as the African proverb put it "when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffer". The people of Myanmar deserve to have a better life and hopefully they will be spared being a pawn among super-powers interests.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has managed to pull together a "Friends of Syria" group, led and financed by Saudi Arabia to promise $100 million in "humanitarian aid" to rebels fighting the Assad regime. This "aid" will take the form of salaries for fighters and communivations equipment to help them organize and know the whereabouts of the Syrian military. This is a very dangerous upping of the ante, which may lead to a broader war, regional and sectarian. One thing is certain and that is this will lead to further death and destruction and with Russia and China blocking the way to direct military action a la Libya, chances are that illicit weapons will find their way to the rebels, prolonging the fighting and pulling in neighbors from Lebanon to Iraq to Iran to .......... A conflagration.
Clinton has overreached. She has learnt nothing from her Libya disaster (factional fighting continues between rival militia, no one is in control), and Tuaregs who fought for Gadhafi are operating in Mali where they have captured various towns including Timbutku and are demanding a country of their own in the north. Her new adventure in Syria promises much wo
They came to this "make believe" convention to choose a leader, but even the mad/loud drumming and the other attempts to rouse the "delegates" fell short, because the drama of a delegate- driven convention was missing. 85% of the voters had already cast their votes by various computer, cell phones etc and as soon as it was announced that Mulcair had won 30% on tghe first ballot, (only Singh of all the candidates endorsed Mulcair) the final outcome was clear. It took four ballots, before he emerged with 57% to 43% for initial front runner and establishment choice, Brian Topp. His eventual victory was won with the support of voters from hors de Quebec ( only 13,000 voters were signed up in Quiebec. Obviously he had a lot second-choice support).
The "street fighter" had won over the dour backroom operative. Topp had been the choice of the party elites, including former leader Ed Broadbent, but from the early days of this long, drawn out campaign , he failed to fire and it caused panic, so much so that there was the feeling of "anybody but Mulcair". The other candidates had their regional backing (the members that they had signed up), but little else. The fact that this was a leadership race that will be decided by members at large, there would be no possibility of mounting a reaguard action to stop Mulcair on the convention floor. There was no room to maneuver, to make deals ( for example Joe Clarke had made a deal with Flora MacDonald in 1979, (two Red Tories), that whoever finished ahead of the other will go through and the other will drop off and endorse . Clarke had just a few more votes than Flora and so he continued and with other deals with Crombie, Crosbie and Wilson, stopped Mulroney and became leader of the Conservatives.( Mulroney would get his revenge five years later.) That was a convention filled with tension, drama and horse-trading, everything that this one lacked (no wonder the TV anchors were complaining of boredom) I remember at an NDP delegate- convention, one candidate, Simon de Jong, pleading with his mother to tell him who to give his delegates to.
The ennui must have gotten to Mulcair, because when he was called upon to give his victory speech, it fell flat. He had an opportunity to rouse the convention and to connect to the TV audience but all he could muster was some jumbled words and the moment was lost. Thomas who?
It has been more than ten years with billions spent, thousands killed and wounded and still stupid/ vile/ callous actions have succeeded in undoing much of the good that has been done. The Taliban were routed in Kandahar, their home base and in nearby Helmond, but they have been given a new life, a new set of propaganda weapons to rally support, because of the actions of a few American soldiers. They are either too stupid to learn and/ or refuse to do so and thus continue to give succor to the enemy. Marines urinating on corpses can be excused on the grounds of the heat of battle, but the uirning of the Koran (sacrilegious) has to be the height of stupidity or of racist/religious arrogance, and now to be followed by the wanton killing of 16 viilagers/ civilians,( 9 of them children, one of them 2yr.old) while they slept and then setting their bodies on fire.
The withdrawal cannot come too soon.
Netanyahu's visit to Washington, and his speech to AIPAC, muddied the Iranian issue so much that the attention of the world turned to this "imminent threat. It's attention had already been shifted to the "hammer" that Assad had been using to quell the challenge to his regime. The Israeli ruse allowed for it to go hunting for , what it called "preventive targetting"of those whom they claim was about to attack Israel. With the targetted killing of two officials of the Palestinian Resistance Committee (PRC), Islamic Jihad, an Iranian-backed group, responded by launching at least 35 rockets at Israel. 20 of those rockets were intercepted by Israel'sIron Dome anti-missile system ( you can say that this was a boon for Israel, as it was able to test this system). Eight people were wounded in Israel, but Israel's four dyt attacks resulted in 23 Palestinian killed and 74 wounded (mostly civilians).
Thwe world suddenly awoke from its torpor and the UN and Washington expressed "concern" . So far Hamas has stayed out of the fight.
Meanwhile in Syria the battle between the Assad regime and the opposition continues. Former UN head Kofi Annan held talks with Assad about a ceasefire, humanitarian aid and talks, but nothing was agreed upon. Both sides are accusing each other of massacres and civilian casualties continue to mount.
There is no end in sight. Assad will not back down. The images of Mubarak, ben Ali and especially Gadhafi must be fresh in his mind and he does not want the same fate and this will get bloodier.
Putin was returned to the presidency with a commanding 64% of the votes, while Ahmadinejad suffered a setback in the parliamentary elections in Iran, a preliminary for next years presidential elections.
Putin won handsomely in the regions, in the rural areas and in the Caucasus, in the Urals, in Siberia but not in Moscow and St.Petersburg, where the young and middle class who benefitted the most from Russia oil and gas riches under Putin's stable tenure, voted against him. His margin of victory over the Communist leader Gennady Zyuganov was 46%. There is no doubt the he made full use of the state resources eg. television and other media to gain an edge over his rivals, but even though there are claims of fraud, by the opposition, it would not have mattered, because a majority did vote for him. This majority ( long neglected), in the regions where he is still a hero and where he is seen as the only one capable of building and leading a strong Russia and able to deal with the corruption and to make Russia string and respected again (he will be helped considerably by the Iranian situation which has seen the price and demand for oil and gas rise rapidly) and very importantly make sure that the neglected regions get their fair share of the revenues from "their"resources.
Putin is here to stay and that means until 2024. Internally and especially externally (missile defence, Syria, Iran and european expansion), expect Putin to be tough and nationalistic.
Ahmadinejad has been weakened and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has tightened his grip on power. His loyalists won more than 75% of the seats, much at the expense of Ahmadinejad. He is a lame duck president and has been taught a lesson for being seen as daring to challenge the authority of Khamenei. It does not mean that there will be a change in foreign policy or the nuclear programme. Khamenei is on record as saying that Islam does not tolerate nuclear weapons. The inscrutable Ayatollah is also devious. What he means is not clear, and may have been a counter to Ahmadinejad's nuclear posturings. The population is hurtuing from the embargo and an appeal to Iranian nationalism is there for him to use, should need arise to arouse passions. This can be dangerous in these times of "war talk", especially by Netanyahu of Israel, who leads a very tentative coalition government.
Two men who started as the hope of the people. One has returned in glory and the other is fading into oblivion.
Elections are the life-blood of a democratic system. It is the oxygen that makes it possible. Shut off or in any way limit that oxygen and democracy is faced with death. It may be as Churchill once note "messy" but it is the best we have and even when he was faced with defeat immediately after the end of WW11 (in which he led his nation so inspirationally), he did not resort to subotage/ or subterfuge to prevent this and so strenghtened British democracy. Britain will forever be indebted to him and rewarded him soon after , by making him Prime Minister again in 1951.
Contrast that with the last election in Canada in 2011. The Ref/Cons. had a minority government and desperately wanted a majority and so would seem to resort to under-handed means to get that majority. Thye were ahead in all the polls and the three opposing parties were in dis-array, but that was not enough and they decided to leave nothing to chance. They decided to use "robo-calls" to dis-inform voters about polling stations; they decided to mislead other voters by pretending to be from their ethnic community ( using Pakistani accent or Jewish names, for example); made harassing calls at super time, late at night, early in the morning, on the Sabbath.
They targeted ridings with close races ( the Liberals claim that 27 ridings , 14 in southern Ontario were targeted; the NDP claim that 34 were targeted and the number is growing )According to Stephen Maher of Post Media News and Glen MacGregor of the Ottawa Citizen, 18 "closely fought ridings were targeted with fraudulent automated calls". The Liberals also said 14 ridings received calls from live people.
When you consider that the Ref/Cons. won by a majority of 11 ( 166 seats), the legitimacy of that majority is questionable. This raises some interesting but crucial questions. How many ridings were targeted? Who was responsible ( planned, organised and financed it)? And who knew, what, when and how?
Voter suppression is an attack on democracy. Cheating and breaking the law to win an election is criminal. Harassing and misleading voters, in order to deny them the right to vote is anti-thetical to our democratic values . Using fraud to win an election make it illegitimate. What took place was the systematic denial of voters rights to a free and fair election and is dangerous to our democracy and those quilty of these deleterious actions must be found and made to pay.
Our democracy is under attack. The legitimacy of the government is questionable. Public faith has been shaken again (just recovering from "Gomery"). The Liberals had to pay a high price for their "sponsorship scandal". The party was dismantled by the Gomery Inquiry. Harper saw this and would be hesitant to have an independent commission investigate this "Robogate", but this is the only way to ensure a fair and open investigation and it must be done now. No dilly-dallying, no trying to ride it out. No convenient "fall guys", or "over zealous " miscreants, working by themselves. This goes too far and too widespread to be the work of "the lone wolf". It was too well planned, organised and financed.
|
