Human Rights or Downright Idiocy?

The attention to political correctness balanced off against pure common sense is just staggering in its idiotic outcomes. One person's 'right' to matters of values, conscience, creed, sexual orientation out-manoeuvres the right of a charitable organization to conduct its life-saving services and still maintain its code of religious values. Imposing upon a religious institution the 'lawful' requirement to honour a code of conduct clearly in contrast to its own.

The penalty being, in drawing forward the conclusion through the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, that a Christian charitable organization which does not proselytize, nor discriminate when it offers its care and homes for people with severe disabilities, will henceforth be forced to cease and desist. It has the choice of continuing to provide its services at the cost of forswearing its fundamental beliefs.

A provision of the Ontario Human Rights Code permits a religious group hiring discrimination (which is to say, selecting personnel whose own personal code of conduct reflects that of the religious group) as long as it confines its services to people who share their religious beliefs. Once a religious charity determines it will open its services to people of any religion, seeing all needy people as equal, they open themselves to observing the letter of a law running counter to their religious beliefs.

Because Christian Horizons dismissed a woman who openly initiated and admitted to a lesbian relationship - on the grounds that this employee violated Christian Horizons' values system - despite that she had signed a pledge to honour the religious values of that faith before being hired, they have been condemned by the Rights Tribunal.

Lawyers for Christian Horizons attempted to use the logic of common sense in forwarding their case before the commission "The mission is to serve, not to indoctrinate. It does not mean the exceptions should be denied because you don't teach Christian principles." The commission, however, as is their wont, chose to dissent.

Now whose human rights are being violated? A woman who knowingly signed a pledge she had no intention of honouring, and who then complained to the commission when her employer released her from her duties? Or the religious organization which meritoriously chooses to charitably serve all those in need, irrespective of their religious beliefs?

Ah, The Enlightened Liberals

A consumer product safety bill, a full year in the processing toward ratification by the House and the Senate, is stalled in the 'chamber of sober second thought' while noble senators mull on the hardships in store for manufacturers having to produce safe and reliable products, happy to bypass the consumers' right to trust goods manufactured within Canada.

This bill has received unanimous support in the House of Commons. In the Senate of the Upper Chamber, it has stalled, thanks to the vigorous nay-saying of Liberal Senators.

Passing this legislation is long-overdue in amending and up-dating inadequate 40-year-old consumer protection legislation. It would produce reliable legislation protecting Canadian consumers, reflecting like safety-consumer legislation in the European Union and the United States.

The amendments have the full and enthusiastic support of the Canadian Medical Association, the Standards Council of Canada, the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs and other institutions concerned with the safety of the public, and specifically children.

Liberal senators, however, because they still have a majority in the Senate, insist on their privilege. Of preventing legislation that would make Canada resemble a 'police state'. There are 45 Liberal senators insistent on amending the proposed legislation, to bring it in agreement with a lobby group, the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom.

'Freedom' as in giving free reign to manufacturers to produce shoddy and dangerous products. The very name of the lobby group calls to mind George Orwell's double-speak. The consuming public, in their view, should be free to unknowingly, trustingly, purchase goods that may be inimical to their health.

The senators opposed to the new legislation insist there is a need to curtail the power of Health Canada inspectors in their random safety checks at the facilities of manufacturers and distributors of consumer goods, lest they fine these entities for violating Canada's safety standards.

The health and safety of the Canadian consumer being at risk is obviously not their concern; the support of their very particular version of civil liberties clearly is. The legislation would impact on the 'civil liberties' of producers - and buyer beware.

Culture of Disinterested Impunity

"Errors of the past" appear decidedly now to have been enabled by the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Children's Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, the Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario and the Upper Canada District School Board. What a distinction to carry forward into posterity. Those events of the past have been identified as decades of sexual predation carried out on the children of Cornwall, Ontario, by respected members of society.

The 'errors' refer to the disinterest of the community, the agents of social services, including area police forces, to protect vulnerable children. The errors refer to the cover-ups, the refusal to listen and to believe children when they needed help, and the attitude that it was far better to avoid embarrassment by ignoring the situation, and thus perpetuating it. So that, year over year, greater numbers of children had their lives utterly disrupted, viciously altered; childhood taken hostage to predatory adult 'entitlements'.

"Throughout this inquiry I have heard evidence that suggested there were cases of joint abuse, passing of alleged victims, and possibly passive knowledge of abuse. I want to be very clear that I am not going to make a pronouncement on whether a ring existed or not." He did, however, make abundantly clear some elements of his findings: "When police investigations did occur, co-operation from the diocese was grudging and guarded. All this understandably exacerbated perceptions that 'there was something to hide.'"

Justice Normand Glaude, tasked with conducting an exhaustive investigation into the claims of sexual molestation of children, spent four years on hearing the testimony of 167 witnesses and viewing 3,640 written exhibits, at an estimated cost of $53-million to the taxpayer. The Ontario Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services was singled out for particular censure for failing to take action against employees who failed to report sexual improprieties with young probationers.

The Cornwall police, Ontario Provincial Police and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Alexandria-Cornwall were all complicit in one way or another of ignoring the legitimate concerns with respect to child molestation, and of their inept response to those allegations dating back almost 30 years. "When faced with allegations of historical abuse, institutions were ill-equipped." The malefactors were, in fact, sheltered, sent elsewhere to continue to prey upon other children.

And so the situation festered, and the children continued to be molested and preyed upon and traumatized.

Danger, What Danger?

Canada's security certificates issued during the emphatically strenuous years of coming to terms with the reality of the presence of malevolent forces striving to imperil democratic countries and their populations from among the ranks of radicalized Islamist fundamentalists has seen its legitimacy in protecting the country challenged, once again. This is a confounding turn of events. Simply because of the fact that there are covert cells and individuals acting with malice aforethought to do real harm to the country.

In Canada there is a separation of powers in our constitutional democracy, to ensure that three branches agree on legal process. The legislative sector passes laws, the executive branch implements those laws. Finally, the judiciary clarifies the laws, as seen to be needed. Each of these connecting, not opposing elements ensure that no one element overrides the others in the best interests of the government and its people.

Clearly, with the Federal Court striking down one security certificate after the other, declaring them unconstitutional, the judiciary is imposing its power over the legislative and executive branch. Effectively instructing both to construct a more 'acceptable' instrument of arrest leading to either imprisonment or deportation. In this most recent ruling, freeing terror suspect Syrian-born Hassan Almrei, the federal government is back to square one.

The security certificate empowering government to detain suspects who are foreign nationals residing in Canada, without charge, is the signal tool used in potentially apprehending terrorism on Canadian soil. Back to the drawing board. The government has been quite clear; it cannot, in the interests of national security, release for disclosure information it has on the level of threat a suspect represents.

That sounds eminently reasonable. Why should this country be concerned with the niceties of providing constitutional rights to those who enter the country illegally and perhaps for the purpose of imperilling the country? And if there is any reasonable doubt that the accused could or would be involved in potential atrocities, the country is under no obligation not to deport him back to his country of origin.

Which is precisely what the government has been attempting to do. However, Justice Richard Mosley in his compassionately judicial wisdom felt that though it was reasonable to feel that Hassan Almrei posed a national security threat at the time of his 2001 arrest, he is now an altered man whose years free of active work on behalf of jihad would render him no longer a valid terrorist suspect. Suspicion and intent to deport should be withdrawn.

Mr. Almrei was involved in an illegal document-forging enterprise prior to, and post-entry into Canada in 1999. Upon entry he did not render information respecting countries he had formerly visited and he entered with a false passport. Nor did he divulge the information that he had been associated with suspected Islamic extremists. None of which, according to Judge Mosley adequately brands him a terror suspect. Although all represent just reason for deportation.

Huzzah! Mr. Almrei is now a free man, free to take up his mission where it left off. Triumphant in his judicial pardon, and prepared to remain in Canada until such time as the federal government finally prevails in its intention on removing him from Canadian soil. Mr. Almrei exults in the ruling that has freed him from suspicion as a clear "...victory of real evidence over unclear intelligence".

Found Wanting

"Canada's emissions level is very high due to its energy intensive economy and due to a very high energy consumption per capita in comparison to the other index countries", was the conclusion of Germanwatch and Climate Action Network Europe, representing a coalition of environmental groups. In their evaluation of 57 countries with high energy emissions the conclusion was that "none of the countries analysed is contributing sufficiently on a practical level to the goal to avoid dangerous climate change and keep global warming notably below the two degrees limit".

Canada, lest the wide, wide world forget, is the frozen north of North America. It is a country with a quite brief growing season. A country which is cold for five to six months of the year. A country which experiences lots of snow, high winds and icy cold. And where the inhabitants appreciate being able to keep warm and toasty. True, it's also a developed country whose population has long been accustomed to a view that energy is cheap and wastage is high, with all manner of electronic gadgetry available for consumers. And at the very coldest time of year, seasonal celebrations ensure high-energy usage as well.

It's well to remember that the population of the country is steadily growing, with an additional quarter-million people added through immigration on a yearly basis. That may explain to some degree why it is that energy usage increases, since the population increase is quite remarkable. More people, more need for energy consumption. And it is also well to remember that Canada accounts for roughly 2% of the energy used world wide. While its population represents a mere 0.5% of the world's population, that's true. We are, admittedly profligate.

And the country hugely exports electricity and fossil fuels to its North American partner, and energy extraction is CO2-intensive. Construction and manufacturing account for a goodly amount of emissions. What sticks in the craw of the network of global environmentalists is the Conservative-led government's attitude which is seen as nonconstructive by their standards. Canada's caution in signing on to hard commitments for CO2 emissions decreases with the current government, unlike that of its predecessor Liberal-led government which signed on to Kyoto and then ignored its promissory note, reflects two things.

One, that the current government has no intention of signing any commitment that it cannot see itself adequately honouring. Two, for Canada to sign a decreased-energy-output agreement while her major trading partner with whom it shares a bilateral electrical energy grid hangs back from signing on itself, would unfairly constrain and limit Canada's trade and production future. It would lack the kind of balance that Canada is looking for. A balance that the government insists should also include to some notable degree, emerging economies like China, India and Brazil.

China, the United States, Russia, India and Japan between them generate 55% of total greenhouse gas emissions. Australia remains the largest emitter of greenhouse gases per capita, as a matter of fact, so why is it that Canada has been singled out as the world's carbon emissions neanderthal? Energy technologies are changing, and Canada has signed on to various new types thought to be helpful, such as wind turbines (not a popular option with the public) and solar power, along with cleaning up current fossil-fuel extraction methodology.

A country like Brazil that was given a high ranking for its attempts to reduce emissions, developing alternate energy sources, has a skeleton in its CO2 closet, which Canada has not; the destruction of rain forests. Great swaths of forests are being mowed down in Brazil and other countries to make way for agricultural land and the process results in a huge increase of CO2 emissions. Carbon dioxide is being released to the atmosphere with deforestation. Canada, on the other hand, possesses the largest, undisturbed tract of the world's boreal forests, a valuable carbon sink.

That the provinces of Ontario and Quebec are now pointing accusatory fingers at Alberta and Saskatchewan, the two energy-producing giants largely responsible for the nation's largest emissions, claiming that they have no intention of paying for those provinces' emissions sins, and righteously claiming to be able to reduce their emissions substantially is absurd. Ontario is largely dependent on nuclear power, and Quebec on electricity derived from James Bay, both clean energy sources. Yet they eagerly snap up the energy giants' equalization handouts.

Sudan, a social-political pariah for its genocidal atrocities committed and continuing to be committed against a large proportion of the population that is black, not Arab - dispossessing Darfurians - raping and murdering at will, leads the 77-nation condemnation of the impoverished countries of the world in outrage at the mere $7-billion amelioration offer from the developed world to offset carbon emissions and help developing nations' infrastructure. Sudan, vastly enriched by its huge oilfields, insists on no less than $200-billion to help it and its neighbours deal with environmental problems.

And Canada is held up to ridicule on the world stage of absurdity unleashed by self-interested ideologues and tyrannical governments who have never invested an iota of their national incomes derived from exploiting their natural resources, along with international aid to the betterment of their peoples' living conditions?

Being 'Nice to Everyone'

That's the function of service personnel. People who deliver services to others who pay handsomely for those services and expect that they will receive value for their money. This is what service is: 'Service with a smile'. It's what ensures the business that delivers that service will be enabled to continue delivering that service. Disappoint a customer with a miserable attitude and you lose business. When that happens often enough the business collapses.

Governments also deliver services to the people they represent. Elected representatives go a long way to trying to read the temper of their times and to persuade voters that their message has been heard and their elected representative stands ready to protect their interests. But governments also transcend merely delivering good service. They have other obligations beyond the elements of ensuring the safety and security and lawful entitlements of those they represent

You get your mail delivered on time, your transportation links are operating well, copyrights are ensured, employment insurance and government pension plan anticipated, the regulation of banking, defence, criminal law, citizenship and external diplomatic and trade relations all looked after, and you hope that the lobbyists aren't too successful in constraining better judgement for their bottom lines.

But governments don't see their mission as quite 'being nice to everyone'. Although when dealing with roughly equivalent political and social states it can be assumed that 'nice' is what diplomats representing their countries' interests actually do. Still, when a government is faced with the vulgarities of realpolitik, facing off against tyrants, dictators and non-state ideology-driven entities whose lethal intent impacts on international accord, smiles come hard.

And when the leader of the most powerful country of the free world states, in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, that there is a time for peace and a time for push-back when no other method will suffice, that speaks of a compelling and regrettable truth. That truth is the human condition. That there will always be rogue, paranoiac, belligerent and psychopathic actors on the world stage, determined to brute it out to obtain their aspirations.

Aspirations clearly inimical to the safety, security and longevity of other countries which their intentions and violence impacts upon. Parts of President Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo for the prize awarded him made eminent good sense, and he had the courage of his conviction to state his position baldly, albeit with the kind of soaring rhetoric he is so skilled at and which enthralls his listeners (who hear his mellifluous inflection as much as his words).

But this is a peculiar time in history faced by a peculiar head of state. One who has entered the world stage as a mediator, one who holds out the proverbial hand of friendship with a view to being 'nice' before he must turn seriously determined. Nice words haven't evoked a like response, alas. It's also quite amazing how presence and character can be divined through charisma. This is a conflicted man at a historical junction of international conflict.

His predecessor sent fewer troops to battle in Afghanistan, (and forwarded additional troops as a winning 'surge' in Iraq), than has Mr. Obama, but George W. Bush is generally derided as a war-monger (going head-to-head with those who threatened his country's safety which regard for safety is paramount also to President Obama) while the current president's decisions to beef up U.S. troops while vowing to leave the field of battle by 2011 is seen in a gentler light.

Barack Obama has been very nice, in fact, when speaking to the Arab world, and quite stern when addressing Israel. Where intransigence and potential violence was always seen to lie with the former, it is now being conferred upon Israel. Iran, whose initial plans imperil the balance of the entire Middle East, was given a conciliatory option of being reasonable. North Korea is still pondering that option.

When President Obama stated: As a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by [examples of Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi) alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people - for make no mistake, evil does exist in the world." Yes, it most certainly does. And countries as diverse as Somalia, the Philippines, Israel, Lebanon, Democratic Republic of Congo and India face that evil.

In most of those instances, 'radicalized' Muslims sworn to uphold the honour of Islamic jihad deliver death and destruction, threatening to uproot the legitimacy of current governments, to install themselves as the reigning and triumphant rulers of an ever spreading geography of Islamist hegemony, in their pursuit of global triumphalism. That's the ultimate evil.

Which doesn't take kindly to 'nice' talk, considering it an absolute signal of the effeminacy of their antagonists, and a clear invitation to attack those regimes that offer conciliation.

Keeping The Peace, Shunning Wars

A newly published survey by the Rideau Institute has listed Canada in 63rd place in the contribution of troops to missions run by the United Nations. Right down there with Cambodia. Canadians' love affair with the notion of Canada involved militarily with none but peace missions cast a nice warm glow over the country. We collectively eschewed engaging in war situations, but grasped at the opportunity to forge a new identification for ourselves; peace-makers.

From the country's grand old tradition as stout warriors during times past of international turmoil when tyrants and dictators sought to implement their plans at conquering peaceful countries to elevate their positions to an oppressive presence, to a new tradition of presenting as arbiters of peace and goodwill between adversarial countries. There are currently fifteen UN peacekeeping missions around the world. And Canada is no longer deeply involved.

Perhaps it might be useful to quantify peacekeeping and what those missions seek to accomplish. Basically, keeping sworn enemies from each others' throats. Imposing peace through moral persuasion and practical necessity. The UN peacekeepers do not engage in actual combat; their presence is meant to convey the impression that all who see them will respect their mission, and desist from pursuing violence.

In the 1990s, Canada was fully engaged with UN peacekeeping missions, with over three thousand Canadian troops assigned to various incendiary-prone geographical locations. Didn't we feel morally superior? The report's author claims that senior Canadian military personnel along with the defence lobby have managed to persuade Canadians that "peacekeeping is dead".

However, he added, "Canadians take pride in peacekeeping and want to get back to it." It is rather nice and tidy to be sure, to persuade oneself that there is no need to become engaged in battle, no compelling reason to become involved in wars fought elsewhere than on our soil. And the fact is, most people feel that keeping the peace is superior than making war, who wouldn't in fact?

However, as a long-time member of NATO, when both NATO and the United Nations determine that there are times when it is necessary for nations to engage in war for defensive reasons, or to right obvious heinous wrongs perpetrated on a nation or a population, it is incumbent on Canada to respond if for no other reason than in recognition of an obligation to advance human rights.

Precisely what gets accomplished when UN troops garnered from countries volunteering their military in peacekeeping missions? Canada's General Romeo Dallaire, for example, was stationed in Rwanda, and through sheer ineptitude on the part of the UN unwilling to intervene and give permission to General Dallaire to receive needed materiel and men, the world witnessed a horrendous ethnic cleansing.

In Democratic Republic of Congo the UN's peacekeeping mission has proven incapable of even pretending to protect women and children from incessant and widely-practised rape as an instrument of that particularly terrifying war. Nor did the UN usefully intervene as peacekeepers in Zimbabwe to ensure a cessation to the institutionalized rape of women there.

In 2006, world opinion called upon Israel to withdraw its troops from Lebanon, battling the terror group Hezbollah. One of the conditions of withdrawal was that UN peacekeeping troops would ensure that Hezbollah not be permitted to continue amassing weapons, and despite this the stockpiling of weapons has continued unconstrained by any energy expended by UN peacekeeping troops to honour their commitment.

Countries like Italy and Germany, reluctant to have their soldiers actively engaged other than boots on the ground as part of the NATO mission in Afghanistan deliberately choose to boost their numbers with the UN peacekeepers. Aside from which an increasing number of missions have been staffed by soldiers from developing nations and their professionalism has been remiss.

To the point where accusations of quite dreadful malfeasance inclusive of rape have been charged against some of these troops. As countries like Canada, once 10th in order of magnitude of troop contributions stand down, the quality of UN peacekeeping troops has declined, and that truly is a pity.

In an ideal world there would be no wars to be fought, people and their nations would behave civilly and respectfully toward one another. In a less than ideal world an international body tasked with intervening when countries appear incapable of comporting themselves properly would simply appear, and their presence encourage civil behaviour.

In the world in which we live, violent outrages occur constantly, within and without countries incapable or unwilling to represent the best interests of their own populations. And those who look outside their borders with a view to expanding their borders at cost to their neighbours, and to take advantage of rich natural resources not their own.

Add to that the radicalization of segments of a population whose clerics persuade them that their religion imposes an obligation of jihad upon them, and the resulting vitriolic hatred toward any who might wish to impede their march toward fanatical religious, political and social conquest and you have a formula for disaster requiring armed intervention.

Turning a Blind Eye

Well no, not quite. And the question must be asked, is Richard Colvin, who has thrown that spanner into trust in the word of the Government of Canada courageous or a miserable crank? While Defence Minister Peter MacKay is under the gun because the opposition parties smell blood and have been barking like triumphant hyaenas, it wouldn't hurt to take a sober look at details. One detail is that Mr. Colvin is absorbed in his personal sense of righteous outrage. Actively on the hunt for any signs that human rights are being flouted, anywhere.

He has a personal sense of mission and, as one of his former colleagues noted, would have been a better fit as a committed member of an NGO whose mission statement accords with Mr. Colvin's search for meaningful involvement in ensuring that human rights are respected wherever he trots on his global missions. This is a man who sees black and white, and who does not appear to recognize nuances, particularly those where explicating circumstances deny conspiring to outrage.

And while the opposition parties, in particular the Liberal Party of Canada are beside themselves with jubilation at cornering the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in wrong-doing on the world stage, claiming that the issue is one of trust and recognition of the Geneva conventions, most certainly not a partisan issue; above all, not a slur on the professionalism and confidence in the Canadian military, evidence speaks otherwise.

Take, for example, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff's own words: "This is not a partisan matter. This is about the capacity of the Canadian Armed Forces to comply with their Geneva Convention obligations." Wait now: This is also an issue about who recalls what with greater accuracy. And where heads-up reports issued by those in the field routinely are distributed in huge volume to those who haven't the time (possibly the inclination, considering the source) to read them.

And where hearsay and the repetition of oft-phrased doubts about incidents that are not open to authentication, some of them emanating directly from the accusations of the very Taliban whom Canadian troops are facing on a deadly battlefield, cannot always be accepted as fact. And where overworked and time-squeezed overseers tend, as human nature decrees, to discount the claims of the over-zealous with a proclivity to seeing grievous fault where there is none.

Take the situation on the ground, with an overstrained battle group in an atmosphere of chaos, under-equipped and struggling to contain an insurgency where the enemy is garbed in the protective camouflage of civilian attire, and no one knows when the next bomb will land or when a convoy will blunder into an IED, and you have a recipe for error, for no one is immune to error. Take also into consideration that troops who have recently bidden farewell to another coffin headed for home, confronts a member of the enemy, taking him into their charge, then discharging their obligation by moving him forward into the care of those entrusted by the Government of Afghanistan to receive and monitor prisoners.

Cognizant in some corner of their weary minds that human rights conventions mitigate against ill treatment of prisoners of war. The realization is there that those who would not give a second thought to wearing a suicide vest and dispatching you and your buddies must be handled with kid gloves. Checking back to assure themselves that a prisoner handed over to the country's prison guards has not been brutalized. Can we equate being beaten with a shoe to torture? Well, then a man suspected as Taliban, taken into custody was tortured with a shoe.

Casting some doubt on the allegations raised by Mr. Colvin is the deputy director of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Afghanistan who claims to have a satisfactory ongoing dialogue with Canada, and who has stated himself to be concerned no little end that Mr. Colvin has left the impression that he was intimately informed of possible Canadian violation of international humanitarian laws. When no such confidence in relaying information of that kind would have been possible.

Above all, keep in mind the difficult, truly onerous, and dangerous tasks that Canadians through our government have imposed upon our military; to proudly and honourably dispatch their professional duties in a theatre of war under conditions that do not reflect a typical theatre of war. And remember that Canadian soldiers do take their obligations seriously; why else would they return to check on the well-being of an 'insurgent' and then rescue him from further abuse with a shoe?

Finally, shame on the opposition parties for their diligent commitment to finding fault both with the current government and the Canadian military in a trying and dangerous situation, when all political parties should be advancing the need to give support to a mission that has few champions eager to sacrifice their people in the cause of rescuing a people from the talons of irredentist Islamofascists.

Ontario's Harmonized Sales Tax

There he goes again, the premier who campaigned on a solemn promise of no raise in taxes and sound fiscal management. Well, he got elected, partially on the basis of that promise, partly because the previous Conservative-led provincial government had eked out the last of Ontarians' patience with their social service cut-backs, and didn't he surprise everyone when he imposed a tax on health care, giving the people of Ontario the splendid opportunity to once again pay health premiums.

He has further eroded trust by the constant scandals of wastage of provincial funds raised through voters' taxes where one government department after another - name it, eHealth records for the province's health care plan, huge welfare over-payments, unveiled by the auditor general and illegal fees imposed through automated kiosks, to name several. And this, in a province which has slipped far behind its provincial counterparts; where once it was an economic powerhouse, now it begs, hat in hand, for equalization payments.

This has been a government unheedful of the need to preserve the administration funding it has, but one which - in healthier times before the economic slump and the loss of 100,000 manufacturing jobs - indulged in big-ticket spending, expanded programs where none were required, posting year-on-year surpluses, then sinking into a pathetic state of fiscal penury.
Now the taxpaying public has been warned it faces another hefty increase where government's fist digs deep into our pockets.

But the thing of it is, the HST, combining the GST with a provincial tax that gives business a break from the layered imposition of taxes, is likely a needed solution to a serious problem. Where businesses and manufacturers in the province have been paying a series of taxes (and passing those added expenses on to consumers) as a result of an ill-planned taxing scheme. Ontario's tax climate was seen as inimical to the attraction of new business. Now, the new combined tax will impose a further burden on taxpayers, while giving business a break.

So then, if manufacturers can produce goods that are less expensive, giving them a break in exports (they won't pass their decreased cost of production on to home consumers, alas) this can manifest itself in increased confidence, and a concomitant increase in the job force. The working poor will get tax refunds, as well as tax breaks, which will also be extended to the general population. A one-time cash sweetener will go out to all taxpayers.

Yes, the middle-class will end up paying more taxes, since a whole host of items that were previously excluded from taxation will now be taxed, and that will be painful, likely adding up to two thousand yearly in taxes for many middle-class consumers. On the other hand, if this manoeuvre is successful in giving new life to manufacturing and business in the province, ensuring a return of jobs, that too will be of value to all of us.

It's a bitter pill, but one we'd be best off swallowing. And hoping that the projections of financial experts won't prove to be a hopeful mirage....

Copenhagen

Canada is sweeping the fossil awards. The world's climate-change activists, the hordes of environmental NGOs have generously endowed this country with recognition of its exceptionality, (initiated aptly by the UN's Ban Ki-Moon), given its salutary recognition to this great country where the province of Alberta has taken steps to limit carbon emissions and to impose penalties on corporations who exceed their emissions caps. And whose high-stake principals have committed themselves to greener technologies.

In extracting what has been defined as the dirtiest fossil-fuels on the Planet, that very orb that seeks to avail itself of yet greater amounts of said fuel. It's really a dirty world we live in, alas. And we're spouting those carbon-dioxide emissions heedlessly. But this is serious business, and we do, really, have to try a whole lot harder. To come to terms - despite the imbroglio of the email releases of the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia - with the reality of change and impending change deleterious to Earth and to us.

Still, it's kind of rich to see Canada singled out for contempt, in the face of an entitled-delegate country like Sudan, happily extracting oil wealth, sharing it with China with whom it has much in common, and refusing to share it with all Sudanese; those living in dire poverty and particularly Darfurians defiantly insisting on their right to share in the country's good fortunes, (just inviting the inevitable response of dislocation, rape and mass murder). Genocidal settlement of interior dissent is nowhere near as abhorrent as extracting dirty oil.

Right: apples and oranges, and they're both good nutritional choices. The celebrated Al Gore, leader of the greening of the environmental revolution, revealed unwittingly the inconvenient truth of his personal environmental footstep, belying his righteous denunciation of global corporate polluters and the advanced world's wasteful consumption of energy while global warming caused by technological advancement is set to drown the poor and the downtrodden of the world.

In Copenhagen, at the world environmental summit, representatives of about 160 countries, and far many more NGOs, concerned environmentalists and groupies will be present to hammer out their unilateral demands. This is one huge, yet solemn party where self-flagellation and exquisitely new methods of psychological torture aimed at the guilt-reflexes of advanced countries will herald the self-righteous expectations of economically-emerging countries.

Just think of all those private jets, the lavish dinners, the gorgeously appointed accommodations, the limousines idling, waiting for delegates, UN officials and NGO representatives to exit their meetings and be whisked off to other meetings, congregations, dinners. Tiny Denmark couldn't supply all the limos that were ordered, so they arrived, spewing their carbon emissions, over one thousand of them, from Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands and France.

It's been published in the Times of India that India, China, South Africa and Brazil formed a power cabal to present a common front, prepared to abandon all negotiations if they feel they're being coerced into a deal that would unduly benefit the carbon-spewing developed nations. Why wouldn't they? More power to them. Of the non-CO2-spewing variety, needless to say. Which doesn't really lessen the stark reality that SOMETHING has to be agreed to, and truly accomplished.

But there's something about that United Nations involvement in this critical issue of the survival of the Earth's atmosphere as we know, love and depend upon it. There's more than a sneaking suspicion born of the intelligent mind to delve into such matters, that there is an uppermost agenda superimposed upon the environment. And that, largely, is the transfer of wealth to what was so long termed the Third World. And then, one thinks: what has happened with all those trillions of dollars that have been transferred to under-developed countries to date?

What critical advances have been made in the quality of life of people living in Africa, in Asia, in Central America, and anywhere that quality-of-life aid is required? Well, there have been successful initiatives coming out of the UN, with mass vaccinations against dread exotic and localized diseases; more children are outliving childhood, fewer mothers are dying in childbirth, and food aid is given to the starving masses whose rulers live in plenty.

It's kind of hard not to bring a certain cynicism to this latest ploy, where African countries insist that the billions that the developed world is willing to set aside for aid - in a financial-collapse environment just now beginning to ease - is laughingly inadequate to compensate for the inequities in wealth between the rich and the poor. No one is willing to address the inequities existing in poor African countries between their ruling tyrants and their enabled cliques, and the vast starving masses.

Still, one might hope that this conference won't end up being the total sham that it looks like it's shaping up for. With the smug togetherness of the haves, and the indignant denunciations of the have-nots, and never the twain will meet. But in fact, this isn't a conference about dividing the riches of the world more fairly is it? It's a conference about all sectors of the world coming together to plan how best to ameliorate a growing environmental tragedy.

Isn't it?