The International Food Crisis

The causes are many and they are varied. From protectionism, biofuel production, disastrous growing conditions; droughts and floods, to increased demands for a shrinking base product. But United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has been forced to establish an international task force to ensure the world's hungry can be fed. The food crisis threatens to become global, and it has already created riots on what is considered an unprecedented scale.

Wealthy countries of the world are being encouraged to hand over more ready cash to ensure that the World Food Program can meet immediate needs. Canada, already the world's second-largest donor to the program after the United States, has today increased its pledge from $150-million to $200-million. As the largest distributor of emergency food aid, the WFP fears that 100-million people now face dire food shortages.

Rioting in Haiti has riveted world attention on that poorest of poor countries, forever in political and social ferment. A dozen people have died as a result of rioting in Yemen. Indonesia has increased subsidies to assuage public anger over high food prices. Farmers in poor countries who cannot afford fertilizer costs at the best of times now see the price rising beyond their reach.

The World Bank and the International Monetary Bank are becoming involved in offering millions to farmers in badly-affected countries in hopes of increasing food production, and to assist in the purchase of seeds. Lending by the World Bank to Africa for agriculture is to be doubled. The World Bank president says export bans by producing countries are serving to increase shortages.

Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, China, Cambodia and India, all major grain-exporting countries have imposed export restrictions. These are panic reactions to rising food costs and growing scarcity. Controls which have been imposed in countries like Russia, Ukraine and Argentina are singled out as encouraging hoarding, driving up prices and ultimately harming the poorest in the world.

In the Philippines, government troops armed with M-16 rifles supervise the sale of subsidized rice. Police enforce a presidential decree outlawing food hoarding. Pakistan has ordered troops to guard flour mills. Protests have been occurring in Mexico, Jordan, Egypt, Mozambique and other countries facing shortages.

Because of the biofuels initiative by the European Union, the United States and Canada, farmers have turned to growing crops for ethanol production, diverting their lands from food-crop production. Ironically, while previously grain farmers were receiving just enough pay-back from their efforts to get by, they're now becoming wealthy on biofuel crops.

In parts of Latin America, peasants and indigenous peoples are being turned off their land for agribusiness to take over, growing crops so that "people in rich countries can feed their cars" according to Javiera Rulli, a biologist turned human rights defender in Paraguay. "Farmers in our countries pay with their blood. The grain used to fill one SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year."

Yet, according to EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, "There is no question for now of suspending the target fixed for [use of] biofuels." Brazil is the world's largest exporter of ethanol made from sugar cane, and its president, Lula de Silva claims: "Biofuels aren't the villain that threatens food security. The real crimes against humanity are discarding biofuels ..."

Malawi plans to restrict corn exports, Kazakhstan has banned wheat exports - it is the world's largest wheat exporter. India has stopped the export of non-basmati rice, peas and beans. To our great discredit, the United States and Canada remain committed to their programs promoting biofuel production and subsidizing biofuels in their effort to fight carbon emissions.

Yet a worldwide survey of a thousand scientists discovered a low level of trust in biofuels as a response to our environmental problems. Solar power remains the most-favoured low-carbon technology.

It's amazing how government bureaucrats and elected officials can seek feverishly for answers to vexing problems, and come up with solutions that are not well-balanced, whose repercussions are never fully realized, yet they cling to them, despite obvious symptoms of failure.

Getting Our Doctor-Act Together

The federal government's determination to alter current immigration standards continues to be criticized by opposition parties in parliament. But the current unworkability of the system underscores the need to progress to the next step. The federal government has its eye on countries like Australia and New Zealand, where applications for landed immigrant status can be processed in six months - as opposed to Canada's, where the same process can take six to ten years.

To expedite the process, the government has identified the viability of "occupational filters" as a primary tool in selecting prospective immigrants who will benefit the country through a combination of education, age, workplace experience and commitment to personal advancement. There's nothing particularly new in the utilization of such filters; Canada has always used them to produce high acceptability points. It's merely that a greater emphasis will be placed on the process.

Which would mean that other immigration sectors such as "family class", relating to family re-unification where successful landed immigrants are permitted to sponsor other family members may receive a numerical set-back. But as the Immigration Minister, Diane Finley, explained to a House of Commons committee, "We're facing real and serious international competition for the talents and skills that we need to fill the jobs that are waiting to be filled here in Canada."

Right. We've many job opportunities for skilled and educated immigrants. And the government has indicated that it intends to favour applications from the ranks of professionals, such as engineers, scientists, doctors - without yet releasing a list of priority occupations. But as it happens, Canada is experiencing a dire need for additional doctors and nurses to serve its population.

Yet the reality is that, while it's estimated five million Canadians are without a family physician, and 26,000 additional doctors are required, something is wrong in the State of Denial. The fact is, Canada has accepted a plethora, a veritable landslide of various types of professionals, from chemists, to pharmacists to physicians to lawyers, and very few of them are deemed to be professionally accredited to practise in Canada.

Canada does not make it easy for foreign-accredited professionals to practise their trade in this country. Professional accreditation agencies in Canada aren't falling all over themselves in enthusiasm to assist foreign-trained and -accredited professionals to achieve Canadian accreditation standards. The result being that confused and bemused immigrant-professionals find themselves locked out of their professions, and working at subsistence jobs.

Of the 1,486 foreign-trained Canadian and permanent resident doctors only 20% succeeded in being matched with residency positions at Canada's teaching hospitals. University hospitals claim they haven't the space, and instead of making space so that doctors can be trained and accredited and go out into the towns and cities across Canada that desperately need their services, they accept trainees from foreign countries.

Whose countries pay handsomely for their nationals on foreign visas, to study and train at Canadian university hospitals. And when their period of training has been completed, and they've achieved the required experience they will then depart back to their countries of origin. How does this benefit Canada? The universities bring in cash, train foreign doctors, but refuse space to Canadian professionals.

Seems the government bureaucracy should get together with university bureaucrats and have a thoroughly good discussion about vital priorities and values. We're just running around endlessly like hamsters on a mindless activity wheel, otherwise.

All-Expenses-Paid Time-Out

Canada's government has much to answer for in its long-standing and inadequate response to the needs of aboriginal Canadians. But attempting by all means at their disposal to assuage the intolerable living conditions of aboriginals stagnating on Indian Reserves in this country is not one of them. Throwing useless and huge amounts of cash at the reserve system, and supporting the First Nations industry of helpless, hapless dependence on handouts has been a colossal failure.

But this is the first time that an aboriginal chief has complained to the federal government, demanding that it do battle with nature on behalf of aboriginals. If there is something that human connivance and contrivance cannot overcome, it is nature and her implacable temperament. Weather conditions and their sometimes catastrophic outcomes are beyond the capabilities of any human agency.

Yet Chief Jonathan Solomon of the James Bay First Nation community of Kashechewan demands that the federal government devise a solution - a permanent solution - to overcome the perennial problem of flooding in native communities in northern Ontario. Funny thing, that; non-native communities in Ontario and New Brunswick and Quebec are also facing dire flooding situations. They strive to fend for themselves.

"This is ridiculous", wails Chief Solomon. "Why do we have to do this (evacuate) and continue to do this as long as we are here? The government has to come to the table and find a resolution here." Well, as the aboriginal community of Kashechewan overwhelmingly voted to remain in their tenuously-flood-prone area astride the Albany River, this would appear to have been an unwise choice.

For the fourth year in a row, a massive airlift of Kashechewan's 1,500 residents has been mounted. Military aircraft have been assigned the task of flying the residents out of their community for the near future, and taking them 1,000 kilometres away. And to observe the anything-but-unsettled countenances of the evacuating residents from published photographs, they are not devastated by this yearly event.

Their cheerfully beaming faces are those of people anticipating a holiday, a treat, a break from routine, an opportunity to see new places, other faces, and do some shopping and sightseeing. Much as was done last year, when many aboriginals were airlifted out to communities like Ottawa. These photographs are of happy tourists embarking on adventure.

After last year's evacuation - with nowhere near as severe flooding conditions given this year's unusual weather - a government-commissioned report recommended that the community be moved about 450 kilometres south to Timmins, a more socially reasonable and geographically and weather-conditions-related advantageous location.

Initially it seemed a workable option, one that might be accepted, but the Cree band then conducted a survey of its own, finding residents would prefer to remain within "traditional boundaries", moving a mere 35 kilometres up the Albany River. So that's why they're still there, and that, precisely, is why they're still subject to flooding conditions. And able to enjoy yearly vacations off site, handsomely paid for.

Meanwhile, elsewhere in the three provinces, rivers and streams have overflowed their banks, flooding hundreds of roadways, affecting Montreal, Laval, Quebec City, Fredericton, Maugerville and Sheffield, as well as communities close by Ottawa. Residents of those affected communities are advised to evacuate their homes in expectation of heavy rains exacerbating current flood conditions.

The Canadian Red Cross has been at work setting up reception centres. And in various flood-prone communities volunteers and civic employees go door to door informing everyone of the flood risks, recommending they leave home for as long as needed. They're self-reliant and independent and will do what they can to help themselves.

Municipal and provincial agencies will step in to assist where they can, as needed. It's a yearly event. Such choices are made when building human habitation in flood-prone areas. Unfortunate, and temporary inconveniences. People are resigned, and so incredibly accepting of their vulnerabilities.

Great Thundering Bombast...!

There he is, Barack Obama's worst nightmare, catapulting himself front and centre again in the news. His gesticulating emphasis, gloating, challenging, malleable-faced assertions have captivated the media and the public. This man was born to the black pulpit - and obviously finds a comfortable place to exhibit himself and his scornful dismissal of the white society he lives within, but not part of - on any available stage.

Senator Obama, in attempting to excuse the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's excesses, baleful and fanciful, hateful and accusing, describes him as being of the "old school" of black preachers, and he's right. It's certainly not quite in line with the kind of humanistic, deserving and peaceful remonstrances for justice that the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. expounded, to the credit of the black community.

That community that reverences the Reverend King, as opposed to that same community that succumbs to the thundering bombast of a self-reverencing preacher like the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. A colleague and spiritual brother-in-arms of such as Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan. He can find no fault with Minister Farrakhan's description of Judaism, for example, as a "gutter religion".

Yet denounces the white public at large and the press for not understanding the Black Church, for not endlessly commiserating with the past plight of blacks in America. Rather than focusing on what can bring blacks and whites together, he exercises his considered judgement in shoving them further apart by unrestrained condemnation of history and his steadfast refusal to live in the present.

Reverend Wright condemns accusations of an-American conduct leveled at him by resorting to the last refuge of a scoundrel, as a self-referential righteous minister of the black church. "It is an attack on the black church by people who know nothing about the African-American experience." Which hasn't stopped him and those of his ilk from attacking white Americans or Jews, for blacks haven't lived their experience either.

Instead of embracing the opportunity exposed by the goodwill of white American youth and hopeful Americans of every political stripe to hand the U.S. presidency for the first time to a person of colour, Reverend Wright is splenetically venting spite and intolerance, throwing a bruising shadow of suspicion over the very candidate whose run for the highest office of the land could reflect a healing of a national wound.

His self-aggrandizement in revelling in his home-bred notoriety bespeaks his lack of commitment to a national society of consensus and equality of the colours in the United States. His venomous identification of U.S. and Israeli "terrorism", his unequivocal statements that the disaster of 9-11 is explicable in light of American foreign policy, and his claims that the epidemic of AIDS represents a deliberate plot to eradicate blacks condemn him.

His random attacks on those to whom he ascribes evil intent toward blacks, his scurrilous characterizations of whites and of Jews, his pride in his outspoken opinions offered for public consumption may gain him adherents in some parts of the black community, but it's fair to say that among a goodly portion of that same community his theatrics recognized as demeaning to black aspirations, and are anything but popular.

They have no useful purpose. They serve only to drive a wedge further between the communities. He is wilfully sowing a new round of suspicion and isolation, re-polarizing the entities that had seen fit to come together in a common purpose; a union of solidarity for the public good. The man is offensively ignorant, and ignorantly effusive in his self-delusionary rants.

Little wonder that the Democratic front-runner has been forced to declare himself "outraged and appalled", for the Reverend Wright's version of America. The Reverend Wright's vision of the ongoing separation of black and white, does not reflect Senator Obama's promise to himself and to America. Barack Obama has been forced to stand by in agony, witnessing a collapse of his own singular purpose.

Overtaken by the passionate rhetoric of another type of racist, with his clanging theories about a deathly disease-conspiracy against American blacks, and America the terror-state. But the Reverend Wright does have some compelling support, for none other than Seyyed Mohsen Yahyavi, Secretary-General of Iran's Inter-Parliamentary Group, singles out the United States as the biggest threat to world peace.

And, oddly enough, represents a country whose stated purpose is the defeat of America, once it has succeeded in eradicating the Jewish state.

Dogged By An Ass

Sometimes, the law - or the way it's interpreted - has been observed to be contrary to the public interest. That old observation: "The Law's an Ass" proves on occasion to be quite so.

And when enough people within any population feel that way it's time something be done about it. When the law issues responses contrary to the public weal, something is obviously wrong. And with the recent Supreme Court ruling on the use of police sniffer dogs in certain arenas representing as inimical to the Charter of Rights, the law does appear stubbornly donkey-like.

Braying their superior position in interpreting the Charter of Rights under section 8, a majority of the justices on the Supreme Court have disallowed the legality of sniffer dogs being used in schools and other public areas to assist police in obtaining evidence of illegal activity. Good grief, society has an unendurable problem with drug addiction. We've homeless people, hopelessly addicted to drugs. To feed their habit they resort to prostitution, to stealing into peoples' homes, to violence.

Human dignity is far beyond their experience at this degraded time in their lives. Which also leaves them vulnerable to disease and life-threatening illness. Let alone violence on the streets. Yet there are young people in high schools bringing illicit drugs into that public venue to entice other youngsters to try out drugs, and to entrap them finally as habitual drug users.

Doesn't society have a responsibility to protect our young from this kind of harmful exposure to drug use and availability?

Yet a young man attending a Sarnia, Ontario high school whose principal had invited the local police with their canines into the school for the very purpose of identifying drug dealers felt sufficiently entitled to protest the charge levied against him, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The school exercised a well-publicized "zero tolerance" atmosphere. The school represents a public arena. The school is seen as a safe learning environment for young people.

Yet a majority of the justices considered that case, as well as that of a man who was caught by police in a Vancouver bus terminal, on appeal. The Vancouver drug carrier, Gurmakh Kang-Brown, had caught the eye of police because of his nervous demeanor. Which caused police to deter him, and to have their sniffer dog deployed in identifying the contents of his backpack. He was subsequently arrested for possession of and/or trafficking in drugs.

The student, underage, and not identified other than by initials, was charged with possession of marijuana and magic mushrooms for the purpose of trafficking. Only one judge, Justice Bastarache - unfortunately standing down from the High Bench at an early age, thus making the wisdom of his interpretation unavailable in short order - found the final judge had erred in excluding the evidence.

As far as he could see, the trafficking charges were serious and valid; more so in a school settings, so he would have allowed the evidence to stand.

In both cases the Supreme court of Canada delivered a 6-3 split in both decisions. They chose to uphold the right to privacy of the individual guaranteed by the Charter. Yet in both these instances where drugs were being conveyed for the purpose of trafficking, they were detained in a public space. And the charges were extremely serious.

The point is, of course, that Canadians are guaranteed freedom from intrusion into their privacy. And that's just fine. But when people are prosecuting activities meant to harm some members of the public, and they are going about that business in the public sphere, who should be protected? The purveyor of dangerously illicit materials, or his victims?

Aboriginal Self-Responsibility

Evacuations are taking place again of aboriginals living on reserves in areas of the country vulnerable to spring flooding. It's become a yearly event. To prepare yet again for the mass evacuation of people, to take them temporarily to other areas of the country where nature doesn't threaten to unsettle the lives of people living in rural or urban communities.

Not that there are not rural and urban areas that aren't touched by seasonal flooding. These non-aboriginals manage to cope; the federal government doesn't declare potential disaster nor mount a mass evacuation. The surrounding community becomes involved and offers help as needed.

It's different in native communities, in tribal areas, on Canada's many reserves. Those reserves - and they are many - that remain impoverished, both in spirit and materially. Where social dysfunction is the order of the day. Where children are raised in households barely resembling functional familial groups. Where children learn at an early age to fend for themselves. Where education is not recognized as a priority and boredom sneaks illicit activities into daily life.

A report just issued by the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, written by Metis researcher Joseph Quesnel, asserts that Canada is long overdue for a change in aboriginal policy. And that adopting some very key and successful initiatives pioneered from the Maori experience in New Zealand may just be the way to begin. But, to begin with, the overdue settling of native land claims must be settled.

Only then will it be possible for aboriginals to learn to become self-reliant. With finalized legal entitlement to ancestral lands, they could begin to use that land to develop their own resourceful responses, to emerge with their own economy, for their own use. They will require education to enable them to fulfil this kind of vision for their future. And there are other, successful reserves which could serve as a template.

In New Zealand the government decided it could no longer support failed policies toward its aboriginal commitment. So in 1984, it acceded to the Maori determination for independence. Handing over powers for the Maori to identify their singular development needs, and to begin to deliver their own services to their own people. A one-time cash payment along with assets cemented treaty settlements.

This was so successful that by 2003 the Maori were contributing tax in amounts greater than their original transfers of cash and kind from the New Zealand government. There are now 22 Maori Members of Parliament, accounting for 20% of government representation. According to Mr. Quesnel's study, "There was an understanding that any movement toward indigenous cultural and political self-determination had to be accompanied by economic self-reliance.

"They could not call themselves self-governing while receiving handouts and massive government transfers." Yet in Canada, where the federal and provincial treasuries commit $18-billion in transfers to Canada's aboriginals, there is precious little to show in the way of success. It's government funding that simply sinks into a black hole of diminishing returns. Which doesn't stop Phil Fontaine and the Assembly of First Nations from demanding ever greater contributions to aboriginal well-being.

It's more than adequately obvious that government funding, however well-intentioned, adds nothing whatever to aboriginal well-being. Where there is no vested interest in the lands and the homes and the civil institutions within reserves, there is apathy and disinterest and an inability or an unwillingness to be involved, to demonstrate pride, to attempt to help themselves.

Aboriginals succumb to a malaise of the soul. Encouraged to live in that environment by self-serving chiefs, they bide time, and present as maladjusted indigents.

The Maori, in contrast have never embraced a reserve system. Their people have integrated into the larger community. They receive no transfer payments from government coffers. Until Canada's aboriginals are willing to understand and to accept that time goes forward, not backward, and the past cannot be re-visited, they are destined to the status quo.

This is no way to celebrate their heritage. They live on reserves, on "traditional lands", but they don't live traditionally.

The 2006 Census indicated that 54% of aboriginals live off reserve, and reserves will continue to shrink as ever more aboriginals begin to migrate to urban centres. Oddly enough, despite all the misery that Canada's native communities have endured, their life expectancy, at 72.9 in 2000 was the highest among the four populations studied (Canada, the U.S., New Zealand and Australia).

Canada must begin to focus more strenuously on the advancement of its aboriginal populations. That means taking serious steps to educate the young, to offer aboriginal youth the same opportunities as other young people in Canada. Their needs are no different, their opportunities should reflect those of any other youth within the country.

The opportunity for self-improvement, self-reliance and self-respect for their families must be advanced. Encouraging independence and conveying the real impression that there are expectations they can succeed can imbue people with the realization that they indeed can succeed in achieving independence. Material and practical assistance should be proffered when required, when sought.

But aboriginals, no differently than any other segment of the Canadian population, should be prepared to make a place for themselves and their children in this country. The dignity of self-reliance, of taking responsibility, should no longer be denied them. Living on government hand-outs, not facing the challenges inherent in taking on normal responsibilities denies them a future.

The unrelenting, horrendous problems on native reserves of teen suicide, alcohol and drug abuse; unemployment and high-school dropout rates belong in the dustheap of history.

Et Tu, Iggy?

No, no; not "you too" but "particularly you". As in what took so long? We know, we know, the undercurrent was always there, ready to raise itself above the stream of patient assent. The stalwart and committed supporter. Guess the time was ripe. After all, those by-elections that brought a major rival directly onto the scene was the propellant. Beat him to it, didn't you? As everyone knows, though, Bob Rae cannot be too far behind.

Guess he and his legion of impassioned supporters are already in the throes of planning a major social event to bring out the corporate heads, the moneyed set, wooing them for their support. His subversive campaign will receive ample support, just as yours has. The question here is which, between you two, can amass the greater support? Two years, after all, is enough time. Point made. It was an unfortunate fluke.

You've been adept in furnishing the veneer of staunch support to someone who has proven, as you both knew he would, to be inadequate to the task at hand. An unfortunately already-submerged-in-misery Liberal party, sunk even deeper into the morass of disadvantage. Professorial intellect just doesn't cut it, in and of itself. Without that indelible spark of charisma, that ability to alert the public to possibilities and potentials.

The Royal York hotel as good a venue as any for your coming-out ball, Michael Ignatieff. The pretence is slowly evaporating, but not soon enough, right? What a glittering event with all the political cognoscenti, the movers and shakers, the committed and the yet-to-be-committed. Mind if I ask an admittedly naive question? Just wondering, after all.

When the invitations went out, was one handed, on a silver salver, to your ever-so-earnest leader? And the friend and colleague of your youth, did one go out to him as well? At the risk of seeming repetitive; just asking.

Here comes the clash of the cerebral titans. First number of introductory scenes between yourself and your rival. With poor Stephane Dion lingering on the edges, wondering what went wrong. He has all the answers, after all. The solutions to all the problems, right at his fingertips. He is morally unassailable, but politically disadvantaged. And when the dust finally settles and the choice has been made (yawn), then comes the fun.

Not necessarily the verbal and intellectual sparring between you and Bob, but later, between either you or Bob, and Stephen. That's when the sparks will fly. That's when the public will really sit up and take notice.

Canada's Inner Conflict

We've got more than sufficient sociopaths in Canadian society born and raised in the country who, although they've been exposed to all the benefits of living in a free and democratic country, place their allegiance elsewhere, and cast the bitter aspersions of their disregard for the country and all it represents upon the wide sea of discontent fomenting toward violent expression throughout the world community. Every country manages to somehow breed malcontents.

And then there are those special types who seek to emigrate from their countries of birth because of an atmosphere of political and social repression. They seek out the gentler shoals of countries for which freedom of expression, ideas, worship, ideologies and association are guaranteed to their citizens. Countries whose tradition has been to respect differentiation between peoples from different cultures and ethnic backgrounds; countries built upon immigration.

Canada carefully vets aspirants to settlement in the country, those would-be emigrants who make application to become landed immigrants, and eventually citizens of the country. But as much caution as can be exercised at any given time by overworked and stressed civil servants tasked to ensure that individuals holding criminal records or known to be involved in society-averse behaviours - including those with a track record of belonging to jihadist groups - slip-ups occur, the end result being the proverbial vipers in our midst.

One such - as so many of these bitterly, violently disaffected people turn out to be in venues other than Canada, and who seek violent means to overturn legitimate governments, and in the process visit bloody carnage on their people and institutions - is a young man originally from Pakistan. He has placed himself in a very public position as championing Osama bin Laden along with others of his ilk.

For to him, a staunch and committed fundamentalist Muslim, the Western world has outrageously offended Islam and the Muslim world by its assault against Muslim sensibilities; by assaults of a physical nature against sovereign Muslim countries. Somehow disregarding the initial bloody series of provocations against Western citizens, institutions, their militaries, and their vested commercial interests.

This young man, while living in Toronto, posts on the Internet praising Osama bin Laden as a "hero" and "champion of Islam". He is a fundamentalist, self-motivated, radicalized from within, inspired by Pakistani cleric and jihad-advocate, Israr Ahmad. Whose agency helped commit him to the ideals of Islamic jihad. Mr. Khan urges readers to "support our troops"; "the mujaheddin fighting for freedom and rights against illegal occupation in many, many places over the world like Afghanistan, Iraq, Chechnya, Kashmir, Palestine and Somalia".

He advocates the severest of Sharia punishment - death - for "apostates" to Islam, like Irshad Manji, Tarek Fatah and other moderate Muslims who strive to educate their Muslim brethren in moderation and acceptance of others: non-Muslims, non-traditional gender relationships, those who practise no religion; urging the recognition of equality owed all, not merely Muslims. However, according to Naeem Muhammad Khan, their meek and peaceful attitude offends Koranic prescription and blasphemes Islam.

"Behead her!!! And make a nice video and post it on YouTube", he writes of one "Islam basher". And "Jews who support Zionism and Israel ... since they are killing Palestinians ... killing them is not bad, they deserve to die". He believes that those who have a distorted opinion of Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance, deserve to die by the swords of Muslims. What is such a vindictive and sinister worldview doing, as a fairly recent immigrant to Canada, living comfortably within a society that embraces equality?

Why, it's opportunism not to be denied. "In recent times, hundreds of Islamic radicals have settled in Canada", according to Tahir Gora, an activist-writer originally from Pakistan, who has been absorbed with this very issue, airing his opinions through his Hamilton Spectator columns. "They are spreading hatred and extremism in the guise of freedom of expression. On the other hand, they put death penalties to those dissidents who challenge the traditional medieval way of Islam."

He should know, leading a monitoring agency, Canada Safety Think Tank, tracking the growing Islamic radicalization within Canada. It's a serious issue, one that the government is very well aware of, and is itself tracking. There are terrorism-related cases before the courts in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, all relating to violent plots unveiled by security agencies, motivated by Islamist extremists.

But the very freedoms granted Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms serve also to encourage the fanatics within the country, secure in the knowledge that they too have the "right" and the freedom to vent their violent frustration against what they perceive as insults against and assaults toward Islam. They are in the business of encouraging jihad, and speak to the values of murdering innocent people in the guise of doing the holy work of the Islamic struggle against the unbeliever.

This singular individual, Naeem Muhammad Khan, obviously enjoys attention, about as much as he enjoys the freedom to vent his splenetic bile. He is able to do this because he resides in opinion-tolerant Canada, knowing full well such opportunities would be strenuously to the point of incarceration, denied him in most Muslim countries.

None of these Muslim countries meet his stringent yardstick of representing true Islam, with the institution of full Sharia law. Should there ever be such a country in the future - and his native Pakistan may very well attain to that status, or perhaps Indonesia, or any number of other Muslim countries struggling to counteract the determination of the Islamists within their borders - he will be overjoyed to return.

Meanwhile, supporters of rigorously righteous Islamist ideals cleverly use Canada's own hate laws and its various Human Rights Commissions to post complaints against Canadian magazines and writers who, through their publication of ideas and opinions based on fact and observation offend their sensibilities. While those within the country who spout truly hateful, racist and murderous ideals feel free to operate without fear of apprehension.

Professor Wesley Wark, an visiting scholar and intelligence expert at University of Ottawa, feels that Mr. Khan's "odious" views should be allowed to be aired "where ridicule can scrub them away". Perhaps, but the clarity of this jihadist-championing vision expressed as support for murderous jihad, indeed raises the question of whether Canada should be looking at implementing new guidelines and laws to outlaw the incitement to terror.

Long past time of its need.

Biofuels: Part of the Solution

That's what the newspaper caption read: Biofuels aren't causing the food crisis - they're part of the solution. Well, if they're derived from non-food sources like dead trees, waste cooking oils, and other types of non-food waste products, ethanol certainly can be an assist, albeit a modest one, to help in alleviating our century's dire need of fossil fuels by our energy-wasteful ways of life.

Most certainly the oil-using world would like to remove itself from its self-destroying dependence on the oil-producing world. When that is pronounced it's clear that the finger of blame is pointing squarely at the OPEC cartel. But then, there are other oil-producing countries, not part of OPEC, and while some of them, like Canada, for example, produce plenty of oil and gas it's never enough to assuage the needs of the international community.

Let alone their own internal needs. Hydro production is great, but the world has a dearth of sufficient water-sourced energy. Nuclear energy has its own problems, not the least of which is the disposal of nuclear waste, a true nightmare scenario guaranteed to haunt us with its disaster potential foraeons. Wind-generated power is inadequate, a hopeful sop. Solar-generated power reliant on sunny climes, but useful.

So really, must we return to dirty old coal and continue carbonizing and particulating our atmosphere beyond breathable redemption, and end up like China, with its severely troubled atmosphere? Oil, the bane of ourtransportative existence. So, are biofuels the alternative to fossil fuels? Hardly; we could never harvest sufficient growing crops to produce enough ethanol to replace fossil fuels.

And until we discover an inedible crop willing to lend itself to ethanol production on a large scale, biofuels will remain a miserable alternative. Environmental enthusiasts who once championed the concept of biofuel production as a replacement response to fossil fuels, echoing a lesser impact on the atmosphere through less carbon emissions are now swallowing their tongues.

Cereal grains cannot be seen as a solution through bypassing the slight inconvenience of world hunger and steadily rising food prices. True, farmers whose produce was never sufficiently appreciated in the past, and who scarcely made a living through their agricultural commitment as a functioning, fundamental livelihood, are now seeing their incomes rise.

Arable land once given over to producing food crops for peoples' consumption are now being dedicated to biofuels-producing grains. Forests are being cleared to make way for larger tracts of farmland. To benefit biofuel production. Subsistence farmers in Africa, Latin America and impoverished Asia can turn to growing crops for fuel production, and see their meagre incomes rise.

As they starve alongside those of their countrymen. Still, the president of the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association speaks glowingly of the potentials inbiofuels production. Biofuels, he assures the reading public "are the most environmentally viable alternative to gasoline today".

We have it on the best authority.

What Price Harm?

The presence of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, at the invitation of the Afghan government as part of NATO's presence for the purpose of pushing back and defeating the resurgent Taliban has had its share of unintended consequences. Unintended and tragic, but commonplace in situations where a foreign military speaking a foreign language intermingles of necessity on occasion with indigent civilian populations. The lethal machinery of war does not mix well with civil institutions and civilians.

There have been unfortunate deaths occurring as a result of those minglings. Deaths of Afghan soldiers or police or civilians as a result of "friendly" fire. And other mishaps, including accidents with vehicle collisions leaving people injured or maimed. And then there are mere "incidental" misfortunes of property lost. The Canadian military has its presence in the country, along with those of other NATO countries; the Afghan people are advised to co-operate with these invited occupiers who are there to protect them and to train their own military and police.

Resentment is inevitable, when accidents, deadly and not-so-deadly occur. These are foreign soldiers on Afghan soil. Soldiers who are not completely aware of social customs, cultural traditions, and unable to speak the common language. Strangers in their midst; armed and dangerous intruders. So when civil life slams hard up against military might, it is innocent civilians who pay the price. Needless to say, these disasters are regrettable, the impact on the minds of the Canadian soldiers also represents a tragedy.

But then, when accidents do occur and Afghan citizens who are unafraid of speaking up and demanding their rights bring their grievances to the attention of the Canadian military, why then, compensation is offered. In the last year there were five instances of Afghan civilians injured or killed by Canadian troops, and three friendly-fire deaths of Afghan soldiers or police. There is a need to show compassion, despite that Canada signed an agreement with the Afghan government waiving liability for damage.

Tell that to the victims of misfortune. Inadvertent death is still death, and irreversible. In the space of a year some 33 singular instances of misadventure were identified and compensation meted out to the appropriate individuals. Which by no means covers all such incidents, for some are overlooked, and some occur to people who have no means of asking for recompense, having no knowledge of how to proceed, and being too fearful of pursuing avenues for attention.

Imagine, then, thirty-three cases, ranging from damage to homes or vehicles, loss of personal possessions, death, injury, damage to private infrastructures, destruction of home or compound, confiscated properties not returned, and all of these compensated for a total of $89,769. Families of Afghans accidentally killed received on average $8,000 in compensation. Destruction of homes compensated by approximately $5,000. The average Afghan wage is $300 annually. These are considered "ex-gratia" payments, extended for "benevolent" reasons.

Contrast that with the cost of war. Canada spends, through its NATO-Afghanistan mission $1-billion a year.

Mexico, Canada, Held Hostage

Two North American countries held hostage by the imperious histrionics of a woman portraying herself as an innocent bystander in a corrupt scheme that bilked tens of millions of dollars from unsuspecting victims. She may or may not have been involved in the scam that has seen her one-time employer, Alyn Waage, convicted, tried and found guilty of an Internet fraud scheme operated from his Puerto Vallarta, Mexico headquarters, but despite portraying herself as a hapless, helpless victim, Brenda Martin is anything but that.

She knowingly broke the law of a country she entered illegally, by choosing to remain and to be employed there. When she was employed by Mr. Waage as the cook in his villa, she locked horns with his elderly mother, causing bad feelings which resulted in her dismissal after less than a year of employment. This is such an exceedingly agreeable woman that she could not find it in character to extend respect and a politely acquiescing manner to an older woman. She is obviously accustomed to having her way, brooking no interference.

Or perhaps not; the entire story has never quite been revealed, just tantalizing little snippets that do not paint a picture of innocence. Her extremely generous $25,000 severance, representing a year's salary as a parting gift on dismissal saw her investing ten thousand of that in her former employer's Ponzi scheme that left 15,000 investors around the world $60-million poorer. When Mexican authorities arrested Brenda Martin she was charged with participating in the criminal conspiracy of her past employer; knowingly accepting illicit funds.

Post-arrest and incarceration Brenda Martin was held for two years without trial. A not-unknown occurrence even in countries like Canada, but one which she herself was partly the engineer thereof as a result of her own legal machinations. She interfered with legal proceedings, claimed not to have been seen by Foreign Affairs consular representatives during her imprisonment, and excoriated the government of Mexico and its unjust and unfair legal system. She skillfully exploited the concern and compassion of fellow Canadians with her manipulative histrionics.

Her case quickly became a notorious one, demonstrating yet again how badly Canadians fare as unwitting tourists in Mexico, trusting and open-minded, only to be assailed time and again by the reality that recounted fairly dreadful instances where Canadian tourists met untimely ends through a series of criminal misadventures. None of which has given Canadians pause to reconsider their holiday trips to Mexico. Tourists seeking sun and sand and exotic landscapes flock to the country, while at the same time, decrying Mexican corruption.

Brenda Martin has, despite the anguished persona placed before the cameras turned her way, been having a whale of a time. She adores all the media attention. She relishes the public concern in Canada being evinced by fellow Canadians extending their compassionate concern for her misfortune. She is a self-centred, egotistical woman whose stock in trade is innocence. Her thespian ability to portray herself as a poor defenceless woman victimized by a cruel justice system in a nasty country has played well to her audience.

She has adeptly manipulated the political card, for the public outcry of outrage at the dreadful situation in a Mexican jail of a purportedly innocent Canadian woman who just happened to stumble innocently into a den of criminal activity, has alerted the Government of Canada that they have a bit of a public relations crisis. In aid of handling this crisis, top-echelon public servants and elected Members of Parliament have been scrambling to pay due obeisance to this woman's hysterics.

Brenda Martin's mother, Marjorie Bletcher's tears match those of her daughter's, and truly it's a pitiable situation that only the hardest of hearts would not respond to. Mexico's reputation is being besmirched, their independent judiciary, their criminal justice system, their customs and traditions, their hospitality and generosity as hosts blackened, as Brenda Martin screams in dismay at her sentencing, and predictably faints. Her sentence and her fine have "devastated" this poor woman.

Her friend and supporter, Deb Tieleman shouts "This is incredible. There is no justice in this country. There was never any evidence against Brenda Martin." Fear not, Canada's prime minister will again earnestly confer with his Mexican counterpart. This well-seasoned woman who loves dressing up, competing for attention, performing before the camera, giving exclusive interviews from her Guadalajara prison declaiming her innocence, threatening suicide, working herself into a state of agitated self-delusion, will be saved.

She will return to Canada where some means will be legally found to shorten her prison stay here, and returned to the bosom of her family. Where she will remain for a very short time before setting out again to make her mark in the world, but not before placing before the eager media once again her well-practised version of a malignant vendetta against her by a vicious foreign government.

Americans Say, Canadians Say

Same item, appearing in two different newspapers, each with different captions. One reads "Safer for world if McCain wins, Americans say"; while the other reads "Canadians don't feel secure with McCain". Oops, whose election is this, anyway? Well, of course there's that, but there's also the undeniable reality that whoever is at the helm of governance in the United States makes decisions that very often impact deleteriously on the world at large.

Canada being the very close next-door neighbour of the United States, it's understandable that we're more than a little interested in the outcome of the presidential elections. We've a lot in common as neighbours in North America. We share a good many values, although there are certainly nuanced differences. Our priorities are occasionally similar. Our social attitudes share some great similarities, but shaded by "liberal" and "conservative" apprehensions.

Americans are more conservative than Canadians. Americans are most certainly more religiously inspired, more dedicated to religion, more church-going, more bible-abiding, than their Canadian counterparts. Canadians are less socially rigid than Americans. Americans are far more conspicuously patriotic than are Canadians. Canadians tend to be quietly patriotic, not given to the overt displays so characteristic of Americans.

Canadians have infinitely more knowledge of all things American, from their history to their culture, their politics to their social mores. Americans remain dismally but confidently ignorant of useful general knowledge of other countries of the world, including their neighbour, Canada. Canadians are genuinely interested in other countries. Americans seem to feel no need to be.

So here's that news item again, where the two populations view a particular item from opposite positions. Americans, by a slender margin appear to believe the world would be safer if Republican John McCain ascended to the presidency. There's an overt assumption that it is the United States' primary duty to police the world, ensure that it reflects American values and conditions of political life, it would appear.

A mere 24% of Canadians feel that Senator McCain would ensure a more peaceful world, as president of the U.S. In contrast, Senator McCain retains a slight majority of approval from Americans as leader, rather than Senators Clinton or Obama. America's traditional weight-throwing in the world makes Canadians slightly nervous. They relate far better to the foreign policy expressed by the Democrats.

Revealed through an Ipsos Reid survey conducted for Munk Debates, an international affairs debate series which plans to focus on the impact of the U.S. presidential campaign on international affairs.

As reported by Sheldon Alberts for Canwest News Service

The Upper (Energy) Hand

Be careful what you wish for. It might just come to fruition. And the results, unfortunately, may not quite reflect what was anticipated.

In the case of the two Democratic U.S. presidential aspirants, their promises to the American unemployed to scrap elements of the North American Free Trade Agreement, or the agreement in total, as a disingenuous and perhaps lamentably uninformed ploy - for aspirants to high political office - a wake-up call.

All three North American partners in the NAFTA are destined to suffer from the potential of a cancellation of the treaty.

And then, singly, they can face the reality of competitive international markets, where the EU has combined to create singular clout, where the Indian-China duet is beginning to dominate the markets of the future, and think back to what once was. Act in haste, repent at leisure.

Clearly, the Democratic candidates' understanding of the working results of the NAFTA treaty are somewhat imperfect in their comprehension of the details involved therein.

But the United States, being what it is, an exuberant, self-absorbed, narcissistic society, sublimely certain of their prime place in the world of commerce and leadership, is accustomed to calling the tunes - all the tunes - and offering crumbs to competitors, and ostensible colleagues.

There they were, the continent's three political leaders, Mexico's Felipe Calderon, Canada's Stephen Harper, and the United States' George W. Bush, in a NATO conclave, conferring on the success of the treaty up to the present. Presenting the view of both Canada and Mexico, alongside that of the current U.S. administration that there is no need to open the treaty for any further amendments.

All three countries have benefited, yet it seems to the critics of the treaty in all three countries that only their country has suffered, while the other two have advanced. Face is, trade has been inordinately enhanced, businesses have thrived, the economy has benefited - and manufacturing job losses have occurred, but have migrated away from the three countries, not from one to the other two.

But if the new American administration turns out to be Democratic and insists on re-negotiating or scrapping NAFTA, Mexico and Canada can live with it. Mexico has great oil reserves, and can turn elsewhere to an energy-hungry world to peddle its wares there. Canada presents in actual fact, as the U.S.'s central provider of energy sources.

As said Prime Minister Harper: "Canada is the United States' No.1 supplier of energy. We are a secure and stable supplier that is of critical importance to the future of the United States. If we have to look at this kind of an option [a renegotiation], I say quite frankly ... we would be in an even stronger position now than we were 20 years ago. And we will be in a stronger position in the future."

Canada gave up a bit of too much to the United States in signing the NAFTA agreement. And we've been shafted by the U.S. Congress pulling weight and crying foul over subsidies ever since. So bring it on, please do.

Russia, Droning On

Vladimir Putin loves playing hardball. His competitive spirit fuels a resurgent Russia, as of old. Adamant that he will no longer relinquish the playing field to aspirants wishing to control their own destiny, he's still high on his success in (temporarily) denying Georgia entrance to NATO. And busy making mischief, doing to that country what he will not permit to be done to his own; the encouragement of break-away portions, destroying the unity of the country.

Actively encouraging the separation of two restive areas of Georgia, Abkhazia - internationally recognized as part of Georgia, but activated by separatists supported by Moscow - and South Ossetia. Craftily establishing ties with the separatists in both these would-be breakaway regions. Pay-back for Georgia's insistence that as a sovereign country it has the right to do as it will, including becoming part of the 26-nation alliance of NATO.

Were another country to intervene in the encouragement of Uzbekistan, with whom Russia fights a continual bitter battle, as it does with Ukraine, and as it does still with Latvia, the full wrath of Vladimir Putin is released as he unhinges from his role as steady, steely leader of Russia and morphs into Vlad the Totalitarian.

When Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili conveyed his ire to President Putin over a Russian MiG-29 fighter entering Georgian airspace to shoot down an unmanned surveillance drone over Abkhazia, denial was the order of the day. Yet video footage clearly displayed the incident, identifying the strike.

"Nonsense" was the response from Russia's air force. And Vladimir Putin, never one to be put in his place, or to be placed on the defensive, shot off a little verbal ballistic missile of his own through the Kremlin press service, coyly relating his conversation with Mr. Saskashvili, that he purported to be "bewildered" that Georgia sent drones over Abkhazia.

Leaving no doubt that he held Abkhazia to be unrelated to Georgia, no longer part of its sovereign territory - under the protection of Russia - and that Georgia had no business sending anything over airspace not her own. The region has especial value to Russia as a transit route for oil from the Caspian Sea. Everything - world-wide - reduces to energy, oil.

Russia has issued its own passports to residents of Abkhazia, a breathtaking display of sheer arrogance. Tbilisi has, with understatement, given the circumstances, accused Moscow of annexation of the region. Everything depends upon whose ox is being gored, doesn't it? Russia's stout defence of Serbia with the declaration of independence of Kosovo comes to mind.

Yet Russia, which bitterly denounced the EU and the U.S. for recognizing the legitimacy of Kosovar independence as a nation in its own right, despite Serbia's (legal) assertion of sovereignty, is now set to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. It's fairly obvious that NATO's placatory gesture to Russia with respect to delaying Georgia's and Ukraine's membership has emboldened President Putin.

But there is Abkhazia's administrators, in defence of Russia's innocence, claiming that its own forces had shot down the drone, since it was violating Abkhaz air space.

Outdated Solution to Economic Equality

A good idea at one time, to ensure that the wealthy provinces did not completely outstrip the less well endowed provinces within Canada, that those who could afford to share their economic well-being with those who lagged, were part of the solution, Canada's equalization program has outgrown its one-time necessity.

That the identified "have" provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia were willing to contribute to a national program that levied an additional taxation from them for distribution to the "have-not" provinces spoke to the social cohesion of the country. And Canadians took pride in their selfless desire to assist one another.

The equalization program was flexible enough to preclude British Columbia from sharing its wealth during an economic downturn, temporarily turning it into a receiving province. But it seems to be stuck in economic confusion through an obvious inability to recognize that once-poor provinces are no longer in need of additional help from their more economically privileged sister provinces.

Provinces like Newfoundland-and-Labrador and Saskatchewan, now established as having one of the fastest growing economies in the country have become "have" provinces, yet their premiers will not relinquish demands for ongoing equalization payments. Offshore oil revenues have made Newfoundland-and-Labrador independently wealthy. Rich oil deposits, potash, uranium and other natural resource minerals have enriched Saskatchewan.

The original design leading to equalization payments to ensure that all Canadians, wherever they lived in the country, had access to similar services, has outlived its purpose. Nowhere is that more evident than the condition of Ontario, once termed the "engine of prosperity" for the country as a whole, through its large manufacturing base, hosting headquarters for large Canadian corporations.

The economic slippage through a downturn in logging operations, mineral extraction, and manufacturing jobs heading offshore have turned the province of Ontario into a hanging-in-there province. Public social services have suffered, as a result. The "have-not" provinces of the past, still enjoying the emoluments equalization guarantees them, on top of their happy new exploitation of their natural resources, can offer their citizens services Ontario no longer can.

Per capita, Ontario now has fewer public services, fewer hospital beds, nurses, judges and larger class sizes in their schools than anywhere else in Canada. Of those provinces still considered to be wealthy by the old standards, only Ontario and British Columbia impose a health tax through a health premium. Alberta, undeniably now one of Canada's wealthiest provinces, is set to abolish theirs.

Those provinces who receive equalization payments from the wealthy three impose no such health tax premium on their population. Quebec, another notable recipient of equalization payments, provides free dental services, inexpensive day care and other goodies that Ontario cannot afford for her population.

Federal fiscal transfers, at one time a practical response to inequality between the provinces, now hobbles the economy of struggling Ontario, while providing unrealistic support to some provinces who no longer require it. Provincial economic wealth has now levelled out across all provinces with rare exception.

Yet Ontario, struggling with its economic downturn contributes 3% of its annual provincial product to provide public services to other provinces which it cannot itself afford. The millions of dollars that Ontario finds itself short of, at a time of global competitiveness places the province at another distinct disadvantage.

It's past time for the federal government, in tandem with the provinces, to recognize the inequity in the system, and restructure equalization to better reflect the reality of necessity. Or do away with it, put it in a pending file for future use, if and as required.

Super-Sized Mamas

The epidemic of obesity seen around the world - and particularly noted in North America and Europe - may yet do more to threaten human survival, if the phenomenon persists - than the plague of deadly new diseases, the threat of nuclear weapons unleashed on an unready world, and the looming environmental crisis with its fall-out of vital food shortages.

We may end up eating ourselves to an early grave. Our morbidly overweight bodies succumbing to a collapse of our internal organs, incapable of bearing our unwieldy weight.

Why are we doing this to ourselves? We don't particularly enjoy the flabby sight of our corpulent bodies. We don't appreciate the growing lack of mobility, the freedom to move at will, to exercise our limbs, our lungs and our heart. We cannot possibly anticipate with glowing pleasure the onslaught of life-impeding, lifestyle diseases like cancers, diabetes - with all of its potentials of blindness, neurological damage, increasing risk of heart and stroke.

So why do we succumb to the allure of consuming too many and nutritionally inadequate calories? Helpless to exercise free will and a modicum of intelligence?

And why do we teach our children to do the same? Does it give us great pleasure to contemplate the damage we are assisting our children to incur through this undisciplined and vicious cycle of over-consumption? Do we take much pleasure in realizing that normal clothing no longer fits us or our offspring. That something as simple as a long walk, climbing stairs, playing physically-demanding games are beyond our functional capabilities due to our impaired physical status?

And here's yet another emerging problem. Expectant mothers who are so obese - with BMIs ranging between 30 to 50 - that normal hospital delivery beds and surgical devices are inadequate to serve these new mothers-to-be inordinate girth. Statistics Canada has revealed that fully 23% of women of childbearing age are obese, with obesity rates rising fastest in the 25- to 34-year-old group.

The medical community labels anyone with a body mass index of 30 or over obese. And obstetricians are now saying it's no longer uncommon to see women with a pre-pregnancy BMI of 60, or even greater than that. And then the birth weight is totted in over that. With such high BMIs there is a greater C-section mode of delivery required.

The attending physician, during pregnancy check-ups can not feel the uterus, can't hear the baby's heart beat; there is no normal clinical assessment possible with the morbidly obese.

Labour and delivery are compromised. It's more difficult for the baby's delivery, and where, during normal births one attending surgeon is sufficient, in these instances, two and three surgeons are required for the necessary caesarean procedures. All that fat has to be held back out of the way of delivery.

A BMI greater than 30 translates to a higher stillbirth risk, gestational diabetes, and life-threatening pre-eclampsia. Moreover, babies born grossly weighted to begin with, are at an increased risk of overweight during adolescence. How agile and adept at looking after their babies are grossly overweight women?

It takes a lot of energy and stamina, patience and skill to attend to a newborn, to an infant, to a growing child. A woman housed within acres of redundant flesh is incapacitated to begin with. Where will that needed strength, energy, and will to provide for the young come from?

It's not as though there's any great mystery that gross overweight will impact deleteriously on one's present mode of life and lifestyle, but that in the long run life itself is truncated. It's a situation that truly defies intelligent design.

Blackmail Most Foul

There it is, the single province in Canada that recognizes only one official language, plaguing the rest of the country with its tedious, tiresome, troubling demands for singular recognition as being culturally, traditionally different; a nation unto its own right. Quebec is still a province within confederation. Yet, bafflingly, infuriatingly, it insists on labelling all of its provincial institutions as "national" in character.

Its parks are not provincial parks, but national parks. Its legislative body is not a provincial authority but a national one. It offends the rest of Canada for not wishing to fly the flag of Canada, but insisting that the Quebec flag has overall precedence. Alone among the provinces it enjoys special privileges not given to the others. Yet none of this is sufficient to allay the sense of perpetual grievance that emanates from that province like a sneaky ordure of social malaise.

Provinces throughout the country are tasked with providing bilingual documentation, signage, civil servants, commercial services to satisfy the demands of a minority population, as a result of Canada's official bilingualism status. Yet the province of Quebec seems to feel no reciprocal obligation toward the many Anglophones and Allophones living within the province.

Quebecers see it as their right to be served and serviced in the language of their choice - whether or not they are personally proficient in English - yet there seems to be no obligation to serve English-speakers in Quebec with translated documents. In the most obscure corners of the country with few French-speaking residents, an effort is made to live up to the accepted obligation to serve French-speakers.

In contrast, a grudging Quebec government cannot see its way clear to serving the entire population of its citizenry. In hospital settings that can be inimical to peoples' health. In legal systems it can be seriously injurious to their status and their finances. Signage not sufficiently obedient to the strictures upheld in Quebec's language Bill 101 brings down the wrath of the official language police.

Official bilingualism comes at a horrendous cost to the country. Not only in terms of the financial burden associated with translation and double printings of every manner of documentation, but through employment inequities, societal grief and grievances. Yet the goodwill evidenced by most Canadians in their willing acceptance of bilingualism as the cost to maintain a comprehensive country speaks to the value seen to the country in keeping Quebec.

Yet the never-satisfied sovereigntist movement in Quebec sharpens its resentment of the rest of Canada, determined to ultimately become successful in persuading Quebecers that they are not appreciated by others within the country, that the English-speaking majority has a secret plan to eventually wipe the French language out of contention. They insist they are entitled as no other segment of the population is.

They recognize nothing of the primary importance relating to the contributions within Quebec of the non-francophone population, in founding schools, universities, hospitals and museums, enriching the province as equal contributors to the province's well-being. They tendentiously nourish a vision of English-French "apartheid", with the English being the oppressors.

The sovereintists have been so singularly successful in demonizing the English that when a group of ango-Quebecers recently agitated for equal treatment in language availability for official documents, a fringe group naming themselves "ligue de defence nationale" threatened to "put lead in the heads" of West Quebec Anglos insisting on English translations of Gatineau by-laws.

The French demographic within Canada could do with a realistic treatment for their insurmountable insecurity.

It's A Simple Matter of Whom You Trust

Nothing like being taken for granted as a good neighbour when it suits, but on other occasions looking askance at collaboration between neighbours to benefit both. But that's par for the course for Canada, living next door to their great big brother to the south. Big certainly has its advantages. Advantages such as diplomatic little pushes to ensure the smaller, less populous, less wealthy, less universally influential of the pair attends to the admonitions of the other.

Everything bad comes from Canada, it would seem, to unsettle the complacent normalcy of the United States. Miserable cold weather slips across the border from the northern state to incommode the residents of the southern-located state. Kind of resembling the threat constantly alerting the United States of criminal activity sliding through too-porous borders to threaten Americans. And, of late, would-be terrorists finding easy access to too-accommodating Canada to later make entry to the United States.

Therefore, the borders, once open and friendly between Canada and the United States, pre 9-11, must be shut tight and guarded assiduously. Where at one time Canadians and Americans could travel freely across the border from one to the other country for tourism, visiting family members on the 'other side', or for commercial reasons; working in one country, residing in the other, the door has slammed shut.

The burgeoning trade between the two countries has become hampered by new and rigorous regulations, all improvised post 9-11 by Homeland Security in the United States, and imposed against a northern neighbour who has never posed a threat of any kind. Free exchanges of goods and services have become dreadfully hampered. Suspicion by American authorities against their Canadian counterparts in taking the threat of terror seriously enough, abounds.

To the point where even a former U.S. Ambassador to Canada has taken note: "The hostility to Canada is the Department of Homeland Security taking a border and now requiring passports for people that have to go back and forth between Detroit and Windsor, making it harder for the movement of goods and services and people and treating Canada like it's leaking like a sieve for terrorists, which is not true", according to James Blanchard, formerly governor of Michigan.

Now, however, despite seriously hampering Canada and Canadians, the U.S. Department of Transportation has come to a realization that it could use some Canadian co-operation. And with the government of Canada's approval has announced initiatives to alleviate congestion and delays in transit in the busy New York transportation corridor. Plans include new alternate routes, neatly named "escape routes". Through Canadian airspace, as an assist to U.S. carriers.

Last year inclement weather conditions saw chaos in the Eastern seaboard throughout the summer months when U.S. carriers were plagued with inordinately difficult weather systems. What an inspired move; cajole Canada to open its skies for U.S. transit to avoid these miserable weather conditions and enable its carriers to carry on unobstructed and on time. While, at the same time, trade and travel between the two countries continues to be impeded.

And while this new move to avoid delays and cancellations in travel from New York's FJK and La Guardia airports by using Canadian airspace to avoid problems proceeds, the United States is in the throes of other demands upon Canada. Insisting on greater restrictions over its own airspace. The Department of Homeland Security Transport Security Administration is framing a program to force Canadian airlines to hand over passenger manifests to the U.S.

Impinging on Canadian sovereignty for one thing - even if the flight has no intention of landing on American soil. Privacy advocates are not thrilled with this turn of events, and Canadian airlines are rather rattled by this demand. Canada and its airlines have already submitted to earlier American demands by constructing a no-fly list in close collaboration with American authorities.

It's nice when there's reasonable give and take between neighbours. It's what makes for good neighbours. They go along to get along. And then there are other situations and other neighbours, where one insists on the goodwill of the other, spurning the need to exhibit the same toward its neighbour.

Exciting Olympics for First Nations

Why not, after all? What's good enough for Tibetan activists enraged by China's brutal crackdown on Tibet nationalism, love of their spiritual leader and yearning for their Buddhist traditions to be free, should be good enough for Canada's First Nations peoples - to use that same theatre as a wake-up call to Canada. First things first, after all. No nation should ever consider the luxury of hosting horrendously costly Olympics Games before attending to primary social and human rights needs among its peoples.

So if it works for Tibet, demonstrating to the world that as highly respected as the International Olympics Games are for showcasing the ultimate athletic prowess and capabilities among countries' athletes, their outrageous cost to mount, taking away from a country's resources to attend to national priorities are not a reasonable option. When the City of Montreal won the Olympics away back in 1976, then Mayor Drapeau prided himself on his catch, while downgrading the necessity for the city to fund needed infrastructure, including a wastewater system.

That's clearly an instance, much repeated elsewhere in the world, where priority is given to the cachet of turning world attention on a certain geography, with the hopes of spurring pride in country, and tourism giving big pay-back on the original investment. When the municipal, provincial and federal support of mounting such a prestigious venue for an international event of great renown takes precedence over looking after the practical needs of the city and its people, it's unfortunate. And rarely ever does anticipated pay-back adequately recompense for the original cost in mounting the Olympics extravaganza.

But when a country with a reputation for human rights abuses like China is awarded the Olympic Games, there's another, entirely different issue at the forefront. The venue for the Olympic Games should never be seen by the rewarded country as an opportunity to show the world that she has arrived - despite egregious human rights violations. Once awarded, however, the die is cast, and the event should move forward - in the hopes that the country, in this case China, will feel it expedient in the future to relax its life-destroying constrictions on minority rights.

And then there's Canada. Self-effacing, good old Canada, a world middle-power, yet getting up there with the big boys. Doesn't every country have its dark little corners seldom visited, requiring urgent attention to clear away the cobwebs of inequity? For Canada it's her aboriginal populations, and the dire straits most aboriginal tribes living in traditional tribal areas, "Indian reservations" live in. Canada's indigenous peoples have suffered far too long. From government neglect, and from the fall-out of the inattention of their own national chiefs.

The Assembly of First Nations in Canada has called for a "peaceful day of rallies and marches" on May 29 to highlight the outstanding needs of Canada's native populations. Far too many aboriginal Canadians live in dire poverty, whether it's on one of Canada's many underfunded reserves, or within urban centres. The problem is they've had a poor head-start. Their education systems within the native communities are inadequate, and mark an outrageous discrepancy between the early head-start opportunities for native children as opposed to all other Canadian children.

With the exception of the Province of British Columbia, where funding from all levels of government for native school funding should match that in the public sector elsewhere, aboriginal children's educational structures are significantly underfunded throughout Canada. There's an outstanding discrepancy of at least two thousand dollars per child in funding for education between what is spent per student for aboriginal youth as opposed to other Canadian children.

Good teachers with appropriate accreditation will not be recompensed as well teaching on reserves as they will be elsewhere, in other communities. The school facilities themselves are comparably inadequate. Teaching materials are inferior and less plentiful within reserves with limited funding. Children living in poverty have enough difficulties to begin with, they're harder to motivate and enthuse, they have less pride in educational achievement, and don't value the scant opportunities available to them.

These failures translate in early school drop outs, not to mention poor test scoring by students opting to stay within the education system. Disaffected youth, not valuing an unequal education turn more readily to drugs, alcohol and gang activities leading to anti-social and criminal behaviours. This, at a time when the country desperately needs a growing workforce and counts on immigration to expand the potential for future workers. While completely ignoring the potential of a large and growing youth population in the aboriginal community - outpacing other Canadians through their higher birthrate.

There are solutions, but they'll ultimately call for aboriginals to realize that celebration of a way of life long past is no way to live meaningful lives. The culture of the reservation with its own inbred inequities, favouritism, funding wastage, has done nothing to benefit them in the past, and isn't likely to improve in the future. Aboriginals must see the necessity to integrate into the larger Canadian community - without the need to surrender the celebration of traditional culture. But it must be a background celebration. Life on reserves does nothing fundamentally useful in teaching the young traditional ways of life.

The society that once was is no more. It must move into the 21st Century along with other Canadians. Opportunities to advance themselves will not be offered without some move on the part of aboriginals to advance themselves - out of poverty and into a future of accomplishments. This prospect doesn't appear to appeal particularly to the Assembly of First Nations; they remain steadfastly committed to the status quo, where the national chiefs gravely propose what the government should dispose and dispense.

Under the current structures of top-down administration through national chiefs looking after their fiefdoms, offering economic opportunities to family members and friends, extending their influence where it will most benefit themselves, and ignoring the plight of most of their constituents, they do no honour to themselves, and simply do not answer to the needs of their people. So go ahead, have those peaceful rallies and marches, but be prepared also to re-examine their own agendas honestly and forthrightly.

It's not just increased funding from the coffers of provincial and federal governments that will advance opportunities for Canada's indigenous populations. The status quo can not and should not continue - it's a festering wound in the side of the country, crippling the country's pride in self, and degrading a proud people who surely deserve better than to continue being stuck away in reserves, unable to reach independence and a firm future for themselves and their offspring.

The Plot Unravels

How could British Prime Minister Gordon Brown have conceivably been so incautious as to let that very particular cat claw its way out of the bag he held behind his back? To stand, barefaced before the UN Security council and denounce Robert Mugabe for "stealing" Zimbabwe's elections. Unheard of. Where lies a sense of balance, of probity, of the kind of forbearance that South Africa's Thabo Mbeki has continually called for?

Should the assembly of world nations, after all, believe the unconsidered statement of the head of the former imperialist colonial power that had so long impoverished the spirit of India and Africa? What an insult to the high-minded authority of the ruling elite in Zimbabwe and their hallowed freedom fighter. There's a price to pay for such gratuitous insults. And the approximately 200 white commercial farmers left in the country are now paying it.

Of course the onslaught of the white land-owners by Robert Mugabe's thuggish loyalists more or less pre-dated Britain's disdainful dismissal of President Mugabe's popularly-acclaimed electoral win. But still, it will stand as a lesson to him and to all others of his colonial-minded ilk; they have the responsibility of having injured the future prospects of Zimbabwe's remaining whites; those now evicted from their properties and their homes. Along with the beatings and worse meted out to those black farm workers loyal to their benighted white masters.

Agricultural fields torn up, cattle and sheep slaughtered. That'll teach him, won't it, to meddle where his opinion is neither invited nor required. It's the West, matter of fact, that is wholesale responsible for encouraging that upstart Morgan Tsvangirai to commit treason against his country; conspiring together to engineer the downfall of the rightfully elected Prime Minister of the country. No coincidence that treason remains a capital offence in Zimbabwe. So, off with his head.

Critical, one would say of the situation. And, finally, the South African Cabinet, back to the wall of international opinion has finally described the situation as "dire". Additional delays in the release of the vote tally are considered unacceptable, in the view of the European Commission. "Clearly the publication of the results is needed and is needed now." In response to which Zimbabwe's government newspaper has revealed "Tsvangirai's bid for U.K. military intervention exposed".

Claiming that opposition leader and clear front-runner in the disputed vote, Morgan Tsvangirai plans to do violence to his country in his determination to succeed to the prime ministership. The newspaper story lays claim to knowledge that Mr. Tsvangirai's now-arrested helicopter pilot has been linked to MI6, and was engaged in flying weapons into the country. How many weapons can be loaded onto a helicopter, one wonders. And how likely is it that the man who insists on a peaceful democratic turn-over in government would ship weapons to arm his alliance?

On the other hand, there is the reality for all to see, of a Chinese ship docking outside Durban, on its way to transiting its cargo, 77 tonnes of weaponry bought and paid for by the Government of Zimbabwe, 3 days post-election. Whose people are starving, hugely unemployed, battling the scourges of dread diseases, desperately looking for surcease from their hellish existence. A spokesman for the South African government announced that, with administrative documents in order, South African will not intervene to prevent the transport of those weapons through its territory to Zimbabwe.

The three million rounds of ammunitions for small arms and AK-47s, 3,500 mortars and launchers, the 1,500 rockets for rocket-propelled grenades are good to go. Ordered hastily, from good friend and regime supporter China, who would sell any goods for any purpose to any disturbed psychopath, established government figure or rogue military structure. Funny thing though, it seems that the ordinary people of South African don't quite agree with their government in this critical issue.

The port stevedores have been refusing to unload the cargo. They will not lend themselves to the further victimization of their fellow Africans, even if their leaders don't mind doing just that. For the South African Conventional Arms Control Committee has granted approval of the weapons transit. As far as they're concerned, it's a legitimate business transaction having nothing to do with South Africa: "If the buyer is the Zimbabwean sovereign government and the seller is the Chinese sovereign government, South Africa has nothing to do with that."

Thus said South African government official Sydney Mufamadi, just incidentally the official heading the mediating team relating to the crisis in Zimbabwe. Crisis? What crisis?

A Tedious and Disappointing Sideshow

Little wonder my American friends confide that they're sick and tired of the burlesque of the Democratic Party presidential primaries. This is a far cry from how they felt a mere several months back. When the candidates appeared fresh and original and promising.

Now the excess of outdoing one another for poll advantage has settled over the electorate like an unpleasant-smelling big black bird, leaving excrement over their hopes for the future.

People felt so elevated, so electrified by the possibilities; at long last it seemed possible that a woman or a black man would be acceptable to the great American public to lead the country. Their credentials appeared impeccable, their determination to succeed obvious, their abilities to enthuse the electorate palpable.

But when no clear front-runner emerged convincingly enough to guarantee an end to the terse bickering that gradually evolved, second thoughts began to blight the procedure. Not that the candidates themselves didn't keep stepping in cow-pies they should have been professional enough, intelligent enough, scrupulous enough to avoid.

But it seems that when things get down to the wire and the contestants, once amenable colleagues, embrace antagonism as a tool to surmount their difficulties, they simultaneously leave their cerebrums high up on a shelf somewhere to be retrieved at a later date.

They turn, mind-numbingly, to their advisers, their highly partisan, self-serving political tacticians who know all the little tricks of the trade. And who advise their candidates, knowingly, to leave the person they are in a nice safe resting place.

And to haul out instead, the changeable persona of the candidate for all seasons and all reasons, suitable to whatever constituents they happen to be facing at any particular time.
So speech after speech in smoke-stack-destroyed states with depressed unemployed are promised that things will be different when they're in a position to make the big decisions.

To begin with, the North American Free Trade deal would be scrapped or re-positioned. Unions love that and the unemployed feel vindicated. No mention made that so much of the world's manufacturing has chosen to re-locate. Bring the jobs back from China where they've been outsourced.

But that's not quite as immediate as the NAFTA solution. Meanwhile, if energy costs and steeply rising costs of raw materials impacting in production costs keep spiralling, it may well be that some of those manufacturing jobs will see no great benefit in remaining in China.

Hillary Clinton is so hard pushed by Barak Obama's popular appeal that she has taken to outdoing herself as a teller of tall tales to reflect on her past experiences at the highest levels of governance - at a remove. Having, ultimately to admit that what she related "didn't jibe with ... what I knew to be the truth."

Embellishing experiences doesn't bode well for sober-minded decision-making at critical times.
Still, that's hardly comparable to Mr. Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power's description of Mrs. Clinton as a "monster".

Nor does his ongoing relationship and cleaving to the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ cast a warm glow on his own decision making. Nor the company he chose to keep among former members of the Weather Underground, among other unsavoury characters.

No matter who ultimately wins the very tired nomination for the Democrats, they've each given their Republican adversary John McCain, ample ammunition with which to question their likely ability to lead a nation.

Pity, that.

Entirely Predictable

It's been suggested that the International Olympic Committee might have been experimenting with mind-altering chemicals when it handed the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to Beijing. It was hardly a mystery that China's human rights record came second to almost-none in the world.

Yes, it's a heavy burden to carry, the pacification of sundry and adverse ethnic groups all clamouring for their particularities to be recognized, when the country's dictators are determined to hammer square pegs into round holes. And governing a population the size of China's, the largest of any country in the world, is no easy task.

Particularly when one recalls that this has been largely a peasant, countrified, subsistence farming society where traditionally a large proportion of the population has teetered on the very edge of existence, in perpetual want. And then there's the irritation of a Communist government having to cope with the persistent clamouring of religious adherents to be permitted freedom of worship.

That last is a real bugbear for China's hard-line government who consider the glorious state to in the realm of the sacred, not some improbably theoretical spirit high on ether.

Persecution of minorities, runaway capital punishment, slavery, incarceration of protesters, and of any religious figures incautious enough to challenge government diktat is simply a way of life in China. One that has long been deplored by governments in the West, although that has never stopped them from doing business with her.

China, though, has made great strides in reaching out of her shell of distance and reliance on incommunicado politics. As much as she has also succeeded very well in hauling the greater portion of her population out of dire poverty and distinct starvation.

Her other, control-resistant problems of atmospheric pollution, quality control in trade production, suppression of Christian and Muslim and Buddhist and Falun Gong practitioners sees her remaining intransigent in the cold assertion that these all represent internal matters.

After all, she has succeeded in sweeping the world economy with her cheaply made products, luring international buyers to embrace her wares, and in the process managing handily to destroy entire industries so many other countries have long been reliant on, for their own bottom line.

All of this was well know, well documented, well remarked upon, so why now, at this last-minute stage of Olympics production has the world suddenly discovered that it is in Beijing, China, that the 2008 summer Olympics are scheduled for? It's a conundrum, most certainly. How to convincingly communicate to a giant that its conduct is worthy of outraged reproach?

Impossible to ignore her abuses. She has much to answer for, not the least of which is her brutal treatment of her own citizens. Let alone her conscienceless affiliations with other human-rights-abusing states like Darfur, North Korea and Burma, to name a few. It's moot whether quiet diplomacy could eventually bring China around.

Yet who could blame her for believing that because the IOC chose Beijing over other competitor sites for the 2008 Summer Games, she was finally reaching acceptance. For that matter, the world beating its way to her doors to invest in her manufacturing infrastructures, and signing trade deals would previously have caused her to believe she was deserving of respect.

China, anxious and puffed with pride over her not-inconsiderable advances in some areas, despite her miserable failures in others, felt she would now have the opportunity to show the world how well she has succeeded in hauling herself into the world of today, from the dim world of yesterday and the Communist Revolution with all of its horrendously obscene human rights excesses.

The Games would be her opportunity to demonstrate the pride of the Chinese people, their achievement, their attainment toward (for China) moderation and modernity. Now, a veritable tsunami of blame has swelled world wide and is threatening to submerge China in a sea of condemnation, isolation and an inevitably bitter backlash.

The brilliant promise of world acceptance, admiration evinced toward China's accomplishments, enabling the Chinese to bask in the warm and mellow glow of congratulatory adulation has suddenly vanished from possibility. The Games will likely proceed, but the Chinese people will always nurse a sharp resentment toward the international community for besmirching China's intentions.

The memory of the Olympic torch's tortuous advance across the globe, with raucous, condemnatory protesters interfering with the dignity of the torch-bearing ceremony will always be fresh in the memory of the Chinese people. Who feel pride in their country and its many accomplishments, and who most distinctly feel that the current situation is a result of jealousy and racism.

In that, they may not be too far off the mark.

Clean, Open (oops!) Government

Doesn't look good. Optics isn't everything, of course, but it does represent one whole hell of a lot of reality that something, somewhere, isn't quite right.

It isn't every day, after all, that the RCMP appear as the legally appointed policing authority to ensure that Canada's Commissioner of Elections, can unobstructedly enter Conservative Party Headquarters to remove potentially incriminating documents for perusal by, and at the behest of, Elections Canada.

Tempest in a teapot, say the Conservatives. A misunderstanding. An incorrect charge of malfeasance. All will be revealed, in the course of legal action: "We remain extremely confident in our legal position", Prime Minister Harper announced in the House of Commons.

Don't panic, don't draw unwarranted conclusions, sit tight and wait for the exculpatory explanation. But, will there be one? Sounds kind of um, unkosher from this end...?

And there are the Liberal operatives, beside themselves with the joy of newfound opportunity, video cameras in hand, filming the indignity of the Conservative headquarters being raided by the Mounties. Heaven-sent.

Mind, this wasn't being billed as a Mountie probe; they were simply acting as legal enablers, lest those party faithful at headquarters had sought to imperiously deny entry of Commissioner William Corbett to the premises. He's only doing his duty, after all.

Tasked to do so by Elections Canada. Who identified something strictly adverse in the series of peculiar financial transactions whereby funds were wire-transferred to local electoral candidates who in turn returned cash to the party through advertising purchases.

Thus handily seeking to overturn the official elections campaign expenses guidelines. Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand saw this procedure as legally questionable and refused Conservative advertising claims as representing legitimate expenses.

Not entitled to reimbursement as advertising expenses. and bringing the federal Conservatives over the spending limit for campaign spending by an inconvenient one million dollars. Wait!

The Conservatives aren't taking this passively, they've launched a lawsuit in Federal Court. Entirely legal, they say, and anyway, they're not the only ones doing it. As though. Tch, tch, how utterly embarrassing for the government. Didn't even see it coming.

Pulling swift and questionable tactics to obtain an advantage in the helter-skelter heat of election campaigning doesn't exactly qualify as "clean" and "open". Inconsequential, to be sure, but a piquant observation anyway.

Local isn't national, and the sleight-of-hand of making it appear legal by appending a discreet tagline referencing local candidates doesn't quite cover for the fact that it was the federal end of the campaign this scheme was cooked up to benefit.

Well, we'll all have to wait and see what portends to result from claims and disclaimers, won't we?

Echoes Through The Ages

Children are taught by their parents, to appreciate their cultural and traditional backgrounds. It's part of the introduction to children by their parents to the particular society in which they originally were born into, even when that family and those children live elsewhere in the world, far beyond their origins, and the children have been born elsewhere, in an entirely other society.

There is a strong pull to identify with one's origins, and to pass on to one's children an understanding of those origins.

People who share an ancient lineage, one which has been well documented through various sources such as a compilation of sacred writings with a historical background, and through secular historical record-keeping, maintain a pride in their heritage, and exercise a wish to ensure it is brought into the future by their offspring.

Each culture, each ethnic heritage, passes on to the future generations what the elders have themselves been taught, complementing the cycle of remembrance.

For the Jews, there are festivals of commemoration of special events, one of which is the Passover tradition of recalling the servitude of ancient Israelites within the land of Egypt, and their passing out of the land of the Pharaoh who kept them as slave labour. With the divine assistance of a servant of Yahweh who anointed Moses to the task of deliverance of his people.

Through the traditions of the ceremony of remembrance that is the Passover Seder, children are encouraged to take part. They are taught about the plagues that God visited upon Pharaoh to force him to relent and permit the Israelites to leave Egypt and embark upon their journey across the Sinai desert, to find their promised land of Israel.

From enslavement to the freedom of a tribe released to pay due homage to the god of their deliverance. Among the plagues sent down to Egypt so persuasively was the death of the first-born in every household, ensuring a great hue and cry would erupt, and the Israelites whose powerful god could so command life and death, be obeyed.

Jewish children are taught about their heritage in just such exposures to the fabled past. But they are taught this ancient history so that they may know their place in history, to respect the trials and tribulations their ancient peoples endured over the millennia, and managed, nonetheless, to survive and to prosper, even into the 20th Century when the bleak prospect of genocide reared its ghastly head in the crematoria of Nazi-controlled Europe.

These children are taught to appreciate life, even while they bear the memoried anguish of historical victimhood.

In a similar way are children within the Palestinian Territories taught a more recent history.

Whereas the history taught Jewish children had its genesis in biblical times, that taught Palestinian Arab children in the Middle East is a story of more recent vintage, but one that the Palestinians view as a blight upon their history and their future, representing the dark days of displacement from what they claim is their rightful homeland; the entire geography of 20th Century Palestine.

Through television programs and school textbooks Palestinian children from the primary grades onward are taught to hate and fear Israel and Israelis. They are taught that Israel took Palestinian land through force of arms, and violently disrupted Palestinian society, viciously uprooting their grandparents, their parents, from their traditional homeland.

They are taught that a day will come in the not-too-distant future when Israel will be forced to abandon its status as a nation of Jews, and the Palestinians will return in force, to recapture that which is theirs. They are taught the beauty of martyrdom, the purpose of their allegiance to the Koran, the Holy Prophet and Allah.

They are steadily inculcated with a cult of victimhood and revenge. They are taught to welcome their future within their society as holy warriors against the evil empire of Jews. This is obviously not a celebration of the past, it is a painstakingly produced theatre of vengeance.

In lieu of teaching children of events impacting upon them deleteriously, but without a due explanation of causality and a well-rounded picture of the situation in discussion, these vulnerable children are groomed as future terrorists against a legitimate government, and against a neighbouring population with whom they should be living alongside in some semblance of peace and acceptance.

And that relentless inculcation of hatred of those being held responsible for displacing them from what is believed to be their legitimate ownership of the land, will most certainly ensure that future generations will remain as obdurately involved with terror acts against Israel as is the current generation.

Itself well groomed by their forbears, by their neighbouring Arab states in conformance with an overall earlier plan, now long since abandoned by most of those same Arab states. And this scenario is the representation of the "moderate" Fatah-led Palestinian Authority.

Not too much different in quality of content and purpose than that of Islamist Hamas, now governing the Gaza Strip, and whose vigorous depiction of Jews as criminal usurpers and mass murderers of Arab children doesn't really set them too far apart from Fatah.

In a recent statement by a Hamas MP (Lebanon) and cleric, Yunis Al-Astal, mention is made of Western Crusaders having "planted the brothers of apes and pigs in Palestine in order to prevent the reawakening of Islam." He goes further, to expound: "I believe that our children, or our grandchildren, will inherit our jihad and our sacrifices, and, Allah willing, the commanders of the [Islamic] conquest will come from among them.

"Today, we instill these good tidings in their souls - and by means of the mosques and the Koran books, and the history of our Prophet, his companions and the great leaders, we prepare them for the mission of saving humanity from the hellfire at whose brink they stand." Lest it not be fully understood that the West - with its despicable secular governance, its degraded religions, its decadent social values - intent on conquering Islam has become the enemy of humanity.

The stark contrast between those world views; that of the Jews; the determination to take their collective place as a nation among nations, as a UN- and world-legitimized country representing a haven for Jews worldwide, to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, and to risk everything for that right.

And that of die-hard fundamentalist Islamists whose fetish of death and clinging to righteous vengeance for their perceived victimhood, remains intent on victimizing the most vulnerable among their own, the children whom they groom as martyrs to the "just cause" of Islam.

Municipal Help-an-Addict Initiatives

It's truly a tragedy that some people find their lives so injuriously burdensome that they seek to lift the gloom of misery by finding comfort in mind-altering drugs. And, inevitably, become addicted. And, having done so discover belatedly that they are trapped in a vicious syndrome of dependency and incapacity.

Becoming alienated from family, friends, work or school habits, and society at large.

They join the unfortunate flotsam and jetsam of individuals whose drug dependency has benighted their futures. Alcohol or psychotropic drugs, whatever their choice of personal destruction, they become faint shadows of their potentials as integrated, well-adjusted members of society.

They become frail, unwholesome burdens on society. Their self-respect plummeting into self-loathing, they turn to criminal acts to feed their voraciously self-destructive habit.

So how is it particularly useful to society and helpful to these poor societal derelicts to assist their drug dependency, rather than initiate meaningful programs to address their habit?

Safe-injection sites and free needles may assist in ensuring that HIV-positive people, sharing needles with others will not pass their infection on, but does it help addicts to find their way out of their ongoing misery?

Theft and prostitution practised by individuals who have plumbed the depths of pain and despair lead to the utter degradation of the human being. They're prime targets for physical and social abuse, they're despised offal in many circles, and pitiful carrion in others.

While well meaning but shallow reasoning authorities apply the patchwork band-aid of free needles hand-outs.

Infuriating the public and particularly those families situated in areas most vulnerable to the presence of drug users, by the fact that needles are found discarded everywhere in their neighbourhoods.

Does it make any kind of good sense for a "needle exchange program" to hand out hypodermic needles without the expectation that used hypodermics will be handed back?

The City of Ottawa now hands out roughly 300,000 hypodermic needles each year to area drug addicts to ensure that they will not be used repeatedly among the three to five thousand addicts, spreading HIV and hepatitis infections.

The municipality is now looking at a cost of a quarter-of-a-million dollars to effectively clean up discarded syringes.

Why not take that amount, add to it, devise and mount a responsible program to ameliorate the problem of addiction, to rehabilitate these people, to turn their lives around, to return them to society, instead of acting as drug-use enablers?

Something's Rotten In The State of Zimbabwe

Like all good democratic societies the vote was cast, totted up and the result celebrated. Only something went amiss in this particular society of democratic zealotry that pre-determined what the result would be.

The electoral commission, the military, the national police, all conspired to do their duty by their motherland, and return to unquestioned authority the singular individual who has graciously benefited their lives - and impoverished the huge balance of Zimbabwe's society.

The rot may have set in, inflation spiralled heavenward, the necessities of life become unattainable but for the fortunate few, unemployment sent into the stratosphere, Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome sky-rocketed with it, but too many have too much to lose - notably through the justice system - to surrender their tenuous hold on power.

Rumour had it that the redoubtable Robert Mugabe had been persuaded by his family to resign, post-election. And that he has been held hostage by the very military and police that he put in place to hold Zimbabwean society in hostage to his aggrandizement and their greed. One doubts it.

Mr. Mugabe needs no coercive action to persuade him of the vital importance of his enlightened imperial rule for the country's future. And with the ongoing support and encouragement of elder statesman President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa, he knows his place. And his place was to dispatch Zanu-PF militants to visit reprisals against those who voted for the MDC.

Two weeks after the election, no numbers have been revealed. Mind, The Movement for Democratic Change has released numbers; that they won 109 of the 210 seats in the house of assembly, with Zanu-PF still in possession of 97. Clearly impossible.

Yet a co-author of Zimbabwe's electoral law has stated:"Z[imbabwe]E[lectoral]C[ommission] is acting in collusion with Zanu-PF, and if they think any of us believe them when they are a gang of fraudsters they can go to hell. They have custody of the ballot boxes and so what guarantee have we got they didn't go back and tamper with the ballots?

"Clearly they have opened these boxes and put ballots in there. So the outcome of the recount is a foregone conclusion." Yes, yes it most certainly is. Most particularly so, since a member of the ZEC recounted, after hastily departing Zimbabwe, that this is precisely what he himself witnessed.

"Morgan Tsvangirai won a clear majority - that is why the results have not been released."

Clearly so, there would be no other reason. But the ZEC chairman bristles at the very suggestion, drawing himself up to height and countering darkly: "Are you calling me a liar?" in response to a reporter's query. Liar, liar, pants on fire, nose as long as a chimney wire. Do they know that one in Zimbabwe?

At least, unlike what occurred in Kenya, one knows that Morgan Tsvangirai has no intention of persuading the country's disaffected, unemployed, starving, perilously ill - all supporters of the opposition, to go on a murderous rampage to demonstrate their umbrage.

That is the kind of restraint demonstrative of responsibility and civility, reflective of a mature politician, a decent human being, a resolute leader in waiting.

Zambia's president is regaining the courage he demonstrated last year when he named Zimbabwe "a sinking Titanic". Zimbabwe's neighbouring Southern African states have timorously asked for an "expeditious" release of the presidential voting results.

Waiting, waiting ....

Marathon Absurdity

Why the world is fascinated with records and record-breaking is completely beyond the ken of pedestrian minds like mine. Why is it particularly notable that a group of people hatched a notion to bake the largest chocolate chip cookie in the world? What is so fascinating about the largest paperclip collection in the world? Why register for posterity the incidence of the largest group hug ever mounted?

Yet there we are, falling all over ourselves attempting to initiate events that will capture the imagination of the world, and the attention of the Guinness Book of Records. A fleeting moment of fame - but forever enshrined in the annals of the Guinness Book of Records. As though by their very nature they represent outstanding accomplishments of great merit.

What accounts for this mass obsession, this adulation of over-achievement, this cult of records-worship?

And how exactly is it that we have such problems putting things in their rightful perspective? We ohh, and ahh, over items and events boasting the singular distinction of first, largest, most, only. We're so beguiled by size that we must celebrate it - or consume it. Consuming giant, massive, helpings of food or drink - or the information of huge by-the-numbers achievements.

The truly silly nature of this propensity is brought home by the hubbub occasioned by the revelation that an elderly man, a marathon competitor by the name of "Buster" Martin, alias Pierre Jean Martin, may not be the legendary 101 years of age he presents himself as. Thus making himself worthy of Guinness Records fame, as a successful marathoner.

He is reputed, on the evidence, to be a raw youngster of 94. Poor Mr. Martin; it would now appear that with this inconvenient revelation he may no longer rank. Might that be if there are no other contenders hoarier than 94 grand old years of age? He rankles at the suggestion that he has inflated his age.

"I know how long I have lived. There are always rumours from a lot of people who are jealous." Right on, Mr. Martin. You go out there, you run your aged heart out to your tired lungs' satisfaction. You're a true medal-winner. Blast the Guinness World Records, anyway.

Folks, this gutsy man is 94 years old. What does that say about our obese society heading for the dungheap of mortality at half his age?

You've Got To Wonder

That old saying, "charity begins at home" represents a tired old tedium, but the fact is we have responsibilities toward others, wherever they happen to be. Still, it's quite absurd that Canadians are invested with the responsibility to respond when disaster strikes abroad, while too often turning a blind eye to the inequities and misery that resides among us.

We anguish - and so we should - over the horrendous situation in places like Sudan, over the poverty and want in Haiti, over the violently unsettled conditions in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. When natural catastrophes shake the world, we respond as generously as we can. As a country we encourage our government to do likewise, in the name of her people.

In many situations, where we send Canadian troops abroad to keep the peace, or more likely, engage in battle against those whose purpose it is to topple legitimate governments and terrorize their populations, we suffer the horrors of personal loss through the deaths of soldiers, and maimed returnees.

We vociferously hold countries like China and Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe to account for their human rights abuses, and in China's case, threaten to upset the stability it hopes for surrounding the Olympic Games because of her totalitarian burden on Tibet. Yet here is Canada, in the throes of expectation for the upcoming advent of Vancouver's hosting of the Olympics - complicit in denying basic human rights for our own.

It's an exceedingly costly proposition for any city of any country to take on the monetarily onerous task of mounting the world extravaganza of sports excellence that is the Olympic Games. The city, the province, the federal government, all commit to spending inordinate sums of taxpayer-funded monies to ensure the success of such a venture.

The payback is seen in terms of world prestige, in the fall-out of spending locally by foreign tourists who flock to witness the Games in person. But in the final analysis no Games site has ever been able to recover the equivalent of funds expended on the mounting of the games, from building vital infrastructure, to policing, to accommodating the needs of participants.

Those funds have to come from somewhere. How inconvenient for aficionados of the Games that activists for the poor and the homeless in Vancouver are threatening to appeal to the United Nations to weigh a human rights complaint against Canada for her failure to provide low-cost housing accommodation for the homeless.

What were once called vagrants and a low criminal class, are now countless homeless people in cities across the country. They are middle-aged white men and women, youth, aboriginals. They suffer from mental illness, from isolation and dislocation, from addiction, from dependence on the hand-outs that the responsible few in society can offer them, scantily, inadequately.

While the country celebrates the upcoming 2010 Olympics in Vancouver with huge anticipation - and ungrudgingly supports governments at every level in their attention to so. many details which must be in place to ensure the Games will be a success - the plight of the homeless goes without response.

Metro Vancouver through the work of volunteer activists, recently conducted a count - later proven to be vastly under what the true figures would be - but that count came to 2,592 homeless individuals. The Province of British Columbia hosts an estimated 15,500 homeless people. Their degraded plight has never been adequately addressed.

Moreover, any community within the country also has notable numbers of low-income families, families in dire need of assistance. Yet the municipal governing bodies, no more than their provincial and federal counterparts, in a northern country like Canada's with its extreme winter climate, has never sufficiently addressed this national calamity.

What we do is react to emergencies. We make no meaningful attempts to avert such human emergencies. And while those emergency reactions, from policing to temporary overnight accommodation, to medical and hospital requirements, and social services monitoring, are extremely expensive, they solve nothing, and are mere temporary measures to emergency situations.

Whereas, if we really cared enough, far fewer funds could be realistically spend on building suitable housing for those unfortunates in our society, providing them with adequate social counselling and health care, as required. The misery of their temporary lives would be immeasurably improved, the country would have the benefit of their eventual absorption back into mainstream society.

We would then have good reason to feel good about ourselves knowing that we cared enough to reach a solution that took some depth of commitment. Rather than celebrate the hollow achievement of hosting an international sports event, regardless of the cachet.

Throwing A Party

A modest budget of $28 million, set aside by a government, to celebrate its 60th anniversary, as Israel has done, is most certainly not outrageous as a symbol of frivolity in the name of national self-congratulations.

Most particularly since much of that funding will be producing enhanced education and health services. Laudably, plans include the creation of 60 picnic areas with access for the disabled. As well as a footpath around the Sea of Galilee, and the inauguration of a trans-Israel bicycle trail. All to enhance the social and public well-being of the populace.

A sensible, sensitive and very practically useful agenda as a means by which the nation can celebrate its status as a nation over its 60-year period of existence. Yet many disillusioned Israelis grumble that money spent on celebrations will be wasted, because the primary purpose of those celebrations is to highlight the presence of the country's politicians.

Thus speaks an understandably cynical population.

One that has seen too many of its high-profile and high-stationed politicians accused of profiteering, graft, and in some instances, sexual assault. All this, in a background of national insecurity, where the population is never able to count on its safety from the deadly incursions of Palestinian terrorists whose cult of death-delivery ensures an atmosphere of hushed awareness and fear.

As a country of immigrants, Israel has also become a severely factionalized society. Not only culturally but also including the clash of the secular state being oppressed by its orthodox component. The country's array of political parties with opposing agendas, its dangerously inclusive and adversarial Arab-Israeli parliamentarians, create an ongoing atmosphere of political tenterhooks.

The country's outstanding adeptness at mercantilism, scientific enquiry, technological advances, entrepreneurship and trade is not enough to heal the national drift from social responsiveness toward upper-middle-class aspirations, while the unfortunate are left to their own devices of desperate survival.

The original, secular pioneer spirit that was exemplified in the country's Kibbutzim has succumbed to the practicality of an ordinary social and business framework. This is a fractionated, society, one vaguely resembling an amalgam between Sweden and Lebanon. Optimism has succumbed to cynicism, anticipation to joylessness, hope to hapless bitterness.

From boasting of becoming a light unto the nations, a gradual descent has resulted to attaining the status of just another state struggling to represent a multitude of increasingly diverse and disaffected citizens, with an especial caveat: to contain the viper at its breast, alongside those slavering for its downfall from without.

National integrity and aspirations damped and poisoned by the socially uncouth anomie of neighbours threatening hostilities beyond the ability of any state to defeat ad infinitum. If there is a solution, it is slow in coming, threatening to drown the hopes of millions of people.

Yet human beings are never without hope. And may they not be without reason to hope. Witnessing the eventual success of the century point, "next year in Jerusalem" may become an ancient, forgotten mantra.

That's Rich ... !

The governing Conservatives would do well to pick up some pointers from the most successful army on earth at one time: the Romans, who went into battle formation with shields held high to deflect all the slings and arrows their puny adversaries shot their way, to reach resounding success on the battlefield. The Canadian House of Commons resembles nothing so much, of late, as a political - and jejune - battlefield.

The opposition - most particularly the Official Liberal Opposition, with their righteously baying hounds in tow - has been delighting in poring through tired old manuscripts and creaky old audio recordings, to come up with arguments of misdemeanors in carriage attributable to unwary members on the government benches.

The latest is an 8-year-old recording of Jason Kenny, Calgary MP and Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian identity being overheard to make a statement based on an inconvenient fact of life, that when it appears politically expedient, ethnic or religious or cultural groups occasionally highlight their particularity by claiming government bias.

That this is a fact of life is without doubt. That Minister Kenny was incautious enough - even in a closed-session venue where he was unaware he was being recorded for 8-year-later posterity - to state that fact of life as a verity, leaves him open to the slamming damnation of racism.

He had stated that "overheated Sikhs" may use "the race card" to profit their arguments.

Imagine. As though other singularly particular groups don't do the same thing on occasion; as though this not-so-subtle cultural-political-voting blackmail has a secret existence unknown to parliamentarians; indeed society as a whole. All seems, in fact, to be fair in the war of politics.

And here's the thing of it. Newly re-constituted Bob Rae, he of NDP Ontario premiership infamy, is the one to really push the issue.

And while Mr. Kenny can state with conviction, "I've devoted much of my time in public life to promoting the active involvement of Canadians from diverse backgrounds in our political institutions, Mr. Speaker. I'm proud of my record", one would like to hear from Mr. Rae on the matter of his time in public life.

For example, his authoritarian mismanagement of Ontario's affairs during an economic downturn that left the education system underfunded and in a shambles; the diminishment of services while raising individual taxes; the slashing of public sector jobs, and the infamous "Rae days" where workers were encouraged to voluntarily take time off for unpaid work days.

And where the problem of skyrocketing health service costs to the province would be handily dealt with by ordering universities to clamp down on medical school enrolment, greatly diminishing the number of graduates to service the population. Leading the province to its current state of critical medical graduate shortages.

And the unions that had formerly been so supportive of Bob Rae and his NDP government, deserting him out of sheer disgust at his union bashing techniques. And his having left a booming provincial deficit after leaving office. Paving the way for Mike Harris and his "Common Sense Revolution" that would further ravish the province.

Coming soon to a ballot box near you, for the next general election ....

Informed Choices

Once again, critics of the government's new measures in Canada's immigration law are crying foul over its intent. Conventionally, children born outside Canada to Canadian citizens who were themselves born elsewhere, were automatically considered Canadian citizens. This, despite that those children might never choose to live in Canada. But having citizenship was comforting - just in case - one never knows.

Bill C-37, comprising a number of amendments to the Citizenship Act is a response to a recently revealed problem resulting in what has been termed "lost Canadians", represented by tens of thousands of war brides and their children who came to Canada with Canadian soldiers, after World War II. They, and others with children who moved to the U.S. with their parents were never fully advised of their citizenship rights.

Children born outside the country to Canadian parents must affirm their citizenship before turning age 28, in order to maintain that citizenship under the current law. If they were ignorant of this provision, and did nothing, they were stripped of their citizenship. As a result several hundred thousand people were adversely affected, discovering too late they did not hold Canadian citizenship, while they thought they did.

Bill C-37 retroactively restored the citizenship privileges of most affected "lost Canadians". And the new provisions of Bill-37 will automatically grant citizenship to first-generation children born abroad of Canadian citizens, without a later requirement for confirmation. And that's where it stops. For future generations of children born to Canadian citizens aboard - third- and fourth-generation - will no longer be allowed automatic citizenship.

There are exemptions for children of parents abroad as Canadian Forces personnel or for Canada's Diplomatic representatives. This new law will have its potential victims in those working for international aid organizations, academics, scientists and businesspeople who choose to work abroad. Among others. But that surely is their choice, and choices do have consequences.

The simple fact of the matter is, if there is no commitment as a Canadian to remaining in Canada, there should be no expectation that Canada remains committed to those who have permanently left their shores, on behalf of their successive generations. This is reasonable. This is taking citizenship entirely too lightly, as a useful commodity, when it is clearly a lifetime commitment from both ends.

As an example, when the British removed themselves as administrators of Hong Kong and left that island finally in an historic and controversial transfer to Chinese rule, many entrepreneurs and business people in Hong Kong were decidedly nervous about what the future would bring, despite China's declaration that she would do nothing to upset the economic equilibrium of that island state.

She was good to her word, and indeed, post-transfer, Hong Kong's commercial success became a template for China's relaxation into the capitalist mode to enhance the economic future of the entire country. But in the nervous interim between intent and transfer, wealthy Hong Kong Chinese made application to come to Canada as refugees, and their investment wealth paved their way for citizenship.

Canadian citizenship became a useful and valuable insurance against the fear of economic disruption in Hong Kong, affording alternative options should the worst come to fruition. It never did, and many Canadian citizens of Chinese extraction from Hong Kong returned to their homes there, secure in the knowledge that their children would automatically be given Canadian citizenship.

Gambling on the best of both possible worlds, and a soft cushy landing whatever the outcome. Nice, of course, for stifling peoples' fears, but trivializing in a very real sense, commitment to Canada as a Canadian citizen. In the case of Lebanese refugees coming to Canada during the Lebanese civil war, those Lebanese who were given citizenship returned in huge permanent numbers to Lebanon once peace was attained.

Later to call upon the government of Canada to rescue them when their original country once again became a place of questionable refuge - and then to return once again to Lebanon, post-war, while the Canadian taxpayer picked up the considerable rescue tab.

Immigration Minister Diane Finley, explained that Canadian parents still had the option of taking their foreign-born (second- and third-generation) offspring into Canada as landed immigrants who could then apply for citizenship.

As for those families who decide not to live in Canada, she said, "the legacy of Canadian citizenship should not be passed along by endless generations living abroad. We must protect its value by ensuring that citizens have a real connection to this country. To do otherwise would be to sell our citizenship short and would not be fair to all of those who have come to Canada and made it their home."

It's only common sense. It's completely fair. It's inordinately just.

Unfettered Artistic License

There are many in the arts who feel that government funding is by its very nature stifling of the arts. That the arts community, no matter the vehicle, should be self-funded, or funded by private interests. Investors who make use of their capital to fund the arts based on anticipated returns. That many countries do fund their art communities and see that as a priority speaks volumes about the value seen to society by a vibrant art community.

But when government funding is extended to a country's arts communities, sight cannot be lost of the fact that this is taxpayer funding. Most people tend to be conservative in their appreciation for the arts. Most people don't regard the avant garde expression too highly. While artists themselves might feel compelled to stretch the limits of art expression, their auditors might not appreciate the results.

Artists who permit themselves and their art products to be carried along on public funds are by that very fact, not independent. Their production choices must, as a result, take into due consideration the tastes and values of the culture they pursue their art within. The government of Canada is currently presenting Bill C-10 with a view to passing it into law. And getting quite a bit of flack from members of the art community, as a result.

Bill C-10 is seen as being artistically repressive in nature. Artists who see it as a challenge to push the envelope of public acceptance in the production of films, for example, that boast excessive violence or blatantly offensive sex scenes, even verging on child pornography, claiming it to represent artistic expression, naturally consider this proposal to be tantamount to censorship.

For the simple reason that the bill would permit government to refuse tax credits to films and television shows that the public might consider to be offensive through the portrayal of gratuitously excessive anything insulting to social mores and traditional cultural values. That still leaves a lot of room for manoeuvring. If cutting-edge represents manifestations of social conduct that leave its viewers disgusted, perhaps it is censorship to refuse it funding support.

There is always the option of approaching the private sector for funding. Why call on government to fund, on behalf of the Canadian taxpayer, artistic productions they consider distasteful and offensive. The simple fact is, artistic creation is appreciated by the public, and the public is therefore amenable to having government use tax money to fund it. But once government funding is applied, artistic autonomy flies out the window.

They're mutually exclusive. There's a vested interest by the investor, and it's not illogical or onerous or unreasonable for someone making an investment being interested in the end result of that investment. If we enact publicly-administered laws to ensure that public morality expresses mainstream expectations, we're not really an oppressively repressive society, for there is ample room for accepted expression within Canadian societal mores.

To be completely fair, however, this government initiative should extend further, inclusive of films made in this country by foreign film developers as well.

Exercising Sovereign Options

How's this? Opposition parties in Canada's House of Commons applauding a (Conservative) government move? What a totally unexpected, utterly refreshing remove from the norm, of raucous chidings, juvenile debates and injudicious accusations against each other. This gives Canadians a sneak preview of how Parliament could - if our legislators were sufficiently unpartisan and intellectually honest - work to the best advantage of our country.

Of course is also takes a government body astute enough to make decisions that could be lauded by all.

But making everyone happy isn't exactly what governing is all about. It is about making considered decisions that reflect well for the future of the country. Unfortunately, no government is omniscient, and sufficiently self-abnegating to consider first and foremost what steps it might take to benefit the entire country, and still maintain friendly relations with the international community.

Canada is hard put at times to assert her legal and ethical and sovereign options against overtures by the administrations of other countries.

But when it comes to a situation where, as has happened with a huge American corporation which produces armaments expressing a concrete interest in buying out Canada's premier aerospace firm, what should be considered first and foremost is the exercise leading to securing Canada's future in space technology.

So, good news that Industry Minister Jim Prentice has concluded his fact-finding deliberations and reached the decision to inform Alliant Techsystems Inc. that he is "not satisfied that the sale of MacDonald, Dettwiler & Associates would be "likely to be of net benefit to Canada".

That unsurprising, but gratifying advisement comes hard on the heels of criticism in the wake of a feared done-deal where Alliant Techsystems Inc. was preparing to offer $1.325-billion for MDA, to the great satisfaction of its shareholders. Former federal scientists, current employees of MDA, academics, parliamentarians of every stripe, and the public at large raised a furore over the pending sale which would see the pride of Canada's space-based technology leave the country.

Offensive also in the sense that millions of taxpayer-funded money has gone into the enterprise. Critical in that our state-of-the-art Arctic observation satellite, Radarsat 2, along with such advance robotic technologies as the Canadarm (space arm) and the Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator, would all fall into the decision-making hands of a large American firm that contracts out to the Pentagon.

The U.S. military would make very good use of Radarsat 2, but in so doing, any further use by Canada would be off limits.

Which in turn would compromise this country's national security, at a time when the government understands the critical nature of guardianship over the Canadian Arctic and the Northwest Passage. Mr. Prentice made it abundantly clear that his government views Canada's national security interest might be set aside, in favouring this buy-out.

In any event, there's another apprehension at play here as well; that Canada's traditional corporate interests have been gradually hollowed out by foreign takeovers.

This is an entirely legal move by Canada, exercising its authority under the Investment Canada Act which bids government to carefully review sales of Canadian companies to foreign interests to ensure that Canada's interests have not been overturned. On the other hand, it represents a careful balancing act, where government acting in such a manner might be seen to be protectionist and anti-foreign investment.

This is not yet a done deal by any measure. Corporate interests mitigate that deal-making continue, and there will no doubt be further overtures. And if any segment of the Canadian population is particularly displeased by this government initiative to ensure Canada's interests are not displaced in favour of a foreign corporate entity and government, it is the shareholders of MDA who see a huge lollipop of generous return on their investment evaporate.

We can only hope the government will not retreat from its position, claiming its fears were unfounded, and that, should the sale be concluded, Canada will still reap benefits in use of Radarsat-2, continued employment within Canada, and investor confidence retained. But it doesn't seem likely that will occur. A commitment has been made by this government to retain this vital Canadian space research arm and its outstanding technologies.

There seems to be little doubt too, that the government will be obliged to make further commitments in the face of retaining MDA within Canada to ensure Canada's ongoing interests are served. This government will also have to commit to further funding to ensure that Canada's space technology interests can be advanced. It is in our best interests on many fronts, the most critical being assertion of Arctic sovereignty.

And should Canada in due time wish to expand its interests in space, we will have the basic infrastructure in place. We have the growing expertise, we have the human capital, we have a strong economy in place, and we do have aspirations. the country has proven, through its many excellent space satellite technology companies that we have a product that other countries recognize the value and use of.

It's reassuring that this government is capable of reaching conclusions to the greater benefit of the country. Particularly an administration that its adversaries - and there are many - claim is devoted to the free market concept above all, one which will go out of its way to give this country's assets away, simply for the asking. Depending, needless to say, who is doing the asking.

Canada's Human Rights Commissions

It's a tough row to hoe, combating hatred against identifiable minorities, which busies itself to spurring people on, encouraging them to demonstrate suspicion and malice toward others unlike themselves. If a society cannot or will not protect the most vulnerable of its citizens, how then does it fulfill its mandate as a caring and responsible public entity?

If a person of colour, or other visible minority member is refused service, or rental accommodation, or workplace opportunities on the basis of racial discrimination, is this a just society? An inclusive, broadly accepting, fair and just society ensures that all of its citizens have equal opportunity to all the necessities of life as well as equality of treatment in all aspects of civil society.

Hence, the formation, with fully good intent and an eye to the future of social homogeneity, of Canada's Human Rights Commissions. Ah, but Canada is also a country that celebrates freedom. Freedom to believe, to behave, to speak, to publish, to meet, to be themselves. Our fundamental freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are many:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association." Aren't we truly fortunate?

We also have equality rights: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

What happens then, when equality rights butt head on against freedom of expression? Well, it depends, one supposes. Freedoms do not come without responsibility, and Canada has laws against spreading hatred and doing potential harm to others; reasonable restraint encumbers freedom. One is never free, in a civil society to do injury to others through mindless expression.

Our hallowed rights cannot be seen to be hollow, but reasonable. And that is precisely why the Canadian Human rights Commission and its provincial sister commissions are obliged to deal with complaints - unless they are "trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith". Entirely reasonable reservations; who could argue with them?

So if, for example, a writer contends that a high birth rate among a segment of a population practising a fundamentalist religion that promotes a high birth rate, could conceivably lead to that particular demographic representing a very high eventual representation within the national population, is that a hateful statement? Or a reasonably accurate one based on observation and fact.

And if an observation is made to the effect that an identifiable religious group seems, on the evidence, to produce a noticeable and fear-inspiring minority of fundamentalist believers who aspire to terror in the name of a religion whose sacred writings appear to encourage just that, is that to be construed as hate-mongering, or a statement of reality?

And if the two above statements are combined, what have we? If you're a reasonable human being, fairly well informed, cognizant of world news, you may recognize that Islam appears to have a problem, and so do we. You may also understand that those who adhere to orthodox forms of religious practise generally view procreation as a vital component of religious adherence.

It's not difficult to extrapolate from there. The end result can be viewed as fearful conjecture, but hardly hate-mongering. Yet the chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights commission, while under the constraints of the Commission's mandate, could not hear the case, issued a stern rebuke: "I think one needs to be very careful when one speaks in generalities, that in fact one is speaking factually about all the people in a particular group."

Chief Commissioner Barbara Hall in fact, denounced MacLean's magazine for "promoting societal intolerance" and distributing "destructive, xenophobic opinions". Which, understandably, is her personal and professional opinion. Fascinating that she received a rebuke herself, from a moderate Muslim Canadian leader who felt that her commission had sided with Islamist fundamentalists.

And this, Tarek Fatah feels, is dreadfully wrong. It's not in the best interests of Canada, nor does it do any credit in recognizing the commitment of moderate Muslims to Canadian values, and their steadfast rejection of the traditionalist and fundamentalist values of Islamists among them. From whose ranks rise the very Islamist terrorists destabilizing the world of democracy and secularist states.

The complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress and affiliated Muslim law students brought into focus a selection of news articles, columns and a book review about Islam and Muslims. Their stance was that these news items amounted to Islamophobia and were meant to foment hatred against Muslims. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress rejected this point of view outright, claiming there is no racism involved in the reportage in question.

"In the eyes of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, the only good Muslim is an Islamist Muslim", he said. "As long as we hate Canada, we will be cared for. As soon as we say Canada is our home and we have to defend her traditions, freedoms and secular democracy, we will be considered as the outside."

Back to you, Barbara Hall.

Canadian Pluralism

The world has most certainly changed, notably in the last half-century. Human beings have always been migratory, turning from one geography toward another. Originally out of curiosity, out of a need to find a more yielding territory, from a need to escape wars and political instability, to discover in essence a more palatable environment in which to live out their lives and bear their young.

In the past, migration took place within a discrete geography; people crossing borders, real or imagined, recognized or casual, from one territory to another. Where they might be accepted, absorbed and find their future homes. There would be some differences, of ethnicity, of traditions and culture, but given the consanguinity of adjoining territories, perhaps not dreadfully jarring.

In the modern world, migration has expanded from continent to continent, and the vast differences in ethnic, religious, cultural and traditional backgrounds have been more notable, the difficulties in adjusting to new locations more pronounced. Ultimately, however, where people migrate to new countries and new beginnings they eventually accept the social atmosphere of the welcoming society while retaining vestiges of their original culture.

The result, over time, is a homogeneous society, a pluralistic society that accepts and relishes slight differences - at its most ideal. At the dysfunctional end, if the immigrant group does not find acceptance, and does not feel a need to integrate into the main society, a disconnect results with the immigrant society living outside the norms of the adopting country's mores.

Under privilege and resentment result. Two solitudes. Neither fully recognizing the other as equals, neither valuing the other, nor wishing to adapt to the other's needs. France's banlieues comprised of non-integrating Muslim communities living impoverished and violent lives are a result, much as the underprivileged Turkish population of Germany is, and as the Muslim population of the Netherlands, as examples.

This unwillingness to accept the welcoming society's values and mores in favour of retaining values and mores relevant to the country of origin, and of importance to the religion imported with the immigrants, sets them apart and disadvantages them. Because the indigenous population sees the immigrants as being different, inferior, unworthwhile, incapable of blending into the larger society.

Each rejects the other, and resentment results. The host country suffers, unable or unwilling to find a place of equality and opportunity for the immigrants. The immigrants feel set aside, their children lacking equal educational opportunities, and meaningful and well-paying employment eludes them. This type of migration has benefited no one; not the immigrants nor the welcoming country where the newcomers become a social and welfare burden.

In Canada, we congratulate ourselves as a multicultural nation, celebrating our differences, and claiming to accept one another as equals. And traditionally this has most certainly been the case. Canadians, whatever their original heritage, are equal under the law. Equally protected as to their individual rights, and equally advantaged, to education, health care, legal protections, and employment.

Canadians result from a multiplicity of origins, cultures, religions, melding to produce a people sharing core values, belief in equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, eager to promote inter- and intra-cultural dialogue. Canadians celebrate the grace of cultural harmony, built on mutual respect, buttressed by acceptance of an over-riding obligation to others. This is the traditional Canada of past generations.

But we're now in danger of fracturing into distinct cultural, religious groups, setting aside that which should bind us together as Canadians. Simply because, in fact, multiculturalism, while offering immigrants the blessing of Canadian society to continue practising a way of life they somehow felt obliged to leave behind, does not impress upon them the need to become fully Canadian. This is a rather new phenomenon, dating from the last several decades.

Hyphenating one's Canadianism serves only to minimize one's obligations as a Canadian. Placing an ethnic derivation before Canadian citizenship undercuts the demonstrable order of nationhood; belonging, citizenship, patriotism, if you will. Whereas a pluralist society, one comprised of people of various background derivations, all dedicated to the common good of the country whose geography they share, represents a socially healthier aggregate.

Dedicated to the advancement of the country, the welfare of its entire population. The truth of the matter is, citizens of a country, no matter their origin, should share a common vision, common values, the commonality of citizenship at its fullest. Apartness, separation as a result of adhering to social and religious and cultural mores foreign to the country simply does not serve the best interests of the country, nor its people.

The ideal of multiculturalism is just that, an ideal. At its best, it encourages immigrants to honour their ethnicity, their original culture and traditions, their religion. But not at the cost of fully accepting Canadian values and social priorities and inclusion. Moderately recognizing one's background, while embracing Canadian citizenship is the preferred result. Gradual and full assimilation should be the end result.

Multiculturalism, as it's currently practised, does not reflect the need to become fully Canadian. As it currently stands, it's a recipe for malfunction, for a fractured society with opposite, not apposite interests.

People of Good Will

There is little doubt that the three front-runners - Republican and Democratic - in the American presidential primaries are all people of good will. Individuals all, who recognize the primary importance of reconciling black and white in America. Traditional adversarial positions no longer suffice in the world of today, where most U.S. citizens recognize injustice and racial discrimination as the human-rights scourge it is.

A minority of both colours still practise their own brands of discrimination, but carefully, for the most part. The majority of Americans will no longer permit themselves to be an integral part of disowning the humanity of the other. Christian Heritage advocates, those social defenders of white superiority and supremacy are a despised minority. The feared and hated Ku Klux Klan now a bitter memory for most, ashamed of the unspeakable past.

On the other hand, from within the Black community, not surprisingly, there has arisen a counterpart to both those unsavoury groups. Blacks, no longer disenfranchised, assert their rights as never before. Although many might be surprised at the knowledge that after Emancipation, Blacks asserted themselves in white society with the self-assurance of the societally accepted.

That brief interregnum succumbed to full-fledged racism victimizing generations of Blacks in white society, placing them at a disadvantage in opportunities for advancement, in the workplace, in social settings, in legal matters and leaving them vulnerable to the dreadful incidences of racist predations, imperilling their status in society, leaving them open to casual murder unredressed by the law.

Wouldn't it be inevitable that an underground system of self-protection, violent demands and revenge might be established in response? That a slow but steady reversal of Black self perception be embarked upon, leading to Black Pride and a disavowal of white-imposed inferiority? Wasn't it inevitable that someone of the moral stature of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., might take inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi?

Isn't it sad beyond words that the Reverend King's success would lead to his assassination, and that it ultimately would lead to the accession of self-serving successors of the ilk of Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan and the Reverend James Meeks - and oh yes, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright...?

All of them out-clanning Whitey.

Symbol of Hope

The torch be theirs, to hold it high. And that, precisely, is what the young Chinese Olympic torch guards were attempting to communicate to British television presenter Konnie Huq, through the London Torch relay; she taking offence that they shouted orders at her, pushed her arm to make her lift the torch higher. This Olympic party is theirs, after all, it is their pride and hope. Surrounded by raucous protesters, how else could the torch be seen at her insubstantial height?

Let's face it, China, particularly at this heated period in time and place and particularly occasion, can do no right. The colossus, so eager to prove its worth to all the other of the world's countries, each smaller and less-populaced then hers, yet in their aggregate- though she disdains their criticisms - bearing great weight on her own self-perception of having arrived as an elder statesman of this great world order.

An ancient heritage, advanced in cultural and artistic achievements and possessed of a system of governance much in advance of her time, when other countries were stirring into slow realization beyond tribalism. So far advanced had she become that she carelessly snipped all those binding ties and re-invented herself in a great social experiment that sacrificed not only that ancient culture and the traditions that went enriched it, but an essential segment of her people.

Only now is she slowly reversing the tide of social failure, finally understanding that it takes a great deal more than a theory of self-sacrifice to motivate and impress upon her populace that we are indeed our siblings' keepers. Not matricidal, fratricidal automatons. China seeks to improve mightily upon her past failures, to create a harmonious society where equality of opportunity is within the reach of the majority. She has almost succeeded in the gigantic task of feeding her people adequate to survival.

Irritating little intrusions into her internal affairs so impatiently shrugged off in the past as she went resolutely on her way to re-forming her style of governance and ultimately, her vast society, no longer work in this new atmosphere of vulnerability. A vulnerability that she herself engineered, so certain that she had earned the right through determined social engineering, and energetic manipulation of world trade, for respect.

She would awe the world that came to celebrate with her on the occasion of her hosting of the 2008 Summer Olympics. All would be forgiven, forgotten in the atmosphere of athletic prowess and brotherly love. And the best laid plans of mice and men do often go awry.
It is no easy task governing 1.3-billion people, inclusive of so many diverse human strains. China's determination to crush those square pegs into the round holes offends outsiders.

And what is a country's governing body to do when a small but vocal minority resists integration and insists on singular treatment? Even if it is as a result of inferior treatment, of state-sponsored terror, the state's decision to obliterate a beloved culture, religion, traditions. It is the collective interests that governs responses. Such an immense undertaking as to collectivize the social good in the national interest cannot afford to be led astray by claims of inherited cultural rights.

What are incidents of human rights abuse in refusing autonomy to a long-embraced minority in relation to the much larger obligation to the whole of the nation? Enter the reality of a world which delights in emphatically selecting and targeting unwary deviations from the considered norm. Now that the Olympic Games in Beijing rise near on the horizon, the fault lines have been breached.

Anxious Beijing, so willing to cultivate good relations among other nations on this auspicious occasion of her global coming-out party, is suffering a set-back of enormous proportions. A dagger has been sent straight to her valorous heart. Her honour has been impugned, her pride derided, her ostentatious aspirations to herald the world into an atmosphere of excellence, despoiled.

Her sensibilities have been outraged by the spectacle of screaming, swarming crowds of protesters, ill-wishers, outrageous western thugs, clamouring for her downfall, clustering menacingly about the torchbearers as the triumphant spectacle becomes a tarnished misery of failed theatre. Never did she imagine the consequences of leaving herself so open to critical abuse.

Through inviting the world to attend her very special party, her willingness to open her borders to foreign visitors, her people eager to demonstrate their sweet neighbourliness to the world at large, she has revealed a very weak position indeed. Even the young Chinese men sent as Olympics-suited emissaries to accompany the Olympic flame have been derided: "They are horrible. They did not speak English... I think they were thugs."

To this has the world descended in their fury with the recalcitrant and determined nation that vowed to maintain its borders and possessions intact against the unspeakable potential of "splittism". It is not religion, nor culture, nor tradition that is sacred in the governing body of this great, this fabulous country, but the security of its territory. There is no cost too great. Add to that the unspeakable company of tyrannical murderers she keeps.

The ungracious, unseemly, and, in the end, irrelevant outrage of human rights groups appears inappropriately staged. Targeting the world's athletes, the population of a great country, the aspirations of a government that will slowly emerge to face down representatives of those other nations whose own traditions and ongoing circumstances of internal oppression of specific deviating groups give them no claim to moral superiority.

In the short term, poor disillusioned China. Her 1.3-billion people are surely feeling a bit of high dudgeon over the shabby treatment they and their country are receiving. Their much vaunted symbol of hope has been transformed to the symbol of universal damnation.

The Redoubtable Leader

How proud they felt of themselves at the Liberal leadership convention, to have selected a sterling compromise between front-running contenders Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff in the brilliantly academic personage of a man of great personal integrity, courage and resolute political acumen.

How they feted themselves in having demonstrated the perspicacity of recognizing Stephane Dion's immeasurable qualities of a leader par excellence.

The Liberal Party of Canada was triumphantly resurgent, prepared to pick itself out of the dust of political ignominy to take its place yet again as the natural leadership party of the country. Its long reign merely interrupted. A mere inconvenience.

Assembling a new team, a dream team of the best the country could offer in political bright lights to lead it back from the aberrant perdition the folly of its previous leadership hubris had dumped it into. Glad-handing corruption, after all, does not reflect the values of the Liberal Party, despite all signs to the contrary. However ...

Instead of surging ahead from strength to strength, the Liberal Party under its squeaky-clean leader has sagged from one embarrassing hyperbolic position to another, finally succumbing to the need to support all of the Conservative government's positions, under duress. That duress being the fear of facing a precipitate election, despite constantly agitating for and threatening to bring down the House.

The puerile, shrilly pathetic performance of a leader rising on a high horse of perpetual pout only to stumble time and again into a cesspool of hog-wallow falling off that horse, has presented the public with an unfortunate spectacle of failure. From inveighing against the Conservatives' throne speech, the Afghanistan mission extension, the crime bill, the government's budget, and finally the proposed amendments to immigration law.

Then stumbling backward in disarray, falling all over themselves and the other parties, offering face-saving minor amendments, then standing down in the voting process, enabling the business of government to proceed as it would. Very impressive performance, overall. So much so that support in Quebec has plummeted, senior party organizers openly critical. Seats lost in critical Liberal-safe ridings elsewhere in the country.

And the party's campaign coffers languishing for want of attention from traditional donors. The public perception of the outstanding leadership qualities of Stephane Dion in the deep freeze. Most male voters perceive him as appealing as a wet dishrag; he fares little better with female voters. There are undercurrents of rebellion among party faithful. His previous leadership contenders, now bulwarks of his shadow cabinet ... conspire.

Sixteen months of outstanding success.

Making Amends

Isn't it the truth, how our emotionally and socially immature behaviour can come back to haunt us, managing to creep up when we least expect it, to cause immense embarrassment, and sincere attempts to explain how we're different now; just not the same person at all. So, please...forgive. Ah, but when you're in public office and are scrutinized with the fine tooth-comb of critical appraisals because you're supposed to set an example, and you've erred; look out, fella.

And so it is for poor Tom Lukiwsky, whom the the NDP revealed to have been incautiously discriminatory against a hard-done-by minority group - seventeen years ago, when he perhaps should have known better, but obviously did not. But then, under certain circumstances, things happen, despite our not really willing them to. As a backroom Conservative apparatchik in Saskatchewan, during an informal party pre-election wait for their candidate, Mr. Lukiwski distinguished himself.

Video camera rolling, party mood in full swing, beer in hand, he expounded on the difference between an "A" type and a "B" type. He personally exemplified the "A" type, while the "B" type were "faggots with dirt on their fingernails that transmit diseases". Oops, shouldn't have said that, let alone thought it, right? Obviously. But don't people, in the throes of boozy companionship, come out with the damnedest things...?

Personally, I never harboured any ill will for gays, simply thought them gaily peculiar. That changed, radically, when our own children, as teen-agers thirty years ago, brought home their own feelings of acceptance, inclusion, and compassion to the subject. As for Mr. Lukiwski, once the heat hit the ceiling fan in the revelation of his too-relaxed musings in which he more or less expressed the zeitgeist of the times, he was truly anguished.

As a Member of Parliament, acting as parliamentary secretary and official government spokesperson to House leader Peter Van Loan, this wizened-with-age party talk caused him no little soul-searching. He apologized, fulsomely, to the electorate, to the House of Commons, to his wife, his children.

Above all, one would imagine, to his children. "I deeply regret and I have deep remorse for my words of 17 years ago, but I can assure you ... that I will spend the rest of my life, my career ... trying to make up for those shameless comments."

There is no doubting his sincere remorse, nor his disavowal of the comments made by a callow, shallow man whom time has granted the grace of deeper reflection. Because, the fact is, 17 years ago, the kind of remark he loosed tipsily at that little party brought no hushed response of mild rebuke from the other partyers; his dismissive censure of gays was an example of a widely accepted and prevalent social attitude.

It's only in the last ten years, in Canada, that gays and lesbians and the transgendered have been placed in the safe embrace of the Constitution, guaranteeing protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. No longer is it feasible or legally possible that homophobes can unleash their distaste for homosexuals freely through public discourse. It's unlawful to preach or spread hatred against an identifiable group.

And where discrimination against those whose sexual orientation went against the social grain of acceptability suffered one type of disgraceful dismissal of their human rights after another, that is no longer the case. Brutality against gays does, sometimes occur now, just as it does against any minority group at the hands of hate-mongers and thugs in society.

But whereas once it was a common occurrence which society and public safety and security authorities once shrugged off, that too is no longer the case. This is a different world. Gay pride and the relaxation of social attitudes and mores recognizing diversity in individuals orientating differently than the considered norm has encouraged hitherto shamed and hidden gays to present themselves as normal but different.

So when the Liberal party and the NDP shrilly demand that the government act swiftly and decisively to discipline a 17-years-older and wiser man for a stupidly indiscretionary statement hateful of a minority most of society did not understand, this takes things a trifle too far. He has been punished. His stature in the apprehension of his children has been diminished. The regard with which his fellow parliamentarians hold him has been somewhat smudged.

Perhaps they recognize themselves in his unfortunate plight. For none of us, and none of them is without some kind of discriminatory fault. We all err, and we all mature, and we all learn from our earlier errors. When we realize that our earlier understanding was stained by a prevailing social stigma attached to a minority undeserving of the censure, if we're to respect ourselves, we're amenable to change.

If it weren't for the highly partisan atmosphere in the House of Commons where the Liberals and the NDP have made a high priority of searching out Conservative vulnerabilities, rather than work together for the common weal to address matters of real value and interest to Canadians, this unfortunate slip of one man's fall from reasoned compassion, however temporary, would never have seen the light of censure.

Sanctimony is brother to hypocrisy.

Under Legal Duress

What an insidious and strange phenomenon it is that Jews will fall all over themselves to prove to themselves, to the world at large, to the societies they inhabit, and most particularly, to those elements in society which seek their downfall, that they are neutral and just. That they do not take personally the hatred extended toward all those whose "tribe" they represent.

It's one of those little mysteries of the human psyche and human behaviour. Like the atrocious propensity for a certain type of female to be attracted to males clearly exhibiting misogynistic signals. Like the moth drawn irresistibly to the flame that will most surely consume it's corporeal essence.

Like the well documented, deplorable, but very real situations where men who have built a reputation of committing the most repugnant crimes against women will nonetheless be able to attract the devout attention of other women who will support them, while they're incarcerated for those unspeakable crimes.

Here's the case of Momin Khawaja, arrested as a terror suspect in Ottawa, four years ago. He is recognized as being a threat to national security, was in deep cahoots with a group of other terror suspects in Great Britain, had attended terrorist training camps, and the government is in possession of incriminating evidence against him.

Not the least of which is additional evidence brought forward at the trial of his co-conspirators in Great Britain. Much of which did not remain a mystery to Canadians. Revelations of the conspiracy and Momin Khawaja's committed part in a plan to remotely set off bombs in popular London night spots where the outcome would be gruesomely expansive were well reported locally.

All of his companions in would-be carnage were found guilty, and are serving their sentences in British jails. Mr. Khawaja is still awaiting trial in Canada. This man and his colleagues were planning mass murder. They were intent on bloody jihad. Momin Khawaja's father, Mahboob, claims the innocence of his son. His own web site was replete with hatred against Jews. Yet it is a Jewish lawyer who defends him.

And another Jewish lawyer who has agreed to act as a special representative to assist as an intermediary between the Crown and the suspect. Documents representing Khawaja evidence, some several hundred pages in number attest to his guilt. On the basis of additional evidence newly introduced, he was taken out of the general prison population and placed in isolation - on the pretext that his newly-diagnosed medical condition required he be closely monitored.

His lawyer describes Mr. Khawaja as being "very upset and surprised" at having been placed in isolation. According to his lawyer "He hasn't done anything to warrant it." There are many who might beg to differ. One can only imagine how "upset and surprised" the potential victims of the bombings that he and his co-conspirators, had their plotting been successful, might have been at their unfortunate fates.

The Supreme Court of Canada has refused the second attempt to have terrorism charges set aside. Momin Khawaja faces seven terror-related charges. Information revealed at the trials of those accused of conspiring to murder as many Britons as they might feverishly manage, appears to have implicated him beyond redemption.

In the face of which, the puzzle of what exactly it represents that two esteemed Jewish lawyers have chosen to buffer this man against the criminal justice system remains a mystery.

Enabling Emigration

Canada depends upon immigration to swell our ranks as a country long accustomed to increasing its population through immigration. And would-be immigrants depend upon Canada to welcome them as potential new citizens of the country. So much of the world is in constant upheaval and people seek shelter elsewhere than those countries which have somehow failed their expectations for the future.

In any event, humankind has always been migratory, and for one reason or another there has been a tendency to seek one's fortune elsewhere. In a world where growing competitiveness among countries in trade and export, in encouraging home-grown technologies, corporate growth and business acumen, there's more than ample competition for the well educated and those who can be productive within a nation on forward momentum.

Canada takes in approximately 250,000 immigrants a year, welcoming people from far and wide to our shores. To accept what it is to be a Canadian, even if it takes several generations to reach that point. Initially, making compromises, accepting what is given as the Canadian way of life; that our citizens, while accepting all the privileges and rights of citizenship, acknowledge also personal responsibility to the country, and accommodating themselves to the reality of inclusion, acceptance and respect for diversity.

Through a succession of governments, particularly those led by the Liberal Party of Canada, the emphasis has always been largely placed on family re-unification. A recognized need to enable families who wish to enlarge their presence in their new country of choice by sponsoring other family members for emigration from their home countries. The other major element has been to encourage highly educated people, with trades and professions needed in Canada to choose this country.

A point system has always been employed, taking into account applicants' vital statistics, including education, profession, and economic status as an entry wedge. Certainly not least is Canada's obligation to open itself to people escaping countries at war, or countries where they have been marginalized or threatened because of their ethnic, religious or ideological backgrounds.

The process of enrolment has been slow, with some immigrant-applicants waiting for years to be successfully processed. The backlog stands now at approximately 900,000, representing people who have applied to emigrate to Canada, many waiting for as long as six years. The current government has recognized it is past time to upgrade the system, and is enacting legislation to do just that. Proposing expanded powers of choice and speeding up the process be given the Minister of Immigration.

Immigration officers attempt to determine, through the interview process, whether an applicant represents himself or herself accurately, and whether that applicant seems likely to be able to integrate into Canadian society. It's a complex, complicated and frustrating procedure at the best of times. There is a growing recognition that Canada needs to attract greater numbers of skilled immigrants to the country.

Employment opportunities are there, qualified immigrants should be able to fill gaps, and government has to take action to make that match-up more likely to happen than it has in the past to the present. Family reunification cannot be left by the wayside. On the other hand, it is not particularly in Canada's best interests to bring in the elderly at the end of their working lives, who will become a burden on the medical and welfare system.

That's a hard-headed decision. Although sponsors must guarantee support for relatives whose emigration they sponsor for a specific length of time, it often enough occurs that those with compromised health conditions and the elderly become burdens on the system. Many successful applicants make heavy use of Canada's social welfare system until they're able to establish themselves; some never do.

The current government's proposals make good sense, although some ethnic communities within Canada have been quick to find fault with the new initiative, giving additional powers to the Minister of Immigration to make choices that will benefit the country's need for workers. Tellingly, spokespeople for the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance, welcome the changed perspective: "It has everything to do with skills, and it will bring the right type of people into Canada."

President of the Canada-Poland Chamber of Commerce is said to have concluded that the new direction is designed to give the minister flexibility to respond to labour shortages. "The most important thing is that, if nothing is done, by 2012 the backlog will be such that people will be waiting ten years for their applications to be heard. I'm glad to see the government doing something", he said.

As things now stand, the backlog and the waiting times are injurious both to the expectations of would-be immigrants, and to the needs of the country. That the new legislation is designed to expedite the acceptance of applicants on the basis of their attributes, matching the needs of the country, is a positive thing. People languishing while awaiting determination simply turn elsewhere. New Zealand's immigration processing time is a mere six months.

Opposition to the bill has been mounted by the Liberal Party, since it is the Conservative-led government that is proposing these amendments. Their shrill denunciations indicate not too much of anything, other than to appeal to their usual constituents among the immigrant population to support them in the next election. A spokesperson from the Canadian Arab Federation has been quick to take up the cudgel of opposition.

Speculating on the possibility of a hidden agenda - encouraged by the Liberals - in which the government has made plans to discriminate against certain minority groups because they may seem incapable of integrating well into a pluralist society of live-and-let-live. "I'm not saying they will discriminate against Arabs or Muslims, but who knows?" he said.

Who knows, indeed.

The Codex Committee on Food Labelling

Almost everyone, anywhere, from time to time, purchases some type of food that has been pre-finished, processed to some degree. And most people, particularly those who like to be aware of all the ingredients contained in the processed food they purchase, automatically inspect the posted list of ingredients.

There are some ingredients that many people will reject, some chemicals that seem to pose a potential threat to human health and they're unwilling to expose themselves and their families to the ingestion of potentially harmful ingredients. If the labelling is honest and truly reflects those ingredients contained in processed foods, consumers can make confident and assured choices.

A round of negotiations on international food labelling standards is set for discussion through the Codex Committee on Food Labelling scheduled to meet in Canada shortly. The committee is responsible for setting international codes of practise and for implementing the World Health Organization's Food Standards Program.

The WHO has proposed an amendment to encourage national governments to require their food producers to fully disclose ingredients in percentiles as they appear in processed food products. While Canada is in support of the Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, it seems it does not wish to approve health-related labelling.

Mandatory reporting by food manufacturers and processors isn't given a passing grade by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. This is a position that can only be seen as acceding to the lobbying by Canadian food producers. It most certainly cannot be seen as a wish for government to protect the health interests of Canadian consumers.

Without accurate labelling of all ingredients that compose a finished food product, it simply is not possible for Canadian consumers - consumers anywhere in the world who are affected by the decision-making outcome of the committee - to make informed and healthwise choices in the food products they purchase.

Governments, in choosing to support the wishes of food producers to avoid full disclosure of ingredients and their percentiles, do a grave disservice to the populations whom they represent. It's an ill-considered, political, economic decision, not a responsibly social governing decision.

In supporting packaging identification of ingredients governments indicate clearly they are concerned with the health and well-being of their constituents. It's very good that governments are in support of ensuring the list of mandatory nutrients list energy value, amounts of protein, carbohydrates, sugars, fat, saturated fatty acids, trans-fats and sodium, but full disclosure should be the labelling target.

Should Canada and the other nation-members on the Codex Committee on Food Labelling insist on siding with food manufacturers against consumers' need to know, they will be failing in their responsibility to the people they claim to serve. It is deceptive to say there is concern while at the same time rejecting the need to inform people adequately.

Too much of the foods we eat in processed form have diverted sufficiently from their original forms to make them questionable nutritional substitutes for the original. The resulting quasi-food, of increasingly lesser food value foisted on a trusting public is one of the reasons that societies such as Canada's are seeing a growing incidence of obesity among young and old.

Government cannot have it both ways; expressing concern at the emerging health emergency represented by a growing obesity epidemic - deploring food and lifestyle habits - while at the same time adding to the problem by inadequate legislation in food labelling.

Made In Canada - Sometimes

What an absurd travesty of marketing and sourcing assurances. Canadian shoppers, peering at the packaging containing food and in fact, goods of all kinds, take comfort when they read those reassuring little words "made in Canada", or "product of Canada".

When, in fact, raw materials for clothing, for products of all manufactured goods can in reality have been manufactured elsewhere and brought into Canada, to be "finished". "Finishing" can represent a very small piece of the manufacturing puzzle, but it suffices for that reassuring label of "made in Canada".

Spices, nuts, pulses and all manner of food brought into the country in bulk, then packaged in neat little individual packets for sale can be labelled "product of Canada". As shoppers we feel we can trust these goods to be free of contaminants because of Canada's oversight in the production of foods for the home market, as well as for shipment elsewhere.

But the sad and silly fact is that under Canadian labelling guidelines that trust is misplaced.

If 51% of production costs are incurred in Canada, even if the primary product is sourced outside the country, costs relating to labour, transportation and packaging permit imported food to be labelled as a product of Canada.

We don't really know the derivation of the food we're eating, the drinks we're imbibing, as a result; we only think we do, because we're encouraged to believe the labelling.

Shoppers who go out of their way to ensure that the food they buy, the hard goods they purchase, are grown or manufactured in Canada as the country of origin, are being hoodwinked, and that's truly absurd.

A garment can be made in Indonesia; the fabric, the cutting, the sewing, but if a hem is sewn in Canada, and a label affixed, it can be labelled erroneously and no one the wiser for it.

This isn't always the case, it's true. Scrupulous packagers will ensure that the packing states its made-in-Canada origin, while in fine print elsewhere will appear the origin of the goods contained therein as originating in another country.

Wouldn't it be more sensible, ethical and honestly reassuring if labelling across the board was accurate in identifying country of origin, regardless of where it was packaged?

Canada's Multiplicity of Ethnicities

There was a time when Canada presented as a sea of white faces. That time is long gone. We take great pleasure in presenting now as a multiplicity of colours, facial features and garb. With an incidental background of various cultures, traditions and religions.

Now, in our Canada of the present day, we are far removed from a population derived mostly from France and Great Britain, with a shallow sprinkling of Europeans. When Chinese, Japanese, Blacks and Jews were viewed askance, as being unsuitable for absorption into the population of Canada.

This Canada is made up now of people stemming from 200 ethnic groups. Canada's latest census figures declare us to be multiracial, multilingual, multi-religious, multicultural. Compared to many countries of the world, we're not all that populous, only 33-million people. But growing, my, how we're growing. Mostly through immigration; we've a low indigenous replacement rate.

The 2006 census informs that of that 33-million, just over one-third identify as ethnic Canadian. Visible minorities now account for 5.06 million people in Canada; 16.2% of the 2006 population. At an immigration rate of 250,000 annually, we've surpassed those figures.

Of those visible minorities - Japanese, Black, Southeast Asian, South Asian, Arab, Filipino, Chinese, Latin American, Korean and West Asian, percentages of 63.2% to 14.8% are second and third-generation Canadian. Canada's largest city, Toronto, is comprised of 46.9% minorities. Vancouver, 51%.

The Statistics Canada report, Canada's Ethno-cultural Mosaic, tells us that visible minorities are not scattered equally across the country, but tend to locate in specific locations; mostly Ontario and British Columbia. Which equates to heavy concentrations, resulting in some geographic areas heavily represented by minorities, and others relatively absent of minorities.

As long as Canada's economy remains strong, and employment is buoyant, it's unlikely that too many problems relating to high unemployment rates affecting immigrants will become a problem. But problems still exist, where highly educated professionals emigrating from their countries of birth face lack of Canadian-recognized professional accreditation.

That situation, if not ameliorated, along with the potential for an economic slow-down and with it job losses, could create an inequitable situation where immigrants, with no "Canadian experience" could form a compelling group of unemployed with all the problems inherent in such conditions.

Such conditions which helped to create the situation of societal segregation, immigrant disaffection, religious and political strife and the creation of the banlieues in France, with their no-go-zones for French police, the aggravated poverty, the resentment and anger of immigrant youth, the lawless violence that ensues.

Thus far Canada has been able to create an atmosphere of welcome and inclusion, offering an egalitarian set of opportunities and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to all Canadians. We can all of us hope for a steady evolution of the entire society to form the basis of a broader national identity.

Multiculturalism is fine as far as it goes. In the end, however, people living together in close proximity are far better off recognizing and accepting the ties that bind us together. With all of our differences that help invigorate and enrich Canadian society, there is also a need to blend, to accept a Canadian identity.

Informed Speculation

Zimbabwe's military and its police officials declared themselves beforehand in support of Robert Mugabe. Their menacing statements to the effect that they would not recognize anyone other than he as the rightful president of their country, that any others would be impostors, sent a chilling message to the electorate.

Despite which, a determined public voted as they saw fit. People do become fed up with desperation and lack of food and vital medicines; listless with a fading of hope for the future. The population finally brought itself to the point of resolve to oust a brutal dictator, one for whom the singular purpose for governance was to line his pockets and that of his confreres. To celebrate his very existence as the saviour of his country from Western imperialism.

The staggering and growing rates of HIV and AIDS within the population, the sky-high inflation rate, the scarcity of foods and pharmaceuticals, all mark a country that has sunk about as low as it conceivably could. And yet, throughout the election process, most people behaved in an orderly and disciplined manner, despite their anxiety and desperation for change.

Despite all the government demagoguery and brightly confident assurances that he would remain as president of Zimbabwe, to further beggar that already impoverished country, the ballot spoke. Despite all the ill-conceived and illegal machinations to turn the tide in his favour, once again, a majority of determined Zimbabweans voted for the major opposing figure, Morgan Tsvangirae.

Now it's a matter of allowing that mighty human rights abuser to save face. His supporters in the South African government would have it no other way. They're eager to offer refuge to him, to help him to avoid future prosecution in his country's higher courts. Where he would stand accused of war crimes, murder on a grand scale, of depriving his countrymen of a future, of abusing white landowners, and taking his country to ruin while he and his henchman got rich.

Little wonder the military and the police supported him; they were well compensated to do so, while the rest of the population lived in penury and despair. Mr. Mugabe will handily escape justice. On some pretext or another, he will travel in state to South Africa, where President Thabo Mbeki will welcome that grand old lion of freedom with welcome arms. Other, lesser political lights will be charged with corruption and human rights offences.

And finally, that country, once a celebrated regional breadbasket, will be able to slowly pull itself out of the morass of corruption, incompetence and greed that has too long marked its downfall.

Because We Said So

The response from the federal government with respect to the reinstatement of David Ahenakew as a senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations was almost as swift as that of the provincial government in condemning this ill-considered action.

Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl minced no words in characterizing the reinstatement as ethically inappropriate, and that he has instructed his department officials to eschew participation in any meeting where Mr. Ahenakew may be present.

Federation Chief Lawrence Joseph was unmoved, unrepentant, and determined that neither the provincial nor the federal government was entitled to tell the FSIN what it could and could not do. Well, he's right there.

Canada's native communities insist on autonomy as First Nations people, and they have the right, should they so wish, to conduct themselves in a manner unbefitting responsible authorities. Setting a pretty poor example in values and responsibility for the people whom they represent, in the process.

Unequivocally, Chief Joseph stated, with the full dignity accorded him through his position, that Mr. Ahenakew would "resume his duties shortly". "We totally, unequivocally condemn [Ahenakew's] remarks", said Chief Joseph. So, you see, you can have it any which way, after all, and through that statement, validate the FSIN's honour.

"But he's apologized, he's won an appeal, he's been stripped of everything he had, including an opportunity to make a living, and he has not repeated that mistake in over five years. Let's be reasonable." And in so saying, compellingly illustrating the Federation's compassion. Disagreement with that position serves to highlight the lack of compassion of nay-sayers.

And the Federation engaged in a bit of condemnation of their own, rebuking the Saskatchewan government for condemning the Federation's decision to reinstate Mr. Ahenakew. And then they went just a tad further, refusing entry to a Saskatoon StarPheonix reporter to the news conference.

It was, after all, just such a reporter from that very same paper who reported the original outrageous anti-Semitic statements of Mr. Ahenakew. Those inflammatory, controversial statements still resonate as representing the epitome of hateful libel: "Jews owned the Goddamn world"; "How do you get rid of a disease like that?".

Anyone harbouring that diseased mindset, and who repeated similar incendiary statements long after apologizing, has disentitled himself to respected official duties representing any recognized group.

Let alone a group which has suffered discrimination, violations of their human rights, neglect and impoverishment. That that very group would then honour a member to an office of respect after his having slandered and characterized another historically marginalized and persecuted group is mind-bogglingly offensive, quite beyond belief.

Defiance of public opinion in the matter of First Nations business is one thing. Neglect in support of the dignity and human rights of other people, is quite another.

This act of respect to one undeserving of it only serves to demean the moral authority of the Federation.

Geopolitics

The NATO summit scheduled to take place in Bucharest this week, rather than focusing on Canada's dilemma in the requirement of backup troops from other NATO countries in Afghanistan, appears to be set for a confrontation of an entirely different kind. Not surprisingly so, in a sense, given the kind of intimidation and belligerence emanating from Russia that Europe has faced in the last few years.

Hard to entirely place the blame on Russia, either. That country feels hard up against the wall. Pressured into a neurotic sense of being beleaguered; politically abandoned by former satellites, and held in low esteem post break-up of the U.S.S.R. by the international community of those countries to which she had formerly posed a threat. But a resurgent and angry Russia, feeling betrayed and threatened began to offer her own threats.

So it isn't surprising that the European Union, many of whose member countries depend hugely on Russia for their oil and gas, would seek to placate her. To that end, they have abandoned the invitation extended to two remaining former Russian satellites to join NATO. Led by Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, and France's President Nicholas Sarkozy, Georgia and Ukraine have been effectively disinvited.

Unsurprisingly too, Georgia's president, Mikhail Saakashvili is anything but pleased at this turn of events, likening it to the meek submissiveness of the Munich Agreement where Europe agreed to Nazi German's annexation of the Sudetenland. "I think this is a very, very wrong argument. We've seen Europe united once like this in this last century and we saw where it led.

"Appeasement is seen (in Russia) as a signal that they should act even tougher, and they will be more aggressive and provocative", he claimed in an interview with The Financial Times. The former Warsaw Pact countries which have been absorbed into NATO fully support the inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia, while Russia chafes angrily at the prospect.

Moreover, the United States under George W. Bush has seemed to go out of its way time and again to enrage Russia. The proposed installation of anti-missile systems on Czech soil and in Poland - which Poland has now formally agreed to - did not endear itself to Russia.

Ten interceptors are to be built in Poland ostensibly to prevent Western countries attacked by rockets from Iran.

Russia, however, sees those anti-rocket systems aimed squarely at her, not Iran. The American explanation has not gone down particularly well with Russia. Additionally, the provocative inclusion of former satellites into a collective that once opposed the Warsaw pact represents another bitter pill for the Russians to swallow.Russia has been ostracized, has felt alienated, abandoned and insulted.

The quickest way to ensure you have an enemy is to make friends with his neighbours and leave him isolated, out of the loop. And that is exactly what the United States has been busy doing, making mischief under this current administration, pulling its European Union allies along for the ride. As though the U.S. delights in giving Russia heartburn.

For its part, Russia is responding positively to this new move by Ms. Merkel, et al. Expressing a willingness to be more open to the needs of the EU and even offering NATO the opportunity to overfly Russia en route to Afghanistan in return for Ukraine and Georgia being left out of NATO. It's sad for those two countries who surely deserve inclusion in NATO for political and economic reasons.

But regional hegemonic problems with Russia and her former satellites won't be solved by NATO's ongoing interference, however well intended. There's always hope that with a loosening of the political tight-rope, Russia may over time become more amenable to reasonable response rather than resorting to belligerence and irrational threats.

Perhaps a greater alliance could be developed, inclusive of Russia, Georgia and Ukraine. It's a small world becoming smaller all the time. It's past time, in view of the acknowledged success of the European Union, that continent-sharing countries become more amenable to treating each other with due respect and willing co-operation.

Goodness Incarnate

How much more of an assurance could the Chinese government conceivably demand than that which the Dalai Lama proffers time and again. He asserts that he has no wish to seek separation, sovereignty for Tibet. He seeks respect for Tibetan Buddhism, for Tibetan culture, for Tibetan traditions, for ethnic Tibetans. He begs for autonomy for his country, not separation.

He has, over the years, time and again appealed to the Chinese to engage in dialogue for the purpose of arriving at a peaceful and mutually useful outcome. One that will respect the need of the Chinese to claim Tibet as a part of China, and one that will respect the need of the Tibetan people to endure, to ensure the longevity of Tibetan culture, religion, language, customs. Is that too much to ask for?

It would Appear so, since China, adamant about her right to claim Tibet as an integral part of her territory, aggrieved over international condemnation over what China terms an internal problem of dealing with insurrectionists, is steadfast in her accusations against the Dalai Lama. That he has deliberately encouraged rebellion, that he seeks to split the country.

Yet it is the survival of the Tibetan people that concerns him, solely. The Dalai Lama has been outspoken in his support for the Beijing Olympics, so dear to the heart of the Chinese, so fundamentally needful to the Chinese government, to prove to itself and to the world at large that it has arrived as an international, political, economic and cultural powerhouse.

The Dalai Lama does fearlessly point out that his people have been exploited, they have suffered grave injustice at the hands of corrupt officials; their legitimate complaints are set aside or met with aggressive resistance. But he also points out that these grievous human rights violations have been visited equally upon the Chinese population, particularly in rural areas.

In his address to the Chinese nation, he points out he is but a fellow human being, someone "prepared to consider himself a member of the large family that is the People's Republic of China. In this respect, I appreciate and support President Hu Jintao's policy of creating a "harmonious society", but this can only arise on the basis of mutual trust and an atmosphere of freedom, including freedom of speech and the rule of law.

"Chinese brothers and sisters - wherever you may be - with deep concern I appeal to you to help dispel the misunderstandings between our two communities. Moreover, I appeal to you to help us find a peaceful, lasting solution to the problem of Tibet through dialogue in the spirit of understanding and accommodation."

This Tibetan spiritual leader who holds the respect of the world at large, and the spiteful disregard of the Chinese government, had no hesitation in expressing concern for the Chinese residents of Lhasa injured and killed by his followers. Going so far as to threaten resignation of his secular duties if that level of violence against Chinese people continued.

Consider that in the light of the horrendous misery visited upon Tibetans by the Chinese, where the International Commission of Jurists judged the attacks against Tibetans in 1949 by the forces of Mao Zedong, to have constituted genocide. One in every five Tibetans died of starvation or through direct violent encounters with the Chinese.

Tibetans, particularly the young, are tired of waiting for China to recognize their human rights. They are tired of being persecuted, their rights constantly violated. They want the return of their spiritual leader to their homeland. They want to be treated equally and fairly. They insist on respect for their ancient culture and traditions, that they be permitted to practise their religion in peace.

China will be worthy of world respect when she comes around to understanding that it is incumbent upon her to extend respect to those whom she governs, equally, fairly. In so doing, she will finally answer the prayers of the Dalai Lama. And the expectations of the rest of the world, as behaving in a manner that behooves a leading country of the world.