A dark glimpse in the Afghan mirror

Is that really me?

Canada caught a sinister glimpse of itself this week in the mirror of Afghanistan. Distorted only in part by the realities of that violent third world country, the Canadian “War on Terror” in Afghanistan reflects back at us a projection of our own fears and anxieties, wishful thinking, short-sightedness, deceitfulness, sloppy reasoning, delusional self-righteousness and ignorance.

Some of us recoiled. Some have turned away.

Last year I wrote a series of posts on Afghanistan:
A rude awakening
A reasonable criterion for military engagement
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part I
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part II
Who exactly are the enemies of freedom part III
What Canada learned in Rwanda

The storyline has become more complicated since then --not because of a change in the Afghan situation but because of us and how the mission has become a partisan fight. Two issues, though, press to the front: the new government’s continued failure to articulate a clear and reasonable set of objectives in Afghanistan and the manipulation of information that Canadians need to judge the success (and appropriateness) of the objectives. I will ask about the objectives of the Afghan mission in a later post, titled: No blank cheques.

With regard to manipulation of information, The Globe and Mail reported this week that detainees handed over by Canadian soldiers to the Afghan authorities had been tortured. When the Harper government denied knowledge of torture, the Globe further published an internal report from the department of foreign affairs that described torture and executions of detainees in Afghan jails. Either the government was negligent by not reading the report or they had read the report and were lying when they said they had no knowledge about prisoner abuse. The foreign affairs document released to the Globe and Mail under the Access to Information Act had been heavily edited, although the Globe had access by another source to the unedited document. The edited version of the report had removed all mention of torture which suggests that the government was actively trying to cover up its mistake of either not reading the report or lying about it. The government further muddied the water by arguing that the detainees were obviously Taliban trying to embarrass Canada by inventing accounts of torture. Yet if these detainees were Taliban, then the government must also explain why these individuals had been released from prison by the time the Globe and Mail had interviewed them. Either the detainees were Taliban, and the prison system had failed by releasing them, or the detainees were innocent and telling the truth. There were also chilling intimations by many of the Harper government’s supporters, that torture was not necessarily a bad outcome. Several contradictory accounts were given by different government ministers of how prisoners are monitored. Some of those accounts must be false. And finally, Stephen Harper wrapped himself in the flag and argued, preposterously, that those who were raising questions about prisoner abuse were disrespecting the Canadian troops and that only his party represented the military.

The government is not being honest with us about what is happening in Afghanistan. Emotional appeals to patriotism are not sufficient. Without accurate feedback on the effects of the military occupation, Canadians cannot judge whether to proceed or withdraw. Insulated from the facts, the mission is nothing more than a reflection of our worst failings.

Prevost

Addressing climate change poses a variety of challenges, the foremost of which is probably changing attitudes. The Globe and Mail carried a laugh-out-loud-funny article today in the Focus section, called “Kings of the road and their million dollar palaces,” about a sub-culture of super wealthy nomadic seniors who own Prevost buses pimped out as recreation vehicles. And they often travel in packs… yes, gangs of happy retired couples roaming our streets… in buses. One such environmentally destructive “club” brazenly calls themselves the “Prevost Prouds.”

Although I do not think of myself as an environmentalist, my blog, Aarons Beard, began a year ago initially because I was upset about Stephen Harper's cuts –more than a billion dollars-- to environmental spending on alternative energy sources and research into climate change and adaptation established previously in the Liberals’ widely acclaimed green budget. I was concerned that these reductions would be forgotten if some people did not speak up for them. As it turns out, I need not have worried. Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” hit the theaters almost immediately after and polling consistently indicates that dealing with global warming has become a priority for a significant number of voters. Far from being prescient, it appears I am a child of the times. Since then, Stephane Dion was elected leader of the Liberal party and, in reaction, the Conservative government largely reinstated the Liberal programs, albeit with less money. I am not happy about the inadequate absolute bare minimum strategy of the Conservatives.

As for Prevost buses, it should come as no surprise that even old people like the “bling” too. The retrofitted Prevost costs 1.5 million dollars plus and may be ordered with such necessities as marble floors, gold inlaid wash basins and a defibrillator. A retired couple can travel in a vehicle that would otherwise seat 56 and gets six or seven miles to the gallon. One couple described tows a Hummer behind their bus in case they want to explore smaller roads. The article, by Alan Freeman, is full of similar details on this exclusive sub-culture that left me shaking my head.

I really have no ill will towards these people. I am sure I would like many of them if we crossed paths. And the essential difference between Prevost owners and many others is a bank account containing a few million dollars. The desire for bling, a demonstration of affluence, has had many other names, but is, I suspect, as old as mankind and is not going to go away. The Prevost fetish is symbolic of sunny America: fat, successful and self-contented. The America of the green light. And why not. Behind the purchase of an RV Prevost bus is a web of life experiences and culture wide attitudes that will challenge effective action on reducing carbon emissions for a long time.

Seniors in luxuriant buses is another example of a problem that the military might not be able to solve. My next post will be about the goals of the Afghanistan mission titled, “No blank cheques,” and will appear soon.

A hunger to win in Central Nova

When I wanted to help out with the provincial election campaign at the age of sixteen, my father drove me out of our riding to another one where he knew the Liberals would not win. He handed me over to someone he knew saying, in essence, here’s a healthy young pair of legs to run around for you, but I want them back after the campaign so try not to let the kid get lost.

On the way over my dad told me that it was a tough riding, the Liberals had no chance of winning it and not to repeat to anyone what he had just told me. Although the people in the riding knew quite well that they wouldn’t win, it’s not something that they would want to hear said out loud. Working the door-to-door in a poor, politically unfriendly riding, he argued, would force me to become a real grit, teach me not to take voters for granted and give me a hunger to win. We lost. Big time.

There was one upset victory in that riding a couple of elections later. I don’t live there anymore.

I won’t pretend that the dynamic in the riding of Central Nova is the same, though I suspect that telling the good Liberals there they can’t win would not be something they would welcome hearing publicly. Who knows what might happen in the next election against Peter MacKay.

On the other hand, I was struck by May saying yesterday that she did not want to be the Ralph Nader of Canadian politics, shaving off far-left votes from the Democratic candidate, Al Gore, and allowing a George W. Bush victory. The United States would be in a much better place right now if the divisive, hyper-partisan George War Bush had not been elected.

There is a good chance that strategic Green votes in the rest of the country could tip the next federal election in our favour.

Despite the full blast melodrama coming out of the media over this, each side of the argument about Central Nova is a respectable calculation of risk. Maybe it's better not to rush to judgement on Stephane Dions' leadership just yet.

Le Devoir on Daniel Paille

Even Le Devoir, the Quebec newspaper with sovereignist sympathies, highlighted this morning the bizarre choice of Daniel Paille as the investigator into the polling activity of the Chretien government.

The first sentence reads (translation mine; read the original): “The Conservatives in Ottawa have retained the services of a battle hardened souvereignist to hunt down the federal Liberals” The article goes on to ask all the obvious questions about conflict of interest that you would see in the anglophone press, the obvious questions that the Conservatives did not think through. An anonymous conservative is quoted as saying: “Let’s just say that it (the announcement) didn’t come out the way we had thought it would.”

The article is quite damning and ends with a reminder for those who forgot who Daniel Paille is: “Daniel Paille is a person who got a lot of attention during his short political career in Quebec. Notably, he let the mayor of Montreal, Pierre Bourque, know that he (Paille) was opposed to the opening of a daycare across the street from his residence and he did this in a letter written on official stationary from the ministry of Industry, Commerce and Technology which was his department at the time. Later, he was forced to apologize to the national assembly. […] He was also the father of the controversial Paille plan to assist the start of new businesses. Due to the bankruptcy of more than a quarter of the businesses that benefitted from the plan, the Quebec treasury lost 116.5 million dollars.”

Michael Fortier is in good company. Paille certainly sounds like an Alberta Conservative. ;)

I have a great deal of respect for many "separatist" politicians. There is nothing wrong with a sovereignist serving in the government or heading public inquiries. Quebec would collapse otherwise. But then again, I don’t think anyone in their right mind is suggesting that sovereignists should be excluded from public office. The context of the investigation into the polling practices of the federal government during the period that includes the referendum is however altogether a different thing. The character and history of the candidate who leads the investigation, which in any event is unnecessary because the Auditor General has already investigated the matter, should not allow the perception of bias.

If Michael Fortier is selling it, don't buy it. Vendu tel quel.

Bravo Le Devoir!

Now let's get back to something that really matters like health care.

Stop!

"Money and the ethnic vote," said Jacques Parizeau

Here we go all over again.

Take the person who dislikes you the most, your rival at work, the nagging relative that never thought much of you, the disapproving neighbor, the person at school who is always making negative remarks about you and have them review your work and publicize their findings. Regardless of what you did, they will make it sound bad. The minor error will become the catastrophic flaw and evidence of loose morals. The complex decisions will be reduced to simplistic and factually inaccurate condemnations.

That is what Michael Fortier, the Conservative muck-raker in Quebec and backroom boy, has announced today. A separatist, Daniel Paillle, from the old Parizeau cabinet will be investigating the polling practices of the federal government within a very limited time frame that almost exclusively targets the Chretien years. The Parizeau government undertook extensive public consultations at the taxpayers expense. They polled. The separatists even used public funds, stashed away for such an occasion, to prop up the Canadian dollar during the referendum. And don’t get me started about the greatest fraud in a democracy, the votes from “ethnic” ridings that were tossed in the garbage on referendum night.

Let’s be clear. There is no impartiality in this investigation. It is not about improving government. It is an attempt to revive the ancient grudge once again. And it will cost $750,000 if not more to indulge in this nakedly partisan manuever. Harper can then commission a poll to see if this "strategy" was effective.

The federal government polled Quebeckers extensively about the clarity act during this period, the courageous legislation that formalizes how to deal with the eventuality of a sovereignist victory in a referendum. The separatists will have a field day attacking Canada with this. The Conservatives really do not know what they are doing if they think that the criticism will be contained to the Liberals. The separatists want to separate from Canada (including english Conservatives from Alberta).

The fiercely emotional allegations…the pettiness…the half-truths…

Here we go all over again.

Stop!

Stop with the tricks and do something real about the environment or health care.

Eastertide Reveries, part Two

A more appropriate title perhaps would be: Bogged Down in Palestine.

On the previous post, Reveries part One, I argued that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes. I think that this applies to the Middle East in ways that I am not ready to defend.

Yesterday, when I reread what I had written for this second post in the series, I felt that it was at once too simplistic and too heavy. Other serial posts that appeared on this blog were easier to construct. Though I am tempted to post what I wrote with revisions and just let it all hang out so to speak, I would only be adding to the noise. It’s a consolation to think that far better people than I have been bogged down in Palestine.

The Eastertide reveries were a way into a number of topics that have been troubling me lately. On the way I did come across interesting material I was not aware of before, notably by Scott Atran

Posts on religion in the Middle East will appear in the future, but at the moment I will only venture to say that I am a strong supporter of the state of Israel, if not necessarily the policies of all of its elected political parties. And, I suspect that resolving numerous problems in the region would be facilitated by paying close attention to how religion organizes the lives of its adherents, or to put it the other way around, how religion is structured as a response to the environmental challenges of its members and to the human mind.

The parts of the Eastertide reveries dealing with Afghanistan and Canadian politics will be posted separately later.

Which in the mean time leaves only… to pray for peace in Jerusalem.

Eastertide Reveries, part One

I am sitting outside in the sun without a coat. The air is cool, but relieving relative to what came before. Whatever else this time of year may be, it is not winter.


For those of us who identify Christian, it is Eastertide, roughly, which corresponds roughly to what no one can deny is spring: more comfortable temperatures, new leaves and grass, the beginning of a new cycle. I am glad to be comfortable outdoors again, comfortable and in a frame of mind to think loosely about the future but without the neurotic compulsion of putting unreasonable demands on it.


I am having a spring reverie on a theme that comes out of Africa blows through the middle east and Afghanistan then returns home to Canada and to Quebec and Montreal. It is about democracy and alternatives and the beginnings of new cycles, mundane and not so mundane.


Africa


What comes before the beginning of my reverie is not so pleasant. In Zimbabwe, the leader of the political opposition, was detained recently by the police and beaten. He has opposed the corrupt government of President Robert Mugabe whose policies have led the country to economic ruin. The issues causing unrest are common ones: corruption, distribution of food and wealth, education etc.


While the opposition leader is beaten and should probably be fearing an imminent assassination, the Roman Catholic Arch-Bishop, Pius Ncube, has been permitted to criticize the government, even going so far as to promote a revolution to remove Mugabe, with impunity.
A similar situation many will remember existed in South Africa where the Anglican Arch-Bishop, Desmond Tutu, criticized his government’s policy of Apartheid both within the country and effectively around the world while the future president of post-apartheid South Africa, Nelson Mandela, was rotting in jail.


The juxtaposition of reactions to secular or religious opposition is not cut and dry and I am not trying to suggest that it is. History provides innumerable accounts of violent and bureaucratic suppression of religious opposition to power. All I am trying to point to is that some individuals have been able to parlay their spiritual authority into a limited form of free speech. You may kill a priest, but you should think twice about the consequences of killing a “holy” person.


Historically, religion has often played a role in creating space for opposition, harbouring alternatives to the current status quo which may lead to reforms or revolutions. The full implications of any specific instantiation of religious opposition can be viewed as good or bad. The spectrum of political impulses protected by the church in different places at different times and by different religious sects, mocks the attempt to classify them universally as simply right or left wing. Religion can also be turned to amplify the contemporary power structure though it always retains the potential to transform into a vehicle for change –independently about how you or I may feel about those changes. Religious institutions are far less immutable than they may frequently pretend and people are, I believe, generally promiscuous about who delivers solutions to worldly challenges such poverty, education, or access to medical treatment.


I am religious, but don’t ask me to defend all religious views. I am generally in agreement with the opposition of arch-bishops Desmond Tutu and Pius Ncube to the their respective governments, although this may mask other opinions these men may hold that may be unacceptable to me as a Western moderate, such as misogyny, homophobia or virulent anti-Semitism. The overriding issue of providing an alternative to the status quo in their respective countries in a sense temporarily hides these other issues. A case where I personally disagree with specific aspects of religious opposition to the status quo is in the Middle East. Variants of the Muslim faith, turned to the task of opposing the political status quo, harbour political impulses that I do not support at all. I will talk about that in my next post: Eastertide Reveries, part Two. It will build on the point that I have tried to make here that, for good or ill, religious institutions are able to, maybe even prone to, protect and structure nascent political movements especially in the face of oppressive regimes.