Is consumerism always the answer?

The consensus of economists, business leaders and politicians seems to be that the solution to the current economic mess is for everyone to just go shopping. The same advice that George Bush offered to Americans after 9/11. More consumption, one might conclude, is the answer to every crisis from terrorism to economic collapse. And maybe, in the short term, it is. In the long term, I wonder.

Unless people see an increase in their incomes, buying more means running up more debt and excessive debt caused the financial meltdown in the first place. It is hard to see a long term answer here.

Then there's the overarching environmental threat. Are we not depleting the Earth's resources fast enough? Are we not polluting it sufficiently? Buying ever more stuff is a race to ecological catastrophe.

And consider those wise folk who handled their money responsibly and saved rather than going into debt. Central bankers are encouraging borrowing by lowering interest rates, thus punishing those cautious individuals who invested in instruments like GICs.

There is something fundamentally wrong here. For long term stability in the economy, we need better advice than shop until we drop. Advice, for example, like that contained in the posting by Mike Whitney "Wages, it all gets down to wages" on Another Point of View which suggests we need to create demand "predicated on wage increases instead of asset inflation." It is unlikely, however, the Prime Minister and his Minister of Finance will hear this kind of advice from their new Advisory Council. Having surrounded itself with a firewall of capitalists, the government has no ear for voices sympathetic to labour.

Nor, I suspect, will they or their council be interested in the possibility that the answer lies not in consuming more, but in consuming less and ensuring a more equitable distribution of that consumption. Yet this may very well be what the environment demands if the economy is to prosper or, indeed, to survive. To borrow Mies van der Rohe's architectural aphorism, sometimes less is more.

Flaherty's partisan panel

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's newly-appointed Economic Advisory Council looks at first glance like, as Chairwoman Carole Taylor puts it, an attempt to "reach out." A second look reveals that it doesn't reach very far. True, Taylor is a distinguished Liberal and Power Corp. chairman Paul Desmarais Jr. has Liberal connections, but sectorally the Council hardly reaches past the business community. The only non-business members are Taylor and right-wing academic Jack Mintz from the University of Calgary. After that, it's all corporate chairmen, presidents and CEOs.

We would, of course, expect majority business representation on a panel set up by a Conservative party, but no labour representatives? Not even a labour economist? Only one academic economist? And, strangely, at a time of financial chaos, not even one banker. The absence of labour representation is particularly egregious. The Canadian Labour Congress, the largest democratic organization in the country, represents over three million workers. Its presence should be a given.

Considering the current economic crisis was precipitated by interests that place excessive faith in free markets, heavily weighting a panel with those interests would seem less than wise. Free market thinking got us into this mess; we need a much broader range of ideas to get us out of it. This council clearly doesn't provide that range.

Jean Charest's exemplary cabinet

Once again, Jean Charest has set the standard. Acting on the precedent he set in his last cabinet, half of the 26-member cabinet forming his new government will be women. "A year and a half ago I created a precedent," said Mr. Charest. "Today I hope to have created a tradition.”

He has not only created a gender-equal cabinet, he has given the woman members powerful portfolios. Monique Jérôme-Forget will continue as finance minister, with responsibility for Quebec's major infrastructure program, and Nathalie Normandeau will remain as municipal affairs minister and deputy premier. As President of the Treasury Board, former international affairs minister Monique Gagnon-Tremblay will face the challenge of controlling spending as revenues decline. Rookie Kathleen Weil becomes Minister of Justice.

The shortage of women in our legislatures and cabinets manifests a fundamental problem in our political system, a fundamental injustice, an injustice that denies women equal opportunity and denies all of us the fullness of the intelligence and wisdom available to our governance. Mr. Charest has acted strongly to deal with this injustice. It's time for other political leaders to step up and follow his example. We will all be the beneficiaries.

Atheism on the bus

As an atheist I've never felt much inclination to proselytize. It has simply never mattered much to me what people's spiritual beliefs are. How they behave, how they treat other people, has always seemed rather more important. In fact, I've always thought that there really shouldn't be an ism in atheism. Ism seems to suggest a practice, a set of beliefs, a dogma, a guiding book like the Bible or The Communist Manifesto, but atheism just means one simple, little fact -- you don't believe in a god. Period. Nothing to make a fuss about.

Recently, however, some atheists have been making quite a fuss. Prominent thinkers such as Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris have written books that trashed God and religion generally while becoming bestsellers. Although I've sometimes wondered if it's really worth the effort, I have to admit religion continues, as it always has, to cause great mischief in the world. Hitchens et al. have a valid point to make.

We were reminded of that point during the recent American presidential election when oppressive Christianity saturated the proceedings like a fog. Not only did the candidates have to constantly trot out their Christian credentials but Obama had to defend himself against accusations -- yes, accusations! -- of being a Muslim. A black man can now run for president, but an atheist ... forget it. (Does this make atheism the new black?)

So I was delighted by an advertising campaign underway in Washington DC conducted by the American Humanist Society. Inspired by a similar project in Great Britain, they are putting up posters in city buses carrying the slogan "Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness' sake." My sentiments exactly. The campaign has a lighthearted flavour about it that I like. Stating your message with creativity and wit without bashing the other guys is an approach I appreciate. So keep on truckin', American Humanist Society, and a merry Xmas to you.

What's behind the coalition shock?

Judging by the tortuous arguments being raised against the NDP/Liberal agreement, many Canadians seem to be suffering from coalition shock. This is to some degree understandable in that we don’t do coalitions very often. In most democracies, they are commonplace. Israel, a thriving democracy, has never had a government that wasn't a coalition.

But then most democracies wouldn’t entertain the idea of a political party that only had the support of 38 per cent of the electorate forming a government. Canadians do, even thought it is clearly undemocratic, largely because of our corrupt "first-past-the-post" voting system. This system routinely produces false majorities -- a majority of the seats in the legislature with only a minority support of the electorate. Elections are a democratic instrument, but in Canada they produce undemocratic results. Most democracies insist that elections reflect the will of the people, and they achieve this with proportional voting systems and coalitions. First-past-the-post has so inured us to unfair representation that we tend to be taken aback when we encounter an instrument, e.g. a coalition, that contributes to fair representation.

The arrangement crafted by the Liberals and the NDP more closely resembles the people’s will as expressed on October 14th and would therefore, with the support of the Bloc on confidence votes, form a fairer, more democratic government. It would, of course, be thoroughly constitutional.

Ideally, we might ultimately institute a proportional system of electing our representatives. We would then become accustomed to fair representation and would no longer be shocked by commonplace methods of achieving it.

Who's afraid of the big bad Bloc?

One thing that has particularly upset Canadians most about the Liberal/NDP coalition, is the arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois. This is due in large part to people seeing the agreement as much more innovative than it is. It doesn't bring the Bloc into government, it simply says they will support the coalition on confidence votes, nothing more. In effect, the Bloc will do for the coalition in this Parliament what it did for the Conservatives in the last Parliament. In the last Parliament, it supported the Conservative government on a number of bills including two budgets, i.e. confidence votes. In other words, for the Bloc it's business as usual but with a new partner. The Conservatives had no problems with Bloc support then, but now ... well, they're separatists, you know.

So much for Conservative hypocrisy. But should progressives fear the Bloc?

The Bloc exists to promote the interests of Quebec as they see them, but then so do Liberal or Conservative MPs from Quebec, just as MPs from Alberta promote the interests of Albertans. That's what they're elected for, and that's what they get paid for. Bloc MPs also support the separation of Quebec, but that is largely irrelevant to the business of the House of Commons. House business generally concerns itself with environmental policy, Medicare, the economy and a host of other issues that have little or nothing to do with separation.

And on most of those issues, the Bloc's position falls somewhere in the liberal-left range of the political spectrum, essentially where most Liberal and NDP positions fall. There is a happy confluence of views. It means the Bloc should find it relatively easy to support coalition legislation, and it means the coalition should have to make little effort to gain that support. On issues such as the arts and youth crime, which hurt the Conservatives badly in Quebec in the October election, the coalition should encounter no problems. This is quite different from the last Parliament when the Bloc kept the Conservatives in power. I wouldn't dream of suggesting the Conservatives made back-room deals, but there could be no doubt they had to make more effort to get the Bloc on side.

Finally, a word about the separation thing. The Bloc position is, after all, perfectly legitimate. They want a separate country and they sincerely believe we would all be better off as two countries rather than one. I strongly disagree but, who knows, they could be right. In any case, this isn't some kind of betrayal of Canada. Splitting a country is fraught with danger, but some have done it with both sides agreeing they are better off. The former Czechoslovakia comes to mind. And Quebec separatists aren't threatening violence, just a democratic referendum and civilized negotiation.

There is little for progressives to fear from the Bloc Quebecois as supporters of the coalition on confidence votes. The Conservatives got their support in the last Parliament, and if there's no coalition, they may very well be seeking it in this one. Nothing new here.

Mme. Jean's difficult, but correct, choice

So ... did our Governor General do the right thing?

The optics, as they say, are not good. To begin with, a democrat might cringe at the very idea of an unelected head of state shutting down our parliament. The Crown shuts the people out of their own house, you might say. We don't really have too much to complain about, however. We put her in the job, so we can hardly complain when she does it.

The real question is whether she should have prorogued Parliament to save the skin of one party, or rather, given the Conservative Party is a one-man show, to save the skin of one party leader. That is unsettling indeed. We can only hope that, as the constitutional experts seem to suggest, it isn't a precedent.

Nonetheless, there are some strong arguments in favour of the lady's decision:

First, it will allow things to cool down a little. Tempers are flaring across the county (not a bad thing in itself -- I haven't seen Canadians so passionate about things political for years) and looking at the whole affair from a bit more distance might clarify our vision. Of course, the increasing numbers of unemployed might not be so keen to have economic decisions put on hold for two months.

Second, it will test the coalition. If the coalition is solid, it will comfortably endure two months of waiting. If it isn't, better we find out before it forms a government. It has lots to do: firming itself up, gaining the support of Canadians, preparing a sound economic policy for the global recession, and (dare I suggest) finding a competent leader. It can spend this time productively ... or fall apart.

Third, Mme. Jean's decision guarantees her complete independence if the government falls to a vote of confidence in the new year. She will owe Harper nothing, having done him a very big favour this week. She will carry no baggage in offering the coalition its chance to govern.

I say all this with no sympathy for Mr. Harper. I believe he created this confrontation, I think he's bad for Canada and I would be delighted to see him replaced by a government that represented most Canadians. It would also be refreshing to see political parties working together for the good of the country. But allowing a thorough discussion of the whole issue is a good thing, too, particularly with the extensive misunderstandings about our political system that have revealed themselves to date.

This is very important stuff. It has to do with how we govern ourselves, and very little is more worthy of thorough deliberation than that.

Stephen Harper blew his chance at statesmanship

Stephen Harper had a chance to be a statesman. He indicated he would be. After the election, he told Canadians he would work with the opposition to deal with the economic crisis. He sounded like he truly wanted to be leader of all the people. Then he blew it. The first thing piece of legislation he brought in had nothing to do with the crisis and everything to do with undermining the opposition parties. The real Stephen Harper, the us and them, firewall-building Stephen Harper, couldn't resist an opportunity to shaft his enemies.

The master strategist must have thought he had them over a barrel. If they defeated his legislation, he would claim it was a vote of confidence and call an election. The Conservatives, being in by far the best financial position, would win their majority. If, on the other hand, the opposition supported the legislation, they would cut their own financial throats. They would have been at a huge disadvantage in the next election, which we can be sure would not have been too long in coming. It was a sleazy tactic, but it seemed win-win -- too good an opportunity to miss. What the master strategist didn't count on was the opposition calling his bluff.

The Conservatives are crying foul, of course, claiming the leader of the coalition, Stephane Dion, was not elected prime minister as their man Stephen was. But he wasn't. There is no prime ministerial election in this country. We elect representatives for our constituencies, and traditionally the prime minister is that party leader who can command the most representatives in the House. If that is the leader of the Conservatives, then Stephen Harper becomes prime minister; if that is the leader of a coalition, then the prime minister is ... well, whoever the coalition chooses.

I admit I was beginning to think a new Stephen Harper was emerging. Earlier in the year he talked about the Conservatives moving toward the centre if they hoped to become the natural governing party. The Globe and Mail supported him during the election, saying he was growing into the job, and I felt maybe they were on to something. Obviously I was as naive as the Globe. I have, however, been relieved of any disappointment by the possibility of a government that actually represents most Canadians. Who would have thought? But with the coalition, that's exactly what we would have. And we wouldn't have another election for at least 18 months. My cup runneth over.

Giddyup, Alberta!

Oh my. Here in the pollution province we have enough trouble convincing the "others" that we are a modern society with a modicum of sophistication and now we have our elected representatives supporting a measure that would brand us as a bunch of rubes. On Monday, Liberal leader Kevin Taft's motion to make rodeo the official provincial sport was passed by the legislature. "Rodeo is so much more than an athletic event or tourist attraction. Rodeo reminds us of our western heritage," exulted Mr. Taft. Debra Probert, executive director of the Vancouver Humane Society, is less rapturous and more analytical about rodeo: "They're exploiting the reaction of the animal to pain, fear and stress. They harass them, they kick them, they goad them ... they harass them into acting like wild animals." They are both right, of course. Rodeo does remind us of our western heritage, just not the more respectable parts.

What got into the Liberal leader is puzzling. He will soon be stepping down, so maybe this was his attempt at leaving a legacy. Considering the Liberals have been reduced to a rump in the legislature, he has precious little else to leave.

Although both Conservative and Liberal legislators voted for the motion, the more sensible comments came from the Conservatives. Jonathan Denis, PC MLA for Calgary-Egmont, suggested, "If we are to adopt an official sport, we should at least adopt a sport that most Albertans participate in." Meanwhile, Edmonton MLA Thomas Lukaszuk wondered if there weren't more important issues to be spending their time on. One could certainly think of a few. Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett opined that a province doesn't need a provincial sport. Mr. Blackett might have added that imposing a rural "sport" on an overwhelmingly urban population doesn't even make sense.

Fortunately, the motion isn't binding on the government, so hopefully they'll ignore it. If not, they will in the not too distant future be proclaiming that Albertans preferred outdoor activity is tormenting animals. Please don't do it, Premier Stelmach. Ducks dying in our tailings ponds was more than enough. Flaunting animal misery would put us beyond the pale.

The human rights museum, the portrait gallery, and the Asper influence

One can be nothing less than overwhelmed at the federal government's extraordinary generosity toward the human rights museum proposed for Winnipeg. Ottawa is prepared to lavish $100-million on constructing the thing and $22-million a year thereafter to operate it. In addition, the Province of Manitoba will put up $40-million and the City of Winnipeg $20-million in the form of cash and in-kind donations. The proposed museum is depicted in all its gauzy glory in the adjacent photo.

Emphasizing the generosity of the federal government is its recent cancellation of plans for a national portrait gallery ostensibly to save money, even though the gallery would have cost a fraction as much as the human rights museum and a building was already available in Ottawa. And, unlike the museum, the portrait gallery would have focused on Canadiana -- a more appropriate spending of our tax dollars.

What, one wonders, is it about this proposed museum that so taps into the generosity of politicians? Is it their commitment to human rights? Do they just want to do something nice for Winnipeg? Possibly both of these things, but I suspect it has more to do with the fact it is a project of the Asper family who happen to own almost half the private mass media in the country. I suspect that as much as anything it reflects the power of media ownership.

Let's talk practical politics here. Could any party hope to assume power in Ottawa if it got on the wrong side of the owner of half the country's mass media? Not bloody likely. We saw Asper power in action when they bought out Conrad Black's Canadian media empire. The Aspers, it is well known, are ardent supporters of Israel and not hesitant in using their media to promote its interests. This affected Jean Chretien very little as he was a friend of Izzy Asper, but Paul Martin wasn't and when he became prime minister, the federal government hastily shifted gears on its Palestine policy, from a balanced approach to unequivocal support for Israel.

Justifying cancellation of plans for a national portrait gallery, Heritage Minister James Moore announced, "In this time of global economic instability, it is important that the federal government continue to manage its own affairs prudently and pragmatically." Who can doubt that it is anything less than "prudent and pragmatic" for the Conservative Party to curry favour with the Aspers.

McCarthyism redux -- Islam as America's new Communism

One of a number of disturbing phenomenon in the recent U.S. presidential election was the constant undertone of anti-Islamism. Obama was "accused" of being a Muslim and had to pointedly deny the charge. To his credit, he upheld Islam as a great world religion; nonetheless, the fact being Muslim was something he had to defend himself against is unsettling.

It echoes that dark period in the 1950s when a variety of demagogues, epitomized by Senator Joseph McCarthy, ran roughshod over American civil liberties, to say nothing of common decency, in the pursuit of a Communist threat that was more phantom than real. As a result of the witch hunting, many Americans -- particularly government employees, people in the entertainment industry, educators and union activists -- lost their jobs, saw their careers destroyed, and were even imprisoned.

The politics of fear is very much alive in the United States today and a new McCarthyism is feeding off it just as the old McCarthyism fed off fear in the 1950s. Fear is the enemy, not Communism then or Islam now. Communism never posed a serious threat inside America; it did however provide a convenient catchword for demagogues. And Islam poses no serious threat to the American way of life today, but it too has become a convenient catchword for demagogues. And the demagogues are legion, catalyzed by the Bush administration which has thrived on fear, and include as a major perpetrator Fox News network. Bush and his outlaws will soon be gone, but Fox will persist with its mischief. Some with good reason dismiss Fox pundits as a bunch of clowns, but McCarthy was a clown and still managed to ruin a lot of lives. Demagoguery is a formidable weapon.

If an Obama presidency calms the fear, offering confidence and hope in its place -- "Yes, we can," and so forth -- it will do the nation a great a favour.

Congratulations to Amal Soliman, world's first mazouna

In another step forward for women in this still far too masculine world, Amal Soliman, a 32-year-old Egyptian, has become the Muslim world's first mazouna, or female marriage registrar. Soliman, who holds a Master's degree in Sharia law, broke into the formerly men-only club in September and conducted her first marriage ceremony on October 25th.

It wasn't easy. When she applied for the job, the clerk laughed and refused to accept her application. But she persisted. As a student of Sharia law, she knew the position was an administrative one and therefore religiously acceptable for women. She consulted both religious and lay authorities to gain support. Finally, Khaled el-Shalkamy, the head judge of the local family court, accepted her application over 10 other candidates, all men, as being the most qualified.

Her appointment still had to be authorized by the Egyptian minister of justice. The all-male Committee of Egyptian Mazouns challenged her application claiming the job would be inappropriate for a woman. Some journalists wrote that she was a threat to Islam and should even be punished for applying. Opponents claimed she couldn't perform marriages because of menstruation (women are not allowed to pray or enter a mosque during their monthly cycle), and that it was inappropriate for a woman to sit amongst men during the signing of marriage certificates.

But she fought back, seeking help from the National Council for Women. Al Akhbar, one of Egypt's leading newspapers, took up her cause, and the debate became national, then global. Soliman was grateful for the international attention and believes it catalyzed the process. Her appointment was finally confirmed. The United Arab Emirates recently followed Egypt's lead and appointed their first mazouna this month.

So ... a small but significant step for women in Islam. It will be a great day for Muslim women, and a much greater day for Islam, when women are accepted as imams and assume a full and equal role in the faith.

Ethnic cleansing in the graveyard

Israel's squeezing of Palestinians off their land now includes the dead. The Simon Wiesenthal Center has been given the OK by the Israeli Supreme Court to build a Jewish "Museum of Tolerance" in Jerusalem on part of a Muslim cemetery. Needless to say, local Muslims are not happy. The Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Mohammad Hussein, called the court's decision an "outrage" and "disrespectful of the dead," which would seem appropriate.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, representing the Simon Wiesenthal Center, referred to the land as "derelict," and said only that part of the cemetery that had already been turned into a car park would be dug up. The cemetery is not used for burials anymore; however, it is still considered sacred by Muslims and is visited by families of the dead. According to Mohammed al-Dejani, whose great-grandfather is buried in the graveyard, "Some of the warriors of Saladin are buried there and other great Muslim leaders from many years ago."

It doesn't help that the proposed museum is designed by prominent architect Frank Gehry. Typical of Gehry's work, it shows absolutely no respect for the architecture or history of the area, but imposes itself on the neighbourhood like an assortment of fancily-wrapped Christmas presents. The first challenge the Museum of Tolerance will pose for local Muslims will be tolerating the desecration of their dead, the second tolerating Frank Gehry's architecture.

Health care costs are outpacing GDP ... So?

The Canadian Institute for Health Information released its study on health care spending last week, predicting spending for 2008 of $172-billion, or 10.7 per cent of our GDP. This represents an increase of 3.4 per cent over last year after inflation and population growth are taken into account. The predictable panic ensued.

The Globe headline announced "Record costs threaten Canada's picture of health," and Brian Day, past-president of the Canadian Medical Association fretted about the sustainability of the system. A little arithmetic can easily put Mr. Day's sustainability worry to rest. GDP is so large, a small increase simply overwhelms a large increase in health care spending. Assume, for example, that health spending continues to rise at 3.4 per cent a year. Assume further that the GDP rises at only 1.6 per cent (the average over the past three years after inflation and population growth are accounted for). Run the numbers out for 20 years. If your math matches mine, you will find that annual GDP will increase from the current $1,607-billion to $2,207-billion and health spending will rise to $336-billion, or 15.2 per cent of GDP. Sounds disturbing, but it isn't. In 2008, we will have $1.435-billion (1,607 - 172) to spend on other things. Twenty years from now, we will have $1,871-billion (2,207 - 336) to spend on other things, i.e. 30 per cent more than this year. Spending on health can grow very fast for a long time yet leave lots more money for buying cars, homes and whatever.

Much of the increased spending on health care results from better medicine. For example, at one time cataract surgery was dangerous. It resulted in up to a week in the hospital and vision was minimally improved. Today, it's an hour-long outpatient procedure that restores the patient's sight almost entirely. Naturally, many more people are having it done. Spending, therefore, increases, but the cost of surgery has actually dropped significantly. We should be careful to distinguish between costs and spending when we talk about health care. Advances in technology in any area tend to reduce costs and, as a result, expand markets, therefore increasing spending. This is generally considered a very good thing.

Improvements in medicine have also contributed to longer and healthier lives for all of us. This, too, adds to spending, but surely it is also a very good thing.

And the health care industry has more to offer than a thriving population. It provides many hi-tech, well-paid, highly-satisfying jobs. And it is a clean, smoke stack-free industry. Its prosperity and growth should be a matter of applause, and we can be assured that if the automobile or construction or computer industries were enjoying similar growth, the financial pages of the Globe would be saturated with applause.

So, when growth outpaces GDP in this very desirable industry, why do we encounter these furrowed brows? Why the panic? The answer isn't economic, it's political. Because we spend most of our health dollar collectively, as a community, rather than individually, because Medicare is redistributive, it runs afoul of the individualistic, small-government philosophy that still pervades North America. And then of course there are the rich and virtually guaranteed pickings that are withheld from private enterprisers.

Of course we should pay strict attention to improving efficiencies in the system, as we should with any system, and undoubtedly there are significant efficiencies to be gained. Our dollars must be treated with respect. That being said, so what if we spend 10.7 per cent of our GDP on our health care, or 12 per cent, or 15? What better way to spend our national wealth than on longer, healthier, more vigorous lives?

Religious extremists -- theirs and ours

"Terrorist" has become, in the minds of many, a synonym for an Islamic extremist. As a result, we tend to overlook the extremists of other religions, even though they certainly have their share.

The history of Christianity is replete with extremists. John Calvin and his zealots' reign of religious terror in the theocracy they established in 16th century Geneva would have made the Taliban sit up and take notice. Fortunately, the West has largely dampened the ability of Christianity to intimidate populations in the way Calvin did, for the most part by diminishing the importance of religion generally. But Christian zealots still abound, particularly in the most powerful nation on Earth.

Unlike Islamic extremists, they have much greater access to real power. Bin Laden and his colleagues have nothing to compare to being able to call up the president of the United States and have a chat, as Christian zealots in the U.S. have been able to do for the past eight years. These believers in Armageddon may be in no small part responsible for Bush's cavalier attitude toward global warming, the greatest threat facing all of us.

Such attitudes filtering into the mind of the most powerful man on Earth is a lot more frightening than a pack of bearded fanatics plotting in caves in the wilds of Pakistan. And then there's the man himself. President Bush insisted that God advised him to invade Iraq. Meeting with a group of Palestinians he told them, "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …' And I did." He did indeed, and the result is over a million dead, four million refugees and a country destroyed. The Christian God has guided Bush to inflict a great deal more pain than the Muslim God has impressed upon Osama bin Laden.

Christian zealots in the U.S. also form a major component of the Israel lobby which seriously deters the Americans from a balanced approach to Palestine. The resulting bias in favour of Israel is a major factor in precluding a peaceful settlement. As a result, that toxic situation continues to fester and contribute to mischief throughout the Middle East and beyond.

And on the subject of Israel, let's not overlook Jewish extremists. With their fanatic belief that God gave all of Palestine to the Jews, they too are a major roadblock to peace. One of them assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, thus derailing the Oslo peace process. Now, some observers believe they may be behind increased violence on the West Bank aimed at scuttling any efforts to limit continued Jewish colonization. According to Israeli human-rights lawyer Michael Sfard, "A new phase of settler violence, or Jewish terror, is about to start."

Ah, religion. Such a comfort.

Why did we fight?

As poppy day is once more upon us, I found myself pondering the question of why Canadians died in the two great wars of the 20th century. What were they about anyway?

There is a memorial in Calgary that would answer that question. In a grove of poplars along Memorial Drive a sign explains that the trees were planted to honour the men who died in WWI. It announces, "They died for your freedom." The truth of course is the war to end all wars wasn't about anyone's freedom. It was little more than an exercise in bloody-minded hubris by a collection of decaying empires. No great cause. Just pointless slaughter.

World War Two was also about empire. About those who had one against those who didn't but wanted one. Post-WWI, the British and French shared large parts of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. The Dutch had Indonesia, the Americans the Philippines, and so on. If you were a major power, you had an empire. It was de rigueur. Two major powers, however, Japan and Germany, did not. Naturally, they aspired to the status of their contemporaries.

There were, however, rules about empire. One, was that only white people could have one. Two, was that they could only rule over non-whites. In their quest for empire, the Japanese violated the first rule and the Germans the second.

Japan no doubt felt particularly hard done by. All those European powers occupying colonies in Japan's backyard, on its turf so to speak, while the Japanese were confined to their islands. Not surprisingly they found this offensive. They decided to correct this perceived injustice and create a Japanese empire in Asia. The Europeans could not, however, abide this ambition as it threatened both rule number one and their own empires. And they had the leverage. They had access to ample natural resources -- particularly oil, the life blood of the industrial state -- and Japan didn't. Japan's need to conquer a vast range of territory to guarantee itself access to oil and other resources resulted in an overreach which ultimately undid its dream.

The Germans, too, dreamed of empire. Hitler both envied and admired the British version, and mused at times about a kind of partnership, the British dominating Asia and Africa, and Germany ruling over Europe east to the Urals. In 1941, he referred expectantly to Russia as "our India." The Russians demurred, and with some help from their allies they buried Hitler's ambition in the rubble of Germany.

So what was Canada doing in these wars of empire? Not fighting for our freedom certainly. Nor anyone else's in WWI. We joined that war because of our association with the British Empire -- "ready, aye, ready" and all that. Not much of an excuse for wasting 65,000 Canadian lives. Some suggest it was our coming of age. How sad if we came of age by engaging in arguably the stupidest event humanity ever inflicted on itself. If we had courageously and sensibly refused to participate, now that would have been a meaningful statement of independence. The young men who volunteered probably did so out of misguided senses of nationalism and adventure, tragic victims of a lack of wise counsel from their elders.

Our involvement in WWII came in two parts. The war in Asia was purely a war about empire, the Japanese attempting to replace European power with their own. By defending British colonization over Japanese we fought for race, not freedom.

We did defend freedom in the European Theatre, however. We were OK with Europeans subjugating Asians and Africans, but we would not accept white people, certainly not our fellow Anglos, being subjects of an imperial master. Here, at least, we were on the side of the angels. Here, our sacrifice had a measure of justification.

All hail Obama ... and wish him lots of luck

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is a huge breath of fresh air after the stifling atmosphere of the Bush administration. Obama brings great promise to his country, for both its domestic and foreign policies, and therefore I suppose for the rest of the world as well. None can escape the power and influence of the empire.

We should not set our hopes too high, however. Obama will have to deal with appalling messes at home and abroad left by the infamous Bush. Once the financial mess is cleaned up, he should not have too great a difficulty improving things at home, starting with a decent medical care system for Americans and possibly even new and desperately needed fairness in broadcasting legislation. It is enormously encouraging that the three challenges facing his nation he identified in his victory speech included "a planet in peril," the greatest challenge facing all of us.

Other than the environment, it is in the realm of foreign policy that the rest of us will be most concerned. He has indicated a greater inclination to work with America's friends and negotiate with its enemies, so there is room for optimism. On the other hand, while he is in haste to get out of Iraq, he has indicated unequivocal support for Israel in Palestine, has promised to more ardently pursue the war in Afghanistan, and has threatened to raid Pakistan as he sees fit. He seems to see himself as commander-in-chief of the American Empire no less than his predecessors. And then, of course, the military-industrial-congressional complex is now nearly beyond challenge, almost making war inevitable.

So, a better America internally, fairer and more compassionate, but abroad .... well, we shall see.

Brown brings his begging bowl to the sheiks

How the mighty have fallen. Only a very short time ago, the U.S. and the U.K. were extolling the virtues of their deregulated financial markets and encouraging the rest of us to join the party. Now, as a host of countries face bankruptcy from financial collapse caused by that deregulation, the U.S. and the U.K., as they too plunge into debt, look to dictatorships such as China and Saudi Arabia to bail out the victims.

Over the weekend, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown went cap in hand to the Middle East begging "billions of dollars" to prop up the lender of last resort, the International Monetary Fund. Already Iceland, Hungary, Belarus and Ukraine are seeking IMF loans in order to stave off financial collapse. Others are lining up.

"The world is changing," said John Curtis of the Centre for International Governance Innovation, "This reflects the slowly changing balance of financial power." When the West starts begging the sheiks for a bailout, "change" is putting it mildly.

Discouraging democracy with attack ads

An Angus Reid survey before the October 14 federal election revealed that 11 per cent of Canadians had been dissuaded from voting as a result of the Conservative TV ads targeting Stephane Dion. Not from voting Liberal, but from voting at all. Comments on the ads included words such as "disgust," "lies," "unethical" and "unCanadian." Long-term pollster Andrew Grenville insists the attack ads were instrumental in producing the lowest voting turnout in history, saying they are "poisoning the well" of the Canadian political system.

If the 11 per cent had voted, the turnout would have been 69 per cent rather than 58 per cent, very close to the 72 per cent of the 1993 election when vicious attack ads made their debut into Canadian politics.

So will political parties take the high road in support of greater democratic participation and stop using attack ads? Not a chance. Why? Because they work. The survey indicated that 10 per cent of Liberal voters switched to Conservative as a result of the ads. Political parties are in the game to win. They are concerned about power, not democracy. Encouraging more people to vote at the possible cost of losing an election is not on the table.

The only way the standard of campaigning could be raised is if all parties agreed to drop the attack ads. That way the playing field would remain level. The parties wouldn't lose and democracy would win. And the chances of that? As one of the Angus Reid pollsters said, regarding the coming Liberal leadership convention, "[The Conservatives] are probably preparing their attack ads right now."

Harper improves approach ... but is it enough?

The new federal cabinet shows considerable improvement over the last. The number of women has increased from 23 per cent to 29 per cent. This should, one would hope, contribute to more humane governance. It still isn't close to the 50 per cent women deserve but it is, at least, a significant improvement. Women remain heavily disadvantaged in a macho political system designed by men for men, but that isn't Harper's fault.

It's always good to see an Aboriginal face at the highest levels of government, so appointing Nunavut's Leona Aqlukkaq as Minister of Health is a welcome move. An important portfolio at that and one she has experience in.

It will be interesting to see what becomes of the portfolio Minister of State for Democratic Reform. God knows we desperately need some democratic reform, starting with our electoral system. However, if the ministry is just a tool to implement an elected Senate, it will be largely a waste. Not that an elected Senate wouldn't be better than an unelected one, but reforming a redundant institution is hardly a priority. Must keep our fingers crossed here.

Appointing Jim Prentice Minister of the Environment indicates Harper is taking climate change a little more seriously. Not only was Prentice a star in the last cabinet, he's also a Calgarian. As such, he can tangle with the oil company chiefs without being considered an outsider, and that's of no small importance for an environment minister.

So the new government is not without its promise. However the big worry remains, and that of course is the environment. Global warming looms over us like the sword of Damocles, yet both Harper and Prentice still talk about "balancing" the environment and the economy, weasel talk that likely means they won't do what is necessary to adequately reduce greenhouse gas emissions. There is no room for balance here. The only sensible approach is to ensure a healthy environment and then design the economy to fit into it.

But perhaps I'm too skeptical. Perhaps that is what the Prime Minister does mean by balance. If so, then the new cabinet may be a success. If Harper is willing to slacken his iron grip and unleash his ministers to do their jobs, and if he is willing to work constructively with the opposition, this minority government could do some good work.

Minority government: lucky for us, lucky for Stephen Harper

The failure of the neoconservative ideology in the United States, in affairs both domestic and foreign, represents the biggest collapse of a political and economic philosophy since the fall of Communism. The edifice lies in ruins. The collapse of the American financial system will harm us as well to some degree, of course, given our interdependency, but less than it will affect many other countries in the world simply because we better resisted the blandishments of the neocons.

At the core of the domestic failure in the U.S. was deregulation of their banking system. For years, the Americans, and the British, pressured us to follow their lead in deregulation. According to Paul Martin, when he was in office "You couldn't go to a G7 meeting or IMF meeting without it coming up. ... We were under tremendous pressure to 'loosen up Canada.'" Martin said no, and for that we owe him yet under debt of gratitude. Canada went its own way, actually tightening lending rules in some respects.

If Stephen Harper had won a majority in 2006, or even in 2004, it may have been a very different story. Harper is very much the neocon himself, a believer in small government. One suspects he wouldn't have resisted the pressure for deregulation, indeed would have been more likely to embrace it, and we could have been well on our way toward a U.S. style financial system and the consequent collapse.

We were fortunate the Conservatives, newly reinvented under Harper, lost in '04 and only got a minority in '06. And Harper may have inadvertently caught a break, too. If a majority had freed him to institute the failed policies of the U.S. and Britain, he would have had to take the fall for the results. As it happened, he never got more than a minority and was, therefore, confined to moderate measures that just may have saved him from facing a very angry electorate. Saved, you might say, from his own folly.

The collapse of neoconservatism, combined with minority government, should confine Prime Minister Harper to moderation for the next few years. A small blessing, at least, for those who do not look forward to Conservative government.

Is Howard Ruth reincarnated?

Watching the World Series and seeing the Phillie slugger and 2006 National League MVP Ryan Howard in action, something odd struck me. He's the spitting image of the great Babe Ruth! OK, he's black and Ruth was white but take a look at them. Check the facial features. Check the body. They're both superstar power hitters. Ruth held the Major League home run record for over 40 years and Ryan hit 100 home runs earlier in his career than any other player in Major League history. Is reincarnation alive and well in baseball?

Why I am drifting away from the NDP

I confess. I voted Liberal on October 14th. As someone who has been a life-long member of the NDP, this is something I haven't do very often. It is, however, becoming easier. Not because my philosophy is shifting, but more rather because of specific issues.

I voted Liberal because I am a strong supporter of a carbon tax as a fundamental component of the struggle against global warming. I don't like single-issue voting normally, but as this issue overrides all others, it wasn't difficult to make an exception. In fact, although I say this with some reluctance, I would vote Liberal in the next B.C. election and for the same reason: the Liberal government brought in a carbon tax and the NDP oppose it. It wouldn't be easy voting for a party that often seems more conservative than liberal, but again, the issue involved is sufficiently important to overcome any reluctance.

A second issue is proportional representation (PR), another favourite of mine. I distinctly remember Jack Layton promising that the price of co-operation with Paul Martin's minority Liberal government would be a referendum on PR. Well, the NDP co-operated, at least for a while, but Jack apparently forgot all about PR. It wasn't breaking a promise that bothered me -- politicians have been known to do that on occasion -- it was the sheer stupidity of it. Nothing the NDP could do would boost their strength in the House of Commons more than bringing in PR. It would increase their number of seats by 50 per cent in one fell swoop. I began to wonder at the time whether I should be supporting a party that was too obtuse to see that. I've never quite gotten over it.

A third issue is the NDP's increasingly tiresome insistence on increasing taxes on corporations. This is a self-defeating policy if ever there was one. Who, after all, pays corporate taxes? The consumer does of course, just as we pay all the costs incurred by corporations when we buy their goods and services. All taxing corporations does is reduce their efficiency which in turn reduces their ability to create jobs, and it hardly makes sense for a "workers' party" to promote that. Politically, it taints the NDP with the musty odour of 19th century class war. The Swedes, despite having the highest income taxes in the world, have about the lowest corporate taxes and their economy prospers mightily (as do their corporations). This isn't a coincidence.

Taxation aside, capitalism remains a major problem for democracy. Seeking an alternative is an issue of the greatest importance for democrats and is therefore, deserving of serious discussion. If the NDP wants to join the discussion, and a social democratic party ought to be in the forefront, they could advocate policies that powerfully advantage co-operative enterprise over competitive capitalism. The co-op is an economic instrument that is not only thoroughly democratic but highly successful at the local, national and international levels. And it is perfectly compatible with social democratic ideals. The NDP could offer the mantra "We must co-operate in the global society" as a replacement for the tedious corporate mantra "We must compete in the global marketplace."

We have not reached the end of history. If the current economic crisis illustrates anything, it is that there is still lots of room for new approaches and fresh ideas in the world of economic policy. The left should be getting its dibs in. British Labour PM Gordon Brown certainly is. Jack Layton and the NDP, seemingly mired in old battles, are not. Being a member of the NDP used to offer a feeling of being at the forefront of progressive change. Now ... not so much.

The collapse of neoconservatism

With the election of George W. Bush in 2000, Americans neoconservatives must have felt they had entered the Promised Land. Not only did they have a right-wing president, they had a weak president who had leaned on others all his life. He would be putty in their hands. And indeed he was, and they guided the poor, benighted man into the worst presidency in modern history. Everything for the United States, domestic and foreign, is worse, much worse, than it was eight years ago.

First was foreign policy and the neocon dream of thrashing Saddam Hussein as a way to impose American values and interests on the Middle East. If the 9/11 cloud had a silver lining, it was providing them with the national mood and justification for invading Iraq and they took full advantage, abandoning truth and sound advice as necessary. The result was one of the biggest U.S. foreign policy blunders in the country's history. Overnight the international sympathy and support for the United States generated by 9/11 was transformed into frustration and hostility. As Colin Powell, former Secretary of State in the Bush administration, recently stated, it will be up to the next president, “to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.” That will be a challenge indeed.

Then there is the economy. Years of dogma-driven deregulation, starting well before the Bush era but enthusiastically embraced by the president, have finally led to the inevitable misbehaviour of capitalists and the collapse of the U.S. financial system. American greed and recklessness has dragged the rest of the world's economies down as well and this, too, will require bridge-building with the international community.

So the neocons have had their star turn on the world's biggest stage and it has exposed their philosophy to be as destructive as it is self-righteous. It lies in ruins. Only moments it seems after the collapse of Communism, we see yet again the folly of allowing ideology to triumph over good sense.

We are all socialists now

The British government is purchasing major stakes in Britain's banks at a of cost of four per cent of the annual economy, more than was spent nationalizing companies after World War II. Following Britain's example, George W. Bush's America, led by its most conservative president ever, is buying shares in American banks. The developed world as a whole is following Britain's lead. A Labour Party leader has become the guru of international finance.

This socialist surge is not into just any old industry; it goes to the heart of the economy -- the financial system. Actually it isn't so much socialism as it is a return to good sense, all too long neglected in favour of neo-con excess. For the past couple of years, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson has been running around the world telling the leaders of China, Russia, and anybody else who would listen, that the path to prosperity lay in adopting the American model for their financial systems. A money marketplace liberated from government regulation would lead to economic nirvana. Now the American financial system lies in ruins and poor old Henry is advising his president to buy shares in banks. He has been brought up short by reality.

That reality is that capitalists are like children. Children can be a joy when they are well-behaved, but they don't get that way automatically. Parents must impose a modicum of discipline, they must set limits. If they don't, the kids will wreck the house. Well. the financial capitalists have wrecked the house. We have been bad parents. To get the house back in order, we will have to set limits, we will have to regulate these over-sized kiddies into responsible behaviour. The Europeans are suggesting that nothing less than a whole new financial house will do. Having agreed to follow British P.M. Gordon Brown's plan for buying major shares in banks, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel have now concluded a new world financial system is required with an international watchdog to supervise the world's economies. A global parent, no less. Takes your breath away.

Canadian-born economist John Kenneth Galbraith spent a lifetime writing and lecturing about the dangers of capitalist excess and in recent times has been increasingly ignored. It turns out this common-sense Scot was right after all. As the world struggles to recover from the economic turmoil, we will hear more about yet another economist too often neglected of late, John Maynard Keynes. Close attention will be paid to his prescription for government behaviour in difficult economic times. Note for example that our own prime minister, Mr. Harper, is now hinting at deficits, supported by that sterling voice of business, The Globe and Mail. The Globe excoriated deficits for years but has now changed its tune and reluctantly admits they may be necessary.

There's really nothing here to have old Karl Marx chuckling in his grave; nonetheless, one suspects he might be smirking a little.

Bill Ayers: sounds like my kind of guy

The Republicans have been making much of Barack Obama's association with former member of the Weathermen, William Ayers, who they delight in referring to as a terrorist. Obama and "the terrorist" once lived in the same neighbourhood in Chicago and their paths crossed from time to time. Both have worked on education reform and they served together on the board of the Woods fund of Chicago, a community anti-poverty group. Ayers has also contributed to Obama's political campaigns. The New York Times, however, has reported the relationship is not close.

Ayers was a founding member of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings of public property during the Vietnam war. The Weathermen took great care to avoid harming people with their bombings, and they were successful. The only people they harmed were themselves when three of them died making a bomb. They were accused by detractors of a bombing in San Francisco that killed a policeman; however, they never claimed credit for it nor has any verifiable evidence connected them to it. They were generally quite specific about what they bombed and why. A Brinks robbery in New York in 1981 that resulted in the deaths of two policeman and a security guard is sometimes erroneously attributed to them. The attack was, however, carried out by another group which included three ex-members of the Weathermen (but not Ayers) well after the Weather Underground had disbanded.

As for Bill Ayers, he put all this behind him and went on to a highly successful and productive career. He is now a Distinguished Professor at the University of Illinois, an expert in elementary education and a winner of the City of Chicago Citizen of the year Award. That he rose above his youthful foolishness, became an exemplary citizen, and has contributed significantly to his community, makes him a man worthy of respect and admiration, a man I would be honoured to have as a friend.

Will the political class get the message?

In 2004, Canadians elected a minority government. In 2006, we elected another one. A perceptive observer might conclude we were sending the political class a message. We didn't trust any of the parties to govern us alone; we wanted them to work together. The message was reinforced by poll after poll after poll. The politicians, particularly Prime Minister Harper who acted seemingly on a whim, did not give a damn what Canadians wanted and called yet another election. So we have had to send the message again. That's three times now, quite aside from the polls. Politicians are by and large intelligent people. Surely after being sent the same $300-million message in a row, it will sink in.

I know it won't be easy. Political parties are all about power and they hate sharing it. And the political class thrives on campaigning. But dammit, the people want them to co-operate and the whole point of democracy is serving the people ... isn't it?

It's not as if minority governments can't work. Lester Pearson never had a majority in his entire time as prime minister, yet he presided over the most productive parliaments we have ever had. They brought in Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Auto Pact and a new flag. They instituted the 40-hour work week, two weeks vacation time and a new minimum wage. Pearson established the world's first race-free immigration system. He set up royal commissions on the status of women and on bilingualism that contributed to legal equality for women and introduced official bilingualism (not bad for a unilingual prime minister). He also, no small matter, resisted American pressure to participate in the Vietnam War.

Pearson was a diplomat and diplomacy is exactly what's required to make a minority government work. Harper unfortunately is not, but, if as The Globe and Mail insists, he is growing into the job, then here is the challenge for further growth.

The beauty of a minority government is that it involves most Canadians in making their laws. This is a far more democratic beast than one in which only 40 per cent are involved, as is commonly the case in this country. At least Canadians seem to think so at this point in our history. The people have spoken (and spoken, and spoken) and should be heard. Will the politicians listen?

The Globe goes gunning for Heather Mallick

Whoa! What's with The Globe and Mail's nasty little assault on their former columnist, Heather Mallick? Not only did they sic Margaret Wente on her but they added an indignant editorial for good measure. Mallick really seems to have gotten up their nose. The source of their ire is Mallick's recent article on the CBC website trashing Sarah Palin. Mallick did go over the top, as she tends to do, and it is to be expected that the raging right at the National Post and their execrable American companion Fox News might be furious, but why is The Globe getting its knickers in a twist? After all, the CBC withdrew the column and apologized (and that's yet another story), so relax, folks.

I don't much like writers as rude as Mallick tends to be, yet when her column was appearing in The Globe and Mail, I never missed it. She is just so damn funny. It's rather like watching South Park and its potty-mouthed little characters. You feel you really shouldn't be watching this stuff but you're laughing too hard to change channels. She is a guilty read, in other words. I wasn't surprised when she and The Globe parted ways. Her contempt for the American Empire didn't fit with the Globe's pro-Americanism, certainly not in the way Margaret Wente's snide anti-Canadianism does. Mallick now keeps better company, writing for the CBC and the Guardian.

The Globe editorial concludes with a cop-out, insisting the CBC must not run "biased commentary," but "privately-run newspapers or broadcasters are free to run whatever points of view they wish, with or without balance." Fair enough that the CBC should be balanced, but the rest of the mass media, all corporate controlled, should be free to monolithically indoctrinate us in their conservative agenda? How convenient for the right. And yet another reminder how badly we need a more varied and democratic media.

YWCA calls for more women in the House

Politicians hot on the campaign trail will receive a report this week they should pay close attention to. I refer to the YWCA's Report on the Status of Women in Canada which they are sending out to all parties and candidates. Among other things, the report calls for an increase in women’s representation in politics. Nothing new in that, of course, the Royal Commission on the Status of Women made the same recommendation almost 40 years ago. Unfortunately, women are still nowhere near political equality. When the election was called, they made up only 21 per cent of the MPs in the House of Commons, and with the polls suggesting an even larger contingent of Conservatives, there isn't much hope for improvement.

The report gives Canada a failing grade when it comes to the status of women. Representation in our legislatures supports that claim. Compared to our paltry 21 per cent, women now hold a majority of the seats in Rwanda's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. Including the seats they are constitutionally guaranteed, they now hold 55 per cent of the total seats. Women in Sweden are at near parity with 47 per cent and in Finland with 42 per cent. Looking at what other countries achieve, our failing grade is clearly deserved.

The fundamental reason for our pathetic performance is forcing women to compete in a system created by men for men, a system biased toward the competitive, combative individualistic world of males. A macho world that reveals itself all too sadly in behaviour in our legislatures, behaviour once described by a woman member of the British House of Commons as “very public-schoolboy primitive." Former MP Jan Brown once stated that party politics creates, “an unnatural and combative setting that does not support positive relationships. A place where power and gamesmanship determine the rules.”

If women are to share equally in the political process, the rules and practices will have to change to encourage, or at least tolerate, a much more respectful, caring and co-operative politics. According to Jan Brown, “Validation of the feminine in the political domain would open up new paradigms of leadership, including joint problem-solving that emphasizes win/win rather than lose/lose situations."

Our battling politicians have a lot to think about in the midst of this election campaign. They could do worse than include a few thoughts about ensuring women an opportunity to participate equally in the decisions that affect their lives. A good start would be digesting the YWCA report.

Why are Quebeckers more compassionate to their youth?

The Conservatives' tough on crime policy for teenagers is generating enthusiasm across the country. According to a Strategic Counsel survey of hotly contested ridings in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, 73 per cent of Ontarians and 67 per cent of British Columbians support lowering the age for life sentences to 14. Even 61 per cent of Liberal voters supported tougher sentences. Quebeckers, however, strongly disagreed. Fifty-nine per cent opposed the changes to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

For years, Quebec has emphasized prevention and restorative justice for their young people while English Canada has inclined to the siren song of punitive justice. While grass roots victims' movements outside Quebec angrily demand stronger penalties, victims' groups in Quebec tend to be more interested in bringing the interested parties, including victims and the police, together. Quebec's more humane approach to juvenile crime is supported by child-care professionals in other provinces as an example of how the system should work.

Why the diifference between the two solitudes? Is it because Quebeckers feel a stronger sense of community, and thus a stronger sense of communal responsibility for their children? Has their Catholic tradition left a stronger sense of mutual responsibility than the Protestant tradition of individualism in English Canada? Or is it simply because the more humane approach works?

Quebec incarcerates far fewer teenagers than the rest of Canada, yet its youth crime rate is the lowest in the country. In 2006, rates varied from a low of 3,765 for every 100,000 youth in Quebec to a high of 19,939 in Saskatchewan. It appears emphasizing prevention is much more successful than emphasizing jail time. As the U.S. experience has shown, the Conservative reliance on more police, more courts, and more prisons is a failure. A very expensive failure.

How unfortunate, then, that the Conservative approach is so popular. It means the streets will be less safe, the justice system will cost more, and more young men will be alienated from society. If that isn't what we want, we should take a closer look at Quebec. Compassion, it seems, pays.

Debunking the Muslim "threat"

Normally I rely on my own writing to express my opinion rather than simply referring to someone else's. Occasionally, however, I encounter such a superb exposition of an issue, I feel bound to defer to it. This is the case with Doug Saunder's column in Saturday's Globe and Mail "Baby-booming Muslim hordes take Europe? Rubbish!" which brilliantly debunks the fear-mongering of anti-Islamists such as Mark Steyn about a Muslim population explosion in Europe soon leaving that continent at the mercy of an Islamic horde. Saunders neatly outlines how the facts explode this nasty little fantasy. The toxic scribblings of Steyn and his ilk are reminiscent of anti-Semitic garbage such as "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" which attempted to stir up fears of a Jewish plot to take over the world. All that has changed is the scapegoat. Fortunately we have writers like Doug Saunders to sweep the garbage up.

Yankee go home !!!!!!!

The colonies are in revolt. The Bolivians have expelled the U.S. ambassador, accusing him of instigating violent protests against their government. The Venezuelans, not to be outdone, have not only ordered the American ambassador out of the country, they have withdrawn their ambassador from Washington and threatened to cut off oil supplies, on the grounds the Americans have been fomenting a military coup. Now Honduras, in support of Bolivia and Venezuela, is indefinitely postponing accreditation of the U.S. ambassador.

"That's enough shit from you Yankees," proclaimed Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's charismatic president, stating relations would be restored when the U.S. had a new government that respected Latin America. The U.S. has defended its "fine ambassadors" from the assorted charges and dismissed the Latins' accusations as a sign of "weakness and desperation."

The Americans' dismissal of the charges as smokescreens may be largely correct. Chavez seems to rail increasingly at the U.S. as his own problems multiply. And his threat to cut off oil to the U.S. is hollow: as badly as the Americans need the oil, the Venezuelans need the money a lot more.

The Latin leaders' suspicions are not, however, entirely unjustified. The disturbances in Bolivia are not unlike those fomented by the U.S. prior to its support for the overthrow of the democratically-elected Salvador Allende in Chile. And the Americans supported an attempted coup against Chavez in 2002. Perhaps not so coincidentally, Chavez's accusations fell on the 35th anniversary of the CIA-backed coup which overthrew Allende.

In any case, the actions signal a hemisphere increasingly uneasy with American domination. The Empire is being challenged on its own turf. Perhaps it has been focusing too much on its wars on the other side of the world, to say nothing of its "war on terror," allowing the neighbourhood to get out of hand. When the cat's away and all that.

Restorative justice advances in B.C.

Restorative justice, the approach to crime that strives to restore the offender to society as a responsible citizen, while providing restitution to the victim and the community, has taken a step forward in British Columbia. Restorative justice contrasts with the traditional retributive or punitive justice which seeks principally to punish the offender.

The B.C. government has established the Downtown Community Court in Vancouver to deal with minor crimes such as theft, assault, public mischief, aggressive panhandling and drug possession. Although minor, these crimes constitute up to 80% of offences. Offenders may choose to go through the regular system or through the community court. If they choose the latter, they may be spared jail time and instead perform community service while participating in programs that help them with their social or health problems. The court has social workers, drug counselors and other experts available as triage teams to develop treatment plans.

According to Judge Thomas Gove, who will preside over the court, "This is not a social service agency, ... you're here because you committed a crime. And you might have to do something you don't want to do, like go to jail, or do community service. But if you come before this court, everyone you meet -- from your defence lawyer who works in the court, through the triage team, the prosecutor and the judge -- we are all interested in helping you improve your life."

The court is modeled after community courts in the United States which contributed to the dramatic reduction of New York City's street-level drug trade. Similar courts now operate in England, Ireland, Australia and elsewhere. Community courts not only offer rehabilitation rather than punishment but offer much greater efficiency in handling cases.

Although the court does not apply a full regimen of restorative justice, where victims are involved in the process and receive restitution, it is a major step in helping people who are often beset by addiction, mental illness, homelessness and poverty, to gain a productive role in society rather than simply discarding them to jail. According to Vancouver Police Department spokesperson Constable Tim Fanning, "Everybody who works down there knows that the lack of drug treatment and the lack of care for people with mental health issues is the issue."

Ensuring that care is available will determine the success of the court. As Judge Gove emphasizes, "We have to have our government continue its stated commitment to providing supportive housing, as well as other housing for people who happen to be poor but don't need the support. We have to have more addiction treatment programs, along with better ways of dealing with the mentally disordered."

If the court is deemed a success, the B.C. government may set up similar programs in other parts of the province. Let us hope other provinces are paying attention.

The Afghan death toll we should be most concerned about

This week, the death of yet another Canadian soldier occupied the front pages of our daily press. Meanwhile, the deaths that should be of most concern to us are relegated to the inner pages, if they are mentioned at all. I refer of course to the deaths of Afghan civilians. Almost 100 members of our military have died in this forlorn war. Nearly that many Afghan civilians, including 60 children, died in one attack in Herat province recently, an attack carried out by a combined American/Afghan force. Film of the aftermath showed rows of babies and children lined up in a makeshift morgue.

Canadian soldiers volunteer to kill or be killed. Afghan women and children don't. If you choose a vocation that involves shooting people, even "scumbags," you must expect them to shoot back.

In Afghanistan, the innocent are dying in ever increasing numbers. Over 1,000 civilians have been killed in U.S. and NATO attacks since the beginning of 2006, with the deaths from air strikes tripling over the past year. Many more civilians have lost their lives than U.S. and NATO soldiers, even by conservative estimates. Taliban attacks, including suicide bombings, have killed about twice as many as U.S. and NATO forces have; however, we are not entirely innocent of these deaths either. They are, after all, a response to our presence. So, for that matter, are the deaths of insurgents.

Deaths of civilians are often referred to as collateral damage, an unfortunate side effect in the greater cause. But in modern war, civilian deaths are unavoidable. Going to war is a conscious decision to kill innocents, and in making that decision one is hardly less guilty than a terrorist who decides to set off a bomb in a marketplace. The terrorist may be less specific but he is no more deadly. Our intentions in Afghanistan may be noble, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. The American war in Vietnam, in the noble cause of saving the benighted Vietnamese from godless Communism, left three million dead in its wake. In the not-so-noble conquest of Iraq, the death toll is now estimated to be over a million. These are the kinds of numbers we should ponder first when we consider military adventures, not the deaths of soldiers.

Whereas our press publishes the name and picture of each Canadian soldier killed, the civilian victims are generally nameless, anonymous ... mere statistics. Perhaps we should publish the name and picture of each innocent Afghan victim on the front pages of our newspapers rather than those of soldiers. That would be much more revealing of the real nature of war.

Sarah and her dead bear

Looking at that picture of Republican vice--presidential candidate Sarah Palin sitting pertly on her office sofa accompanied by a very large and very dead bear, I'm not sure if the appropriate reaction is humour or despair.

It is impossible not to recognize a certain cartoonish quality to the juxtaposition of an apparently sophisticated lady, cocktail in hand, seated on a dead bear. There's a New Yorker cartoon here.

On the other hand, this was once a magnificent living animal (I'm referring to the bear here, not the lady, although she too is physically commanding) that was killed for what? A bit of fun? For a decoration? Its killing symbolizes the arrogance of humanity, the arrogance of a species that believes the Earth exists solely for its purpose, for its pleasure, including the pleasure of killing other species. This arrogance is particularly intense among fundamentalists, of which Sarah Palin is one. The notion other species may have a right to simply live their lives out is absent from an Old Testament mentality. Or from a frontier mentality, a mentality which is said to possess Alaskans. Ms. Palin is a true representative of her state.

Canadian author Ronald Wright describes two Americas: Enlightenment America, descended from such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson; and Backwoods America, descended from the frontier, clinging to fundamentalism and firearms as touchstones of the pioneering myth, of an autonomy the little man has lost.

With Sarah Palin, Americans have got the latter in spades.

What does Russia want?

With the recent flurry of concern in the West about Russia's muscle-flexing in Georgia, we might well wonder what is motivating Moscow's foreign policy these days. In a speech on Russian television last week, President Medvedev explained. He tells us Russia will found its international relations on five principles:

Russia will
1. observe international law.
2. reject United States dominance of world affairs.
3. seek friendly relations with other nations.
4. defend Russian citizens and business interests abroad.
5. claim a sphere of influence in the world.

One and three are reassuring, if Medvedev is serious. The Russian manhandling of Georgia would seem to contradict number three, even if Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, did his utmost to provoke the bear. As for number two, rejecting world domination by the United States will meet with no objection from those growing weary of the American empire.

Number four seems reasonable and natural, although it's the kind of statement that always sounds a little ominous coming from a nation inclined to empire. Russia justified their manhandling of Georgia as a defence of Russian citizens, however it seemed to be more a case of number five. One wonders if the American occupation of Iraq in defence of its oil interests isn't, in Medvedev's mind, a precedent that might be useful to Russia.

And number five is disturbing. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union's foreign policy was principally concerned with maintaining a shield of "friendly" countries to protect it from the West. Is this what Medvedev is talking about? Or something more expansive. His comments suggest the latter. Asked if he was referring to Russia's border areas, he elaborated, “It is the border region, but not only. ... Russia, like other countries in the world, has regions where it has privileged interests. These are regions where countries with which we have friendly relations are located.” His reference to "like other countries" no doubt means the United States. Indeed if four and five are combined, we get a pretty good description of American foreign policy.

Too bad the president didn't stop with the first three principles, or at least the first four. That last one is arrogant and unsettling, the principle of a would-be empire, not of a nation committed to international law and friendly relations with other countries.