Martinizing

So, Paul Martin does the right thing and steps down as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, thus opening the door for a newcomer, or at least, slightly new. Martin is closing the door on what I would consider to be, the end of an era dating back to Lester Pearson. In fact, you can draw a political line from Pearson to Pierre Trudeau to John Turner to Jean Chretien to Paul Martin spanning the modern age from 1958 to 2006. In this sense, the Liberal Party has come full circle. The question today is: What's next?
 
The party needs new thinking, new branding and a young [under 60] leader. It needs a vision that includes Quebec and offers voters real change from the rich-only elitism of the past. Unfortunately, I'm not expecting any miracles. It depends on what the party members want and whether the old guard wants to give up it's hold on the Red Machine.
 
Who's going to run? Look for Frank McKenna, the dashing former ambassador to the United States. The lively Brian Tobin from Newfoundland and some former Chretien cabinet ministers such as Allan Rock and John Manley, even though he has said no, as possibilities. [More about McKenna in a future column]
 
But wouldn't it be nice to see someone completely new? Such as Michael Ignatieff or Carolyn Bennett? And what will the fairest of the land, Belinda Stronach choose to do? If she runs, she may not win but will set the table for a future victory down the road.
 
The Liberal Party of Canada’s origins, going back to 1867, centered on reform. It was a party that wanted to do away with elitist politics and put more power into the hands of workers and farmers. They were opposed to imperialism and patronage. They were also in favour of free trade under Laurier, who also consolidated the Quebec vote. By the time Pearson came along, Liberals were the most progressive, national choice on the ballot.

Under a Liberal government Canada has evolved in its thinking about all sorts of social and economic issues, often for the better. Now it’s time for anyone who calls themselves “Liberal” to do the same.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Kick The Bums Out!

Canada is one of the most difficult countries to govern, anywhere. We have regional, cultural and economic differences that have provided us with a rich history and a lot of long sleepless nights for our leaders. Tomorrow is election day and as the campaign finally draws to close, the government is going to be replaced. Change is in the air and it will translate into votes for the Conservative Party who are bound to win.

After all, we're Canadians: we kick governments out every ten years or so. We clean our elected house as often as we clean the attic when we tire of old clothes and choose to dispense with the clutter of our past.
 
This election reminds me of the 1993 vote. After 8 long years under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, Canadians decided they had enough and "kicked the bums out". The result was a huge majority for the Liberal Party under Jean Chretien and only 2 seats for the Conservatives. Now, 13 years later, we're going to do it again, but probably with a little less severity. Martin isn’t as “hated” as Mulroney was in 1993. Kim Campbell was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time: part of a stale political franchise in need of a makeover.

When it comes to the political Left, Jack Layton and the NDP are afraid of winning. Layton's careful answers are well thought out, progressive and an important compromise that blends the center-left coalition of ideas but he fears success. I’ve never heard him say that he wants to be Prime Minister.
 
Stephen Harper can't wait to move into 24 Sussex Drive, home of the Prime Minister since 1948. He plays it cool, but he wants it badly and he doesn't appear to be afraid of winning. Although his politics are right-wing, he’s been playing the part of a levelheaded “thinker” during the campaign. While the rational approach makes for boring television, it plays well with the voters who, only 18 months ago, thought he was George W. Bush in red and white boots.
 
Paul Martin is afraid of losing. It's written all over his face because he's been in a panic mode since the first Gomery Report was released regarding the "sponsorship scandal". Like Campbell in ‘93, who was paying for the arrogance of the Mulroney years, Martin is going to pay for the past mistakes of his predecessor, Jean Chretien, even though there's little to prove his government did anything legally wrong.

Plus ça change... (plus c'est la même chose)

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Just You; Just Me; Justice

Last week the military trial of a Canadian “war criminal” began in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The defendant’s name is Omar Ahmad Khadr and he’s 19 years old. He was captured by the American Army in Afghanistan four years ago. He is charged with the death of an American Medic during a battle in Kabul, among other crimes. Muneer Ahmad is his civilian attorney.

Military law is different from conventional civilian law because it operates under different rules. Khadr has been assigned 4 military attorneys, whose principal has never tried a case like this before. They can consult with Khadr’s civilian lawyer but he may not be granted any status during the tribunal. The prosecution, which has already determined that Khadr is a “terrorist” in public statements, will have 7 military attorneys.

Military law serves a different purpose. It operates outside the scope of conventional law and the judges, also from the military, act as jurors. The tribunal is used as a means to establishing rules of law under war. But the United States is not formally at war: that has to be granted by Congress. Khadr’s trial before a U.S. military tribunal offers a different criteria to determine guilt and appropriate sentencing. Evidence can range from factual proof to hearsay; classified evidence to enforced confessions. Speed is the order of the day, not due process. The defense has time restrictions imposed on it by the judge which inhibits the gathering of evidence in support of the accused.

The appeal process is also a challenge. The accused would have to petition a panel of review to reexamine the decisions made during the tribunal with the final decision being made by the Commander-in-Chief, AKA The President of the United States. Even if Khadr is found innocent of the charges he may not go free. Donald Rumsfeld has said that suspects like those in Guantanamo Bay, could not count on being released after a tribunal.

Now considering all of the rhetoric about the supposed “war on terror” from the Bush gang to the comments from Col. Moe Davis, the chief prosecutor in this tribunal, it is doubtful that “justice” will serve Khadr.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Whole Earth Catalogue

In 1968, astronaut William Anders took a photograph of the earth from the Apollo 8 spacecraft. It was the first picture of our planet as it rose over the horizon of the moon. The picture was worth a thousand words; it showed how fragile our planet was against a stark, black background. It’s been called the most influential photograph ever taken.

Last week Canadian Astronaut Marc Garneau, a Liberal Party candidate in the Federal election, invited Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, to a trip into space to appreciate the earth’s unique place in the universe. Said Garneau,
“I’d really love to go for a fourth trip into space with ...Mr. Duceppe...I am convinced that after such a trip Quebec Sovereignty will no longer be an issue. Space travel affects us that much.”

In Toronto, where local groups are rallying for gun control and increased social services in the Black community to fend off future violence, Taj Nelson, a reformed youth worker said “we all need to be in this together. “ He talked about the importance for the public to understand that young people are very interested in getting out of crime and criminal activities. “These kids are intelligent and have talent, but have too much time to themselves and need choices.”

Garneau and Nelson were sending the same message: we’re all in this together. The fact that Duceppe laughed off the remark by Garneau and Toronto’s politicians barely registered beyond the law and order response to gun violence, proves to me, that our political leaders are out of touch with the people. The current Federal election campaign, which is as flat as a Zamfir recording, has no edges to offend or lead or challenge us. It’s polite, superficial and passionless. Tomorrow’s televised pseudo-debate will prove my point.

What happened to the big picture? Where’s the vision for a country that should strive for more equality between the rich and the poor?

Maybe we all could use a trip into space.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Further reading: http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/earthrise.htm

Viva Bolivia

Evo Morales will be a popular name in 2006. The first indigenous leader of Bolivia, he won last month’s election with 54% of the vote. His message was simple: give Bolivia back to the Bolivians. His inauguration is scheduled for January 22nd and I hope he makes it. He talks about decriminalizing the cultivation of the coca leaf, nationalizing Natural gas production and revising the laws on private property. He also wants to write a new constitution.

Sound familiar? It should because Juan Peron said similar things in 1973 when he won a popular vote in Chile. Alas, he was assassinated by Black Ops, probably linked to the CIA. Peron spoke of nationalizing the banks, natural resources and taking ownership of property, mostly in the hands of American conglomerates such as Texaco.

The political story of Morales is a classic. He grew up in poverty, worked his way into the coca growers leadership and helped form a cooperative movement of farmers, labour unions, indigenous communities and the poor. He had the economic record to back him up: a 2003 study by the IMF said the Bolivia had 63% of its population living in poverty. He’s a socialist to the core and that can be very bothersome to American corporate interests in the region, including those British, French and Spanish gas companies doing business there.

Morales is also being shrewd when he allies himself with Chile and Venezuela, not to mention the always important visit with Fidel Castro, after all he needs the money. But he’ll have to tread carefully. By stating that he’s “Washington’s worst nightmare” says more to Americans than it does to Bolivians. That said, he does have the support of the people and a very stable government behind him, so the near future looks bright.

But stay tuned to the rhetoric from the United States. Even the Washington Post doesn’t think Morales will last very long. This is typical of attitudes in America: pleased that he won but a socialist is still bad news for the rest of the world. How ironic it is to read about a democratically elected leader chastised by the very country that considers it the highest democracy in the land.

That’s just my opinion. I could be wrong.