The Spat With India

 So, India is expanding its temper tantrum over Canada expressing concerns over the suspected role of the Modi government in the murder of Hardeep Singh Nijjar.  To a certain extent, this is a “meh, so what?” kind of move, but on other fronts its more significant and an indicator of the Modi government’s larger agenda.  

One could infer from the level of outrage coming out of India that in fact the Canadian government’s expressed worries that in fact the allegations have some merit.  It’s very much a case of “India doth protest too much” - if they really had nothing to do with this Nijjar’s murder a few months ago, then why such a public temper tantrum? 

Part of it, no doubt, has to do with the Khalistan movement to create a “Sikh homeland”. The idea of a Sikh homeland isn’t new - it’s been rattling about for decades, and was very much the driving force behind a bombing launched from within Canada back in the 1980s. I don’t particularly want to spend a pile of time rehashing the Air India bombing here, I mention it to draw attention to the somewhat fraught relationship it created within Canada regarding the Khalistan movement.

Canada’s government might well be more reactive here in part because of the fallout from the Air India bombing - which many still feel has never been fully resolved in our courts.  There have been a few cases brought to trial, but many in the Canadian public felt the outcomes were deeply unsatisfying.  Canada would be naturally sensitive to any action which would appear to be an escalation of violence relating to the Khalistan movement taking place within its borders.  A repeat of the Air India bombing is hardly a desirable thing.

I won’t attempt to go deep into the Khalistan movement and the politics around it - I simply lack the background knowledge to do the subject justice.  What I can remark upon is the Modi government’s propensity for passing arbitrary laws with deliberately discriminatory consequences.  The BJP party is described as “Hindu Nationalist”, and over time we have also observed Modi becoming increasingly authoritarian.  

To be frank, ever since Trudeau’s disastrous trip to India in 2015/16, my trust of the Modi government has been very low. It was fairly obvious that Modi participated in setting a political booby trap engineered by Harper through the IDU.  Subsequently, numerous second-rate conservative politicians have attempted to polish their image with junkets to India as a result of the Modi government inviting them to visit.  So, on that alone, I am suspicious of the Modi government’s actions here.  

It’s entirely possible that this is a setup so that the CPC here can spend the next year or so making itself out to be “the reconcilers” where India is concerned.  India gets to play the “offended party” with its nose out of joint, and effectively cuts the current Canadian government out of the picture, making any diplomatic progress impossible.  Then the CPC can rail on about how Trudeau simply doesn’t have the standing on the world stage to be taken seriously …blah blah blah… I think you get the picture. 

Then, when in 2024/5 when a new government is elected (presumably CPC, or so the plotters imagine), India suddenly stops being hostile … mostly because an IDU-aligned government is in power, and the newly elected Conservative government gets a nice little “slam-dunk” win on the world stage to set its credentials in.  

From Modi’s perspective, it’s a win too, because he gets to deal a blow to a movement that he sees as a political danger with relative impunity.  

That might be a bit of a reach, but I don’t think it’s all that far off the mark. We already have evidence of close ties between Harper and Modi, and it’s fairly clear that they’ve collaborated on schemes to bolster conservative fortunes in Canada.  

[Update:  21/09/23 17:00]:  Well, it seems that Canada does have “the receipts” that implicate the Indian government.  The whole thing just got a lot harder for the CPC to leverage credibly. 

On Syria and Western Involvement

In response to the following editorial on the mess that is Syria:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/by-giving-up-on-syria-us-hands-kingmaker-role-to-putin/article28747502/

I wrote the following:

I will politely disagree with a couple of points at the end:

the U.S. is also undermining its own role and influence, not to mention the reputation of all those associated with its ramshackle coalition against IS.

US (and Western) credibility in the Middle East has been dubious to non-existent since Bush II decided to invade both Afghanistan and then Iraq. Our own country’s decade of “loudspeaker support for Israel” wasn’t exactly helpful either. Fundamentally Western interventions in the region have repeatedly created the adversaries we find ourselves facing a decade later. In Afghanistan during the 1980s, western powers funded the Mujahideen, which ultimately gave rise to the Taliban and then al Qaeda. The shadows of war in Iraq (in particular), the unwillingness to call out Israel’s use of white phosphorous against the Palestinians, and the heavy-handed way the Americans conducted themselves in both Iraq and Afghanistan gave rise to ISIS.

The second point that the article alludes to, but quietly sidesteps is the reality that Russia in general has long standing social, cultural and economic ties with the Persian Gulf region in particular, and the Middle East in general. Russia has always been a more natural ally for the Arab states than the western european powers. There are long (as in centuries old) standing ties and connections at all levels. I might personally think Putin is a rather nasty piece of work, but in terms of credibility and understanding of the region, Russia has long had a far more subtle, nuanced understanding than Western powers. 

I’ve argued this before, and I will continue to do so. Western interests in the region are purely trade related. We would do well to focus on those issues, and step out of direct military intervention. Provocations from the likes of ISIS are like a teenager trying to poke an adult into giving a reaction. If we react, they win - their propaganda machine makes huge gains from the heavy handed interventions we’ve used in the past. It’s much harder for them to use the Russian interventions in the same way simply because of the connections into Russia that go back centuries. The Western powers represent the “unknown”, and thus easily demonized, factors. To date, ISIS’ provocations amount to rendering unstable the puppet government that Bush II set up in Iraq and capitalizing on the “Arab Spring” destabilization of Syria.

Putin will be a pain to deal with, but in some ways, Russian leadership represents the bridge between western interests and Arab interests from a diplomatic perspective. Russia has strong cross-cultural connections with both regions. It is perhaps time to work with Russia, and use that to develop a trade-centred approach to the region instead of trying to intervene militarily in the geopolitical mess.

That Was Predictable

Way back in 2003 when the United States invaded Iraq (long before the Afghanistan mess had been anything close to resolved), I remember having a conversation in which I said that within 5 years of the US withdrawal from Iraq, that the country would founder in civil war.  (I believe much the same thing will inevitably happen in Afghanistan as well)

This week, we have seen the "insurgency" in Iraq transform from a few disorganized groups into a coherent military force not to be trifled with.

Anybody who is surprised by this hasn't been paying close attention since 2001.  The US military may have overthrown the local governments, but groups like al Qaeda, the Taliban and others still exist.  They may have "gone to ground", but make no mistake, they continue to operate and organize. These groups don't disappear magically because of a 5 year long military occupation.  (or even a decade)

If there is a single lesson to be taken from the last decade's worth of interventions in the Middle East it is this:  There are no short term interventions which will create a stable, long lasting democracy in that region.

There are thousands of reasons for this.  The Roman Empire is filled with examples of how even relatively long term direct interventions can fail to instil the sense of cultural trust required for a foreign culture to be willing to adopt the occupiers' desired form of government.  It takes decades, if not longer to build that kind of trust - especially when you arrived with hell at your back to begin with.

Second, where a western styled democracy is concerned, there is an enormous amount of cultural structures that must be in place before it has any chance of long term success.  The people must trust the idea of law as a just and reasonable thing, that justice is somehow apart from the notion of revenge, that the government will respect the rights of individuals and so on.  (I will, for the sake of this essay ignore the egregious violations of this trust in the last decade by governments in the western world ... that is another discussion for another day)

A people that has been subjugated by iron-fisted dictators like Saddam Hussein, or religious fanatics like the Taliban, will not have this trust.  The idea of walking down the street and being safe from the intrusion of government authority cannot exist under these circumstances.  Military occupation is similarly troublesome for similar reasons.  The authority is held not at the will of the people but by the force of arms and the threat of violence to the person.

For those of us who live in Canada, we can trace the evolution of our understanding of law as apart from politics, government as an agent good overall back through the history of England, from the retreat of the Roman Empire from the region, through the Dark Ages and the signing of the Magna Carta to the modern era in which the Monarchy exists more as a figurehead than anything else.

There is a long, gradual process of change that took place, during which the powers of the monarchy grew at first, and gradually ebbed away over time.  The Magna Carta represents the beginning of the real limits on the Monarchy, taking away the ability of England's Monarchs to act as capriciously as they had previously.  It created the idea of the Monarchy as limited in its powers and authority, and the idea of parliament as a guide to the Monarch.

Over the next several hundred years, the powers held by the Monarchy gradually devolved to the parliament, and in particular to the House of Commons.

If it took western societies the better part of a full millennia to evolve into the stable democracies we have today, we must recognize that the process did not take place in a vacuum of changing government, but rather the entire fabric of society changed along with it, enabling the government to become what was needed.  It would be foolish indeed to believe that a similar government can be created and imposed at gunpoint over the course of a little more than a decade.

Harper: A Decade In And He Still Doesn't Get It

Stephen Harper has been in power for the high side of a decade.  That's a long time.

Most Prime Ministers by this point in their careers have figured out that the foreign affairs portfolio is a tricky one.  When you are a smallish nation like Canada, you get much better results by influencing rather than playing the puffed up pugilist.

Harper hasn't figured this out.  Does he really think that Putin notices his pronouncements in the wake of sanctions?  Is he really daft enough to believe that his military posturing is going to convince Putin to back out of Crimea?

It seems to me that Harper is following his usual hyper-partisan instincts.  He isn't actually trying to influence Putin.  He's not interested in that.  He is much more interested in playing the foreign policy cards in his hand as part of a propaganda campaign aimed at getting re-elected next election.

No doubt, Harper's base loves the idea of a foreign policy that they don't have to think about.  A world which is cast in stark tones of good and bad.  Israel is good, Russia is bad.  The US is good, Iran is bad and so on.  It seems easy to grasp.

Yet, it is also not so simple.  In reality the world is a subtle place, shaded mostly in degrees of grey.  No country is essentially good or bad.  The days of looking upon Russia as "the other", shrouded in secrecy behind the old "Iron Curtain" are long past.  Globalization has dissolved those mythologies.  Russia is a nation led by a man who wishes to revive the old Cold War tensions, and Harper is fool enough to believe that this is to his own benefit.

Harper has been tone deaf on foreign affairs from day one.  Just as Putin is in fact a fool to try and resurrect the old "Soviet Empire", Harper is an even greater fool for playing to Putin's tune.  

It's About Recognizing The Realities

Over at Huffington Post, one of their columnists, JJ McCullough, is pontificating on Harper's trip to Israel.  In the comments, we find HP blogger Mitch Wolfe making the following daft statement:

This article is an excellent summary of Harper's pro Israeli policies. It also provides an excellent summary of the so-called pundits' views of Harper's pro Israeli position. The pundits, the Laurentian Consensus, Tony Burman of the Star and Simpson of the Globe, all fail to deal with Hamas, " the camel in the room". This is a terrorist organization that rules by violence and intimidation. There is no democracy, freedom or rule of law in Gaza. Hamas tortures and discriminates against those who do not adhere to strict Sharia/Islamic principles, which include non Muslims, women and gays of course. Hamas has become a mortal enemy of Abbas and the PLO on the west bank. Hamas still vows to destroy Israel as a Jewish state. But these ridiculous pundits want Harper to treat this disgusting group in a more even-handed and nuanced manner. No wonder these newspapers have sunk so low in public esteem and are bleeding red ink from dropping circulation.

I'll come back to McCullough's column in a moment.  Mr. Wolfe's statement is so ridiculous that it needs to be addressed before I tear apart McCullough's analysis.

Nobody I have read has ever spoken favourably of Hamas, Hezbollah or any other terrorist organization.  There is, however, something that needs to be paid careful attention.  Organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah are not just "terrorists" - in several countries they have become the agents delivering the social programs that alleviate the grinding poverty that so many people in the middle east find themselves living with.  In many respects, these organizations are the government more so than the actual governments in some areas.  In short, more so than the official governments, they actually have an enormous amount of practical political power which should not be ignored.

Further, the dispute between Israel and its Arab neighbours goes back not decades but centuries.  The grievances are entwined in the cultural fabric of the region on both sides.  We would be foolish indeed to believe that there is a "right side" and a "wrong side" in this dispute.  The issue is that Harper is taking sides in this dispute - unequivocally.

Returning to McCullough's column, let's take a look at a few things:

There are a lot of nasty tropes floating out there about the cryptic man running our country, and most of them are junk. The idea that he's ushered in a dramatic hike in military spending, for instance. Or massive cuts in scientific research. Or notions he's been pursuing a dogmatic anti-pot crusade, or has presided over a dramatic spike in greenhouse gas emissions, or is a fundamentalist Christian reactionary with a secret plan to destroy gay marriage.The no less oft-repeated claim that Stephen Harper is the most aggressively pro-Israel leader in the world, however  -- that one's on considerably firmer ground.

Let's see, on that military spending thing, under Harper military spending has increased to near WW II levels.  The amount he cut last year is a drop in the bucket compared to what he has poured into the military since 2006.

Harper's war on science ... well that's not exactly something I can ignore either.  This Prime Minister has done more to gut this nation's ability to make evidence-based policy decisions than any predecessor.  The fact that organizations like DFO have taken the brunt of these cuts merely speaks to Harper's dismissive hatred for anything that might substantiate climate change, or identify the damage that corporate businesses are doing to the environment.  So, while McCullough would like us all to believe that Harper's War on Science is just the imaginings of the "anti-Harper" CBC, there is so much evidence of this war starting in 2006 and continuing to present day (accelerating since 2011), that it cannot be simply dismissed as a "shibboleth".

As for Harper's environmental record, well, let's just say it's somewhat less than exemplary.  The man has axed a huge amount of research activity into matters of the environment, and during his tenure Oil Sands development in Alberta has increased in pace, in spite of concerns about managing the waste products of strip mining and "upgrading" the bitumen.

As for Harper on Gay Marriage - or other LGBT rights, his track record speaks for itself.  During the pre-legalization debate he and his party were vehemently opposed.  His caucus' voting on the Transgender rights legislation that has been before the House several times speaks volumes as well.  Harper isn't himself a "died in the wool reactionary" - he's smart enough to know that being overtly hostile himself has a political price that he is unwilling to pay.  He allows his backbench to keep throwing bits of red meat to the slavering base in the form of spurious motions and private member's bills.  He allows them to go on with them until such times as there would be a political price to pay for it.

Do I believe that Harper is hostile to Gay Marriage, LGBT rights in general, and women's rights (especially health issues like abortion)?  There is plenty of evidence that he and his government are - starting in 2006 when they came to power.  If the political price for reversing the Gay Marriage and abortion issues wasn't fatally high, I'm pretty certain that Harper would go after it.

McCullough seems to be willing to ignore or forget the evidence that is Harper's background and legacy.  The "tropes" about Harper exist not just because people don't like him, but because his actions past and present support those tropes.

The question is whether Harper has it in him to criticize his hosts after charming his way into their parlour. John Ivision at the Post thinks it's just as likely Harps will double-down on sucking up, and offer Netanyahu the sweetest diplomatic plum of all  --  a hint that Canada is interested in being the first country to formally recognize the plight of "the estimated 850,000 Jews displaced from states in the Middle East and North Africa" following Israel's war of independence. John says such an unprecedentedly fawning gesture  --  one that dramatically ratchets up the moral equivalency arms race between Israelis and Palestinians  -- could make the Israeli leader positively "delirious." 

I suspect he wouldn't be the only one.

Why yes, because nothing does your country more good than taking a polarizing position on a conflict that has been ongoing for centuries.   The consequences for Canada in this regard are enormous.  Harper thinks that he is bringing a "mature and decisive" approach to these issues.  What he is really doing is weakening Canada's voice on the world stage.

Israel is a nation located in lands that are believed to be sacred by Judaism, Islam and Christianity.  There cannot be a greater recipe for conflict to begin with.  Several centuries of conflict in the region has rendered the context in which Israel exists far too murky to justify taking a polarizing position as Harper is doing.

Now, the real question is what is Harper's motivation behind his stance on Israel?  There seems to be little sense to it.  Was this trip staged as a distraction to take attention away from the corruption and maliciousness being carried out at home?  Or is there something in Harper's unstated beliefs that supports his approach to Israel?  It's hard to say, but in any respect Harper is doing Canada no favours.

Harper's New Anti-Semitism

Few things make me angrier than the propensity of the far right to twist things.  In today's speech to Israel's Knesset, we find this lovely little gem:

"A state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history," he said. 

"That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism. It is nothing short of sickening." 

Harper allowed that criticism of Israeli government policy isn't in and of itself "necessarily anti-Semitic."

Of course, Harper thinks he is being magnanimous in allowing that "criticizing Israeli government policy is not "necessarily anti-Semitic".  His words are, of course, disingenuous.  On one hand he castigates those who criticize Israel's policies of settlements and the wall as being unreasonable, and yet fails to see the similarities between these policies and other past racial segregation experiments?

Both Canada and Israel share "a sincere hope" that the Palestinian people and their leaders will choose a democratic Palestinian state that lives peacefully alongside Israel, Harper said. 

"Sadly, we have yet to reach that point. But, when that day comes, and come it must, I can tell you that Israel may be the first to welcome a sovereign Palestinian state, but Canada will be right behind you."

The problem here is that it creates false presuppositions about the form and structure of a possible Palestinian state.  We don't know if that is the kind of state that is desired by the Palestinians, and what happened to their right to self-determination?  Can we ignore the stranglehold that Israel continues to hold on the Palestinians and their ability to develop a coherent economy or government? This is no small issue, and one not to be ignored.

Fortunately, someone had the gumption to get up and leave during Harper's speech to the Knesset, and much of what he has to say should be profoundly troubling to anyone who is not invested directly in Israel.

Tibi said Harper didn't mention the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Canada officially opposes Israeli control over territories occupied in 1967, although Harper has refrained from criticizing Israel for its policy. 

"When you are controlling, discriminating, confiscating, occupying lands from one side and putting them in the corner without any basic rights, you are by this way ruling and committing apartheid in the occupied Palestinian Territories," Tibi said. 

"If he is talking about freedom, why he is totally neglecting the absence of freedom of the Palestinians under occupation? It is a double-standard. These words are moral double-standard from the prime minister of Canada." 

Tibi also took issue with the idea that debating boycotts of Israeli products and using the term apartheid is anti-Semitic. 

"Do you accept at any case to be under occupation and then somebody will tell you that it is absolute democracy? It is not. We are living day by day here. Palestinians under occupation are living day by day, and saying that the occupied territory is apartheid has no relation at any case with anti-Semitism," he said. 

"What's the connection? If you are criticizing the policy of the state of Israel, immediately you are categorized as anti-Semitic. This is a twisted logic of Mr. Harper."

Mr. Tibi's comments cut to the heart of the problem with Harper's uncritical approach to Israel.  Few things in that part of the world can be cast in black-and-white terms.  The conflicts in Israel and the surrounding region are centuries old, and no party to the dispute can lay claim to being beyond reproach.

I don't know what the answers are to the seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East, but blindly supporting one state over another is hardly helpful.  There is no rightness in lobbing rockets into Israeli territory, but it seems to me that there is no rightness in building segregation walls either.  As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Mr. Harper should tread very carefully in his declarations of just what value judgments should be applied to criticism of any of the parties in ongoing dispute that is in the Middle East.

Harper Is A Boy In Short Pants On Foreign Policy

When it comes to matters of Foreign Policy, Harper is neither subtle or particularly smart.  As with all things in Harper's world, it's all about partisan position and absolutes.

Yesterday's announcement of Vivian Bercovici's appointment as Canada's new ambassador to Israel fits that pattern exactly.

Ms. Bercovici is one of those who is completely uncritical of the regime in Israel, and about as nuanced as Harper himself in her musings on the subject.

In a Jan. 28, 2013, column in the Toronto Star, Bercovici praises Netanyahu and criticizes Palestinian leaders. 

"Many western governments, judging from their comments, hold onto a misguided fantasy of the Middle East: that the persistent obstacle to peace is Israel, not the intransigence of Palestinian leaders," she wrote. 

She called Netanyahu a "respected leader" who has "enhanced national security, immeasurably."Of the Palestinian leadership, she said it calls for "the destruction of Israel — disseminated openly in political forums, the tightly controlled media and taught freely in schools and universities."

Okay, fine.  Ms. Bercovici is entitled to her opinions on Israel, as we all are.  However, Foreign Policy isn't about opinions - whether hers or Harper's.

It's not as if the Harper Government is terribly nuanced on the Foreign Affairs portfolio.  Harper has all but declared that Israel can do no wrong, and the only objective for Foreign Affairs is to make economic gains, so appointing someone of Ms. Bercovici's stripe to play ambassador to Israel is no big surprise.

However, this is an incredibly short-sighted move on Harper's part.  It effectively guarantees that Canada has absolutely no voice outside of Israel in the Middle East.  While we might have some influence within Israel, Ms. Bercovici's appointment will be looked upon by all of the Arab nations and their allies as a signal that Canada is distinctly uninterested in their story.  That lack of interest will be reciprocated.

But, the implications of this decision are even more far reaching than Mr. Harper seems to have envisioned.  Whatever the reasons Harper's unquestioning support of Israel, he fails to understand how this move will impact his other objectives.  If commerce is his Foreign Affairs "raison d'être" overall, he has forgotten something very important.  By alienating the Arab world, he has cut Canada off from a very large market space.  Further, he has also alienated a number of other large economies which are traditionally much better connected with the Middle East than our own - Russia and China come to mind here as central to the discussion - and neither of those nations has exactly the warmest of relations with Israel.

What the Harper Government continues to overlook is that even more so than domestic politics, Foreign Affairs is a delicate process of walking a series of very fine lines.  Only in the most extreme of circumstances do you take such absolute lines as we see the Harper Government taking on Israel.

Ms. Bercovici is partially correct when she criticizes the Palestinian authority for their intransigence in peace talks, but only partially.  One can hardly ignore Israel's disregard of the pre-1967 borders, building an apartheid-inspired wall around the Palestinian lands and creation of settlements on lands which the Palestinians lay claim to.

The web of disputes in the Middle East are centuries old, and the redrawing of borders which took place in the wake of WW I did not help matters at all.  Rightly, the Arab nations are skeptical of Western powers and their intentions in the region.  A series of resource wars, and clumsily executed colonial era edicts have created a situation where the entire region is a political minefield which must be negotiated very carefully.

Harper's approach to the region has been like a small boy - he runs into the middle of the minefield, quite unaware of the dangers which he is exposing himself to.

More on Baird and Iran

People, even the media who watch such things, seem mystified by the Harper Government(tm) stance on Iran.

It's no big surprise, really.  When I took this blog out from under wraps in May, I wrote a lengthy essay describing the "Modern Fascism" that Harper has been cultivating.  On foreign affairs, I wrote the following:

Naturally, he would play on this in such a manner as to play up the idea that Canada is being marginalized on the world stage and use that to build up a form an nationalism not unlike what happened in Germany in the post-WWI years as a result of the isolation and restrictions that the Treaty of Versailles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles ) created.

With Iran, The Harper Government has done something which only makes sense in the context of Harper trying to isolate Canada on the world stage.  Like his position on Sri Lanka, Harper takes an absolutist "all-or-nothing" approach to the issues, and then withdraws any support for compromise - thus removing Canada's voice entirely from the discourse.

In the context of Canada's role on the world stage, he is taking a stance which is the polar opposite of where Canada typically plays well.  Where Canada has historically been the voice of compromise and reason, Harper's voice on the world stage is one of bluster and hostility.  We all know that Canada hasn't got the economic or military muscle to back up this belligerent stance that Harper is taking, so for the world, Harper's voice on the stage is easily ignored.

Here in Canada, we cannot ignore it.  At first, I assumed that Harper's approach to foreign affairs was merely a result of his lack of awareness.  That was in 2006.  Since then, I have become convinced that not only is it deliberate, but that it is part of a larger strategy on Harper's part to dismantle everything that he loathes about Canada's history.  If it serves to isolate Canada on the world stage in the process, so much the better for his propaganda campaigns.

It will take years to clean up the mess this nasty little man is making.

When Logic Does Not Factor Into Policy

Yesterday, Canada's Minister for the Status of Women spoke on the recent decision for Canada to restrict funding related to War Rape and Forced Marriage victims to organizations and programs that exclude abortion.

As a pediatric surgeon, she said she's confident Canada has chosen to target its aid where it will do the most good. 

"We have to pick a targeted area, where we're going to be able to have an impact," Leitch said in a phone interview from New York. 

"As a physician, I'm very confident in saying that we have chosen the right one, that pre- and post-partum care is the place where we'll have the most meaningful impact to save the lives of children and their mothers." 

She noted that childbirth is one of the leading causes of death among young women between the ages of 15 and 19 and blamed that largely on the appalling conditions in which they're frequently forced to give birth.

The logic of this is beyond ridiculous.  As a doctor, she should know damn good and well that maternal health includes contraception and abortion.  Excluding these from the discussion does nothing more than reduce women to the role of baby machines.

The issues of the conditions in which women are often forced to give birth are no different than the issue of the conditions which women are forced to deal with when seeking to end an unwanted pregnancy.  Period.  Anybody who thinks that because abortion isn't being funded/supported/provided that women don't seek out such solutions has wool where their brains should be.

What the Harper Government is really doing is using this issue as a piece of red meat for their squirming base of religious fundamentalists.  Make no mistake about it, the religious far right desperately wants to regulate sexuality in this country, and their beach head is abortion.  They think that they can justify slamming the door shut on abortion in Canada, using many of the same revolting tactics that we have seen used in the United States, where progressively more invasive laws have been pushed through at the state level which have rendered access to abortion virtually impossible in some states.

Ms. Leitch should also be quite aware that forced marriage regularly includes forcing girls into marriage before they are physically mature enough to carry a child safely to term, and war rape in general does not respect age at all.  In both cases, access to abortion is a legitimate need for the women affected by these atrocities.  A girl who has had her first period is capable of becoming pregnant, but that doesn't mean that she is able to carry the fetus to term safely, and the injuries from early sex can be fatal.   That she is a paediatrician and takes a position that excludes a particular treatment option for the victims of these practices is disgusting.  She should be fully aware of the dangers involved in such situations for the young woman.

Turning to the question of "War Rape", and pregnancy which could result from such activities, the position she is taking effectively revokes the notion that woman has autonomy over her body in all circumstances.  Once again, we find the ridiculous "pro-life" trope surfacing that denies women autonomy over their bodies.  Pregnancy is not without consequences for the mother, no matter how much we might idealize it as a "wondrous time" in life.  I can only imagine the psychological trauma that someone who is raped in a war zone, and then obliged to carry the resulting child to term would face.  In effect, we are not only rewarding the rapist with offspring, but for the remainder of that woman's life, she has to face a recurring trauma resulting from knowing the origins of that child.  (worse, in some countries, the rapist is actually granted rights with respect to that child, which would spawn still more recurring trauma for the mother)

Logically speaking, there is no way that you can claim to be helping the health of women in these situations and exclude access to abortion.  Doing so is logically inconsistent, and exposes the victims of these crimes (and both are criminal acts in my opinion, regardless of the local laws in other countries).

Once again, the Harper Government is making policy decisions based on ideology, not on facts and reason.  I shudder to think what Harper is going to do on the home front between now and the next election.

What Was That About "Not Re-Opening the Abortion Debate"?

Since 2006, Harper has repeatedly "refused" to open the abortion debate in Canada ... or at least so he claims.

But then again, there's the old saw about "actions speak louder than words".  Once again, the Harper Government has taken actions which very clearly articulate where they stand.  On Huffington Post, the headline reads "Tories Won't Fund Overseas Projects Allowing Abortion For War Rape, Child Brides"

International Development Minister Christian Paradis says the government will not fund overseas projects that allow war rape victims and child brides to obtain an abortion. 

...

But Paradis says the government's policy would follow the same logic as that behind Canada's $3-billion G8 funding commitment for maternal and child health — no money should go towards abortion services. 

That's a change from the department's previous statement that it does not monitor where each dollar goes when funding is provided to large multilateral aid organizations outside the G8 commitment envelope. 

If this doesn't get you wound up, it should.  Once again, we have the Harper Government talking out of both sides of its mouth.  On one side, they are working very hard not to talk about abortion publicly, but by way of policy fiat, they are moving quite clearly against women's rights - including self-determination, health care and so on.  Worse, they are doing it one the world stage, and to those who are inherently the most vulnerable.

There can be no mistaking Harper's policy here - this government is clearly hostile to women and women's rights.  He knows that were he to move in Canada to restrict abortion access further, the political storm he would face would be enough to sink his already plummeting political fortunes.

But, because this doesn't affect Canadians directly, the political calculation is that it won't be noticed.  Like several "private member's" bills and motions on controversial subjects, Harper has allowed them to move forward because it keeps the far-right base that formed the core of the Reform Party happily believing that he's on their side.

We've had a steady stream of anti-abortion private member's bills and motions before the House.  All of  them have been allowed to gain a certain amount of publicity and attention, and then are quietly defeated by a "free vote".  (In the case of the CPC, I would put money that those "free votes" are stage managed within an inch of their lives)

Further, Harper has been one of the most radical micro-managers we've ever seen occupy the PMO.  There is no chance that a back-bench MP gets to put forward a private member's bill without the approval of the PMO.

Private members' bills differ from government legislation in that they are supposed to be an expression of something the individual MP wants to champion. While it's not unusual for these bills to be amended – and often improved – at committee, it is unusual for MPs from the bill sponsor's own governing party to use their majority on the committee reviewing the legislation to make changes the MP who proposed the bill didn't originally intend, or support. 

Normally, if a government doesn't support a private member's bill, it encourages its MPs to vote it down before it reaches committee. However, it doesn't usually whip — or force — its caucus to vote a certain way on these kinds of bills. 

"The more popular feeling certainly at PMO and the whip's office is that caucus members should essentially be cheerleaders for the government and spread the government's message as opposed to being some sort of legislative check on executive power," Rathgeber said Thursday. "I don't accept their premise."

Harper, The UN and Aboriginal Issues

Once again, we find The Harper Government (which, I am more and more convinced is not a Canadian government), squabbling over the UN's initiatives to review Canada's treatment of our Aboriginal population.

Countries have their rights records reviewed every four years by the Geneva-based UN forum, but the Harper government has been skeptical of it in part because it allows countries with dubious rights records to criticize Canada.

Recommendations from Iran, Sri Lanka and Cuba were among the 40 out of 162 that Canada chose to reject.

Frankly, Canada's relationship with its Aboriginal peoples is less than ideal, and arguably subject to quite a lot of very legitimate criticism.  While we have begun to take steps to address the wrongs done such as the Residential Schools, we keep uncovering other evils carried out by past governments, or for that matter accusations of negligent or sloppy investigation is missing native women and the ongoing crisis conditions at Attawapiskat.

To be honest, I find the "what to do" with respect to the wrongs that have been perpetrated on native peoples by our governments - past and present, a very complex and unsettling puzzle.  More recent abuses such as the seemingly negligent approach to investigating missing persons cases involving aboriginal women on the part of the RCMP have some fairly obvious remediations.  But, older wrongs, including those which are contained in treaties that are now hundreds of years old are more complex.  Is it reasonable to hold today's generations "to account" for the problems that the treaty system created?  I am less sure that is constructive.

However, I'm not going to attempt to untangle the complexities of Aboriginal issues in Canada here - that is a topic which is probably worthy of a book of its own, not a mere blog post.

The issue that the Harper Government is creating here is profoundly troubling.  Harper has very little difficulty with complaining loudly about being judged by the very countries which he is so quick to condemn for their human rights record.  Harper seems to think that he is only subject to criticism by countries which he perceives as being his peers.  

Reality check time.  I don't give a damn if Harper thinks that Iran is "lower on the totem pole" than Canada when it comes to human rights.  The fact is that at the level of the UN, all countries are peers.  Just because Iran or Cuba might have something to say that you don't like, that doesn't automatically make it an invalid commentary.  

In my opinion, Harper's actions in this case reveal two things about Harper that are profoundly offensive to Canadian sensibilities.  First, it reveals an excessively thin skin on Harper's part with respect to any kind of criticism.  (Arguably, he has used Prorogation of Parliament to avoid being held accountable).  Second, it also reveals the subtle bigotry that has always been just below the surface of Harper's politics.  While Harper has had Jason Kenney running around courting the various ethnic populations, he has quietly worked to undermine women, aboriginals and other groups in Canada through a series of program cuts.

Dog Whistling To The Base

So, the HarperCon$ want to emulate G.W. Bush once again - this time by creating an office for religious freedom.

The Tory platform, unveiled Friday, calls for the creation of special office of “Religious Freedom” within the Foreign Affairs Department in Ottawa.

The function of the new office would be to “monitor religious freedom around the world, to promote religious freedom as a key objective of Canadian foreign policy.”

The new office would ensure that Canada protects “vulnerable religious minorities” abroad and would target them in refugee resettlement, or other programs through the Canadian International Development Agency.

I'm going to disagree with Ignatieff's apparent endorsement of this proposal. Not because I necessarily disagree with the concept of evaluating fundamental freedoms in foreign lands as part of our foreign affairs platform, but because of the longer range implications of this "special office".

First of all, I think for this to be a meaningful part of our foreign affairs platform we need to take steps to ensure that we are talking about all of the fundamental freedoms that are enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, not just Freedom of Religion. I do not accept the supposition that freedom of religion deserves special status or profile in our foreign affairs.

Second, this is a play to "the base" of extremist religious lobbyists in Canada who have squawked and complained for several years now that their "freedom of religion" at home is being unreasonably constrained by a series of human rights rulings.

I suspect that this "office" will be given a mandate that will oblige it to evaluate the "Freedom of Religion" in foreign lands with respect to Canada's practices. Conveniently, it will have to "measure" freedom of religion in Canada in order to create a meaningful benchmark. You can pretty much bet that the "findings" of said measurement will be used to argue that Canada's Human Rights system is "not adequately safeguarding" religious freedoms - [particularly where "christian" beliefs about sexuality are concerned. Just about all of the cases involve "christians" discriminating against GLBT people]

This "initiative" is actually the HarperCon$ setting up yet another "wedge issue" - in this case, it is intended to be used to begin the process of undermining Canada's human rights law and the agencies that enforce it. The only people who have been squawkingabout this are the fundamentalist religious right wingnuts who seem to believe that it is their right to insist that they be able to project their moral code onto others who do not share their beliefs - and thereby forget the interesting paradox of the very notion of Freedom of Religion - namely that it includes Freedom _from_ Religion as well.

Where The HarperCon$ Don't Understand Canada

Canada is a unique country on the world stage. On one hand, we represent one of the largest, most diverse geographic areas under a national government on the planet. On the other hand, we're also very sparsely populated, with only a little over 30 million people.

In the past, Canada has been perceived as 'punching above its weight' on the world stage. Punching is perhaps the wrong term. We had enjoyed a very long period of influence that exceeded our population and overall economic strength.

Since 2006, the HarperCon$ have been prancing about the world stage trying to make Canada appear to be a major power. Whether that is some of the ridiculous defense purchasing commitments they have been making, or Harper trying to bully other world leaders (e.g. China) doesn't matter. What we have is a leadership which is trying to make Canada play a role as schoolyard bully.

Unfortunately, this is rooted in a profound misunderstanding of Canada's real power on the world stage. Our prominence on the world stage isn't rooted in our ability to force others to bend to our will, and is unlikely to ever be. No, Canada's real influence lies in our ability to persuade others to 'do the right thing'.

This is not that different from how women accomplish things in society. In terms of pure physical strength, a women generally can't overpower men. Yet, women have a great deal of influence over people in general. Why? Because they can persuade others to do the right thing. Women don't achieve persuasion by physical force, but through other more subtle means.

Canada's power lies in its ability to act as a broker between America and the rest of the world. Our strength lies in being seen to stand up against America when it is doing something foolishly wrong-headed, and yet being seen standing with the American government when it is appropriate. The ability to be an 'honest broker' with Washington is important, and it buys us credibility with other powers in various regions of the world.

Canada strutting about the world stage like some puffed up dandy as Harper has been doing really looks quite ridiculous. Even if we were to focus ourselves on becoming as big a military power as possible, we simply aren't a big enough country as a whole to be able to put forward an army big enough to impress any but the third tier powers in the world.

If they ever realize that Canada needs to conduct itself on the world stage in a more feminine manner in order to be effective, the more macho elements of the CPoC are going to be truly appalled.

Ah ... So Intimidation Is The Next Step

More on the HarperCon$ "Maternal Health" non-initiative:

“We’ve got five weeks or whatever left until G-8 starts. Shut the f--- up on this issue,” Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth told a group of international-development advocates who gathered on Parliament Hill on Monday to sound the alarm about Canada’s hard-right stand against abortion in foreign aid.

I see ... so, when the HarperCon$ get challenged for be a bunch of hard-rightwing extremists, the next thing they do is start threatening their critics with "something worse"?

Wow - this bunch keeps on getting worse every time I turn around. The language of policy is replaced with the language of intimidation and threats now. What's next? Criminalizing opposition to Dear Leader's policies?

“If you push it, there will be more backlash,” said Ruth, who fears that outrage will push her boss, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, to take further measures against abortion and family planning – abroad, or maybe even in Canada. “This is now a political football. This is not about women’s health in this country.”

More dogwhistle politics, there. Harper might go after abortion in Canada - I see - not like he isn't already doing that via a series of private members bills that keep getting put forward from his "non-cabinet" social conservative benches.

Canada's Conservative Government: Misogyny and Ignorance in One Package

After listening to yesterday's Question Period, I am astonished and appalled by the responses of our government regarding their "Maternal Health" development program for the G8.

Says the odious Bev Oda:

“This initiative is about saving the lives of mothers and children,” she said. “Far too many lives are being sacrificed when we can do something about it. This is the time we should act.”

Yes, Canada, this is exactly what the Forced-Pregnancy crowd wants. Take away options which allow women to control their fertility - after all if they don't want to be pregnant, they shouldn't be engaging in sex, right?

Then there's the more realistic side of the world, pointed out by MP Carolyn Bennett:

“Unbelievably, the minister suggested that birth control has nothing to do with saving lives,” Dr. Bennett said, noting that United Nations says a “lack of adequate contraceptive services is responsible for 1.5 million deaths in developing countries every year.”

What?! How can it be that our government is not only ignoring the research?

Oh - wait - these are the heirs of the Bush II years in the US - facts and evidence don't matter, just their dogma.

[Update 18/3/10]
So, having sounded the dog whistle loud and clear to the base, we now see Harper beating a retreat ... of a sort:

"We are not closing doors against any options, including contraception," Harper said in French in the Commons. "But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion."

But why is contraception - and safe abortion - even a question? For decades, these have been part of Canada's foreign aid policies - nicely aligning us with the UK, and much of the EU.

The fact that Harper & Co. are "questioning" this, and "considering it as an option" tells us a great deal about what they would do given the opportunity.
[/Update]

Ah - So Women's Health Only Matters When You're Pregnant

Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say

In no uncertain terms, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday ruled out any kind of family-planning programs being included in Canada's "signature" initiative at June's G8 summit - a strategy to improve the health of mothers and young children in poor countries.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

So, in short, the HarperCon connection to the ultra-conservative "base" of religious fanatics has surfaced once again - this time with respect to women's health.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cannon, but you are doing nothing for women's health if you are taking out of their hands the ability to control their fertility. (and telling women to 'keep their legs crossed' doesn't work - especially in many of the third world countries where women are more chattel than equal members of society)

Women's health must include all dimensions - not just when they are pregnant, but also family planning, contraception and other forms of birth control. To do anything less is political dogma, not good government or policy.

Of course, this comes as little or no surprise to those who have been paying attention to the Harper government. There's been more 'dog whistles' put out in their policy in the last few months than I care to count. Whether we talk about Jason Kenney's lying deceit about his role in the content of this country's new citizenship book, the 2006 "cuts" that targetted women and minorities, or this issue, they are intended to signal to the squirming mass of extremism that had control over the Reform/Alliance party policy that they have not been forgotten.

I Disagree With The Supreme Court Here

The Supreme Court of Canada decided not to order the Canadian Government to repatriate Omar Khadr.

There is a problem here. The court has acknowledged that the government has violated Mr. Khadr's rights time and again throughout this whole sordid business. The government - especially under Mr. Harper - has been exceptionally rigid in its refusal to act on Mr. Khadr's behalf. It is disappointing indeed that the Supreme Court is unwilling to order the government to take effective action on Mr. Khadr's behalf.

The argument that the Supreme Court has no business dictating foreign affairs policy to the government is flawed in my view. This is not merely a matter of foreign affairs policy - it is in fact a situation where the government has been an active participant in the violations of Mr. Khadr's rights under Canada's existing laws. This is where the Supreme Court has, in my view, missed the point entirely.

Further, it does not recommend any kind of remedial or compensatory actions to be taken by the government to amend the situation that it has created with its mistreatment of his file.

In the bigger picture, this is an example of the Canadian government telling its citizens that they have NO standing with the government - within or without the nation's borders. Consider this carefully the next time you find it necessary to travel.

Flanagan Sort of Gets It

I suspect that Beelzebub is shovelling a dollop of snow out of his demesne today, Tom Flanagan wrote something that I almost agree with in the Globe and Mail this morning.

The reasoning seemed persuasive, but it neglected the limitations of Western power that have manifested themselves so visibly in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yes, Tom ... if the NeoCon warmongers had been paying attention in 2001, they could have saved taxpayers billions of dollars, and countless military families the pain of losing their loved ones or having them come back maimed for life - because it was obvious back then that all out military invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq was doomed to fail in the first place.

As far back as 2001/2002, I remember arguing that you don't fight shadows with heavy armor - you fight shadows with shadows. You fight shadows by removing the dark crevasses that they hide in by shedding light on them. All out conventional war creates more shadows, it does not eliminate them. It never has and never will.

What the NeoCons don't understand about foreign policy can be summed up in the Afghanistan and Iraq experiences - military force is the threat you use in today's world. The real work happens much more covertly. You don't defeat terrorists by blowing up the compound that one of their leaders lives in, you defeat them by undermining their activities and efforts.

The question we face now, is what to do with Afghanistan and Iraq. Long term military occupation is unlikely to feasible or politically palatable to taxpayers, and it is hard to imagine that we have any real allies in those countries right now.

Can They Sink Any Lower

I know that blaming the victim is a pretty standard right wingnut attack ... and what do we see Conservative MPs doing to Suaad Hagi Mohamud?

Conservative MP Brian Jean went on the offensive, trying to force Ms. Mohamud to immediately waive her privacy rights and allow the full release of the government investigation into her case.

“We've heard that she wants to be forthright and honest, but she is asking for $2.5-million in taxpayers' money, and we have not heard whether or not she would release the findings to the committee,” Mr. Jean said.

What a bunch of complete scum. The government wants a private citizen to permit full disclosure of her personal information in order to make public the investigation report into why and how the government facilitated her detainment in Kenya? Holy crap - I didn't think it was human possible to sink any lower than the Harper government has...Mr. Jean just picked up the barrel and showed us what's writhing underneath it.

Ms. Mohamud's lawyer, Julian Falconer, was outraged by the question, stating that his client has nothing to hide. He added that the government, on the other hand, has not provided Ms. Mohamud with all of its information on her case.

“What a sad story that months later, having failed to do their jobs, [government officials] would somehow try to put the onus on her,” Mr. Falconer told reporters. “To ask her to somehow agree to waive rights over things she hasn't seen is absurd.”

Truly, Harper's legacy might just be that he finally made Brian Mulroney look good.

The Harper Government's Implicit Bigotry

The actions of the HarperCon$ in handling Canadians who are stuck abroad for one reason or another carry the seeds in them of a rising tide of conservative prejudice against anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrowly defined sense of norms.

First up is this editorial from Embassy Mag (sorry, it's a sign-in site - but it is free).

The second lesson is about the lack of political concern for Canada's reputation in dealing with these matters. The treatment of Ms. Mohamud combined with other recent cases strongly suggests to the world that non-white and Muslim Canadians do not get the same attention from Ottawa as white native-born Canadians.

Stephen Harper and three of his ministers—Jason Kenney, Lawrence Cannon and Peter Van Loan—may not realize the seriousness of this problem. But this perception of institutional racism is a smoldering coal that, if left unchecked, runs the risk of igniting more than negative perceptions.

Along with certain overly heavy handed changes to our policies with respect to requiring Visas, the Harper government has taken a particularly heavy-handed approach to dealing with Canadians abroad, and visitors coming to Canada. The excuses they have provided to date seem at best inadequate.

It's time to bring the tough talk to an end. Canadians in trouble don't need to be lectured by the prime minister. And immigrant and refugee applicants don't need ministers to constantly complain about "queue jumpers." If the leaders set a tone of compassion, rather than the hardball language popular in Cabinet today, the world might not be so tempted to think us racist.

But then, when you combine that picture with the implications of recent changes to the "approved language" for DFAIT, it gets a whole lot uglier:

"The broader focus [of gender equality] certainly does include an understanding of the importance of the rights of the GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender] community. I think that there is a real concern about whether or not those rights are going to have less of a focus from the Canadian government perspective from that change," said Lindsay Mossman.

"[Equality of men and women] is language that was used in development circles years ago—language has progressed for reasons and moved forward and the Canadian government doesn't seem to be reflecting that in its language."

Mr. Cannon told Embassy on July 30 that some of the language changes were semantics, but said others reflected a change in policy. He didn't say which terms indicated a policy shift.

If the terminology does mean a change to government policy, it's a change that matters when you step outside Canada to look at how other countries treat gay and lesbian people, say advocates.

"On the ground, if the Ugandan Gay and Lesbian Association asks for some money to hold a workshop or something, [Canada] still could sponsor it, but we couldn't use our gender priorities as a justification. We'd have to just sponsor it on its own. Because that is less clearly about equality between men and women," Mr. Brown said.

Brown says the change at CIDA happened about a year ago. He believes the language shift indicates changing government policy because it has hit two departments.

Frankly, I think Cannon, like his master is being a little bit of a weasel when he tries to be evasive about what the various changes represent. Canada's government is trying to reinstate the kind of institutional bigotry that was commonplace through the first part of the 20th Century and before. It is a sad statement indeed that they either do not understand this, or have not managed to move beyond that period of time themselves.