Canada partners with Soviet era torturers

Afghani Blog (afghaniblog) wrote,
@ 2007-05-08 09:15:00

Eric Margolis

In 1979 the Soviet KGB created a mirror-image secret police for its Afghan puppet government – the KhAD.

KhAD was famous for: Prisoners being flayed alive, thrown into vats of sulphuric acid and psychological tortures (long isolation in darkness, mock executions and psychotropic drugs.) These psychological tortures are routinely used today by the CIA.

In 2001, once the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the KhAD, rechristened NDS, was quickly re-established. Today, an estimated 60% of NDS personnel are former KhAD agents

Ottawa's deal this week with Kabul for inspection of NDS prisoners is a sham. The KhAD had the same empty "agreement" with human rights groups in the 1980s.

Now Ottawa is hand in glove with the Communist Party's veteran torturers.

AfghaniBlog:

Canadian Gov: “Extraordinary Rendition” is legal

-----------------------------------------------------

Torture a Kabul speciality

Ottawa's deal to inspect prisoners shows it hasn't learned from war history in Afghanistan

By ERIC MARGOLIS

How did Canada, one of the world's most respected, law-abiding nations, become a party to the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan and a violator of the Geneva Conventions?

The story begins in 1979, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.

SOVIET KhAD

The Soviet KGB created a mirror-image secret police for its Afghan puppet government, KhAD.

KhAD sought to eradicate all opposition to the Communists. It also ran the education system and religious establishment. KhAD quickly became notorious, even in a famously brutal society, for its cruelties.

All political prisoners -- that is, anyone who opposed the Communists -- were subjected to systematic tortures. These ranged from garden variety beatings, pulling of fingernails, near-drowning and electric shocks to more refined cruelties.

Prisoners were flayed alive, thrown into vats of sulphuric acid, blinded, buried alive, burned with gasoline, or slowly frozen in refrigerated rooms.

Psychological tortures -- sleep deprivation, long isolation in darkness, sound assault, mock executions and psychotropic drugs -- were also used by KhAD under KGB supervision. The same tortures, known as "enhanced interrogation," are routinely used today by the CIA.

The Communists killed two million Afghans.

CANADIAN REACTION

Canada turned its back and refused to aid the mujahedeen battling Soviet occupation.

After the Soviets withdrew in 1989, the newborn Taliban movement drove the remaining Afghan Communists -- rebranded the Northern Alliance -- into the far northeast.

2001 REIGNITES KhAD

In 2001, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, allied itself to the Northern Alliance, and overthrew the Taliban. A figurehead, Hamid Karzai, was put in power.

Real power, however, was held by the Communist-dominated Northern Alliance.

Once the Northern Alliance took Kabul, the KhAD, rechristened NDS, was quickly re-established. The old Communist torturers and war criminals went back into business.

Today, an estimated 60% of NDS personnel are former KhAD agents. Canadian and U.S. forces fighting to pacify southern Afghanistan have been routinely handing captives and suspects over to the NDS secret police -- in clear violation of the Geneva Conventions.

EXPOSURE

This dirty secret was finally exposed to Canadians by a major Globe and Mail investigation.

It exposed Ottawa's childish claims of having assurances from the Afghan Communist secret police -- which had murdered or maimed tens of thousands of victims -- to treat prisoners humanely.

HOW CANADA GOT INTO THIS

How did Canada get into this mess?

Conservatives in Ottawa saw a chance to win new voters by whipping up jingoism in a jolly little war against "evil" Muslims that was supposed to be a slam dunk.

Chest-thumping generals leapt before they looked. The men in Ottawa responsible for getting Canadians stuck ever deeper in this ugly conflict had no knowledge whatsoever about Afghanistan, its tribal politics, or history.

Senior officers and politicians who claim not to have known they were handing over prisoners to the Afghan secret police for torture are either stunningly ignorant or lying.

I guess they never read Rudyard Kipling's famous admonition to British soldiers fallen wounded in Afghanistan, "save your last bullet for yourself."

This writer, who has covered many guerrilla wars in Asia, Africa and Central America, repeatedly warned in recent years that the longer Canadian troops stayed in Afghanistan, the more they would become brutalized and involved in war crimes. Such is the nature of all guerrilla wars. Has no one in Ottawa ever studied Algeria, Lebanon or Vietnam?

FAIRY TALE TORTURE

Canadians who still believe the fairy tale that their forces in Afghanistan are "nation building" or doing social work should reflect on the grim fate of prisoners their soldiers handed over to the mercies of the Afghan secret police.

Ottawa's deal this week with Kabul for inspection of NDS prisoners is a sham. The KhAD had the same empty "agreement" with human rights groups in the 1980s.

It's bad enough Canada's troops are defending Afghanistan's warlords who run its booming heroin industry.

Now Ottawa is hand in glove with the Communist Party's veteran torturers.

Well done, Ottawa.

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

Canadians have until 2011 to ban the government. Anyone still under the illusion that the feds are there to help you need therapy. They are there to keep us in line.
---
Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012

CSIS questioning of Canadian Muslims threatens their jobs

Spies at work

VISITS AN OCCUPATIONAL HAZARD: Bassam Hussein

by STEFAN CHRISTOFF

The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) is conducting regular interviews and interrogations with hundreds of Arabs and Muslims across Canada at their work places, homes and in the vicinity of local mosques, say national and Montreal-based Arab and Muslim community groups. The groups are reporting major increases in the numbers of calls from distressed community members concerning CSIS interventions. According to the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations in Canada (CAIR-Canada), CSIS intelligence gathering activities have increased over the past year.

“Community members who have been approached by CSIS across the country are calling our office on a weekly basis,” says Sameer Zuberi, CAIR-Canada’s communications coordinator. “This hike in CSIS visits is alarming to CAIR-Canada as it casts a blanket of fear and intimidation that is spread over our entire community.”

In response to increased CSIS activity, CAIR-Canada has shipped thousands of copies of a publication designed for Canadian Muslims dealing with CSIS and other Canadian authorities, entitled Know Your Rights Guide, to local mosques and community centres.

“I got a call from a CSIS agent a couple of months ago asking for a meeting at a café downtown on Peel street,” says former Concordia student Mohammed over the phone from Kuwait, where he is currently working as a mechanical engineer. He asked that his last name not be used due to fears of possible repercussions. “I was asked numerous questions concerning my own involvement in the Muslim community [and] was asked by the CSIS agent to not bring a lawyer to the meeting. The agents acknowledged that they had no specific incriminating evidence against me but explained in a non-direct fashion that they simply wanted to gather information on our community, leading me to feel suspect in Canada simply because of my religion.”

“People are being targeted by CSIS for simply belonging to a certain ethnic group with certain religious beliefs without any obvious rationale for such targeting,” says Bassam Hussein of the Centre communautaire Musulman de Montréal. “I was recently visited by a mother of four in Montreal who was seeking help due to CSIS harassment against her and her husband,” says Hussein. “CSIS went to her husband’s employer to inquire about him, the employer was terrified when CSIS contacted him and two weeks later, the employer let the husband go.”

The 2007 Conservative federal budget “earmarks new funding for CSIS,” according to the Ministry of Finance Web site, to the tune of $80-million over two years in addition to the approximately $200-million already allocated to Canada’s national spy agency. Media representatives from CSIS did not return repeated requests for an interview from the Mirror before deadline.

CAIR-Canada recently reported that approximately 30 per cent of all CSIS visits in the Muslim community are occurring at the workplace, often putting individuals’ careers in jeopardy.

“Community members feel that their civil liberties are being seriously compromised under the pretext of fighting terrorism,” says Hussein. “Community members who I know are being contacted by CSIS are simple people working hard to live in peace and raise their families.”

Torture Investigation Stopped by Canadian Military Officials

Editor's note: Also see new articles at the other blog(and more below).
---
Military Law Office:

The complaint involves "a hypothetical determination that a detainee might have been or might in the future be, tortured by Afghanistan authorities – with no evidence or even an allegation that a detainee transferred by the (Forces) was ever tortured."

The matter covers "a high-level, multi-departmental government of Canada policy regarding the transfer of detainees by the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan authorities and an arrangement made with the government of Afghanistan pursuant to this policy."

The practice of handing over prisoners is ``directed by the operational chair of command and is required to be followed by all (Canadian Forces) members involved in the handling of detainees, not just the military police."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Defence wants to stop Afghan torture investigation
The Defence Department says it may go to court to block a military watchdog from investigating a complaint about Canada's handling of prisoners in Afghanistan.

The department questions the jurisdiction of the commission to look into the complaint filed last month by Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

The rights groups said Canadian military police handed prisoners over to Afghan authorities, even though they should have known that Afghan police and the security directorate "routinely torture prisoners." They cited 18 specific cases of individuals who were turned over to the Afghan system.

DEPARTMENT HALTS INVESTIGATION

The department argues that there's no evidence that any prisoner handed over by Canadians was ever tortured.

Col. Patrick Gleeson of the judge advocate general's office wrote to the commission earlier this week to say that, after reviewing commission chairman Peter Tinsley's decision to take on the case, the department and the Canadian Forces take the position that the complaint is outside the commission's mandate.

Gleeson said the complaint involves "a hypothetical determination that a detainee might have been or might in the future be, tortured by Afghanistan authorities – with no evidence or even an allegation that a detainee transferred by the (Forces) was ever tortured."

He went on to say that the matter covers "a high-level, multi-departmental government of Canada policy regarding the transfer of detainees by the Canadian Forces to Afghanistan authorities and an arrangement made with the government of Afghanistan pursuant to this policy."

He added that the practice of handing over prisoners is ``directed by the operational chair of command and is required to be followed by all (Canadian Forces) members involved in the handling of detainees, not just the military police."

POLICE COMMISSION RESPONDS

The police commission wrote back, saying Tinsley's February decision was clear and "the complaint in question raises grounds relating to the conduct of members of the military police in an activity which is expressly enumerated in the regulations" of the National Defence Act.

Stan Blythe, chief of staff to the commission, said the government's letter was unusual. "They've essentially asked this commission to explain their intentions ... and that seems like a very unusual thing to ask a tribunal to do. We are, after all, an independent tribunal with a statutory jurisdiction."

The commission was also counting on the department for help in obtaining documents and witnesses. If the department goes to Federal Court, that kind of co-operation is unlikely.

However, Tinsley has the option of calling public hearings. He decided against hearings initially, but could change his mind. "If there is a lack of co-operation ... that's a factor which could lead the chair to reconsider and call a public hearing," said Blythe.

Afghanistan's 'Hard Mission' Slips Away

Related

US State Dept Report: Human Rights in Afghanistan

--
consortiumnews.com

By Richard L. Fricker
March 10, 2007

Canadian lawmakers have written an Afghanistan version of the Iraq Study Group report, reaching a conclusion that the conditions on that original battlefront in the “war on terror” are grave and deteriorating.

The 16-page Canadian Senate report, entitled “Taking a Hard Look at a Hard Mission,” foresees a conflict that could drag on for generations and might well fail unless NATO significantly increases its commitment of money and troops.

“It is in our view doubtful that this mission can be accomplished given the limited resources that NATO is currently investing in Afghanistan,” said the report by the Standing Committee on National Security and Defence. “The current NATO contingent doesn’t have enough troops to go toe-to-toe with the Taliban.”

Former Canadian Ambassador to Afghanistan Chris Alexander told the committee that it would take five generations to “make a difference in Afghanistan,” while Land Forces Commander Andrew Leslie estimated that it would take at least two decades to complete the mission.

NATO has roughly 32,000 troops in Afghanistan, including 15,000 Americans and 2,500 Canadians. Another 12,000 American troops under U.S. command conduct missions ranging from counter-terrorism to training Afghan forces.

In 2001 after the 9/11 attacks were blamed on al-Qaeda operatives based in Afghanistan, the United States led an invasion of the rugged country, toppling its Taliban government and trapping many al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, in the mountains of Tora Bora along the Pakistani border.

At that crucial moment in December 2001, however, President George W. Bush failed to deploy adequate U.S. military forces to capture bin Laden, who managed to escape on horseback with some of his key lieutenants into Pakistan.

Bush then redirected the attention of the U.S. military and intelligence services toward Iraq in preparation for the invasion on March 19, 2003. Since then, the conflict in Iraq has absorbed the bulk of U.S. military resources and political attention.

Al-Qaeda Resurgence

Over those past five years, al-Qaeda has regrouped in the mountains of Pakistan and the Taliban has reemerged as a potent force inside Afghanistan, where NATO forces are anticipating a fierce spring offensive by Taliban fighters. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Bush Is Losing the War on Terror."]

The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan has ratcheted up political and military pressure on America’s NATO allies who had expected their Afghan deployments to concentrate mostly on peacekeeping and reconstruction, not fighting a major counterinsurgency war.

U.S. aerial assaults also have killed substantial numbers of civilians and thus deepened Afghani resentment of Westerners. That local anger and the broader fury in the Muslim world over the Iraq War have attracted a flow of Islamic militants to Afghanistan as well as to Iraq.

When Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting a U.S. military base in Afghanistan on Feb. 27, a Taliban fighter blew himself apart at the gate of the base, killing 23 people but not directly endangering Cheney. The attack, however, was a reminder of the Taliban’s determination to challenge the presence of Westerners on Afghan territory.

“The Afghans are holding elections in their own minds as to whether or not the Westerners can provide the wherewithal to make life better or let the Taliban come back; at least they are predictable,” Canadian Committee Chairman Colin Kenny told me. “We have a very short window of time in which to show them we can assist them.”

Dawn Black, a member of the House of Commons and the New Democratic Party’s voice on defense and security issues, also expressed doubts about assurances from Canada’s Conservative government regarding what it calls generally positive trends in the conflict.

“The government says things are improving,” Black told me. “I was there last month. The security situation is such that they didn’t feel it was safe enough for us to leave the air base” at Kandahar.

When the Canadian delegation did visit an encampment of Afghans “just beyond the wire, the people are starving,” Black said.

Black also complained that heavy-handed military tactics have alienated the Afghani population and set back the goal of winning hearts and minds.

“How are you winning the hearts and minds of these people when you drive a tank through their farms?” Black said. “The NDP would like to see Canada withdraw from the combat mission.”

Election Chances

Canada’s Senate national security committee is dominated by Liberals and Conservatives, but the NDP could play a pivotal role in future Canadian policy in Afghanistan, especially if the Conservative minority government of Stephen Harper is forced into a new election.

Harper, a staunch ally of President Bush, is struggling in opinion polls, dragged down in part by the increasingly unpopular war in Afghanistan. If neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals can win a clear electoral victory, the NDP could be the power broker deciding who will form the next Canadian government. [For more on the politics, see Consortiumnews.com's "Bush's Canadian Clone in Jeopardy."]

Harper has proposed an additional $200 million aid package that would go to the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai despite concerns over widespread corruption. Sen. Kenny, a Liberal, questioned the wisdom of pouring money into that black hole.

“Canadians will not be able to see how their tax dollars are being spent,” Kenny told me. “I think there will be a lot of money going to a number of people to enhance their Swiss bank accounts. Perhaps some of it will get through to the Afghan people.”

The committee report, released in February, recommended redirecting aid through the military to ensure that more of the money actually reaches the population.

Overall, the report saw few bright spots.

“Anyone expecting to see the emergence in Afghanistan within the next several decades of a recognizable modern democracy capable of delivering justice and amenities to its people is dreaming in Technicolor,” the report said.

“The three primary forces in Afghan politics [are] armed power, tribal loyalties and corruption,” the report said. “Eliminating corruption in a place like Afghanistan is probably a pipe dream. …

“Any attempts to centralize control are complicated by the fact that Afghanistan’s economy is almost totally dependent on the sale of opium, and the opium marketplace is controlled by the warlords and, increasingly, the Taliban.”

The Canadian senators made little effort to sugarcoat the challenges ahead.

“The Taliban have time and geography on their side,” the report said. “Afghanistan is considerably more backward than other difficult areas like Iraq, Iran and Palestine. Whatever changes are made here are going to take many generations to effect and any early reforms are unlikely to present Canadians with the kinds of successes that might easily be seen to justify our involvement in Afghanistan.”

The report summed up the local situation by saying, “People outside Kabul are generally far more dependent on their traditional Sharia courts and systems of government than they are on the central government. …While NATO is proud of the fact that national elections have taken place, these elections have proven to be all but irrelevant to Afghans in places like Kandahar.”

The committee also took the Canadian International Development Agency to task for insisting “that it has a number of development projects underway in the province, but no one was able to show us.”

Beyond the lack of proof that Canada’s commitment was improving the lives of Afghans, the report noted that “life is clearly more perilous because we are there. That doesn’t mean that Canada shouldn’t be there…but it does mean that the ordinary citizen of Kandahar is living in a war zone that he or she wouldn’t be living in if NATO troops weren’t there.

The long road back to freedom from Zionism

Related

Neocon Imperialism, 9/11, and the Attacks on Afghanistan & Iraq
---

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Five countries – the U. S., Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand – were forced to bend over and spread ’em as a result of the U. S. forcing its ‘allies’ to conform to Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘war on terror’ in the wake of the September 11 attacks. All five victims of Zionist propaganda had to create horrific Orwellian legislation to oppress Muslims (Muslims are, of course, the direct target of the ‘war on terror’ legislation). Now, Canada is taking the long road back to freedom.

The Canadian legislation contained a ‘sunset’ clause which required Parliament to reconsider the worst parts of the legislation, passed after September 11, 2001, in five years. Liberal leader Stéphane Dion deserves enormous credit for resisting the enormous – and I mean enormous – pressure from the Zionist lobby within his own party, and holding fast to his principles (if you don’t believe me, read how a Zionist puts the issue; Dion’s selection as Liberal leader really was a massive defeat for the Jewish Billionaires Club, who are trying to get their revenge by having their media catamites claim Dion isn’t doing well as Liberal leader). The governing Conservatives, representing the Israel Lobby and the jack-booted thugs distinguished members of the security establishment, desperately wanted to keep the draconian laws in place. The Liberals voted with the other two opposition parties to put an end to the two worst parts of the legislation.

Note in particular ultra-Zionist Irwin Cotler, who takes the position that the oppressive laws should stay as they have never been used. I suppose Cotler, who fancies himself an advocate of human rights (other than for Palestinians, of course), would support the passage of a death-penalty law for jaywalking, as long as the law is never used.

The reason the law was never used is that the authorities relied on provisions of the Immigration Act to detain Muslims. These obviously unconstitutional provisions were struck down by a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Canada last Friday. The problem with having obviously unconstitutional legislation on the books is twofold. First, the mere existence of such laws can be used as a threat against victims of the security establishment. Secondly, the victims of the unconstitutional laws languish in detention for years before the issue reaches the courts (assuming the victims can afford to pay to make it through the legal system).

Once freedom is lost it is very difficult to regain it. The Zionists and the jack-booted thugs distinguished members of the security establishment relied on fear to attempt to keep the legislation. Terrorist hell is supposed to break loose once there is any glimmer of freedom from oppression.

The ‘war on terror’ was created by Netanyahu and the Israeli right for three reasons:

1. It was supposed to replace the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against the Soviets, by the idea that Israel was the ally of the United States in the Middle East in the battle against fundamentalist Islam (the shift was needed when the Soviet Union no longer existed).
2. It was intended to create the idea that Israel’s struggle against the justified reaction by the Palestinians to Israeli war crimes was the same struggle faced by the United States, and the world.
3. It has been extended to include the entire gamut of propaganda weapons which we know of as Islamophobia, intended to create a general fear of Islam which is used to make possible various Zionist outrages.

One of the Israeli spies caught while cheering at the collapse of the World Trade center put it clearly (my emphasis in red):

“We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem.”

Netanyahu himself, on being asked about what the September 11 attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations, said:

“It's very good. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.”

Make no mistake: the Canadian and similar oppressive laws are the gifts of Zionism to the world. One of the many payments the rest of the world makes for not stopping Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity is having to live under the burden of oppressive Zionist anti-Muslim legislation.

Xympora

posted at 12:09 AM permanent link Comments (12) | Trackback

Canadian court rejects indefinite detention of terror suspects

Canada rules indefinite detention wrong

By BETH DUFF-BROWN, The Associated Press 1 hour, 3 minutes ago

Canada's Supreme Court struck down the government's right to detain foreign terrorism suspects indefinitely and without trial, ruling Friday that the system violates the country's bill of rights.

The Justice Department had insisted that the "security certificate" program is a key tool in the fight against global terrorism and essential to national security.

But in a 9-0 judgment, the high court found the system violates the Charter of Rights and Freedom. It suspended the judgment from taking effect for a year, to give Parliament time to rewrite the law that deals with the certificates.

The certificates were challenged on constitutional grounds by three men from Morocco, Syria and Algeria — all alleged by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to have ties to al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

"The overarching principle of fundamental justice that applies here is this: before the state can detain people for significant periods of time, it must accord them a fair judicial process," Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin wrote in the ruling.

Opponents of the system say it violates the human rights of those who have no access to the evidence against them and who would face torture or death if deported to their native countries.

Federal law currently allows sensitive intelligence information to be heard privately by a federal judge, with only sketchy summaries given to defense attorneys.

If those foreigners choose to fight deportation, they can spend years jailed while the cases go through the courts. Even if they are freed, they risk being labeled as terrorists.

Though the security certificate program has been around since the 1970s, its use became more contentious after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, and more suspect since Canada used faulty intelligence in a case that led to a $9 million apology to another former terrorism suspect, Maher Arar.

Five Arab Muslim men currently stand accused of terrorist links under the certificates; and all five deny any ties to terrorism. It was not immediately clear if the three men still in detention would be released or remain jailed until the law is rewritten.

The most notable is Adil Charkaoui, 33, a native of Morocco. The former University of Montreal student and pizzeria operator was arrested in Montreal in 2003 and freed on bail under strict conditions in 2005. He is accused by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service of belonging to the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group, which has ties to al-Qaida and a history of terrorist attacks in Spain.

CSIS also claims Ahmed Ressam, convicted in 2001 of plotting to blow up Los Angeles International Airport, identified Charkaoui as someone he met at an al-Qaida training camp in Afghanistan — a contention denied by Charkaoui.

_____

On the Net:

Supreme Court ruling:

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2007/2007scc9/2007scc9.html

THE MUSLIMS AREN'T COMING ... THEY'RE HERE!

Feb 3, 2006

By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry


Two disturbing events, one in Israel and one in Canada, occurred in the first month of the seventh year of the twenty-first century. Both carry a frightening message: "it's all right to discriminate against Muslims."

The first event was a quotation in a Jerusalem Post article saying, "Islam could soon be the dominant force in Europe." It was attributed to an American professor who Herouxville has a population of 1,300 and is home to only one immigrant family; the rest of its citizens are white, French-speaking and Catholic.

If you read the declaration, which first attracted notice on the town's website, you can't help wondering, "are these people real?"

Included in the declaration are the following items: women should be able to show their faces in public (aside from costumes worn on Halloween); women should be permitted to drive cars and write cheques; and women should not be publicly beaten to death or burned alive.

As a rule, new immigrants to Canada do not go out of their way to settle in
small towns where unemployment is high and jobs prospects are low. So the likelihood that any immigrant would wish to live in Herouxville is almost zero.

Yet town councilor Andre Drouin defended the declaration, saying he has received some 2,000 e-mails of support -- 700 more than Herouxville's population! Good for Drouin -- as if racists needed the support of other racists.

"We have just published a small document saying who we are and what's our standard," Drouin told a Canadian TV reporter.

Now I doubt if any citizens of Herouxville actually read the xenophobic Jerusalem Post statements by Prof. Lewis. But the irony is that most of their ancestors -- including perhaps even Drouin's own -- probably suffered under British rule in early Canada just because they were French. Similarly, it would not be surprising that some of Prof. Lewis's Jewish ancestors also suffered in Europe, just because they were Jews.

Yet the Jerusalem Post cited Lewis as saying, "Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence. They have no respect for their own culture." Furthermore, he continued, Europeans have "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam, in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism." The Post identified Lewis as having been born "in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States."

Back in Canada, Montréal radio commentator Stephane Gendron has also taken a hard line against religious groups, publicly criticizing acts like darkening windows at one of the city's gyms to satisfy neighboring Orthodox Jews; allowing Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers; and providing Muslims with their own prayer rooms in schools and other institutions.

"We should have zero tolerance for that," said Gendron. "You're just a regular citizen. Religion at home is fine. Otherwise, it's too much."

Can you see the parallels between Herouxville councilor Drouin, radio personality Gendron, and Lewis?

But Lewis is not a Gendron or a Drouin. He is a high-profile senior academic with many books and research papers to his credit. Should he know better?

Lewis stopped short of listing exactly what Europe should do to control its Muslim populations. He warned instead that the Islamizing of Europe will be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he complained, "Europeans [have] given up."

Lewis knows that Europe, with its steadily declining birth-rate, urgently needs immigrants and that there is no pool of cheap immigrant labour or qualified professionals left in the developing world -- except in Muslim countries.

And Lewis also knows damn well that democracy will allow Muslims to catch up with Jews in their level of political influence. This trend may well affect Europe’s blind support of Israel. It could even mean that Israel actually achieves peace with the long-oppressed Palestinians.

Thus Lewis is really telling Europeans:

1. If Muslim immigrants are necessary to your economic prosperity, let them in; but for your own good, don't give them citizenship or allow them to practice their democratic rights.

2. As for those European Muslims who already live among you, don't give them the vote; instead, gather them in protected areas (i.e. concentration camps); or, even better, follow the infamous historic blueprint of what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Perhaps Drouin, Gendron and Lewis are not that far apart after all. And that is both sad and frightening.


Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com.

THE MUSLIMS AREN'T COMING ... THEY'RE HERE!

---
Feb 3, 2006

By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry


Two disturbing events, one in Israel and one in Canada, occurred in the first month of the seventh year of the twenty-first century. Both carry a frightening message: "it's all right to discriminate against Muslims."

The first event was a quotation in a Jerusalem Post article saying, "Islam could soon be the dominant force in Europe." It was attributed to an American professor who Herouxville has a population of 1,300 and is home to only one immigrant family; the rest of its citizens are white, French-speaking and Catholic.

If you read the declaration, which first attracted notice on the town's website, you can't help wondering, "are these people real?"

Included in the declaration are the following items: women should be able to show their faces in public (aside from costumes worn on Halloween); women should be permitted to drive cars and write cheques; and women should not be publicly beaten to death or burned alive.

As a rule, new immigrants to Canada do not go out of their way to settle in
small towns where unemployment is high and jobs prospects are low. So the likelihood that any immigrant would wish to live in Herouxville is almost zero.

Yet town councilor Andre Drouin defended the declaration, saying he has received some 2,000 e-mails of support -- 700 more than Herouxville's population! Good for Drouin -- as if racists needed the support of other racists.

"We have just published a small document saying who we are and what's our standard," Drouin told a Canadian TV reporter.

Now I doubt if any citizens of Herouxville actually read the xenophobic Jerusalem Post statements by Prof. Lewis. But the irony is that most of their ancestors -- including perhaps even Drouin's own -- probably suffered under British rule in early Canada just because they were French. Similarly, it would not be surprising that some of Prof. Lewis's Jewish ancestors also suffered in Europe, just because they were Jews.

Yet the Jerusalem Post cited Lewis as saying, "Europeans are losing their own loyalties and their own self-confidence. They have no respect for their own culture." Furthermore, he continued, Europeans have "surrendered" on every issue with regard to Islam, in a mood of "self-abasement," "political correctness" and "multi-culturalism." The Post identified Lewis as having been born "in London to middle-class Jewish parents but has long lived in the United States."

Back in Canada, Montréal radio commentator Stephane Gendron has also taken a hard line against religious groups, publicly criticizing acts like darkening windows at one of the city's gyms to satisfy neighboring Orthodox Jews; allowing Sikhs to carry ceremonial daggers; and providing Muslims with their own prayer rooms in schools and other institutions.

"We should have zero tolerance for that," said Gendron. "You're just a regular citizen. Religion at home is fine. Otherwise, it's too much."

Can you see the parallels between Herouxville councilor Drouin, radio personality Gendron, and Lewis?

But Lewis is not a Gendron or a Drouin. He is a high-profile senior academic with many books and research papers to his credit. Should he know better?

Lewis stopped short of listing exactly what Europe should do to control its Muslim populations. He warned instead that the Islamizing of Europe will be assisted by "immigration and democracy." Instead of fighting the threat, he complained, "Europeans [have] given up."

Lewis knows that Europe, with its steadily declining birth-rate, urgently needs immigrants and that there is no pool of cheap immigrant labour or qualified professionals left in the developing world -- except in Muslim countries.

And Lewis also knows damn well that democracy will allow Muslims to catch up with Jews in their level of political influence. This trend may well affect Europe’s blind support of Israel. It could even mean that Israel actually achieves peace with the long-oppressed Palestinians.

Thus Lewis is really telling Europeans:

1. If Muslim immigrants are necessary to your economic prosperity, let them in; but for your own good, don't give them citizenship or allow them to practice their democratic rights.

2. As for those European Muslims who already live among you, don't give them the vote; instead, gather them in protected areas (i.e. concentration camps); or, even better, follow the infamous historic blueprint of what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Perhaps Drouin, Gendron and Lewis are not that far apart after all. And that is both sad and frightening.


Dr. Mohamed Elmasry is national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress. He can be reached at np@canadianislamiccongress.com.

Canada is now accepting Jewish refugees - from Israel

Related
Immigration to Israel falls to 18 year low
World Jewry is losing its interest in Israel: Under the current state of affairs, is it any question why Israel is not attractive?
---
Thousands of Israelis seeking asylum in Canada: reports

Last Updated: Friday, January 26, 2007 | 12:35 PM ET

CBC News

At least 3,000 Israelis, most of them citing a fear of spousal abuse and Palestinian violence, have requested asylum in Canada since 2000, recent reports out of Israel said.

Two major newspapers in Israel said that Canada has already granted refugee status to hundreds of Israelis, but thousands of others have filed applications.

The reports, from the Yediot Ahronot and Maariv newspapers, both quoted figures from the Israeli Foreign Ministry that show at least 3,000 Israelis filed applications seeking asylum in Canada. Maariv said that upwards of 500 of the applications had been approved in the last six years.

Yediot quoted the Israeli Ambassador to Canada, Alan Barker, as saying many of the applications Canadian officials were seeing were in fact bogus and that they were "harming Israel's image and representing it as a country whose citizens are persecuted."

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said the department was aware of the number of Israelis seeking asylum in Canada, and said "we have taken the matter up with the Canadians," but he did not elaborate.

The Canadian embassy in Tel Aviv said it did not have the data, and referred inquiries to the government in Ottawa.

With files from the Associated Press

Professor says America seeks Afghanistan Oil Deal

Saturday 20. Jan 2007

Is Stephen Harper's Conservative minority government supporting another Oil War? This would yield enormous profits for greed-driven investors, and the atmosphere will continue to dangerously heat from the increasing use of those fossil fuels.

by David Michael Smith

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush declared that the United States would launch a "War on Terrorism." In early October, U.S. airplanes began bombing Afghanistan and providing assistance to the Northern Alliance and other groups opposed to the Taliban regime. Within a few months, U.S. troops and their Afghan allies had succeeded in ousting the Taliban and installing a new regime. Although Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants apparently escaped, U.S. officials proclaimed that a significant blow had been dealt to the al-Qa'ida network.

Traumatized and outraged by the horrific events of September 11, the majority of Americans supported the war in Afghanistan. Most people believed the U.S. Commander-in-Chief when he said that the replacement of the Taliban regime was required to safeguard our country against another catastrophic attack by al-Qa'ida forces. Even Princeton Professor Richard Falk, a longtime anti-war activist, wrote in The Nation ("Defining a Just War," Oct. 29, 2001) that the war in Afghanistan was "the first truly just war since World War II." But was it?

Since last October, thousands of people have participated in anti-war rallies, marches, and teach-ins in New York City, Washington, San Francisco, Houston, and other cities. People opposed to the war have made clear that they condemn the atrocity of September 11. But they also condemn the U.S. role in the deaths of thousands of Afghan people who had nothing to do with the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

In the British Guardian ("The innocent dead in a coward's war," Dec. 20, 2001), journalist Seumas Milne estimated that about ten thousand Afghan soldiers may have died in the war and cited University of New Hampshire Professor Marc Herold's estimate that about four thousand civilians have also died.

Moreover, anti-war activists and progressive writers argue that the war in Afghanistan has been, in large part, another "oil war." The September 11 attacks provided a compelling pretext for military action against the al-Qa'ida forces in Afghanistan. But a growing body of research by journalists and scholars reveals that the Bush Administration's decision in favour of a regime change and all-out war in Afghanistan was significantly influenced by the desire to install a new government that would be more sympathetic to U.S. economic interests in Central Asia.

	Has Prime Minister Harper risked the lives of Canadians for an "Oil War" in Afghanistan under the guise of a "War on Terrorism"?

Although Afghanistan itself has no significant oil or natural gas reserves, it is strategically located in a region which does. As Eric Margolis observed in the Toronto Sun ("The U.S. is Determined to Dominate the World's Richest New Source," Jan. 13, 2002), Central Asia's Caspian Basin, over which sit the former Soviet states of Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Kyrgystan, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan, is the world's "richest new source of oil." In the Jurist ("The Deadly Pipeline War," Dec. 8, 2001), Marjorie Cohn noted that some analysts have estimated the potential value of Caspian oil and natural gas reserves at four trillion dollars. Phil Gasper recalled in the Socialist Worker ("The Politics of Oil," Jan. 25, 2002) that the Middle East Economic Digest editors have described Central Asia as "the Middle East of the twenty-first century."

Even if this latter projection proves overly optimistic, Martha Hamilton concluded in a Washington Post article ("The Last Great Race For Oil Reserves," April 26, 1998) that the "largely untapped subterranean treasure" in the Caspian Basin may be "the third-largest reserve in the world, after the Persian Gulf and Siberia."

This planned pipeline would carry $3-5 trillion in oil and natural gas from the Caspian Sea basin via Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, where ships docked in Arabian Sea ports.

As Hamilton wrote, "The possibility of bringing those huge energy reserves to market has touched off a scramble by international oil and gas companies to get in on what may be one of the world's last great energy plays." As Cohn pointed out in "The Deadly Pipeline War," Dick Cheney, then chief executive officer of the energy company Halliburton, told a meeting of oil industry leaders in 1998: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian."

U.S. government officials and energy company executives have been anxious to exploit what Daniel Yergin, renowned energy expert and author of The Prize (1993), has called "the number-one prize in world oil." However, the transportation of oil and natural gas extracted from the region has posed a serious challenge for them. The Caspian Pipeline Consortium, led by the Chevron Corporation, opened a new oil pipeline from Kazakhstan to Russia in October, 2001. But, as George Monbiot reported in the Guardian ("America's pipe dream," Oct. 23, 2001), policymakers in Washington have generally opposed the construction of pipelines through Russia or Iran. This is why U.S. energy companies and government officials have been so interested in Afghanistan. As Ahmed Rashid explained in his book, Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia (2001), U.S. policy toward Afghanistan during the past decade has been largely driven by corporate interests in the region's resources. Rashid noted that in 1995, the California-based UNOCAL Corporation began negotiating with the government of Turkmenistan to build oil and gas pipelines from that country through Afghanistan to Pakistani ports on the Arabian Sea. Soon after the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan in 1996, UNOCAL executives initiated discussions with them in order to secure the pipeline agreement.

According to Rashid, the Taliban's religious fundamentalism and harsh repression precluded normal diplomatic relations at the time but did not pose an insurmountable obstacle to a potential business deal. Strikingly, neither did the relocation of Osama bin Laden and numerous al-Qa'ida fighters to Afghanistan in 1996 and 1997. As Rashid recounted, UNOCAL Vice President Marty Miller and other company executives even wined and dined Taliban representatives in Houston in November 1997. Mullah Mohammed Ghaus and his Afghan colleagues stayed at an expensive hotel and visited the Houston Zoo and the NASA Space Center during their visit. Miller offered the Taliban representatives a lucrative contract and thought a formal agreement was imminent.

The Clinton Administration quietly supported UNOCAL's efforts, but these negotiations eventually failed. Taliban leaders finally decided against the pipeline deal, and Washington's willingness to do business with them ended after the al-Qa'ida bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. President Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on al-Qa'ida training camps in Afghanistan and even authorized efforts to assassinate bin Laden. At the same time, the U.S. tried to persuade Taliban officials to surrender bin Laden. As Monbiot has noted, notwithstanding these developments, U.S. business executives and government officials remained deeply interested in the potential of oil and gas pipelines through Afghanistan.

In May 2001, the mainstream media widely reported that the new U.S. Bush Administration had awarded the Taliban regime forty-two million dollars to support the eradication of opium production in Afghanistan. Less well known is the fact that, shortly after taking office, the Bush Administration had quietly resumed negotiations with the Taliban. In an important new book, Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth (2001), French authors Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie have revealed that the Bush Administration worked long and hard to "decouple" bin Laden from the Taliban and lay the foundations for U.S. diplomatic recognition and pipelines for oil and natural gas.

Brisard and Dasquie have drawn on numerous sources, including discussions with John O'Neill, the former FBI Deputy Director who retired in July 2001. Ironically, O'Neill then became security director for the World Trade Center, where he died in the September 11 attacks. According to the authors, O'Neill resigned from the FBI because the State Department had continually blocked his investigation into al-Qa'ida's roots in Saudi Arabia. The authors report that O'Neill bitterly complained about the ability of the U.S. oil companies and their State Department allies to thwart an investigation that might offend the Saudi royal family and jeopardize U.S. economic interests in that country.

Brisard and Dasquie's account of the negotiations between the Bush Administration and the Taliban between February and August 2001, provides a helpful framework for understanding the eventual U.S. decision to topple the Afghan regime after the tragedy of September 11. The authors have explained that Washington saw the Taliban as a potential partner who could provide stability in Afghanistan and benefit from the construction of pipelines by U.S. corporations. But, in a series of meetings in Washington, Islamabad, and Berlin, U.S. officials demanded that the Taliban surrender bin Laden and invite other Afghan political forces to join their government.

When the Taliban equivocated over and eventually refused these demands, U.S. officials threatened to take military action against them. As Brisard revealed in an interview in Paris, at one point in the negotiations, these officials told the Taliban, "Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs." As Jonathan Steele and his colleagues reported in the Guardian ("Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY attack," Sept. 22, 2001), U.S. representatives told Russian, Iranian, and Pakistani diplomats at a mid-July meeting in Berlin that Washington was seriously contemplating this option. Although these U.S. officials have since denied making such a threat, former Pakistan Foreign Minister Niaz Naik, who was present at the meeting, confirmed their remarks in an interview with the Guardian reporters. Is it a coincidence that the deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history occurred just several weeks after negotiations with the Taliban broke down? Perhaps. But Brisard and Dasquie have speculated that the prospect of U.S. military action against Afghanistan may have led bin Laden to approve the massive assault on New York City and Washington. Similarly, Steele and his colleagues have raised the possibility that bin Laden "was launching a preemptive strike in response to what he saw as U.S. threats." Other analysts have suggested that bin Laden may have authorized such a "preemptive strike" because he feared that the Taliban might finally accede to Washington's demands and try to force him to leave Afghanistan.

Although such speculation cannot be confirmed, it seems clear that long-standing U.S. economic interests in pipeline construction played a major role in the U.S. government's decision in favor of a regime change and all-out war in Afghanistan. Notably, as Shaun Casey emphasized in the Boston Globe ("Ethics of This War Have Yet to be Spelled Out," Oct. 11, 2001) and Stephen Zunes pointed out in the San Jose Mercury News (" U.S. Military Response is Wrong -- And It Won't Work," Oct. 12, 2001), there has never been any evidence of the Taliban regime's involvement in the attacks on the U.S. As John Pilger remarked in the British Daily Mirror ("Hidden Agenda Behind War on Terror," Oct. 29, 2001), the Bush Administration knew well before the Pentagon's first bombs began falling on Afghanistan that the attacks of September 11 were planned in Britain and the United States, and that none of the actual perpetrators were Afghan nationals.

As Howard Zinn observed in The Progressive ("A Just Cause, Not a Just War," December 2001), the U.S. government rejected the alternative of turning to international law, diplomacy, and limited multinational military action in order to bring al-Qa'ida forces to justice. As Zinn has noted, the U.S. government also rejected the Taliban regime's offer to surrender bin Laden for trial in a third country after receiving evidence of his involvement in the September 11 atrocity. As Phil Gasper wrote in the International Socialist Review ("Afghanistan, the CIA, bin Laden, and the Taliban," November-December 2001), the Bush Administration's refusal to seriously consider these options revealed that the overthrow of the Taliban and the installation of a new, more business-friendly regime had already been designated as primary objectives of the impending war. In his book Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict (2002), Professor Michael Klare of Hampshire College has acknowledged that one purpose of "Operation Enduring Freedom" was to "capture and punish those responsible for the September 11 attacks." But Klare has explained that a second objective was "to consolidate U.S. power in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea area, and to ensure continued flow of oil." As Klare has emphasized, while this latter objective "may get far less public attention than the first, this does not mean it is any less important."

In a report released just days before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the U.S. Energy Information Administration described Afghanistan as a significant "potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea." However, the report noted that the potential construction of oil and natural gas pipelines has "been undermined by Afghanistan's instability." As Monbiot has written, "Given that the U.S. government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that such plans no longer figure in its strategic thinking." Indeed, the way in which the Bush Administration sought to "capture and punish" the al-Qa'ida forces in Afghanistan was significantly influenced by its commitment to promoting U.S. economic interests and power in the region.

Gore Vidal argues in his book entitled, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (2002), that the drive for profits and power are central to the Bush Administration's so-called "War on Terrorism." Vidal writes, "We need Afghanistan because it's the gateway to Central Asia, which is full of oil and natural gas... That's what it's all about. We are establishing our control over Central Asia."

Many Americans may not want to believe that such economic motives could play so important a role in U.S. foreign policy. But developments in the aftermath of the war in Afghanistan make it difficult to deny journalists Jim Hightower and Phillip Frazer's observation that "War is politics by other means, and politics is business, and oil is very big business."

As Hightower and Frazer concluded in their book The Hightower Lowdown (January, 2002), the tragedy of September 11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan "put the U.S. pipeline plans back on track." Hightower and Frazer cited a remarkable article in the Pakistani Frontier Post (Oct. 10, 2001). This article reported that, though the U.S. war against the Taliban had barely begun, U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlain had already informed the Pakistan government that, "in view of recent geopolitical developments," the negotiations for a pipeline through Afghanistan would be revived.

After the Taliban regime collapsed, the Bush Administration hand-picked Hamid Karzai to head the new Afghan government and named Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan-American, as its new special envoy to the Karzai government. As Richard Neville pointed out in the Australian Sydney Morning Herald ("Beyond Good and Evil," April 15, 2002), both Karzai and Khalilzad are former consultants to UNOCAL. Eric Margolis has disclosed in the Toronto Sun ("America's New War: A Progress Report," Dec. 9, 2001) that Karzai is also a former "asset" for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. As Salim Muwakkil wrote in the Chicago Tribune ("Pipeline Politics Taint U.S. War," March 18, 2002), the "rise to power" of these two former UNOCAL employees will "make things even smoother" for the resumption of the pipeline project in Afghanistan. As Daniel Fisher reported in Forbes Magazine (Feb. 4, 2002), "It has been called the pipeline from hell, to hell, through hell" but "now, with the collapse of the Taliban, oil executives are suddenly talking again about building it." To be sure, the giant U.S. energy corporations are unlikely to make major investments in the project until the new Afghan regime proves able to suppress the outbreaks of violence among the various warlords' forces and any military challenge from resurgent Taliban fighters. This is certainly one reason why U.S. and British troops in Afghanistan are struggling to piece together a viable Afghan national army that can defend the new regime.

In the meantime, Karzai has already made clear that his government fully intends to work closely with neighboring countries and U.S. oil companies to reap the immense profits from the transport of Caspian Basin oil and natural gas. On Feb. 8, 2002, Karzai visited Pakistan and joined with General Pervez Musharraf in pledging "mutual brotherly relations" and cooperation "in all spheres of activity." As the Irish Times reported on Feb. 11, 2002, Karzai announced that he and Musharraf had discussed the proposed Central Asian pipeline project "and agreed that it was in the interest of both countries."

The mounting U.S. military presence in Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries may enable Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, UNOCAL, and other giant corporations to lay claim to "the number-one prize in world oil." But the extension of U.S. military power and economic domination into this region comes with very grave risks. As hundreds of millions of people in Central Asia and the Middle East watch their oil and natural gas being extracted and transported for the profit of Western companies, the prospects for a massive, violent backlash against the U.S. and its client regimes are likely to grow. As horrific as the September 11 attacks were, they may only be the beginning.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

About the Author:

David Michael Smith is a professor of government at the College of the Mainland in Texas City, Texas , in the United States.

Afghan civilian killed by Canadian troops

Afghan accidentally killed by Canadian troops

Updated Wed. Dec. 13 2006 7:52 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Canadian troops in Kandahar city accidentally killed an Afghan civilian who refused to stop when approaching a security cordon, NATO said Tuesday.

NATO said the motorcyclist was travelling at high speed when he approached a security cordon near where Afghan President Hamid Karzai was meeting with senior Canadian officials, including Canadian ambassador David Sproule.

Despite verbal warnings, the motorcyclists refused to stop.

Troops fired a warning shot into the ground, which ricocheted and hit the man.

Afghan National Police officers were on the scene to immediately transport the casualty to the local hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.

A statement from NATO's International Security Assistance Force says the loss of life was regrettable and it was unclear why the motorcyclist refused to heed the warning.

"It is not known why the motorcyclist failed to stop when clear signals were given, and a full and thorough investigation has commenced," says the statement from the ISAF.

NATO spokesman Mark Laity told The Associated Press on Wednesday that troops take extra measures to minimize the risk to civilians.

"When something does happen -- and it does I'm afraid -- we are not only upset, we do not only apologize, we investigate to see what steps we can take to minimize the risk in the future,'' he said.

The death came as Karzai met Western diplomats to discuss how to prevent civilian casualties in military operations.

Afghan anger has been fuelled by a series of civilian deaths during NATO fighting with the Taliban and in the aftermath of suicide bombings.

"We are rightly angered by it and worried by it,'' Karzai said Tuesday.

"NATO is also worried by it, and is working with us to reduce such casualties.''

NATO on Tuesday said four militants and a teenage girl were killed during an early morning raid by Afghan and U.S.-led coalition forces in the eastern province of Khost.

But a police official on Wednesday disputed that account, saying only civilians in the home were targeted. The official asked not to be identified for fear of retribution.

Forty-four Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed since the Afghan mission began in 2002, the majority of those casualties this year.

RCMP commissioner Zaccardelli resigns amid criticism over Arar

RCMP commissioner Zaccardelli resigns amid criticism over Arar file

Canadian Press

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Embattled RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli has resigned. (CPimages/ Tom Hanson)

OTTAWA (CP) - Embattled RCMP Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli has resigned amid criticism over conflicting statements about the Maher Arar case.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the announcement Wednesday during question period in the House of Commons. "Today, Commissioner Zaccardelli submitted his resignation to me and I have accepted it," Harper said. "The commissioner has indicated to me that it would be in the best interests of the RCMP to have new leadership as this great organization faces challenges in the future.

"I'd like to thank the commissioner for his long and dedicated service to the RCMP and the country."

On Tuesday, Zaccardelli admitted he got his facts wrong when he testified at a Commons committee in September about when he first knew the RCMP had passed erroneous information to U.S. authorities.

An inquiry concluded that the information - which suggested Arar had ties to al-Qaida - likely led the U.S. to deport him to his native Syria where he was tortured.

Opposition critics have been demanding Zaccardelli's resignation. Harper said Tuesday that the government would examine the facts and respond "in a manner that is objective, professional and dispassionate."

"We do not fire people without due process. But we will proceed appropriately and ensure there is accountability for actions."

Zaccardelli was back before a Commons committee Tuesday to "set the record straight," as he put it, about what he knew and when he knew it in Arar's deportation to Syria as a suspected al-Qaida agent.

His performance left opposition MPs howling for his resignation, and even Conservative members expressed disbelief at the new version of events.

At issue is when the commissioner first learned that the RCMP had passed erroneous information to U.S. authorities wrongly describing Arar as an Islamic extremist with suspected terrorist ties.

Zaccardelli indicated in testimony on Sept. 28 that he knew of that mistake shortly after Arar was deported by the Americans to Damascus, where he was tortured into false confessions of terrorist activity.

But he was unable to offer an explanation of why he didn't go public to set things right, or brief the Liberal government of the day on the matter.

The commissioner now says he was wrong in his original explanation of what had transpired. He couldn't go public or tell his political masters, because he didn't know at the time about the mistaken terrorist label the force had hung on Arar.

© The Canadian Press 2006

UN: The only "In favour" Canadian vote was for Jerusalem

The link will take you to the full UN document.
See also

Bahija


ANNEX I


Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee


The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (document A/61/L.31) was adopted by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 7 against, with 62 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.


Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.


Absent: Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mongolia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.


ANNEX II


Vote on Palestinian Rights Division


The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights (document A/61/L.32) was adopted by a recorded vote of 101 in favour to 7 against, with 62 abstentions, as follows:


Against: Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.


Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.


Absent: Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Mongolia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Timor-Leste, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.


ANNEX III


Vote on Question of Palestine Information Programme


The draft resolution on special information of the United Nations Department of Public Information programme on the question of Palestine (document A/61/L.33) was adopted by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 7 against, with 9 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.


Abstain: Cameroon, Canada, Fiji, Malawi, Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Uganda, Vanuatu.


Absent: Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.


ANNEX IV


Vote on Question of Palestine


The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (document A/61/L.34) was adopted by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 7 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Australia, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.


Abstain: Cameroon, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Malawi, Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Uganda, Vanuatu.


Absent: Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.


ANNEX V


Vote on Jerusalem


The draft resolution on Jerusalem (document A/61/L.35) was adopted by a recorded vote of 157 in favour to 6 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:


In favour: ...... Canada, ........

Against: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, United States.


Abstain: Australia, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji, Malawi, Moldova, Papua New Guinea, Tonga, Uganda, Vanuatu.


Absent: Angola, Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.


ANNEX VI


Vote on Syrian Golan


The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (document A/61/L.36) was adopted by a recorded vote of 107 in favour to 6 against, with 60 abstentions, as follows:

Against: Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Palau, United States.


Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malawi, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.


Absent: Angola, Botswana, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Kiribati, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Tuvalu, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe.

Anti-war activist wins reins of Liberal party in Canada convention

BY BETH DUFF-BROWN, Associated Press
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:12/02/2006 08:25:44 PM PST

MONTREAL - A former environment minister who criticized the prime minister for "blindly" committing forces to Afghanistan for years won leadership of Canada's Liberal Party on Saturday.

Stephane Dion scored a surprise defeat of front-runner Michael Ignatieff, a scholar and human rights expert. Dion, environment minister under former Prime Minister Paul Martin and a strong supporter of the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions, came into the race in fourth place out of eight candidates.

"The most exciting race in the history of our party is over; let's get ready for the election," Dion, 51, told the party convention moments after winning more than half the votes of the 5,000 delegates.

Dion has attacked Prime Minister Stephen Harper for "blindly" committing Canadian Forces to Afghanistan until 2009. Some 2,300 Canadian troops are helping other NATO forces fight the Taliban in the south.

"Canada has a prime minister who thinks that the United States is not only our ally, but also our model," Dion said in his speech Friday night.

Ignatieff's opponents cited his early support of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, a highly unpopular war among Canadians. He initially argued the war was in the best interests of international security, but has since said President George W. Bush has made mistakes.

Ignatieff also supported Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Harper's Conservatives beat the Liberals in elections in January, unseating them after nearly 13 years in power. The stunning defeat left the party flailing, and delegates are now looking to the person who can rebuild the party and take back the House of Commons in the next elections, expected in 2007.

Ignatieff, 59, had only returned to Canada last year, leaving his position as director of Harvard's Carr Center of Human Rights Policy to win his first seat in Parliament and stake his claim to the leadership position.

He called on all Liberals in the convention hall to unanimously support Dion.

"This is a day in which every Liberal in this room can feel deeply proud of the party we love," he said. "We have chosen a great leader. We have chosen a principled man, a man with vision, a man with courage."

Canada dodges a bullet

Dion is the new Liberal Party leader and likely next PM. If Ignatieff had won, Canada would be faced with only 2 neocon choices for the country's leadership.

---

Sunday, December 03, 2006

Stéphane Dion

The Liberal Party of Canada held its leadership convention and elected Stéphane Dion as its new leader (and presumably, the next Prime Minister of Canada; the last Liberal leader who didn’t immediately become Prime Minister or didn’t become Prime Minister as a result of a subsequent election was in the 1880’s!). This wasn’t a huge surprise as there were indications that Dion would slip in between the two front runners, the evil Michael Ignatieff (Harvard professor and supporter of torture, the Iraq war, and George Bush), and the hopeless bungler Bob Rae (former failure as socialist premier of Ontario who left the socialists in favor of the Liberals because the socialists took too sane – i.e., pro-Palestinian – a position on the Middle East). It has been fairly clear that Ignatieff was sent by the Americans to break up Canada, something that was confirmed when Ignatieff, out of the blue, introduced Quebec nationalism into the campaign (immediately picked up by the Conservatives, who have much the same agenda). Dion, on the other hand, is the principle intellectual opponent of Quebec separatism in Canadian politics, having demolished the separatist position by turning their own arguments against them (if Quebec can separate from Canada, why can’t federalist parts of Quebec separate from Quebec?).

The best candidate would have been Gerard Kennedy, who will make a fine Prime Minister one day, but was never given a chance by the mainstream media (the media barons are terrified of the guy, as he expressly fights the influence of stupid American ideas in Canadian politics; btw, why do all the stupidest ideas in the world come out of the United States?). He and Dion concocted an Axis of Anti-Evil, in which the one more likely to win would get the support of the other. The problem with the two front runners was that they had no second or subsequent ballot support; anyone who didn’t really like them, really hated them. Kennedy’s supporters were very loyal, and almost all went over to Dion.

While Dion wouldn’t be my first choice (he was a so-so environment minister, though his dog is named Kyoto!), he’s a good man (not to mention extremely smart and the kind of policy wonk that it is good to see in politics), and you don’t have to hold your nose to vote for him just to remove the Conservatives. The Toronto Liberal establishment really wanted either Ignatieff or Rae, and the party was bailed out by the grass-roots Liberals from across the country (the recent massive Toronto establishment mistakes were their support for losers John Turner and Paul Martin). Dion represents a return to the Trudeau-Chrétien line of moderate-left positions, with a clear emphasis on the environment, just what Canadians appear to want.

The mainstream press has been consistent in counting out the Liberals, despite the fact that the Liberals are now leading in the polls, and despite the facts that:

1. the party has not had a leader for months; and
2. it has not put up any real opposition to Conservative policies.

With every dead Canadian soldier in Afghanistan the Conservatives are losing about a quarter percentage point in relative support to the Liberals, meaning we are drawing ever closer to another Liberal government. Dion ran on a campaign supporting just social policy and environmental sanity, the two biggest problems, besides Afghanistan, for the Conservatives. To appease the knuckle-draggers, the Conservatives are also going to reopen the same-sex marriage debate, another losing issue for them (former mayor of London, Ontario, and famous homophobe and Christian fruitcake, Dianne Haskett, just returned from working for Elizabeth Dole in Washington to lose in a London area by-election to both the winning Liberal candidate, and, in a new development, to the revitalized – i. e., de-conservatived - Green Party candidate; apparently even the people in the most conservative area of Ontario don’t want to be regarded as hillbillies!). Just in the past couple weeks, Conservative leader Harper has managed to piss off all European leaders, the leaders of China, and the Canadian business establishment.
His obeisance to the Americans is also becoming noticeable (this cartoon might as well have been about Canadian politics, with Bush being the standing figure). All Dion has to do is keep his foot out of his mouth, and the natural order of Canadian politics will be restored.

posted at 6:02 AM permanent link Comments (3) | Trackback