Sorry About That

It's been the week of apologies from various Canadian governments as present day politicians try to make amends for the misdeeds of their political ancestors.
 
In Ottawa, Prime Minister Harper apologized for the dreaded "head tax" that was put on Chinese immigrants between 1885 and 1923. The verbal apology included financial compensation that many from the Chinese community have called an important "first step" in the process. Politically speaking, it was long overdue and it took years to draw attention to the injustice. To this end, it was an important victory for the grassroots of a community that "literally" built this country. In a rather staged yet ironic gesture, the government hired a train to transport 100 Chinese people to hear the speech from Harper in person. Last year, Paul Martin apologized by delivering financial compensation but he didn't say the words. Perhaps Mr. Martin's view of Canadian history is as blinkered as his vision for the future.

In 1988, Brian Mulroney, as Prime Minister, formally apologized to Japanese Canadians interned during the second World War. That, too, was a difficult pill to swallow for a government unable to understand the misdeeds of its political ancestors.
 
Meanwhile in Toronto, a soil-turning ceremony for the victims of the Air India tragedy marked a different kind of apology. Perhaps it was politically expedient or an actual act of compassion on behalf of the Feds, but I'm not so sure. The legal case against two of the plotters took years to get to court and then the verdict was not-guilty. To the family members of the 329 killed it was hard to accept and they immediately called for an inquiry. It started June 21st. The government made the right choice; a hearing may help bring some closure to the families.
 
Political actions such as government inquiries, do speak louder than words. But why does "sorry" seem to be the hardest one to say?
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

Yellow Card

Nothing better than a Soccer tournament to bring the world together as the 2006 World Cup from Germany works its magic on the people. On the one hand a vision of unity, equality and simple definitions of "us vs them". On the other, Nationalism at its most potent and jingoistic; the colours of the flag proudly displayed on the faces of every supporter.
 
The so-called beautiful game reminds us in the West that there are a lot of different nations in the world all trying to succeed at a sport where anyone can win. [Mind you the Brazilian team looks awfully good.] It's a game with a huge field-of-dreams and the possibility for upsets as independent nations beat their historic invaders.
 
In a sense, then, the World Cup tournament is the great equalizer. It breaks politics down to a simple premise: if we beat you at soccer, it's a victory from which you'll never be able to recover. Payback for the misdeeds of history.
 
If only it were that simple.
 
This week the Pentagon issued a notice indicating that 2,500 men and women of the American military have died in Iraq since 2003. The financial cost now topping $320 Billion US. The Pentagon also stated that at least 30,000 Iraqi people have been killed with about 4,800 Iraqi security forces listed as dead. [I've got a feeling it's much higher]
 
In soccer, "injury time" is added to the match to cover substitutions and injured players who have left the game. According to the rules, the amount of [injury or added] time is at the sole discretion of the referee, and the referee alone signals when the match has been completed. When it comes to the war in Iraq perhaps we need to change the referee or get him a new watch.
 
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

CSIS and Desist

The images said it all: members of Canada’s police and security services all in uniform standing in front of several Canadian flags presenting their story on the bust of 17 Canadians on a very wet June 2nd in Toronto.

The image was staged to say the least. It was presented to media in the form of collective strength; police and CSIS working together to combat terrorism in Canada. But if you heard the statements and press conference on radio instead of television, you really didn’t learn much at all. In fact, it was what officials didn’t say, that was of note. [nothing about targets or charges; plenty about fertilizer bombs] As I was listening, I was waiting for the two words that put all of this into a prism for most people. About ten minutes into his statement, Luc Portelance said the group was “inspired by al-Qaeda”. It was the punch line we were waiting to hear.

In a show of real muscle, over 400 officers were involved in the arrest. Sharpshooters were seen covering the courthouse in Brampton as the accused were arraigned. Practically every image I saw in a newspaper included an armed police officer in a bulletproof vest.

Later in the day, the FBI weighed in with its contribution stating that two men from Georgia had paid a visit to Toronto to discuss “training and tactics” with three of the accused. A good bust with a little international flavour thrown in for good measure. By Tuesday the story was all over the American networks reduced to its lowest common denominator as “homegrown terrorism”.

The Prime Minister weighed in as well, “We are a target because of who we are and how we live, our society, our diversity and our values; values such as freedom, democracy and the rule of law. The values that make Canada great, values that Canadians cherish." [Sounds like someone has the same speech writer as George W. Bush.]

But Mr. Harper’s assessment isn’t correct. Most young extremists are wannabes; losers in their own community who want to prove themselves. They don’t really value anything except being a member of a club, any club. While some of our youth try sports or community service, these people go for the gusto of suicide bombing and the expression of repressed anger based on a misappropriation of their own low self-esteem.

But when I see the theatrical presentation of our “security” forces I can’t help but be skeptical. It was too neat a presentation; well scripted and dramatic.

I look forward to Act II.

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

Terms Of Endearment

Prime Minister Harper's announcement of fixed election dates and fixed Senate terms offered Canadians the usual mix of political compromise and irony. Ironic because Harper himself didn't think it worthy of a minority government to hold the House of Commons hostage with a threat of an election. Yet he made sure the debate on Afghanistan was reduced to 6 hours for the same reason, thereby scaring the heck out of the opposition who weren't interested in going to the polls so soon.

Clearly the Harper government is into cosmetic change rather than fundamental change in Canada's political system. Fundamental change would be proportional representation, but nobody in Ottawa wants to stick his or her neck out on that one. [except Jack Layton]. Proportional representation is far more indicative of a healthy democracy than fixed election dates, which only tie up our calendar. Besides, the marathon of politics, aka the Liberal Leadership race comes to a merciful end in December. It just wouldn't be fair to them. Besides I like the current system because it's always full of surprises. Can you imagine the time spent by the Federal parties raising money in between elections? Too many questionable partnerships if you ask me. [Maybe that's the real intention; election reform notwithstanding]

Meanwhile at the Senate, loyal Conservative party members are wondering whether a long-term commitment is in their future. I’m afraid that they’ll be disappointed. The Senate is Canada's answer to the country club where the rich retire to a life of privilege disguised as public service. [Where do I sign up?]

I like the notion of an 8 year term, but what about the process of appointment? That's where the change is required. It's the definition of patronage rampant in our political system, and a few other sectors in this country. Again, another cosmetic change for those who put value in such decisions. An elected Senate is the way to go, if you don't choose proportional representation and maintain the status quo as it is now for the House.

Eight year terms are good, but can you imagine an elected Senate with fixed terms? Perhaps that would be the best compromise of all and a Canadian one, too.

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