We must stand up for Hossein!

Hossein Derakhshan has been arrested over three months ago already in Iran, as I just found out. This piece of information was confirmed by a Toronto's Globe and Mail article on November 12. Hossein's blog was at the top of my Blogroll list until his website was taken down by his server due to a libel suit filed against him by Mehdi Khalaji. A few days ago, while doing my regular home page cleanup, it occurred to me to look around and see whether he did start a new blog in the meantime. To my dismay I discovered what happened.

Frankly, I am very concerned, as all of us should be. Surely he was often like a little dagfly, buzzing annoyingly around Iranian politics, more so in the beginning of his blogging career. As of late he toned down a lot, not unlikely because of intimidation, to the point that he even started to seemingly support Ahmadinejad's policies and Iran's military aspirations. It looks like that was not sufficient.

I do not understand it: why did he enter Iran in the first place? He was aware, as he expressed it many times, that he cannot even visit Iran because of his historical trip to Israel in 2006. Yet he did so. Why...?

A lot of his fellow Iranian bloggers right now are angry with him for his about face that he exhibited in the last couple of years. Yet now he stands accused of being a spy for Israel. Is he...? Is that at all possible? You can read a translated "confession" in Brian Whittaker's article in The Guardian, as it apparently appeared on the Tehran news website, Fahan News, on November 18, 2008. Brian is wondering whether this is a signal to Iranian bloggers to "cool it".

My concern is not worth too much, I am just a female senior citizen in Canada and my blog is not visited much. I wish I could be of help, though, because I always admired his spunk, even when he expressed opinions not exactly in line with mine. Therefor, if you happen to chance this way, I urge you to go to the "Free Hossein Derakhshan" site on Facebook. I don't know how successful they are in their endeavour, I will try to follow them from now on and contribute my efforts if and when possible.

Mubarak: Hamas invited Israeli offensive

Finally we can see Arab countries standing up and saying as it is, instead of continuing the knee-jerk anti-Israeli propaganda slogans inherited from the Nasser era. If you are too young to remember that, Gamal Abdel Nasser was someone who embraced the old ideology, that of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, who had aspirations for re-establishing a pan-Arab united empire, encouraging the emergence of "Nasserist" political parties in other countries dedicated to Arab unity. The easiest way to work towards a desirable sense of unity was to rally the Arab world against "a common enemy". What could have been better for that than the newly formed Israel?

As a result the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was born on Egyptian soil in 1964, and in spite of the fact that the PLO eventually came around and was ready to accept the two state solution, the original anti-Israel and anti-Jewish attitudes and propaganda opened a Pandora's box of venom which, mixed with the remnants of Western anti-Semitism, created the present mixed, often violent attitudes against Israel.

Since long I have been trying to do my own little share in trying to dispel some of these deeply embedded memes. I made sure not to form opinions without seeing things for myself. I have been in Israel, I have been in the West Bank, though not in Gaza which was not a problem area at the time. And I find it hard to take when people say it with conviction that "Israel is an apartheid country", when they say with righteous indignation that Israel should do nothing in face of the barrage of rockets to the tune of 10 to 40 a day. What other country could stand it for as long as Israel did (does right now)?

The US economic blockade of Cuba is 46 years old. Yet, there are no rockets flying from there into the US. And if even a single one did, what do you think the reaction would be? The fact that the Gazan rockets do not cause large number of casualties is because Israel is full of bunkers to protect their civilians. With an advanced alarm system they can warn people who then scurry into the nearest shelter, even next to supermarkets and souks. How come there are no similar structures in Gaza when the PLO amassed such an enormous wealth over the decades?

But could you imagine yourself living like this, when you have to run for your life up to 40 times a day? Are you surprised that Israel keeps Gaza under blockade trying to prevent the influx of rockets? Yet, they keep coming, through secret tunnels, via the sea on fishing vessels, sometimes hidden in UN relief shipments. The fact of the matter is that Hamas is a horribly anti-semitic organization, to the core. Its agenda is the eventual total destruction of Israel, openly so. And the neighbouring Arab countries start realizing that this is not good for them, either. Specially so because Hamas is backed by Iran (who have their own agenda of pan-something-or-another) and the Hezbollah (which is literally taking over Lebanon as we speak).

So the eventual change in the attitudes of the Arab countries towards Israel is albeit slow in coming but inevitable. I was happy to see signs of this change in the official recognition by Egypt that Hamas's reckless politics has something to do with Israels blockade and eventual attack. Here is the short article on the topic as it appeared in the Times of Malta:

Monday, 19th January 2009
Mubarak: Hamas invited Israeli offensive

Egypt's President accused Hamas today of inviting Israel's three-week offensive against Gaza by not extending their ceasefire when it expired last month.

"You all know that efforts Egypt had undertaken to extend the ceasefire and our warnings that a refusal by factions to extend it was an open invitation to Israeli aggression," Hosni Mubarak told a summit of Arab leaders in Kuwait.

He said Egypt would continue its efforts to achieve a reconciliation between Palestinians. "Without it (Palestinian unity) no stability will be realised for Gaza and no rebuilding and no end for its embargo," Mubarak said.

Hamas, the Islamist militant group which won 2006 parliamentary elections, has ruled Gaza since ousting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah faction in 2007. Fatah still holds sway in the occupied West Bank.

The Arab summit in Kuwait, initially meant to focus on the economy, has been overshadowed by Israel's offensive against Gaza, which killed more than 1,300 Palestinians and was suspended on Sunday.

"We will make every possible attempt (but) if the factions do not respond to our efforts, then we tell them God helps those who help themselves," Mubarak said.

Mubarak said that resisting occupation, while legitimate, should also take into account both gains and losses.

Why are we so indifferent about countries like Sudan?

I have pondered about this earlier, wondering why the world is so selective about what and whom we care about. Why is it that the UN, a body that is supposed to care about every country, every human being, focuses almost exclusively on Israel? Why are only the Gaza events "unacceptable"?

Do you remember hearing much about Sudan in the last several years now (15 years, to be exact)? Do you know that by now close to 3 million people got slowly "eliminated" there? Do you know that the children of the victims are often "spared" only to be sold into slavery? Yes, you are reading it right! Slavery is alive and well in the Muslim world. From Philippine maids in the rich Arab states whose passports are taken away and then the women made to work without pay, to actual slaves who have been bought and sold as children, and then most of them kept in slavery for the rest of their lives. And then there are the kidnapped children who are expected to be bought back by their families from the slave traders.

I urge you to listen to a former slave, Simon Deng, snatched away as a child and given as a "gift" to someone, then bought back by his family later. He is in America now and does what he can to raise awareness of the plight of the people of Southern Sudan.







In today's day and age it really is unacceptable for us to sit by idly, and accept and parrot whatever meager information the media provides us. They are human, too, they will not go to the really dangerous areas, they prefer the comfier missions, like reporting from Israel, where they can wait in air-conditioned hotels to report on the plight of the "innocent" Gazans.

There are people who try to do something, like the Baroness Caroline Cox, or our Canadian Reverend Cal Bombay who is still fighting the slave trade in Sudan (see bottom of his web page). But such individuals are scarce and their methods are questionable. I, for one, do not agree with the practice of "re-purchasing" of slaves because in my opinion this practice actually creates a supply and demand situation, further encouraging slave trade. But then we all do whatever we think of as a possible solution. One thing is sure: we have to find solutions!

Children of Gaza are given new lease on life in Israel

In spite of the present state of war between Israel and Gaza, the lifesaving work of the Save a Child's Heart foundation goes on. This is a project run in the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon, Israel, where children from around the world are operated on for major heart problems entirely free of charge. The little patients come mostly from underdeveloped countries where they would not have any chance for this kind of life saving treatment. There are children from Iraq, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and quite often from Gaza. The doctors there have a good working relationship with the Israeli doctors, and all it takes is a phone call to have their little patients admitted to the Wolfson Center. And this service is not, cannot be stopped by any military crisis, they get the necessary help no matter what.



The medical team is headed by Dr. Amran Cohen, and the the project is mostly funded by Iraqi born Israeli philanthropist, Sami Shamoon, although its needs for further donations is growing by the day as the number of children in need of help is growing. Hillary Clinton is also a supporter of the project which gets a lot of praise around the world, including Al Jazeera TV. Let us hope that the SACH project will prove to spread the message of its intended goodwill far and wide. To quote one of the doctors, "What I hope is that when a healthy child returns home, the effect of it will be greater than the work of 1000 diplomats."

Gaza or Darfur?

I am confused. For a long time now I have been agonizing over the crises in Sudan. The warfare claimed 2 million lives there in the last 15 years, 300 000 in Darfur in this last conflict alone. And what about the Zimbabwe humanitarian crisis? Did/do we hear much about either of them? Not much.

But here comes the Gaza crisis - do we hear about it? You bet! Around the clock CNN coverage, pro and con demonstrations, fiery pro and con reports and commentaries, "the works".

The only explanation I can come up with for this unbalanced media attention is that in Israel journalists camp out in air conditioned comfy hotels, literally just a few kilometres from the war zone, so it is very easy for them to be at interesting spots within minutes, to put together literally a flood of visually compelling, technically perfect reports. They could not possibly do the same in Sudan. After all, it is "too dangerous" there. Better just ignore it...

But what is the result of this unbalanced reporting? Unbalanced response from the public, of course! Do media people ever think of such things? I wonder. Most people do not consciously seek out all the necessary information that would allow them to have a good overall view of the World at any given time. Most people are satisfied to follow the headlines and adjust their "emotion du jour" accordingly.

Media people keep forgetting the essence of their work in all this rush for making a living by digging up the hottest morsels the easiest way possible. They not only influence the general public, their reports, together with the public opinion, have tremendous influence on politicians, also, and this way they impact and to a certain degree shape history. They are the ones who tell us what is important in the world at any given moment. Unfortunately the impression is that Africans are considered by far less important than Palestinians and/or Israelis.

Arabs for Israel(!?)

What a refreshing discovery! A website maintained by moderate Arabs and Muslims that promotes peace between the Arab World and Israel. Could we hope that this trend might flourish?

Update: Today I did a quick research and I was proud to discover that the founder is a fellow woman, Nonie Darwish. I also found out about Brigitte Gabriel, a journalist from Lebanon, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, born in Somalia, raised in Saudi Arabia, now Dutch MP, leader of a political party. These women all dare to raise their voices against the direction the Islamic world is taking. They actually risk their very lives in doing so, yet they feel strongly enough to do it.

It dois make me a bit uneasy at first that the above women are actually apostates, that is they are Christian converts, a fact which may be viewed as a contributor to a potentially biased approach to the issue. But then I remembered Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji, both Muslim women strongly critical of present day Islam. And then there are men, too, like Kamal Nawash of the Free Muslims Coalition, or Hussein Abdulwaheed Amin of the Muslims against Terrorism.

As I continue my search on the net, I will add to this list of my discoveries. I find the phenomenon very encouraging. Muslims of this type may still be a minority, but I very much hope that their number will one day grow to the point of being able to have an influence on the political scene.

Fuel-casts and Tory party politics

There is a greenhouse gas emission policy the Liberals are working on, as we have been hearing for a while now, nothing final, not even a touchable proposal on the table yet. Now out of the blue we are bombarded by this expensive ad campaign, not only on the radio but so called "fuelcasts" played on the little screens at gas stations. All funded by the Conservative Party of Canada, or should I say: us, the taxpayers...? The ads warn us about the Liberals', or as the the website claims, Stephan Dion's personal plans of "taxing Canadians to pay for his reckless spending promises." How about this reckless spending on silly ads? Couldn't the Tories at least wait until there is an actual presentation of that alleged tax proposal? I, and the average citizen, have no idea what exactly that proposal will look like until we see it. Then we can make our minds up whether we endorse it or not. We don't need pre-emptive Tory propaganda to guide us in a "desirable" direction. At least I myself don't like to be guided. Instead, I will remember this silly political maneuvering at the polls next time, and I will shun any gas station that endorses it by running the fuelcasts while pocketing MY tax money that they are paid for the service. (Even better: I will avoid all gas stations with fuelcasts...)

Freedom of expression in danger!

The United Nations was created with noble goals in mind, one of them being the safeguarding of freedom of expression worldwide. Freedom of expression is one of the most important human rights. During the mandate of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan the old Commission on Human Rights had been replaced by the Human Rights Council, a new body that was supposed to support and defend the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That was the theory anyway. Things did not develop that way. Ever since its inception the Human Rights Council has been acting in a most bizarre fashion. It is common knowledge that there are enormous human rights problems in many corners of the world. Sudan, Byelorussia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, just to name a few. The new council turned a blind eye to all of them, instead it repeatedly condemned Israel, and Israel alone.

This phenomenon, though, was just a warning sign of what was coming. There has been a great shift in the balance of power in the UN. For eleven years now the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) that represents the 57 Islamic States in the world, has been undermining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On 28 March 2008 they finally killed it.

On that fateful day the OIC, with the support of Russia, China and Cuba, forced through an amendment to a resolution on Freedom of Expression which in effect will place a muzzle on a lot of our rights that we have taken for granted until now.

The Human Rights Council has a Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, a position Canada supported, fighting hard for the renewal of its mandate. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur requires that information be gathered from governments, NGOs and others on the discrimination, violence or harassment of persons, including professionals, in the exercise of their right of freedom of opinion and expression.[*] At first glance the amendment to the resolution to renew the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression may even sound reasonable. It says that the Special Rapporteur is "to report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination …"
But let us just stop and think for a moment of its ramifications.

The amendment requires the Special Rapporteur to report on such "abuses" as someone writing critically about Sharia law, a law which requires gays to be hanged, women to be stoned to death if accused of adultery, or if someone speaks out against such practices as female circumcision, or young girls being married off at the age of 9-10. By doing so the Special Rapporteur will not be a defender of freedom of expression any more, it will become a policing entity.

The passing of this amendment on April 28 was a bitter blow for Canada. Even earlier it's position was that "If this amendment is adopted, Canada will withdraw its sponsorship from the main resolution." This stance was supported by other delegates, such as India, the European Union, the United Kingdom, who also spoke for Australia and the United States, Brazil, Bolivia, Guatemala and Switzerland. They all withdrew their sponsorship of the main resolution when the amendment was passed. Altogether more than 20 of the original 53 co-sponsors of the resolution withdrew their support.

The Sri Lankan delegate put it in word correctly when he explained his reasons for supporting the amendment. He said: ".. if we regulate certain things 'minimally' we may be able to prevent them from being enacted violently on the streets of our towns and cities." He was referring, of course, to the Danish cartoons incident. But let us think a bit about this. According to the Council we must limit one of our basic human rights in fear of violent reactions. So it is not the violence that needs to be regulated but the cartoonists. Does this mean that Theo van Gogh was actually responsible for his own death...?

If we do not have complete freedom of expression, we open the door for tyranny, we bind our hands in our fight against corruption, injustice and oppression. Nobody knows this more than those who live under the tyranny of Islamic law, in the very countries that pressed through this amendment. There is a brave little group from the Islamic States that issued a statement before the amendment was passed, urging the delegates to oppose it. In spite of all opposition, the amendment was voted in, amid chaotic proceedings, with 27 for and 15 against, and three abstentions.

The gossamer sham of an international consensus on the promotion and protection of human rights is now exposed for what it really was. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is now dead. Instead, there is a proposed Islamic Charter on Human Rights with plans to create a parallel Islamic Council on Human Rights. What is this if not a fragmentation of human rights?

Roy W Brown, the British-born Humanist and human rights activist, urges all delegates who are genuinely concerned with human rights to immediately withdraw from the Council until it proves itself to be accountable and honouring their pledges. Failing this -- they should consider creating an alternative organization...

New elections in Canada?

I like to regularly peruse The Hill Times, an online Canadian politics and government newsweekly. In yesterday's edition they draw our attention to the fact that both the Conservatives and the Liberals started to run training sessions for their party workers, seemingly in preparation for imminent new elections. What is more: "In preparation for the strong possibility of the next federal election to be called in the next two months, some of the electoral district associations have started to hold their nomination meetings.

Really? Are they up there on Parliament Hill out of their minds? In my personal opinion, and according to my personal observation, Canadians are not exactly enthusiastic about the prospect of having to face another election any time soon. We see both parties and their leadership as still relatively inexperienced (sorry, Mr Harper). Neither of them are convincing enough to make people strongly rally in their support. There are no distinct favourites at this point.

If an election was called, as the rumors make us believe, the result will be yet another minority government whichever side wins. The way things stand, it is anybody's guess which party that might be. The results most probably would be dictated by the whim du jour of the electorate. And don't you think that the people will be influenced much by the "printed material" that is apparently already in preparation right now. Our mail boxes are overpopulated by spam mail as is, both virtual and paper based. Today's electorate is more sensitive to factual news items from TV, radio, general media. We are able to follow, analyze and criticize, the daily actions of our politicians - or at least what is visible for the benefit of the general public.

So what would really be the point of calling an election now? I suppose both parties hope that they can sway public opinion in their favour. But, as I said above, even if enough voters could get fired up enough just to drag their behinds to the nearest polling station, the results will most probably be another government much the same as the present one.

And besides, why on earth would they want to try and make us pay attention to Canadian political battles when it is so much more interesting right now to watch the American elections unfold? I mean, really...!

Annapolis and the refugee question

We are witnessing another attempt at trying to find viable solution for the troubles in the Middle East. Whether it will be more successful than previous ones is yet to be seen.

Sifting through the blogosphere to see the general pulse of the reactions to today's events I found an interesting link on The Washington Note, a link to a letter that was addressed to President Bush and Secretary Rice, and is signed by an impressive list of heavyweight politicians, academicians, and other important personages. They present there a list od recommendations, like the creation of the two states, the redivision of Jerusalem, and so on. But one item in particular caught my attention:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

I was always puzzled by this issue in the past. How can it be possible that there are Palestinian refugees, even actual refugee camps, still in existence 60 years after the creation of Israel and the flight of the original refugees? The majority of those people are not even alive any more, we are talking about second and third generation "refugees" - and I won't even get here into the issue of having people there from other Middle Eastern countries who voluntarily joined these refugees, to live with them and support them in their goals, whatever those may be. This happens to be a unique phenomenon in the world, and it would be a worthwhile project to thoroughly analyze it and look for the reasons behind it.

I cannot help comparing these Palestinians refugee issues to all the others I have observed throughout my life. I also consider myself a (former) refugee. My grandparents and parents in Eastern Europe were stripped of their wealth by the Communist regime, my grandparents actually physically deported one night with only the clothes on their backs, and so we, the younger ones, fled at the first opportunity to North America where we resettled and built a new life for ourselves. Over the decades I saw similar fates unfold, from Korea, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Somalia. My mother for years volunteered to help these newcomers to Canada resettle, sharing with them her experiences and expertise in coping with the new life. I remember our former Prime Minister Jean Chretien publicly announcing on TV that Canada will open its gates to such and such number of Palestinian refugees. Why did so few of them answer that call? I always wondered...

I always wondered why Jordan failed to resettle those who initially took refuge within its borders in 1948, after all roughly 50% of the Jordanian population is considered to be "Palestinians" with close family ties to people west of the Jordan river. What is more, I still cannot fully understand the reasons behind the events of "Black September", and the expulsion of said refugees from Jordan. Or the inability of Lebanon to accept and absorb some of those refugees, instead having massive refugee camps to this day, way up in the north of the country, like the Nahr el-Bared camp where those intense fights occurred earlier this year between the refugees and the Lebanese army. And why is it that all over in the rich Arab world, instead of taking these Palestinian refugees in, absorb them and resettle them, they exploit them, using them as cheap labour, making them live in squalor amidst the sparkle and abundance, and then send them back into those artificially maintained "refugee camps" when they tire of them.

And finally, how can you call people "refugees", whose parents already were born where they are now? It would not even occur to me to consider my children or my grandchildren who were born here in Canada "refugees". What an odd situation where second and third generations of people still need to be considered for resettlement.

But let us return to this issue that was touched upon in the open letter:
* A solution to the refugee problem that is consistent with the two-state solution, addresses the Palestinian refugees' deep sense of injustice, as well as provides them with meaningful financial compensation and resettlement assistance."

Refugees in all corners of the world feel a "deep sense of injustice", including myself. Yet I made sure that I did not poison my children's soul with it. The world has seen much worse tragedies than my family's or of those Palestinians fleeing out of possible harm's way in 1948. What about the refugees of Rwanda or present day's Darfur, who not only lost everything but also witnessed their families being butchered? Rest assured, they were and will be taken care of, resettled, building a new life for themselves somewhere, while the Palestinian refugee camps will see a fourth generation being born and raised as "refugees". I wonder why...?

The above excerpt from the open letter asks for both financial compensation and resettlement assistance. It is not clear who does it mean to be targeted for this task. Should it be entirely the responsibility of Israel to step up to it? Then what about the Jewish refugees, and I don't mean the victims of the European Holocaust, but the close to a million refugees who fled from their ancestral lands all over the Islamic Middle East, often literally fleeing for their lives? To quote: "As a matter of law and equity, no just, comprehensive Middle East peace can be reached without recognition of and redress for the uprooting, under Islamic regimes, of centuries-old Jewish communities in the Middle East and North Africa." Israel, having already the experience in absorbing and resettling the survivors of the Holocaust, absorbed and resettled these refugees from Arab lands in a matter of fact way, without much fanfare. Yet, aren't they entitled to redress and compensation the same way as the Palestinian refugees are? Why is there no mention of them in the open letter?

There are, of course, answers for the above questions, just that they are hidden in the murky cesspools of politics and ideological warfare. One thing is sure, blame lies somewhere for those still flourishing Palestinian refugee camps, for the generations of refugees kept in poverty by their fabulously rich brethren, raised on a steady diet of hatred, used as cannon fodder, or more accurately live bombs, in a blind war against "The Jews". When things will settle and the victims of this decades old injustice will recuperate their senses enough so they can look around, no longer blinded by the propaganda that keeps shaking the red flag of "Zionism" in front of them, they will realize that it is not "the Jews" who are the true cause of their plight. I wonder what social upheavals will ensue when that happens. I wonder...

The final goal of the Al Qaeda Jihad, spelled out...

Wow!!! I just chanced on a video in which Al Qaeda leader Abu Yahya Al-Liby explains in crystal clear words the true reason for their Jihad.
---

Al Gore, the environment, and the presidency

Interesting controversy surrounds 2008 US presidential candidate, Al Gore. True, he was awarded this year's Nobel prize based on his work in raising awareness on global warming. But, boy, is that topic controversial! I am not talking about the opinions of average citizen facing average citizen. Top scientists are questioning the accuracy of the data in his presentations and the movie "An Inconvenient Truth", and criticize the choice of Gore for the prize. (Well, the Nobel prize committee can be criticized for a number of their previous blund..., ahem, choices.)

By now most everybody is aware of the fact that the film became subject of legal action in the UK. The courts then found that the film was indeed misleading, pockmarked by inaccuracies, some provable, others questionable, and decided that it carried a fair amount of political propaganda.

If you are one of those who is still itching to read what those inaccuracies they found in the film are, here they are. I lifted them off of the website of the UK New Party, you can visit their site and see the full original article there.

* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Now, to return to my own opining again, it does seem rather suspect that all this hoopla arose so conveniently just before Mr Gore's announcement of his entering the electoral race. After all, good publicity or bad, it doesn't really matter. Any publicity is GOOD for the long run (think of Paris Hilton...). I am just wondering whether publicity of this sort is befitting someone who vies for one of the most influential positions in the Western world. If people will turn a blind eye to the inaccuracies and praise (venerate) him for what he represents in the present day cult of "Human Made Environmental Disaster", then what differentiates the environmentalists from the religious?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to create the impression that I reject the idea of man's negative impact on the environment. I am totally for continuing the efforts to clean up our act and clean up the world. Up to now I did not have any intention to question (openly, that is) any claims the environmental movement presented regarding the urgency of the situation, even when observing their political gains and growing clout in some countries. After all, it doesn't hurt to become as clean as possible, as soon as possible. Stepping up the efforts to develop clean, cheap sources of energy, finding solutions to our garbage issues, etc., can only benefit all of us. And if the world will still keep on getting warmer after that, at least we know that it is not our fault. But I do not like to see the issue being hijacked for personal gain.

I am sure Al Gore is not the only one to have resorted to such practices, people are human after all. I am certain that there were other mis-uses anywhere where Green Parties made gains. But his position is too visible. Past US presidents and/or candidates were scrutinized and chastised for things like the smoking of an occasional joint in their distant reckless youth. Shouldn't people scrutinize the methods presidential candidates use to gain people's sympathy and support? And if irregularities are found, shouldn't they be responsible for them?

I cannot help making a small parallel between this case and a news item I read a couple of days ago about an applicant for Canadian citizenship, Parminder Singh Saini, who in his youth hijacked an airplane, was convicted, served 10 years in jail, eventually gaining full pardon for his past actions. Thirteen years ago he claimed refugee status in Canada and was accepted. He apparently is a "model citizen" now, a lawyer about to pass his bar exam, by all accounts a person who could do a lot of good work in and for Canada. The problem is that he came here under an assumed name, hiding his past. If anyone asked my modest little person to pass judgment over him, I would say that he must be held responsible for the means he used in order to gain entry into Canada. He has to be rejected now, and advised that he should go back to India and apply under his real name. Past can be forgiven, people can redeem themselves by proving their present worth. But the old Jesuit motto, "goals justify the means by which they are attained", does not, should not hold anymore.

Where do I see any connection between his case and the Gore case, you ask? Mr Gore IS a model citizen, he does not have a spotty past in need of redemption. But political candidates must be also scrutinized for the means they use to get where they want to be!

Throne Speech reverb...

I heard an interesting comment by political analyst Tom Flanagan on CTV's Mike Duffy Live: "This is an unprecedented situation. Usually in a minority government, the opposition is trying to bring the government down, but here it's reversed. I think for the first time in Canadian history, we have a government which wouldn't mind being defeated, but it can't seem to get the opposition to come out against it."

Proof: after Stephane Dion assured the House of Commons that his party has no intentions to bring down the government, Harper went on to say that he would treat an upcoming justice bill as a confidence vote, and would accept no amendments.

Although the Liberals still have a few more days to make a final decision, it is more likely than not that they will pussyfoot their way out of a full confrontation. After all, Harper offered enough goodies to the public by promising tax cuts, increased funding for cities, more help for seniors, etc. that it would make anyone look bad if they tried to object to any of it. There are lots who think that the tax cuts, or even a reduction of the GST, is not exactly the best idea, but these are pure ear candy for the average citizen. And who could object to the grandiose statements of "strengthening Canada's sovereignty in the world, providing economic leadership", not to speak of "tackling crime"?

It is definitely interesting to watch the reactions of different party leaders, and we are still not sure which way the winds will blow in the long run. The crucial vote will take place next Wednesday. So it is yet to be seen whether we will have an election or not...

Throne Speech 2007 or The Fate of Harper and Dion

During a long drawn out illness in the family that kept me rather busy I did not have much time to follow up on our politicians. Only the most obvious blunders have reached my little pool of attention. Now, of course, I try to catch up on the events of the last half a year, and it seems that whatever caught my attention during that hermit stage, making me form opinions in one direction or another, were not that off. Both of our top political figures, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and opposition leader Stephane Dion, are somewhat less than "charismatic". At least that is the general opinion discovered by a recently conducted poll. The questions are:
- Is their image a result of their actions?
- Are their actions weightier than their image?
In our media-heavy times I am always weary of opinions based on image. Just think, wouldn't have Albert Einstein come across as a blundering idiot occasionally in today's strong limelight? But then again, he was an academe, not a politician. And therein lies, for example, Stephane Dion's main problem.

As a matter of fact, tomorrow will be a crucial day for these two men. For one, it is an opportunity to prove the country that Mr Harper and his team will be able to create a viable roadmap for the next few years ahead of us. Let us pay close attention to how comprehensive the Conservative stance is on federal issues, the issue of Canadian deployment in Afghanistan, the environmental clean-up issue and their plans for the country's economic development.

And then I will be watching with interest what the Liberal reaction will be. Will it be knee-jerk attacks, or thoughtful opinions with measured criticism and honest support where it is due?

As for the Bloc, I could more or less predict their position, unless they have some things of their own up their sleeves.

Canadian presence at the Tehran Holocaust conference

A month has passed from the time of the infamous Tehran conference on the Holocaust, or rather the denial thereof. Yet only now did I become aware of the shameful fact that there was a Canadian among the speakers there. His name is Shiraz Dossa. On their program they identified him as being a professor at the University of Toronto, while in fact he has been part of the staff at St. Francis Xavier University in Antagonish, Nova Scotia, since 1988 - as his webpage there states. He claimed during an interview that he "did not know" the planned conference would be antisemitic. Nooo...! Really?

Judged by his writings he subscribes to some rather interesting points of view. He certainly makes sure that noone will mistake him for a liberal thinker. He believes that multiculturalism is just "liberal posturing", he professes, alongside Peter Fitzpatrick, that "liberalism is bound by its genealogy and its sense of history to debase the culturally Other"... and so on and on. He chalks up every ill that befell the world, ills which were perpetrated by self-proclaimed liberals of the times, to their being liberals and not to the fact that they were fallible human beings despite their supposed liberalism, claiming that they did wrong because of their liberalism not in spite of it.

But whatever his views, he is a Canadian, and he is entitled to have his views. These rights are accorded to him by the Canadian Charter of Rights, a document which holds up a liberal ideal for us, an ideal that for now isn't/cannot possibly be adhered to in its fullest, but is to be strived for. A liberal ideal that gives us the hope that one day in the future Canadian society may actually fulfill its lofty proposals. Yes, in spite of his opinion about us, he is being tolerated. We do seem to tolerate the intolerant.

What bothers me, though, that his presence in Tehran was ignored by the Canadian media, that there was no public outcry, only a polite acknowledgement, that we were not made aware more widely and more forcefully of his shameful presence there. Granted, he did not travel there on Canadian taxpayers' money. He was luxuriously wined and dined on Iranian government funds. But we, Liberal Canadians, cannot pass it off with a shrug when someone like Dossa takes it upon himself to represent us at an event which singles out another cultural minority present in our Canadian society, questioning and ridiculing its painful past. This constitutes a silent endorsement!

As will be the university's position if Shiraz Dossa will still be on their staff next year...

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

While sifting through Iranian blogs that commented on the Holocaust conference, I found an entry by fellow Canadian blogger, Hoder, in which he expresses concern about the way Ahmadinejad seems to be "consolidating his power inside the system gradually, carefully and quite intelligently." This reminds me of an earlier entry of my own from way back in September, in which I made some semi-serious predictions about the directions Ahmadinejad's presidency may take if left unchecked...

Walid Salem, a Palestinian voice of reason

Today I discovered a remarkable Palestinian voice of reason in the ugly cacophony of animosity and violence. The article I found is Walid Salem's response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's viciously anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli position - Mahmoud Ahmadinijad: Questions of Strategy. In it he questions the wisdom of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and their calls for the annihilation of Israel, he questions the general strategy of the Arab world towards Israel and the Palestinians, and he calls on moderate Arabs to raise their voices.

The article becomes even more remarkable when we consider that Walid Salem spent altogether five years in Israeli prisons and yet, instead of harbouring anger in his heart and seeking revenge, he realised that the road to peace is not via violence but by reaching out to the Israelis from the streets, to build peace from the base and not from above between political leaders only. He is the director of Panorama, an organization dedicated to spreading democracy in Palestinian society, promoting cooperation between groups from both sides that support peace.

Saddam Hussein is gone. What now?

Saddam Hussein is gone! Speculation is on whether this will translate into a worsening of violence in Iraq. Probably yes. At least temporarily so.

Iraq was literally squeezed in Hussein's fist for 35 years. As a child I experienced the Stalinist era in Eastern Europe. Parents were scared to speak openly in front of their children lest those utter questionable remarks somewhere in public inadvertently, which then would bring tragedy onto the heads of the parents. As a result those children (myself included) grew up completely under the influence of the political slogans of the time. When Stalin died, we children shed genuine tears, not knowing any better. Of course Russian politics quickly took care of Stalin's memory, opening up our eyes in the process, making us less susceptible for further hero worship.

In Iraq this process did not have a chance to occur "naturally". Saddam was toppled by foreign forces, forces which were painted in very unfavourable colours previously, forces that gained an even more negative image as time passed. Iraq has a very large segment of the population that isn't very well educated, at least not from the point of view of world politics. or maybe I should say: they have been very well educated by the Saddamist propaganda machine. They grew up on in an artifical political environment, in a virtual glass bowl. They tend to gravitate towards any center of power, at the same time fearing it while looking for its safety, entering voluntarily under its umbrella. It will probably take a whole generation to shed the effects of the Stalinist style Saddam era.

This new generation will have the task of sifting through all the data of the past, straightening out the facts, finding the truth and laying down the grounds for an open society. Can the Iraquis do it quickly? I hope so. Things are definitely changing at a rapid pace in the Middle East. Every day there are surprising little news items, things developing in directions that one would not have thought possible just days earlier. Mahmoud Abbas calling new elections, Syria expressing willingness to make peace with Israel. Even Libya seems to be changing, prompting the US to improve its relations with the Qadhafi regime.

A lot of credit must be given to the Al Jazeera network for impacting the flow of information in the Arab world. I have been watching them occasionally, and my impression is that they are trying very hard to be fair and impartial. Do they always succed? Of course not. But show me one media outlet that could claim to be truly successful from this point of view. It is an impossible task, even for such veterans as the BBC or CNN. News reporting is a very hectic business. News items are pouring in incessantly, and reports are always representative of the reporters personal views. Decisions must be made then by the news editors about the validity of these reports on the spot, again filtering these through their own prejudices. And then here WE are, sifting through all the information and trying to form our opinions.

The most important thing is that we have all these differing views available to us. Al Jazeera's English program, although not carried by any American network as yet, is available on the internet. It is interesting to note that one of the countries where Al Jazeera is carried by local cable is Israel, while dropping BBC World, which has been accused of anti-Israel/anti-American bias in the past. Could Al Jazeera be less biased than the BBC? The Israeli action seems to indicate that they think so there.

Warriors of Jesus

Last night I wrote about concerns I have regarding Iran's political-religious aspirations and the apocalyptic ideology behind it. By the funny quirks of synchronicity, nay, "by the grace of God", I was shown signs of some dangerous developments occurring right here in our own backyard.

As an odd coincidence, I had a chance today to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp" (see the ABC News report on it, and watch their news clip on video). If I was worried about the rise of Islamism, or about Muslim children being groomed to become warriors of Allah, now I am even more worried. Worried, because the indoctrination of American children does not only mean creating good soldiers for the US army. These children may one day become OUR enemy! Don't forget, they are taught: "You are either with God/us or against us."

One of the exercises at the camp is that each child is given a hammer and is allowed to smash a mug which has GOVERNMENT written across its side. It is a powerful and empowering exercise. These children will feel that it is their God given right to fight their own government, to bring it down and replace it with their own brand of governance: ban abortion, ban gays, ban the teaching of evolution in schools. We can't even fathom just yet what else will they ban and enforce if the movement is allowed to grow and gain power over the country.

Karl Rove spoke at the annual dinner pf Hillsdale College three days ago (on Dec. 4). Responding to a question he said, "Moderate Muslims are waiting for the outcome." Bernard Lewis is right, according to Rove, when he says, "The center of gravity will be determined by the outcome."

Now, I wonder how the moderates of this continent view the developments that threaten our own society? Will we also be sitting on our hands, waiting for the outcome? Or maybe we will be able to find a solution. Maybe by doing so we can act as examples for Muslim moderates, inspiring them how to deal with the problems in their own backyards.

Maybe...

Ignore Iran at your own peril!

The news and all the media stories are like ever changing cloud formations. If you lie on your back and your eyes are on the clouds, they barely seem to move. When you take your glance away and do not look for a while, the sky looks entirely different when you lift your face towards the sky again. A week or two of ailing made me notice trends in the news that I may have not seen if I followed it daily.

Our news media, just like the clouds in the sky, is an ever changing kaleidoscope of news items. Even the great disasters enter and fade out of our consciousness in a matter of days. Going beyond the surface of the stories is the job of documentary makers. But even they tend to choose the more visually fascinating topics, after all they are movies. So we have documentaries galore on 9/11, approaching it from different directions, some even subscribing to conspiracy theories, trying to prove that it was the American government itself that blew all those people to smithereens, just so they can go and have some fun in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Jokes aside, some topics get over-explored, others never catch anyone's fancy. One such largely ignored issue is Ahmadinejad's repeated public remarks regarding America, Israel, and generally the West. In his famous Open Letter to President Bush he claims ( = threatens) that Islam will replace democracy. People tend to laugh it off, considering him to be just an eccentric, half-educated small time teacher, who somehow ended up in his present position by mistake and porbably will not last long. I think this stance is wrong, we ought to monitor him more closely.

President Ahmadinajad did not get where he is by chance. He is the figure head of a larger organization, he was actually helped into the presidential seat. Therefor he is the mouthpiece of that organization, of their world view. Yet, in spite of the belligerent position of Iran, the media does not seem to be interested in that world view. Well, I am! That world view is shaped by religious fanaticism, a religious movement in Islam with apocalyptic tendencies. They fervently anticipate the arrival of the "Hidden Imam" who, they believe, will make the whole world accept Islam. For a while they even thought that the Ayatollah Khomeini might be the Promised One. In the above mentioned letter Ahmadinejad writes: "Liberalism and Western style democracy have not been able to help realize the ideals of humanity. Today these two concepts have failed. Those with insight can already hear the sounds of the shattering and fall of the ideology and thoughts of the Liberal democratic systems." (bottom of the page). Doesn't that send shivers up your spine? It should!

If you look into this belief system you find some very interesting ( = alarming) ideas. One such idea is that one can bring the end of times, and the arrival of the Twelfth Imam (al-Muntazar), closer by creating cataclysmic events. Ahmadinejad seems to be among those who espoused this idea. So why do we brush it off? Why do world leader and the media not react to Ahmadinejad's remarks and threats?

There seem to be several factors. For one thing he manages to continually bullwinkle the West by insisting that Iran has the right to peaceful nuclear technology, and that it wants peace. At the same time he secures the (sometimes reluctant) support of the Arab world by constantly attacking (verbally, for the time being) the "Zionist entity", even promising its elimination. But the real problem for the Western media is the acceptance of the idea that it is actually the Muslim world that is the victim of bullying, the perpetrator being the agressor USA. Let's face it, we like to be on the side of the underdog ( = the strong is wrong and the weak is right).

Psychological warfare usually precedes the physical. Yet, with adequate response to such verbal sabre rattling one might be able to avert escalation of events. I believe that Ronald Reagan's courageous and articulate verbal war with the Soviet regime contributed greatly to the peaceful dissolution of communism. I believe that the world would be different today had world leaders stood up to Hitler's deceiving demagoguery instead of negotiating with him and making concessions to him. As today, the media then, too, "tried to be objective", instead of drawing world attention to the narcissistic mass hysteria of Nazism. Islamism is growing, and I have no intention here to discuss the growth of its influence in the Western world, I am only talking about countries like Syria, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia. If things go according to their plans, Hezbollah will overtake Lebanon soon. The number of Islamist regimes is growing step by step, just as European countries were gradually overtaken by fascist regimes, who then sided with Hitler and helped WWII come to happen. Shouldn't we at least pressure the present Iranian regime by increased media attention asking them to explain their stance, and then try to understand what is really behind the oddly disturbing statements?

New faces at the top in Canada and at the UN

Interesting developments while I was sick: a new general secretary at the UN, Ban Ki-Moon from South Korea, and a new Liberal leader here in Canada, Stéphane Dion.

The UN nomination and appointment was not a surprise. Mr Ban has a strong track record, and it is very important in the present political climate to have someone from the Far East at the helm. Particularly so in light of the situation regarding North Korea. Maybe Mr Ban will be able to help diffuse tensions and maybe even precipitate some changes.

As for Stéphane Dion, his victory came as a shocking surprise. Nobody thought much of the bookish little university professor from Quebec who used to be the environment minister in Paul Martin's government. Dion was fourth when he entered the leadership race, meaning that fewer than one in five members were supporting him. The bets were placed on the two main contenders, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae. Then things started to go funny. He placed third in the first two ballots, but then Gerard Kennedy handed his supporters over to him after the second ballot, and Bob Rae dropped off after the third. This allowed Dion to leap ahead of Ignatieff in the fourth.

Stéphane Dion was sort of a "background noise" in the past: we heard his name occasionally but did not know much about him. Yet, he is not a stupid guy apparently. He has a BA and MA in political science from Laval University, and a doctorate from the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris. He first entered politics by running in a 1996 byelection in the Quebec riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville. He won the seat and has held it for 10 years. Dion was minister for intergovernmental affairs for seven years under Jean Chretien, then environment minister in Paul Martin's government.

Can we picture him as Canada's next prime minister? Hmmm... He has a few things working against him. For one thing, he peaks English with a heavy French accent, and Canadians are a bit tired after all those funny jokes regarding Chretien and his accent. Then, there are those scandals, those favoured French businesses from Quebec during Chretien's reign. Lots of people in the predominantly English-speaking areas of Canada are eyeing him with a certain amount of skeptic caution. French Quebec separatists also dislike him because of his efforts to make it harder for them to hold a successful referendum on whether Quebec should break away from the rest of Canada. A definite positive point (for us, staunch supporters of a united Canada) is that he seems to be a strong federalist.

All in all, the eyes of the country are focused on him right now. He has a lot of work waiting for him, - il doit faire une chose ou deux à ne gagner notre coeurs.