Canada was Complicit in Torture, Diplomat Says

Well, the news is here.  After the Conservatives failed to keep Richard Colvin silent or ignored, we learn that Canada may have sent Afghan prisoners to be tortured.  Mr. Colvin, a diploma with Foreign Affairs, described a pattern of misbehaviour among Canadian officials in Afghanistan that facilitated torture.

Colvin said he was specifically told by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former foreign affairs adviser, David Mulroney, to use the phone instead of putting anything in writing about prisoner abuse, which Colvin said contradicted Canadian policy and international law against surrendering to the risk of torture.

“There was indeed a policy, but behind the military’s wall of secrecy, that’s exactly what we were doing,” said Colvin, who is now the deputy head of intelligence at the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

Unsurprisingly, the Conservatives and military brass have a bit of a different take on the subject.

The Conservative government and senior military brass were in full damage control Thursday as they sought to discredit accusations from a top diplomat that Canada turned a blind eye to reports that Afghan prisoners were tortured after Canadian soldiers surrendered them to local control.Defence Minister Peter MacKay dismissed Richard Colvin’s allegations that virtually all Afghan prisoners were tortured as “nothing short of hearsay, second- or third-hand information, or that which came directly from the Taliban.”

As MacKay went on the offensive in the House of Commons, the recently retired head of Canadian forces overseas, Lt.-Gen. Michel Gauthier, said there was no way that Canada would have knowingly participated in a “war crime” of handed over detainees to torture.

So, who do we believe?  The Liberal’s Foreign Affairs critic, Bob Rae, suggests we should trust Richard Colvin’s account:

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae said that [Defence Minster Peter] MacKay’s attacks on Colvin — a man who is now Canada’s head of intelligence at the Canadian embassy is Washington and presumably considered credible enough to hold the senior post — are “reprehensible.”

Rae also pointed out that MacKay contradicted himself in the Commons by insisting that Colvin’s story was “full of holes,” but then later saying that the diplomat’s concerns played a part in Canada’s decision to strengthen its transfer-of-prisoners arrangement in 2007 to allow for followup visits to ensure detainees weren’t tortured.

My guess is that Colvin’s story is a little embellished.  Without any corroboration, I’m hesitant to believe that the Canadian establishment in Afghanistan was so completely infested with corruption and criminal activity.  Nonetheless, on the whole, I’m ready to side with Mr. Colvin.  The government’s argument is weak and implausible.  It seems unrealistic that no prisoners whom Canada turned over to Afghan authorities were tortured.  Mistakes are going to happen, sadly, but the Conservatives’ offensive is just a little bit too much.

Even if the government was not complicit in any wrongdoing by senior officials in Afghanistan, its refusal to properly confront this issue after the fact makes them accomplices.  If they want to return to side of the righteous, they must make sure that this never happens again; they must take the NDP’s advice and create some sort of public investigation.

It is imperative that any investigation be public.  Stephen Harper’s government has already made too much of an effort to hide inconvenient testimony to be fully trusted to take care of this matter on their own.

Moreover, considering that Canadian investigators in Afghanistan are willing to turn a blind eye to the rape of children – even when our soldiers alert them to the tragedy – how can the public trust them to ever hold the guilty accountable?

One Life the Gun Registry Couldn’t Save…

…it’s own.

MPs voted by a clear margin Wednesday to repeal the federal long-gun registry, signalling for the first time since the program was adopted 14 years ago that it is headed for the scrap heap, despite police assertions that it saves lives.A private member’s bill, sponsored by Conservative backbencher Candice Hoeppner, had the backing of all the Tories, from Prime Minister Stephen Harper down, and enough opposition MPs to clear its first major hurdle of winning support in principle.

The bill passed by a surprising 164-137, winning more supporters than expected as 12 New Democrats, eight Liberals and one Independent cast their votes with the government.

The Gun Registry has been a supreme waste of tax money.  That alone should be sufficient to kill it off (even if it has taken 14 years).  This is pretty much a no brainer for conservatives and libertarians.  What’s great to see is a number of MPs from left wing parties supporting it also.

The thing is (and conservatives and most libertarians will admit to this), sometimes it is necessary for the government to do things.  Sometimes, they have to spend our money.  It is for this reason that progressives, liberals and big government conservatives (and anyone else who supports lots of government intrusion in our lives) should be especially horrified by the Gun Registry.  It has become such a punch line – such an emblem of wasteful, useless government – that it damages the credibility of the government.  By extension, it hurts our democracy.

The Greenest of Jobs: Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada

Meet the Players

In 1980, a newcomer to the game of politics set out to challenge the powerful, to force those in government to take notice of matters relating to the environment.  In the election of that year, Elizabeth May ran for Parliament in the riding of Cape Breton Highlands – Canso.

She earned 272 votes, and it would be 26 years before she would again seek office.

In the meantime, Ms. May – a writer, lawyer and activist – held numerous positions within the environmental movement.  She was a founder of the Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, held the position of Associate General Council for the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, and was the founding Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. She was even a Senior Policy Advisor in the Mulroney government.

In 2006, she again became an active politician, securing the leadership of the Green Party of Canada. That fall, she ran in the by-election in London North Centre, finishing second with 26% of the vote. Next, she took on Peter MacKay, a senior cabinet minister, in the 2008 election. Again she was the runner-up, this time garnering 32% of the vote.

Come the next federal election, Ms. May will be the Green Party candidate in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Being both friendly and tenacious, Ms. May has the political chops to be a threat to Gary Lunn, Minister of State (Sport) in the current Harper government.

Jonathan McLeod (JM):  I would just like to congratulate you on the nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Elizabeth May (EM):  Thank you, although it was really not in doubt.  It was only because of the strong support I had in this area that we made the decision as a party that I should move here.  I’m a strong believer in living in any community in which you are running for office, other than a bi-election, of course.  To make the decision to run in Saanich-Gulf Islands I’d already moved, was living here, so it was something of a surprise that a Green Party member who doesn’t live in the area would decide he wanted to contest the nomination. But you know, fair enough, it does demonstrate that the Greens are very grassroots and that there is no top down decision making, even in the case of the leader’s riding.

JM:  Well that’s fantastic.  And it is great that you are actually going to be a representative there rather than just a carpet-bagger.

EM:  Exactly, and it’s a very exciting move for me.  You’re younger, but try to imagine being a 55 year old single woman whose daughter has just gone off to university.  It’s kind of a good plan to move to a new place.  It’s very encouraging.

JM:  Alright, so to begin with my questions:  why did you, and why should anyone select the Green Party? Would your talents not be better used within a larger, more established party with similar philosophical underpinnings, like the NDP or the Liberal party?

EM:  Well if those other parties had similar philosophical underpinnings, that would be possible.  My life in what you might call politics – small-p politics –  has been  one where I’ve been asked numerous times, because of being well known in the environmental movement.  I’ve been flattered to be asked numerous times by various NDP leaders, by the liberal party and even by the Progressive Conservatives, in their day, to be a candidate federally for parliament and often offered something that was supposed to be a safe riding or as a “star candidate”.  They’re very good at dazzling you with these types of offers, and whenever it came right down to it, as much as I could see my way clear to working with and liking lots of people in those parties -working with and finding acceptable some of their policies – when it really came down to it, I couldn’t accept these really nice offers for an easy route to Parliament.

So, if I wanted an easy route to Parliament, I wouldn’t have decided that the right thing to do was run for leadership of the Green Party of Canada.  What I’ve been desperately concerned about, and more as I’ve gotten older, is to watch the deterioration of civility in Parliament; the abandonment of principles at a moments notice by all the parties in Ottawa right now, with the weird  exception, I must say,  of the Bloc Quebecois, which has stuck to its guns on climate as an issue in ways that the other parties haven’t.  But of what relevance is that when you’re a party that wants to see Quebec sovereign and doesn’t care about the rest of the country?  So it’s a very strange political climate right now, and my conclusion at the end of the 2005/2006 election was that none of the existing parties could be relied upon to raise issues consistently.

And injecting respectful discourse and ideas whose time had come – ideas with the power of history behind them – that was not going to come unless there was a new kind of politics and a different voice.  So that’s why.  I actually think that your question is also flattering, that I have talents and skills that might be used anywhere.  The truth of the matter is if I were elected in any of the other parties, I would be squashed by the top down political partisanship system that requires of members of parliament to do what the leader tells you to do.  And that would be a situation in which I would be entirely unhappy and likely would resign the first time it happened.  So I think I’m better staying with a party whose philosophy I completely embrace and where, as leader, I know that when I have a caucus in the House of Commons, I won’t be squashing anyone – just as we didn’t squash Mr. Hertzog’s attempt to run against me for the nomination.  We respect people who come forward and have a view, even if it’s not the official party view.  If we have a vote in the House of Commons and we have a caucus of Greens and a member says ‘look my constituents, the people who sent me here, simply will not tolerate it if I vote the party line on this.’  Well, that’s something you have to respect because that’s how democracy should work; that’s how the parliamentary system should work. So I think I would be utterly miserable in any other party.

JM:  Well that’s a good reason not to join them.  I’ve found dealing with a lot of these politically involved people that they are getting tired of the partisanship.

EM:  Yes, it’s gotten to the level that it actually is corrosive to the functioning of democracy and to the health of government.  So, our constitution calls for Peace, Order and Good Government, and we’ve got… well thank goodness we’ve got some peace, but we’re also apparently at war in Afghanistan; and we have order but it’s of a stultifying Nixon-era like order; and we have absolutely putrid government, so this is not good and something needs to fix this.  And I think that the presence of Greens in the house will be a tonic to the whole system and to other MPs who feel the way I do, who would like to say, ‘yes let’s form a non-partisan caucus on climate; let’s form a non-partisan caucus to address issues of poverty or what we do about immigration – how we should respond to refugees on our shores.’  These are issues that really matter, and there are bright engaged committed people in all the other parties, but they can’t break out of this partisan straightjacket which really is the enemy of democracy.  We have to face it and reduce the power of organized political parties, because five of them can run rough shod during an election, but once their MPs have formed government, that political party structure should back off and let MPs work together to come up with the best possible solutions.

JM:  Now moving on to the political game, if you will, I read that in 1980 you ran for the Small Party.

EM:  Yes, I started it.  It is worth noting that I started it not because I want credit, but I paid dearly for it, because it was the days before internet and to find twelve candidates to run in six provinces, we tried to get a candidate in every province… anyway, to make a long story short, at the end of the campaign, I had this horrific telephone bill for long distance calls which prompted me to sell my car to pay my phone bill.  Which made a very good decision in changing my life and I didn’t end up owning a car between 1980 and 2007, so that was a good outcome of starting the small party.

JM:  But in the race you were against Allan MacEachen who was a very decorated politician.

EM:  Yes, he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

JM:  And I think he held other cabinet posts throughout his career.  It must have been a real learning experience.

EM:  Well it was great.  One of the things that was a surprise for me was – and I really admired Allan MacEachen for lots of reasons: the fact that the agenda for decent social programs in those days; he made a real difference in terms of pensions, and unemployment insurance schemes, and all kinds of things that improved, the health care system, which came in during the era of his time in parliament – there was a lot to admire about him, but he didn’t have any notion that environment mattered, and the Trudeau government was busy building up the nuclear enterprise in Canada, and we wanted to make sure those were issues.  So the big surprise for me was that there were no all candidates meetings.  There wasn’t a single all candidates meeting.  So I never did get to debate him on any issues, and he wouldn’t go into any communities in the riding unless they’d raised a minimum amount of money for the liberal party.  But where I did know that I affected him was that I spoke in a lot of schools, and high school teachers would tell me that when McEachen would come, if all the questions were on environment and nuclear, he’d say to them, somewhat testily, ‘was Elizabeth here already?’  It was the only time he got any hard questions.

But we’ve remained friends over the years.  And I didn’t expect to win; the point was to raise issues and change the tenor of the election campaign.

JM:  Speaking of important issues, and poverty being a big one these days, going through the Green Party’s web site, I noticed that your party supports going towards a Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Yes.

JM:  Now some of our readers might be interested to know that this is a position that was also supported by the noted University of Chicago economist, Milton Friedman.

EM:  Was it?

JM:  Yes, he supported doing it more through a progressive income tax system, but he supported some sort of Guaranteed Annual Income.

EM:  Well, I don’t think that Milton Friedman’s approach looks anything like ours.  The person we quote in our policy document is Martin Luther King.  Milton Friedman’s approach is so antithetical to Green Party values that even if he supported what we wanted and were alive to say so, I would reject his support.  A more relevant example is Senator Hugh Segal, who is a Conservative, but comes from the last – well I don’t think he’s part of Harper’s circle – part of that caucus who actually represents something of a Red Tory.  But his view and my view aren’t that far different, and the party did a lot of policy research on it.  We actually called it a Guaranteed Liveable Income, because it’s very important that the amount people receive is actually something on which you could live, but which would impel you to want to live better so that you could actually earn more money on top of your Guaranteed Liveable Income cheque; there wouldn’t be a clawback.  We could eliminate all of the shame-based poverty programs, whether we’re talking about disability payments, welfare or EI… or even minimal pension programs – all could be replaced with this one simple plan, administered through the tax system.  There are a lot of savings to be accrued through it, but I’d have to go back and look to see what Milton Friedman’s approach was, because, given his vision of an economy, this can’t be the same program.

JM:  It is often surprising where viewpoints overlap for people at different points on the political spectrum, and why it is worthwhile not to just get caught up in your own partisan circle.  That being said, if you were to form the government next time, what three people outside of the Green Party would you seek for guidance?

EM:  Can I just say, first of all that I’m not delusional, and that we’re not going to form government at the end of the next election.  Where we will be useful, immediately at the end of the next election because I will be a member of parliament and I hope other Greens will be there with me, is that we can advance ideas and advance a co-operative approach to solutions immediately.  I see the Greens in a political evolution as being about where Tommy Douglas was at the point that Canada embraced universal health care.  He didn’t wait to become Prime Minister to bring about an idea that was critically needed and for which all Canadians are deeply grateful.

That said, what three people outside of the party would I consult regularly?  That is a very interesting question.  Peter Victor comes to mind, because I think his most recent book – he’s a professor of economics in Toronto – Steady State Economy by Disaster or Design is an extremely useful guide to how one could re-invent an economy in such a way that it both was more resilient and not as prone to bubbles that burst as the wildly speculative financial markets that got us into the current recession.  So I think Peter Victor would be someone.  I do consult him now, as it is.

Another person I consult now actually is Jim McNeil.  You may not know his name but Jim McNeill is one of Canada’s leading international diplomats.  He is retired.  He worked with Tommy Douglas, actually.  He worked with the Saskatchewan government, and was one of the national figures in the CCF in his day.  He then went to Ottawa and became a deputy minister.  He then led a number of U.N. summits, including the Habitat Conference in Vancouver, and then went to the OECD and ended up being the Secretary-General to the Commission on Environment and Development.  Jim McNeil is actually the author of the Brundtland Report: Our Common Future.  I find on almost every issue that we end up discussing together, he has the most clear eyed, realistic assessment of where we are on the planet and what needs to be done.  And he doesn’t get fooled by political rhetoric, so he’s been a really important political advisor for me.

And the third person, if that covers economy and sustainability, I think Gro Harlem Brundtland, actually.  I’d like to talk to another woman who’s been Prime Minister, who brought in a carbon tax, who made it work, who was head of the World Health Organization so could advise me on health issues, and who I know will answer my call.  So that would be it.  If I could get advice from the former Prime Minister of Norway and from Jim McNeil and from Peter Victor, I’d be getting really good advice.

JM:  That’d be a pretty strong team to have helping you out.  Do you have a couple more minutes for what we call our lightning round?

EM:  Oh sure.

JM:  BlackBerry or iPhone?

EM:  Blackberry.  Canadian technology, please.

JM:  Facebook or Myspace?  Or Twitter?

EM:  Facebook, and Twitter, I do both.

JM:  Mac of PC?

EM:  Oh, here’s the ideological rift.  I’m a PC person and I try not to fight with my Mac friends.

JM:  Less filling or tastes great?

EM:  Tastes great.

JM:  Favourite band?

EM:  It’s still The Beatles.

JM:  The Great One or Sid the Kid?

EM:  Sid the Kid, I mean I’m from Nova Scotia.

JM:  But you’re out west now…

EM:  Yeah, but I’m not in Edmonton, so I don’t have to abandon Sidney Crosbey.

JM:  But you might have to go with Roberto Luongo, now.

EM:  I really like Steve Nash.  Different sport, but way impressive, and impressive politically.

JM:  Really, I’m not actually aware of his political views.

EM:  Well he wore an anti-Iraq War t-shirt in a workout with his team, I think in Houston TX, a few years back.  And I thought, “now I’m proud; I’m proud of that young Canadian lad.”  I don’t know anything about him except that he’s the Most Valuable Player.  I think you’re the Most Valuable Player when you’re willing to put yourself out in any way out there like that in Texas.  I can’t remember what the slogan was, but it was pretty explicit and he wore it in front of media at a workout in Texas.

And he’s from Victoria.

JM:  Thomas Carlyle’s Great Man Theory or Herbert Spencer’s Theory of Social Forces or do you care either way?

EM:  I don’t believe in either.  It’s not The Great Man theory and it’s not social forces.  It’s a combination of both and it’s a large dose of serendipity.  Often it’s people who aren’t the so-called Great Man who happened to be in the right place at the right time.  I think the fact that both of those theories come from men might explain the fact that they missed the effects of networks, serendipity.

I’m more in the school of Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point theory, that is a bit of both.  I’m much more of that school of thought of what makes change.

JM:  Who is the real Captain Canada: Steve Yzerman or David Suzuki?

EM:  David Suzuki

JM:  Who’s the greatest Canadian?

EM:  Tommy Douglas.

JM:  And who’s the greatest Prime Minister?

EM:  Tommy Douglas, though we never had him.  I’m going to go with Sir John A. Macdonald, for what he did, for what he pulled off.  He came from a coalition.  It was the great coalition and to pull together a country and make all the regional divisions work and to have the vision of a national train – which we need again; we need high speed rail coast to coast.  The mediocrity of recent leadership; the failure to see any bold vision for the country makes me kind of nostalgic for Sir John A. Macdonald.

That, and that he was a leader who ran in Victoria for a seat when he couldn’t win at home.

JM:  Well, yes, that’s definitely a good thing.

___

Meet the Players: Interviews with Political Strategists and Candidates

• Warren Kinsella, August 17, 2009
• Tim Powers, August 20, 2009
• Kyle Seeback, August 26, 2009
• Rocco Rossi, September 2, 2009
• Mark Holland, September 12, 2009
• Ryan Hastman, September 21, 2009

Should Parliament Repeal the Faint Hope Clause?

There is a debate going on at The Mark inspired by the Conservative government’s desire to do away with the Faint Hope clause (which allows for a chance at a parole hearing after 15 years for those sentenced to life imprisonment).  I can’t believe I’m going to type this, but I’ve got to side with Pierre Trudeau over Stephen Harper on this one (it was Trudeau’s government that initially brought in the Faint Hope clause).

Despite my inclinations, the debate at The Mark is clearly won by Bob Tarantino, who is arguing for the clause’s repeal.  Simon Fraser’s Neil Boyd does a wretched job making a cased for the Faint Hope clause.  His opening statement focuses not on the subject at hand, but on drug laws and minimum sentences for drug offenders.  I’m in agreement that our drug laws are confused and ridiculous, but that doesn’t really have a lot to do (specifically) with the Faint Hope clause (which tends to apply to murderers).  Mr. Boyd’s rebuttal is minimally more persuasive.

Mr. Tarantino, however, puts together a strong argument against the Faint Hope clause.  Nonetheless, he manages to steal a base:

Bizarrely, he then states that “such legislation certainly wouldn’t enhance the safety of the men and women who work in Canada’s prisons.” This is an implicit admission that the very people the faint hope clause releases into the community are dangerous, even to prison staff. If the people who are being released under the faint hope clause are such a threat to the safety of prison workers, then why is Boyd so intent on making sure these same people have the chance of being released? Won’t they be that much more of a threat to people outside prison? In a perfect distillation of the inversion of rational thought which governs so much of our criminal justice system, the criminals that Boyd thinks are too dangerous to keep in prison are the same ones he thinks should be allowed to apply for release.

Considering the obvious intelligence of Mr. Tarantino, I must assume that this paragraph is intended to score points against Mr. Boyd’s article rather than actually address the argument that the Faint Hope clause makes Canadian prisons safer (hopefully not just for guards, but for inmates, as well).  Without any hope of parole, these prisoners have nothing to lose.  Regardless of what crimes they commit while incarcerated, they cannot be executed; all that can happen to them is that they are doomed to a similar fate to the one they were already facing.  The argument is that the Faint Hope clause is the very thing that fosters rehabilitation and leads to fewer attacks against prison workers.  It is a point that can be rebutted, but it is a point that Mr. Tarantino does not address.

There may never be a prisoner deserving of parole gained through the Faint Hope clause; there may be no rehabilitating this type of criminal (though I’d suggest there is), but hope is perhaps the one thing we can afford these people.  Whether they deserve it or not, we should give it to them.

As an aside, in his preface to the debate, the editor of The Mark notes that the issue comes down to the question of whether the primary purpose of the justice system is to protect or to punish.  I tackle that here.

The Conservatives Deserve to Pay For This… a Little

Apparently, some MPs, when they’re handing out government cheques to fund projects in their riding, like to give all credit to the party and none to the country:

Caught red-handed, the Conservatives have hurriedly disavowed an MP who splashed the party’s logo on mock cheques dispensing government funds to a local riding.

But the MPs are free to doctor the cheques in other ways, the government insists.

The misadventure lends credence to opposition concerns that the Conservatives are using stimulus funds and other government spending for partisan purposes, having campaigned against exactly those shenanigans.

This isn’t a huge deal.  It’s mostly just politics as usual… except people like Gerald Keddy didn’t have enough shame or good sense to try to hide it.  I’m not trying to excuse the behaviour; it’s pretty awful and Canadians should be disgusted.  No government should use the public’s money for such blatant partisan purposes.  However, kept in perspective, this scandal, in and of itself, is not sufficient to rightfully doom the Harper government.

Still, if there is any justice, Gerald Keddy’s political career should be nearing an end.

(H/T: Richard.)

Why Barack Obama is Better than Stephen Harper

He is head of state.

A trivial controversy makes Canada look like a trivial nation, as the Prime Minister schools the Governor General on her role:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent a clear message to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean that she should not call herself Canada’s head of state.”Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement issued to Canwest News Service on Thursday. “The Governor General represents the Crown in Canada.”

The extraordinary reminder from the country’s head of government to its top viceregal representative follows an uproar over Jean’s use of the phrase “head of state” when referring to herself during a speech in Paris on Monday.

Stephen Harper is, of course, correct, but I don’t really care.  The nation of Canada is over 100 years old; it’s about time that we move away from an archaic form of governance that is a mere relic from our colonial era.  Canadians deserve the ability to select their own head of state rather than accepting a hereditary monarchy and an appointed representative.  We’re not children.

It is bad enough that we must endure an appointed senate and a head of government that only a handful of citizens get to choose.  Why must we suffer the indignity of being royal subjects as well?

Why Canada Needs Another Tory Majority

Richard serves up some red meat for the Conservative base in his most recent op-ed, this time in The Hamilton Spectator.  He spells out some very good reasons for Canadians to root for a Conservative majority in the next election (whenever that may be).  Here’s a taste:

When Brian Mulroney rode a rising conservative tide to the biggest majority government in Canadian history 25 years ago, he was lauded for finally breaking the Liberal deadbolt on the gates to 24 Sussex. Not since John Diefenbaker’s triumph in 1958 had the political right formed a majority government.

But Mulroney’s election was not as much a victory for him or his party as it was for Canada and our democratic institutions. Today, with an election looming on the horizon, the best argument for a Conservative majority is neither that Stephen Harper wants one nor that the Conservative Party has earned one, but rather that Canada needs one.

Putting aside policy issues, Richard makes some very strong points in the column.  No matter what Thomas Friedman says, a nation is stronger when there are multiple viable governing parties.  Despite any disagreements I’ve had with the Harper governmnet, I’m very happy that he has led the party back to respectability.

Y’all should read the op-ed.

Stephen Harper: I Heart Torture

Well, what else am I supposed to believe after reading this story:

All three opposition parties have demanded that a diplomat who may have crucial information about the alleged torture of Taliban prisoners be allowed to testify before a military watchdog inquiry.

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois each took turns peppering the Tory government Friday with questions about Richard Colvin, whom government lawyers are trying to strike from a witness list.

In this situation, being part of a cover up is as bad – as evil – as being part of the original transgression.  Torture has no place in the military operations of a liberal nation.  I’m not trying to put my head in the sand and say that it will never ever happen if it is not sanctioned by high-level decision makers, but when suspicions arise, our military and political structures have to be tuned to identifying and eliminating these abuses.

If the Conservative government wants to maintain a hawkish foreign policy, that’s fine; they’re the government and they get to take the lead in setting policy (though they don’t have the only say).  If, as part of this philosophy, they feel that certain interrogation techniques are valid, techniques that the rest of us might consider unacceptable, then they should be open and direct when questioned.  They should defend, in both practical terms and ethical terms, the interrogation techniques that our military sanctions, and they should do so in an open and robust debate.  They should not try to control the participants to an official inquiry.

Even the rhetoric they are employing is offensive, both to our intellects and to our soldiers.  Check out this exchange:

[Liberal MP Marlene] Jennings said the “honour and dignity” of Canadian soldiers demanded that the government be more open and stop “stonewalling” – something [parliamentary secretary to the defence minister, Laurie] Hawn, a former military officer, interpreted as a slight against those in uniform.

“To suggest the Canadian Forces or this government does not take seriously the type of allegations – allegations only – that have come forward is obnoxious,” he said.

This is utter nonsense, and Mr. Hawn should be ashamed, as I would think a man of his position is smarter than to actually believe the tripe he let out.  Ms. Jennings was defending our troops.  Our troops, on the whole, are honourable and they respect the inherent dignity of humanity as they carry out their difficult and dangerous tasks.  In order to maintain any sort of integrity in the military structure, when allegations of torture are presented we must shine as much light on the situation as possible.

This is the practical application of an interventionist liberal foreign policy.  Assuming that our soldiers are not, inherently, torturers (which was Ms. Jennings’ point), and deciding to fully investigate any allegations of torture is not “obnoxious”.  “Obnoxious” would be an obstinate stance that claims there can be no reason to be concerned about the possibility that the government and military are not doing there utmost to investigate and eliminate crimes against basic human decency.

I’m with Jim Manzi on the issue torture.  Even if we put aside the ethical issues relating to torture, torturous nations do not thrive; they do not persist.  This is not the type of nation that Canada should become.  Further, attempting to hide information about torture will serve us no benefit, either.  As a nation, we cannot survive by avoiding the truth and walling off information to the public.  Sticking one’s head in the sand serves no purpose but to expose one’s neck.

Jim Flaherty, Free Trade and the Power of Me

Over at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and at my own blog, I comment that Canada should re-dedicate itself to free trade.  Apparently, Jim Flaherty and the Conservative government take my opinion quite seriously:

The Harper government is set to eliminate all import tariffs on machinery and equipment, reinforcing its commitment to freer trade even as other members of the Group of 20 nations slip on their pledge to maintain open markets.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty today will announce consultations on his plan to expand a previous tariff reduction initiative to all the gear that automotive parts makers, sawmills, printers and other companies might seek to become more productive as the economy recovers.

For good measure, the Prime Minister was in New York, stumping for free trade:

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada “got it right” and will emerge from the recession in a strong position, crediting the country’s commitment to open markets, its solid financial sector and the stimulus measures it has put in place to deal with the economic downturn.In a speech Thursday to the Canadian-American Business Council and Canadian Association of New York, Harper reiterated the anti-protectionist message that has been a focus of his trip to the U.S. this week.

It shouldn’t be news when governments act so prudently; sadly, it is.  We know that trade is beneficial.  We know that a policy of free trade will benefit us as well as other countries.  Even if every other country wishes to be protectionists, there is no good reason, economically speaking, for us to follow suit.  There have been a number of reasons to be disappointed in Stephen Harper’s reign, but as long as he continues to carry the flag of free trade, he’s someone worthy of support.

Mr. Obama, I understand that you were once a professor, but now it’s time to learn from someone else.  Trade is good.  Please change your ways, and follow Mr. Harper’s lead.

Canadian Election Open Threads

Scott H. Payne at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen and I have started some open threads about potential issues that we should be debating should we find ourselves in a federal election anytime soon.  Here’s a tease:

The possibility of yet another Canadian federal election being triggered this week has been averted by the Bloc and it would seem that NDP, while not first off the gates, has provided even more padding. This seems to be good news for the Liberals, despite their best intentions to perform yet another electoral nose dive. But no one can say definitively how long support for Harper’s minority government will last…

I’ve started one at Canned Goods & Ammunition.  Feel free to stop by both sites to share in the debate.  This is a really good chance for some good back and forth.  The League definitely tilts left, and they have some very thoughtful and intelligent writers and commenters.

So let’s get to it!

« Previous Page — Next Page »