Afghanistan: Rethinking the Mission

The left has a problem: Is it possible to oppose the Afghanistan mission while simultaneously “supporting the troops”? This is not a question of principle (this is after all the left we’re talking about) but rather a conundrum of political communication. And a conundrum it is. If Canadian troops are doing good work in Afghanistan, then why would we pull them out? Surely any decision to do so reflects at least partially on the quality of the work the soldiers themselves are doing there. Not a good position to be in.

I sympathize somewhat with the leftist impulse to have a theoretical debate on Afghanistan without these sorts of niggly political implications. But that is also somewhat disingenuous. My support of the war has always relied on the information and the views provided by the troops themselves. If the left wishes to dismiss the views of the troops (and if they are honest, they will admit that they do), then I am driven (probably excessively) in my support of the mission by the troops’ own support.

Now, things appear to be changing. The father of a fallen soldier from a couple of weeks ago:

He acknowledged, however, that his son at times expressed feelings of anger and frustration about the mission. For instance, he felt betrayed by some of the very people he was trying to help, describing some local Afghans as “farmers by day and Taliban or killers by night.”

“That is what is particularly frustrating about this mission — it’s a guerrilla war. You really don’t know who your enemy is,” Dawe Sr. said.

The humanitarian aspects of the mission have always been greatly over-rated. Afghanistan under the Taliban was an important base for Al Qaeda operations. Accordingly, it was a threat to our national security and the threat was taken out. Canada’s current role in Afghanistan is to sustain that victory by keeping the Taliban at bay and, if you are to believe some of the sunnier proponents of the mission, to build the institutions necessary for the development of the sort of democratic regime that would be less likely than was the Taliban to roll out the welcome mat for Al Qaeda.

We are succeeding in the first capacity and failing in the second. That failure has little to do with our military. It has to do with a populace that accepts Canadian aid from troops during the day and ambushes those same troops during the night. All the talk about stonings and burkas and oppression becomes darkly amusing when it is the people that we profess to save from such things that turn out to be the strongest proponents of going backwards. All but the most optimistic neo-conservative advocates of Arab democracy are in hiding at the current sight of Iraq. Which is why Dawe Sr.’s statement might compel conservatives to begin a new dialogue on why it is we support the shedding of Canadian blood in an alien desert (this is not, after all, Kosovo) when Iraq teaches us that what we are working toward is hopeless.

If Afghanistan should become a security threat to us again in twenty years or so (which is the scenario that someone like the prime minister might cite in response to what I’ve written above), then that is a problem that American bombs are manufactured to address.

Dion’s Stealth Replacement Strategy

I’ve been watching with a bit of interest how Stephane Dion has been handling the by-election preparation in the Montreal riding of Outremont which was vacated in the winter by Paul Martin’s Quebec lieutenant Jean Lapierre (who incidentally praised Stephen Harper’s government on his new show after he had left his Ottawa bench). Dion quickly quelled rumours that Justin Trudeau would carry the party’s seat in the traditionally Liberal riding, and instead reserved his right as party leader to appoint a candidate in the riding.

So who did Dion chose? A woman who would help Dion meet his much-talked about but little praised quota for the number of female Liberal candidates he wants to run in the next election? How about someone who would actually be able to appeal to the ethnic minorities in the riding, given that the NDP is making a power play for the seat with a popular former Quebec Liberal minister? No, he chose one of his own: a university accademic from Montreal named Jocelyn Coulon.

Coulon isn’t shy about his expectations either, reportedly saying that Dion is seeking his expertise on foreign affairs, defence issues, and Africa, which makes Dion’s current caucus specialists in these areas what? Chopped liver? Considering that Dion already has people like Michael Ignatieff, himself an academic expert on foreign affairs, and current critics in these areas like Ujjal Dosanjh and Denis Coderre already handling these areas, what does this say about Dion’s trust in his own caucus or the Liberal leader’s evaluation of that talented “dream team” the Liberals keep on bringing up when referring to their high-ranking members. Still yet, why doesn’t Dion let Justin Trudeau run in the riding that the young Trudeau currently resides in? These are all very good questions for Canadians and particularly Quebecois to consider as this by-election begins to come into the spotlight. The answers point to a leader so insecure with his own ability and with the more capable rivals around him that he feels compelled to use extreme powers to appoint a bunch of loyal yes-men (and note:not yes-women!) so as to reinforce his position as leader. Not much of a management style, now is it?

Toronto Wakes Up, Smells The Starbucks

I have to admit that I didn’t see this bit of pleasant news coming, especially so quickly! After his plan for massive tax increases got shelved on Monday, Toronto Mayor David Miller announced today that “massive” cuts are coming to the city’s services. Among these will be the closure of the TTC’s third subway line, a black hole for tax cash ever since it opened a few years back. Also, city bus routes that aren’t being used so much will be canned later in the winter. In other words, the city’s little-used services will be phased out because they’re not profitable. What a marvelous idea! I bet Toronto can even put a little Powerpoint presentation together to explain this new and foreign concept to its peers when the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has their next AGM next month!

A question to those who tried to defend Toronto’s wasteful habits and spendthrift giddiness here and elsewhere earlier this week though: why, if these cutbacks are so easy and obvious, didn’t Toronto consider them before robbing their own residents…or worse, their neighbours’?

Government Reparations and Limited Responsibility

Without meaning to, I started a bit of a firestorm a couple of days ago over the residential schools issue. This has caused me to look much more seriously at this issue than I had before. While those who disagreed with me called attention to some remarks of mine that were perhaps not as well thought out as they could have been, I have had a chance to focus my thoughts on what for me is the most important objection to the Canadian government paying reparations to the victims of those crimes incurred as a result of that program.

I don’t question for a second that in the past, parts of Canada’s government have acted contrary to the best interests of many special interests – we can talk about Italians, Chinese, Aboriginals, Dukhobours, Metis, Japanese, Sikhs, the list goes on. Many of these groups, in recent years, have sought reparations for the wrongs done to them in the past. At those various times, there were people who were individually responsible for the actions of government. Sadly some of them were never held accountable for these actions in their lifetime. Others remain alive today. Let me say right now, those individuals responsible for any and all of these actions deserve to be tried and convicted of any laws that were broken.

But the fact is, no government is perfect – government is made up of humans, self-interested humans, who make mistakes, make oversights, and sometimes even make patently wrong decisions – sometimes with noble reason, sometimes with ignoble ones. I maintain a common concept in law in Canada, the United States, and perhaps even in much of the western world is the concept of limited liability. We all want to blame someone for our problems. Sometimes the problems we face today are because of injustices in the past. Sometimes those injustices occurred to our forefathers, but their continued effect continues to this day. However, at some point, a reasonable line has to be drawn between who we can hold legally responsible for our plight and who we cannot.

Let me tell you a story about a poor man in his 50′s. He is addicted to drugs on the Downtown East Side of Vancouver. He has never held a steady job, and he has committed crimes to support his drug habit. People ask him why he is where he is. He points back in time to when he first encountered drugs, how he had low self-esteem. He points back to his lack of focus in school and how the teacher would beat him and ridicule him in class, in an effort to get him to do better. He points back to a sick janitor he encountered who fondled him while he was showering after gym class.

Who is to blame for this? He could blame:

• The teachers who physically and emotionally abused him
• The janitor who fondled him
• The administration of the school for hiring the janitor and the teacher, and for holding to school rules that permitted “the strap”.
• The school board who administrates the schools in the area
• The government who administrates the school boards

No question, such abuse is bad. It damages people for life. Someone is to blame. Who? If we use the concept of limited liability as a guide, we should first hold responsible the perpetrators of the abuse. The teacher and the janitor should be charged with abuse. They get sentenced to some years in prison.

But he is still addicted to drugs on the Downtown East Side. Did he mention he has kids? Needless to say, he doesn’t see them much. He abused them because of the drugs and my self-esteem issues. These damages go beyond just himself.

We could hold the school administration accountable for their hiring of the teacher and the janitor. Perhaps he tried to tell them about his abuse, but they turned a blind eye, because they feared for their jobs if it should be found that they failed to screen out such criminals. Perhaps they feared being painted as endorsing the conduct of those employees, so they said nothing. If these can be proven, then those responsible for such neglect of duty should also be tried and convicted. Again, limited liability. They are provably responsible for tacitly condoning or perhaps an accessory to such abuse. Try and convict.

But he is still downtown, addicted to drugs.

How about that school? The admin are punished; the teacher, punished; the janitor, punished. Maybe it is the fault of the organization. Maybe the very structure of placing teachers “in authority” over students gave rise to the abuse. Maybe the whole school should be punished. How can a school be punished? As an organization, it has assets. It can be held responsible for a debt of cash. They could be forced to liquidate assets, change their structure to accomodate such a loss, or in an extreme case, forced to close their doors. Perhaps it is deserved, if the idea of “school” is inherently casual to the abuse that he suffered that led to the ruination of his life.

But this is where I draw the line. At this level, we have to begin to look at who else is being affected by this pursuit of “justice”. At this stage, we are causing punishment to other employees of that school, who had nothing to do with the hurt. We are causing punishment to their families from job loss. We are causing punishment on all the other students, who did not participate in his abuse, with the loss of their school. Education disrupted, perhaps delayed, with lifelong ramifications for people who had nothing really to do with my abuse.

But if this is justified, then why not the next level? Why is not the school board liable? If they are liable, now we enter into a whole new realm of punishment. Now, if the school board is held liable for a value of money to “make reparations” for my abuse, that cash is not paid by anyone directly responsible. It is paid for by every single resident of that school board’s jurisdiction, in the form of school taxes, or the part of property taxes that pays for school. Now, every homeowner in that district is paying the reparations, though there is no concievable way you could hold them in any way responsible for my abuse.

But some would take this yet further. The school board is but an arm of government. The government has supervisory responsibility over all school boards, by virtue of the Ministry of Education. If they are in charge, then they too are responsible for the actions of those they have charge of. Now, any monetary reparations are being borne by every single person who pays taxes in that country. Each taxpayer has no choice about paying their “share” of those taxes that are going to the reparations. Even if those taxpayers don’t even live in the same province, they are paying. They are paying “reparations” for a “wrong” that they as individuals, have zero responsibility for.

Yet, I have been told in recent days, that for me to say this is “racist”. That I am a bigot for not accepting my fair share of blame for the pain caused by people I don’t even know, for wrongs I never even knew were being committed. Comparisons are drawn to the recent decision to hold the Catholic diocese in California responsible for the abuse conducted by priests in that area. Was the whole diocese responsible? It bumps into that line of responsibility. If the reparations wind up causing the loss of funding for other programs offered by the diocese, say to unwed mothers, orphans, etc, then some people there are being punished for something not even remotely their fault. Is that fair? Is the nunnery on the hill outside of San Luis Obispo (fictional, but I am sure there are some out there) deserving of losing the money to buy cloth to create tapestries that they sell to support themselves deserving of punishment because a small number of priests abused some people at the other end of the State? It begins to be a hard decision, doesn’t it?

Now, this connects directly to the hotly debated subject of residential schools in Canada. If we agree with holding the Catholic Church’s diocese in California being held responsible for abuse as a body of parts, some of which had zilch to do with the actual abuse, endorsement of abuse, or even failing to act to curb the abuse (because some of those connected to the diocese simply had no contact or awareness of those parts in any way shape or form) then here in Canada, where the residential schools program was administrated by the Catholic Church, we should be able to hold them as a body responsible. This would affect probably the same number of unrelated ministries and people as the California decision does (given the numbers of Hispanic Catholics in California, and the comparable populations of the Golden State to Canada).

But the argument started from holding the government responsible for reparations. Based on what I have said above, given the numbers of people who the Government of Canada receives its funding from, who had absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the people in the residential schools program, nor did they have any awareness of the abuse (so cannot be considered culpable by doing nothing to stop it), it is patently wrong to hold the Canadian government responsible for paying reparations for the program. It makes an entire nation responsible for the reprehensible actions of only a few. It imputes responsibility for crimes (admittedly horrible crimes) on the innocent, and not just one innocent, but millions. Tens of millions.

When private indviduals are held responsible for their actions, they pay. When corporations are held responsible for their actions, limited liability applies, to focus in on the individuals who were responsible within the corporation. To hold a government responsible (especially a democracy, but any government ultimately requires taxes from its citizens, which would be a criminal offence not to pay) is to hold, to a degree, every single citizen liable for the crime. While this is not without precedent, it is a lot easier to demonstrate that, say, a much larger percentage of Germans were either actively involved in the Holocaust or chose not to object to it (and impute responsibility for it upon themselves by doing nothing to stop it) than there were Canadians directly involved in the residential school program or were aware of its abuses and did nothing. But without getting into a debate of “what percentage of a population mst be culpable before it is reasonable to require all to pay reparations”, I believe the underlying question is that of the justice of making one innocent person pay reparations for something they had no responsibility for.

Do I have a problem with an organization or foundation forming to collect donations to support the victims of abuse in residential schools? Heck no! I would invite any and all Canadians to donate to such a worthy cause! I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that a lot of people have suffered a lot, and may need extra help to overcome their situations. I would even donate to such a cause myself, out of sympathy and care for my fellow man. But such a donation would be voluntary, and would not involve any imputation of responsiblity upon myself for the plight of those victims. That is the difference I see.

The Red Tory Tradition

The Red Tory or “progressive” or “moderate” wings of Canada’s conservative parties really like to play up how polite they are compared to the Liberals, or how civilized they are compared to their party kin who take the term “conservative” a little more seriously. While its true that there are quite a few grassroots and even prominent Red Tories out there (Rob Nicholson comes to mind), it is also true that there are a sizable amount of people in this group who add greatly to the stereotype of a politician who is self-serving, greedy, disinterested in anyone but themselves and opportunistic and who, because of these traits, are capable of destroying any network their associated with via their large egos (witness Ontario, 1985, 2003 ; Canada 1993; Canada 2006 (the Liberal Party in this case) ; New Brunswick 2007, and almost definitely Ontario, 2007). A perfect case study come today from the National Post where long-time Red Larry Zolf, who during the 2006 election made a point of spewing hatred against social conservatives, attacking the character of Stephen Harper and questioning the intelligence of true fiscal conservatives as often as he could, is now asking through today’s Post for some special favours from the Prime Minister in an open letter.

While I have to give him credit for apologizing to Stephen Harper at the beginning of his post, Zolf goes on to demonstrate that the apology only extends as far as his desire to get something in return. Witness exhibit A:

Prime Minister, you and you alone can give Conrad Black his Canadian citizenship back. David Radler, who ratted on Black, will serve time in a comfortable Canadian jail. Black faces 20 years for taking his own file boxes from the Toronto offices of Hollinger Inc., and faces the possibility of spending that time in a tough Chicago prison. That is a ludicrous situation.

I’m sorry, but whether Lord Black is innocent or not (and I am personally rooting for him, although I do respect the rule of law), he was accused of committing crimes against the United States. If Canada doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the U.S.’s case against Black it should complain to Great Britain, for after all, Black has renounced his Canadian citizenship and is now a British citizen. Simply speaking, we have no right to interfere in another country’s legal process when the person involved isn’t even one of our own and hasn’t bee charged up here yet. I didn’t know that the U.S.’s prisons were so barbaric though; Zolf makes it sound like the US prison system is on par with one of Saddam’s old work houses.

It gets better though, as in the next breath Zolf begs Harper to take a page out of George Bush’s playbook and pull a Scooter Libby. Ya, that’d win him a lot of points both with the voting public and with the law-abiding crowd…

But here comes the climax:

The Conservative party owes Conrad Black a great deal. He created the National Post, a newspaper that championed the Canadian Alliance and you too, Mr. Prime Minister.

Let me remind you of how Black gave up his Canadian citizenship in the first place. The National Post and Black were critical of Jean Chretien’s dealings involving the Grand-Mere Inn and the neighbouring golf course. When Black decided to become a British lord, Chretien invoked the 1919 Tory Nickle Resolution to support the proposition that Canadians could not accept British peerages. Out of anger at Chretien, Black renounced his Canadian citizenship.

(emphasis added)

Ah, the good old Red Tory tradition: you scratch my back, I scratch yours…well, until you use the opportunity to also lodge a knife back there too! So politicians, while compelled to act when they see something unfair going down, are particularly obligated when the person involved was a political ally. So if Lord Black was a Liberal, or a Bloc supporter, then what Zolf? Harper just turns a blind eye and says “Serves ‘em right”? Again, very opportunistic and very much a reason so many of us left the old PC Party in the first place!

We can’t have a proper piece by a progressive-anything without a bit of anti-Americanism though:

“I defended Black on the CBC Web site. I found the whole Black trial American vigilantism at its worst.”

Again, why aren’t we at the embassy calling London if this is such an issue?

I couldn’t end this though with a better ending than what Zolf offers; it demonstrates exactly what I’ve been pointing to all along: a pride in one’s personal etiquette (or at least a disillusional assessment of such), an obvious opportunism, and just a dash of loathing sent the way of the Liberals:

But that’s beside the point, Mr. Prime Minister. Giving Black his Canadian citizenship back would be the right and decent thing for you as a prime minister to do. It would also p#!% off the Canadian Liberal establishment and the Canadian Liberal media, and wouldn’t that be fun for you?

…and Red Tories wonder why the rest of us don’t find them even half as charming as they find themselves!

Homer Messing with Fertility

*

Ann Bryn-Evans, joint Wessex district manager for The Pagan Federation, said: “It’s very disrespectful and not at all aesthetically pleasing.

“We were hoping for some dry weather but I think I have changed my mind. We’ll be doing some rain magic to bring the rain and wash it away.”

Source 

The Cynic Who Barked Too Loud

Being a Canadian Cynic is a tough gig these days.  There has been quite a backlash against the anonymous lefty-blogger who recently ranted about a grieving mother who lost her son, a Canadian Solider in Afghanistan.

Wanda Watkins, who spoke to the press recently asking for the nation to hold the course and respect the sacrifices of our troops, was written about on the Canadian Cynic’s blog.

In his past writings he is known not to sugar coat anything, with the exception of his ego, but what he wrote went past any sense of rational, irrational or human behaviour. In his blog post on the subject he writes:

“With all due respect, Wanda, f**k you and your grief.”

But even if a blog is somewhere that you go to empty your mind, in whatever self-stroking fashion, something interesting is happening here.

The cynic has made cynics out of a good portion of his audience, as they question his own motives now based on his over the top comments on the subject. Digging further through the collection of comments on the posting (and related postings), you get the feeling that people (left, right and otherwise) are abandoning him and getting some distance between themselves.

And now the Cynic is telling the audience that everyone has had their say. That there will be no more comments on the subject of his f-sharp delivery. He has deemed it ‘discussed’ and closed.

His long time barking may have finally caused his audience to wake up, however he isn’t enjoying the new found cynics that find his barking intolerable.

“Progressive” Shoots Self in Foot, Wishes It Away…

…sorry kid, but pot doesn’t dilute this kind of scandal! In good Left-wing fashion, the boy has ended tonight having realized that he has really has said something offensive (I thought “progressives” didn’t like to offend?) and outrageous (even Warren Kinsella finds this tasteless, I mean, talk about taking one to know one!) by closing all comments on his otherwise insignificant blog. Social democrats don’t like diversity after all, particularly in the opinion department and ESPECIALLY when its their own reputations on the line!

Let me offer some advice to this anonymous blogger from “the general Waterloo vicinity”:

You just attacked an innocent family to beat your chest a bit on your blog. Even if it isn’t legally risky, it certainly demeans your cause and adds to the perception that many of us have that ideological left-wingers are all of what they attack their opponents for being: close-minded, self-righteous, holier-than-thou, intolerant and discourteous. I don’t suppose you’ve ever eaten humble pie in your life, but it might be a good time to try the dish!

In other words, I have a hunch that this has legs and that Canadian Cynic will be one of the few raving lefties who has actually attracted enough attention to his foot-in-mouth disease to force him to be held accountable for his words. When that happens too, we can only hope that the MSM picks this up to show just what those angels in the NDP really think about Canadian soldiers and their families!

Calgary – Quickly Becoming Alberta’s Toronto

Jeffery Simpson wraps up many Albertans feelings towards the center of Alberta’s universe:

Few tears, however, are being shed for Calgary elsewhere in Alberta. (Edmonton never sheds them.) Calgarians won’t appreciate the comparison, but, in Alberta, their city is now regarded provincially as Toronto is nationally: fat, self-absorbed and whining, a kind of Hogtown West.

[...]

Calgary’s nose remains out of joint. A lot of other Albertans reply: Tough.

Confronting Their Poverty

Phil Fontaine complicates the world:

Unfortunately, tangible progress is not happening fast enough to contain the mounting frustrations of younger natives. “Canada’s biggest challenge is what to do about First Nations poverty,” Mr. Fontaine asserts. We agree.

What a challenge. It’s called, “getting a job.”

People have used this ingenious strategy to confront their poverty for some time. But it likely won’t fly amongst some people. Where are the lawyers? The consultants? The bureaucrats? The Royal Commission? The academic studies? “Hello, people!?…this is no way for natives to deal with their poverty!!!“

« Previous Page — Next Page »