What we have here

is a failure to communicate.

The shocking news isn't that the Conservatives have strategies to get their way or to manipulate committees -- it's that they would write a playbook -- and then allow it to become public. That's careless and stupid.

The methods described by Don Martin in today's National Post are nothing new, nor or they exclusive to the Conservatives. They've been employed to great effect by other parties when the opportunity or need arose. The difference is this time is there is a blueprint, so it looks calculating and manipulative.

Ordinary citizens are led to believe that we can expect our politicians to be 'above partisan politics'. We are duped into thinking that they should be above partisanship -- but the fact is, politics is an adversarial business. Each party has priorities and plans, and much as we'd like to believe otherwise, consensus is not always possible.

The Shane Doan incident, the stalled committees and the Kyoto implementation plan are excellent examples. There should have been no concensus about calling on Hockey Canada, and there can be no consensus on the Afghan detainee issue, the Court Challenges Program or Kyoto. The other parties are fairly solid in their positions on these and so long as the Conservatives have a minority in the House and on committees, it stands to reason that government is going to try to block ideas and issues that potentially go against national security, against their principles and against all reason. While compromise is often necessary, conversion would be required to support the opposition ideas in these areas.

Of course you can't govern like a majority when you're in a minority parliament. The Conservatives had to expect the Opposition would oppose -- that's their job. At least some of the obstacles to success on committees have nothing to do with the opposition working against the government and everything to do with the government's lack of success selling its position to the public.

Take the Shane Doan/Official Languages Committee fiasco.

The Conservatives had a minority on the committee. The motion to call Hockey Canada in front of the committee would have passed without their support. Chong's lame explanation that they were 'giving Hockey Canada a chance to tell their side.' is just asinine. If Hockey Canada doesn't need to justify to parliament its choice of Captain-- why would the Conservatives vote for the motion, when a 'yes' vote gives credence to the notion that parliament has a right to challenge the decisions of Hockey Canada?

I have no doubt that the Conservatives were not in favour of recalling Shane Doan or of hauling Rob Nicholson in for grilling -- but rather than bravely voting against the motion, or even meekly abstaining, they voted in favour of the farce and allowed themselves to be painted with the same brush as the other committee members who were pushing for Doan's ouster and disparaging his character.

That is bad strategy.

As for the Afghan detainee thing --- why try to hide mistakes? When you own up, people respect you. When you obfuscate, they know. Where is the upside in lying? Canadians can understand that it takes time to rectify some problems, but they don't understand why it's so hard to admit to errors and to the lag-time in correcting your errors. If you're up front about your mistakes head on, the issue dies. If you try to deny, you'll be caught and that becomes the story.

Bad strategy.

With the Court Challenges Program --- there is reasonable justification for shutting this program down, but what about a grandfathering clause, allowing cases already in the system to proceed? Or actually explaining (without a sneer that says anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot) why the program isn't necessary.

And the Kyoto Implementation bill -- Given the circumstances around the time this was first presented, they could have fought an election on that issue and won. They missed a golden window of opportunity they won't get back.

That's bad strategy.

If the Conservatives are losing ground, it's because they are losing touch with the people. Not just their 'base', but the people.

We don't care about committee procedures or who's the Chair -- we just want to know that our government is doing the right thing and when they don't, that they've got the fortitude to admit it and take the heat.

You've still got time before the session ends. Show some character.

canadianna

Arabic immersion?

Why don't we try to get all of our kids to learn to speak and read proper English first?

The Windsor Public School Board has decided to offer Arabic 'immersion' classes. From the tone of the article, this doesn't sound like the taxpayer funded 'Heritage Languages' program here in Toronto, where the TDSB pays for Cantonese, Farsi or other foreign language classes, usually on Saturdays. This sounds like the Board intends to offer regular school day education, in Arabic.

Nice precedent, don't you think?

Surely it makes more sense to fund more programs and include more participants in classes that would facilitate the learning of one of our two OFFICIAL languages.

Apparently the experts don't think so. They say that kids 'literate in their first language are more adept at acquiring English or French.' and that 'if children of immigrants do not feel alienated from their family's language and culture, they adapt most readily to Canadian culture and values.'

Really? I would have thought being immersed in English would help you to learn English, and that participating fully in Canadian culture would help establish and cultivate Canadian values. Silly me. Better to ghettoize and then when they're ready, let them mix.

Oh, I know. These kids will be inside public schools, ostensibly learning the same curriculum and participating fully in school life, but don't imagine for a moment that there won't be two solitudes within those schools. If you have kids in Special Ed., you'll know what I mean.

Rather than funding another expensive social experiment with our school systems, why don't we just admit that we haven't managed our English as a Second Language programs effectively. ESL in the public school system in Toronto is a joke, and I doubt it's much better in Windsor. Here in TO, kids whose first language is not English, but who were born in Canada, aren't allowed to participate. They speak their parents' mother-tongue at home and are expected to just 'pick up' English in the school yard I guess. The program ends around Grade 3 with limited support in the higher grades. And Windsor wants to spend money teaching kids in a foreign language? This is another stupid idea that will find its way to Toronto no doubt.

Many Ontarians are keen throw out our heritage and to stop public funding of Catholic schools because it's 'unfair' and 'too expensive' and here is the Windsor School Board trying to justify Arabic immersion. In some areas of Scarborough more than 60% of kids don't speak English as a first language -- what should we do for them? There are several different language groups here and English is the minority. Maybe we should create several learning solitudes. Or maybe we should only fund the language groups where numbers allow, regardless of the language. In some places, that would mean both English and French are out.

The answer to integrating people into Canadian life isn't to educate immigrant kids in their native language. Doing so can't possibly advance their participation in community life -- unless we plan for them to stay within an exclusively Arabic-speaking community.

canadianna

In case there was any doubt

Yesterday in the comment section here and at Dust my Broom, stageleft questioned the authenticity of the email I received from Garth Turner on Monday. He thought the actual email address sounded iffy because it's unlike any parliamentary email address he'd seen before.

I suggested he should send a message, which he said he did. He promised to get in touch if he heard back. I still haven't heard from stageleft again, but no matter. Soon after, one of my kids decided to send an email to TurneG9@parl.gc.ca and she received a reply almost immediately.

Here is the response. I have blocked out my daughter's email address, but other than that it's as it was received:

As for the forgiveness offered by "Garth Turner" in the comments section yesterday:

I forgive you. Now you need to take some lessons in sarcasm.

Garth

The profile links to nothing, but given that the comment ended with a slam, I figure it's legit. Phew!

canadianna

An open letter to Garth Turner

This weekend, I committed a blogging sin and now I am compelled to repent.

While visiting The Prairie Wrangler I made an unsupported allegation about Garth Turner, without the obligatory qualifier "I believe". I am deeply ashamed for this omission and am publicly withdrawing my accusation.

Over this past fifteen months since Garth began making such an (alleged) ass of himself that I actually noticed his existence, I have written about him many times. In those posts, I suggested (among other things) that Garth is:

alienating, arrogant, a blabbermouth, a bore, disloyal, divisive, gossipy, idiotic, indiscreet, malicious, nasty, petulant, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing, smug, spiteful, whiny, vengeful . . . you get the picture.

But this time I went too far. I accused Garth of (prepare yourselves) . . . comment fraud.

The following email was sent to me by Garth, warning of the dire repercussions if I did not provide proof (or I suppose -- if I didn't take it back):

I swear I thought a bolt of lightning might shoot through the computer screen given the biblical proportions of his threat. What a dramatic and ominous articulation of intentions. It's like he's made a covenant. Garth Turner vows to make me -- 'suffer the eternally discrediting consequences' of not submitting to his will. 'Suffer' is such a harsh word to use and rather ill-advised by an MP in these circumstances. Shocking that someone in Garth's position would be so reckless in his use of language. And who's he going to discredit me with? My readers? His readers? The government? My boss? God? If Garth has the ear of the Almighty . . . I shudder to think.

Garth's 'or else' blustering was a bit easier for my children to grasp, spending so much time with other kids as they do. They still recall the simple art of verbal sparring at the 'Am not! Are too!' level, which I've long since forgotten. My youngest daughter suggested I use her favourite retort: "make me!" but I certainly don't want to 'suffer the eternally discrediting consequences' he promised. I've seen what Garth has done to his own credibility -- there's just no telling what he'd do with someone else's if he got a hold of it.

My offending comment was an off-handed remark, really. It's probably inaccurate anyway, because like my kids said after they finished laughing -- other pathetic publicity-hounds like Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears have groupies -- why not Garth Turner?

When I first read his menacing email, I was so disturbed that I contemplated committing blogicide, but then I realized two things -- first, that I could feel better by going public, and second, that Garth had paid me a huge compliment by trying to intimidate me. By threatening to discredit me, The (allegedly) Honourable Garth Turner, was in fact saying that I am 'credible'. I blush! What flattery! And from such an unexpected source.

In the end, I make the following supplication:

I, canadianna, humbly repent and do earnestly beseech thee, most ridiculous MP, to forgive me my transgression against thee. Amen.

*** Note -- The above petition is made on the off-chance that Garth comes by his (alleged) God complex, legitimately.

Oh, and Garth -- I'm just a blogger and not an iconic one at that. I have a relatively small readership, no fancy titles, no prestigious office, no groupies. The only people I care to have 'credibility' with are my kids. They respect me. They scoff at you. I'm fine with that, thanks.

canadianna

A Veteran's trust

Our soldiers have to know that even long after they've finished their duties abroad, they and their families will be well served by our government. They put their lives on the line, and they hope that the people back home will support them --- not just their missions, but them. They need to be certain that the government will not turn its back on them or their families should they be disabled or should they die. It's a matter of trust.

Due to a clerical error at the Department of Veteran's Affairs, Annie MacKenzie didn't receive her husband's disability pension after he died in 1968. The Department insisted Melvin MacKenzie was not disabled, despite having in its possession, information that he was. Unfortunately, that information was ignored and then never transferred to computer. Mrs. MacKenzie was left to raise their six children on her own, without the financial assistance to which she was entitled.

The government doesn't dispute that they got it wrong for nearly 40 years, but Federal laws governing the Pension Act only allow for retroactive payments going back five years. The family is appealing to today's government to hand over the full amount to which Annie MacKenzie and her family were entitled.

It's shameful that governments can erase errors and ignore commitments, simply by legislating a time-limit clause. Mrs. MacKenzie and her family have been fighting for this pension since 1968. It isn't as though the family just discovered it was owing and are hoping for a windfall. These payments were due, and despite years of attempting to get Veteran's Affairs to rectify their error, nothing was done. No fault lies with the family, so why should they be penalized for a governmental failure?

How this case is handled will serve to show today's soldiers what they can expect from Veteran's Affairs in the future. If we want our troops serving in Afghanistan and elsewhere to have confidence that we support them, and will continue to support them when they come back home, showing respect for our WWII & Korea Vets and their widows would be a positive indicator.

Harper should step in and right this wrong, making the payout retroactive to when the mistake occurred.

canadianna

Who's calling the shots at the RCMP

To hear Greg Weston tell it, it's Stephen Harper.

Weston apparently believes the RCMP takes its marching orders from the PMO, which is why they used a hammer to smash an ant when they hauled in Jeffrey Monaghan for questioning the other day. Likening this to a police state, Greggie supposes the Conservatives would love to do the same thing to more people, both bureaucrats and reporters. And yet here we read an insulting accusative story about the government -- Greg, you're so brave.

Of course, the absolutely non-political RCMP couldn't possibly have its own agenda for making the sitting government look stupid or high-handed. And never has any individual or group within the RCMP made errors in judgment, appeared overzealous or acted disproportionately. It must be all Harper's fault.

Environment Minister Baird's suggestion that the arrest was "a signal to other government employees that leaks of information wouldn't be tolerated" and his conclusion that "obviously (the RCMP) feel it's serious enough to lay charges" which proved to be erroneous, seem to be the smoking gun for political commentators. Baird's first statement was in defense of having called in the RCMP to investigate in the first place, not an admission of political interference. His second was a reaction to an apparent arrest. And had the detainment been politically directed, Baird likely would have got that point right, and the episode -- so public and so over-the-top, would have likely resulted in more than a conversation. But let's overlook the obvious if it makes Harper look bad.

It's far juicier to imply government conspiracy than to assume that the RCMP acted rashly. It also fits in much better with Weston's personal antipathy for Harper. If it's the RCMP running amok, it fits in with the larger issues that pre-date Harper's governance. But if it's political direction, Harper and his nasty band of not-quite-conservatives can be castigated with impunity without ever having to prove any involvement on their part. This works much better with Weston's ongoing hypothesis that Harper is the puppet master to whom everyone demurs.

Weston's bizarre accusation is part of a pattern. He and pal Don Martin are a scrawling dynamic duo, who will stop at no cliche and leave no insinuation left hanging in order to ascribe blame to Harper personally in any awkward or unflattering situation, regardless of how unlikely his involvement. Whether it's the way Harper dresses or unfounded political innuendo, the two columnists share such bitter contempt for Harper, they never mind setting aside credibility in order to get in a good dig.

Just an observation, Mr. Weston: The RCMP does a pretty good job of screwing up all on its own.

That huge chunk of animus on your shoulder is probably impairing your vision.

canadianna

Not racism, lack of imagination

I remember the Air India bombing. Never once did I consider it anything but a tragedy and never once did I consider it unimportant or just an 'Indian affair.'

Bob Rae and Ujjal Dosanjh say those are the attitudes of Canadians about the tragedy. They are implying that those kinds of attitudes -- racism and indifference -- allowed the tragedy to happen in the first place and have allowed the investigation to drag on this long.

I refuse to believe that civil servants were so racist that they could ignore a security threat because of the race of the passengers. I also don't believe that Canadians were indifferent to the mass-murder of hundreds of people who embarked from our soil, regardless of whether they were Indian, Canadian or both. That's insulting to all of us who have followed this case over the years and who have hoped for justice. The plodding pace of the government and its various investigations into this case is not testimony to the investment of ordinary Canadians in this tragedy. Our government represented its own interests, not our concerns.

Rae and Dosanjh are implying that Canadians would have cared more if this had been a British Airways or United jet. I don't think that's true.

And if our civil servants got it wrong before the fact, and didn't adequately assess the risk, it wasn't racism. It was ignorance. In those days it was almost unthinkable that radicals of any ilk would actually blow innocent people out of the sky. No political goal has ever been that important to most Canadians that they would bomb a plane or understand the psyche of someone who would. If there is any fault with the system of the time it was the Canadian habit of projecting our own world view onto others. We always assume that in any given situation, people will behave the way we would -- we could not imagine the malice that would allow someone to be so cruel. The complacency of the government on this was, at least in part, due to a tragic inability to view the world through the eyes of those who use terror to advance their goals.

Nearly thirty years on, in the post 9/11 world, no act of evil seems impossible. We are attempting to judge the 1980's Canadian security agencies based on our understanding of terror today. Their lack of imagination was understandable given their experience.

Imagine if Canadians had been indifferent? Twenty-seven years is far too long, but if the general public really viewed this is an 'Indian affair' or had we been indifferent to the deaths of hundreds of people because of their race, there would have been no demands for an inquiry beyond the families. Without public support, no amount of pushing from them would have forced politicians to review this tragedy.

Not every act of ignorance is grounded in racism. In 1985, we had rarely had to look at the world through the eyes of terrorists. What would seem like incompetence now, might have been the simple inability to put ourselves in the other guy's shoes and to see that he really had no qualms about blowing up innocent people.

canadianna

Why are we there in the first place?

The Canadian embassy in Saudi Arabia is protesting a decision to shut down a booth at an education fair in the Saudi city of Jeddah aimed at wooing Saudi students to Canada because it was staffed by women.

Why are we 'wooing Saudi students'?

Do we think that once they get on the plane they will open their minds and eighteen years of ingrained disdain for women will spill out and they will embrace women as their equals and teachers?

I know. It's wrong to ask.

canadianna

What now?

So the Official Languages committee has grilled Bob Nicholson. Now what?

Besides embarrassing themselves, and trying to disparage Shane Doan, the committee has even challenged the integrity of the NHL by suggesting the investigation into the alleged incident was inadequate. But now that they've aired their grievances, what did they accomplish? What did they hope to accomplish?

I have no link to confirm, but as I listened to Leafs Lunch this afternoon, twice they said that one of the questions posed to Hockey Canada reps was 'how many players on Team Canada speak French?'

If this was actually asked, one has to wonder if it is a harbinger of political interference yet to come.

canadianna

MP Mike Lake -- an endangered species?

I have to hope that MPs are forced by some sort of protocol to bring all petitions before the House, no matter how bizarre -- because if this guy is standing by this one . . .

Protect Bigfoot as Species at Risk

He wants the sasquatch -- a.k.a. Bigfoot -- to be protected under Canada's Species at Risk Act. A petition to the House of Commons, signed by almost 500 of Lake's constituents in Edmonton and due for debate next week, asks the government "to establish immediate, comprehensive legislation to effect immediate protection of Bigfoot."

The petition was tabled in the House on March 28th. They're even reporting on it in the UK (scroll down to near the bottom).

Between the Shane Doan thing and this, you just have to wonder if something happens to people when they become elected officials -- like do they really have to check their brains at the door.

Oh well, at least he's acting on behalf of a constituent. All the MPs in a tizzy over Shane Doan haven't presented one bit of evidence that his captaincy bothers anyone but the most politically correct, small-minded people in Canada - namely those particular MPs.

UPDATE: Darcy shows Lake has a sense of humour about this.

canadianna

Chasing Stanley -- sorta

My 14 year old son has entered CBC's "Bringing Home the Cup" contest.
This is the obligatory plug from mom. We don't have a video camera, so the kids used the digital. It wasn't until after it was filmed they realized there was no sound, hence the audio notice.

Anglican Church wimps out again

The Anglican Church of Canada is so afraid of making up its mind that it's become paralyzed.

Rather than just taking a stand and saying 'yes' or 'no' to the blessing of same-sex unions, the church is tossing some crumbs to its gay membership, while I suppose it's waiting for the stodgy old bigots in the Canadian communion to roll over and die.

While we disagree on what the final outcome should be, Chris Ambidge, a spokesperson for the gay Anglican group Integrity Canada, says situation is incredibly frustrating and reveals a lack of leadership among the bishops.

He's absolutely right. Three more years of study is not going to change scripture or reveal any undiscovered theological arguments one way or the other. The church is trying to play both sides of the issue and it's a nasty game.

I'm against same-sex marriage and same-sex blessings, which I view as fundamentally the same thing -- but I'd rather the Church come to a resolution and deal with the fallout. The endless 'study' around this issue is like a festering sore.

No one is served by this ongoing wishy-washy approach. While it might be a complex issue, it is one that needs a definitive answer. The Bishops are unwilling to take the risk of action and they have failed both sides.

If the Anglican Church of Canada is afraid of losing members from the 'losing' side when they finally make a decision, they should realize that with their faltering rhetoric and hesitant concessions they risk losing members on both sides.

Vacillating so as to appear thoughtful and reasoned is neither sensitive nor pragmatic. It simply creates deeper divisions. No one believes they don't know where they stand -- they just need to get on with it or many of us will not be members of the Anglican Church when this next three years of 'discussion' are up.

canadianna

We'll cheer if we want to

Only in Canada would there be a Parliamentary Committee inquiry into an alleged 'racial insult' that supposedly occurred at a professional hockey game almost two years ago.

MPs say that because Hockey Canada receives federal funding, they have a right to haul in the officials who had the audacity to name Shane Doan the Captain of Team Canada.

Do you know what Shane Doan is alleged to have said? I've always figured it was something really rude and vile. Something that would cut a Frenchman to the quick. Here's what he's alleged to have said:

"F... French did a good job.'"

For this, he shouldn't be Captain? For this a Parliamentary Committee -- is this Afghan torture stuff even going to a Parliamentary Committee? Who's running the show up there in Ottawa?

Even if he did say it -- where's the hate? Where's the racism?

"Try imagining for two seconds that an NHL player would say something like that about an anglophone, or anyone else. I'm sure Hockey Canada and the Canadian government would demand an explanation. Why not for francophones?" says Marcel Proulx, Liberal MP.

Try as I might, I can't imagine the pain of someone saying something so terrible and insulting as: "F***ing (insert ethnic/gender group here) did a good job." How does that poor linesman get out of bed in the morning knowing someone has denigrated his race to this extent. How can we as Canadians live with ourselves knowing that this nasty mouth is going unchecked into international competition.

And the Conservatives on the committee voted along with these idiots. Shame.

Funny those Quebec MPs can't let go of this. Could it be because Shane Doan is from Alberta? Maybe it's Quebec MPs with anti-Alberta sentiments, unwilling to accept the NHL investigation which cleared Doan because Doan is from out west. Silly? No sillier than questioning the captaincy of our Team while the tournament is in progress. This was addressed at the 2006 Olympics when MPs were offended that Doan was allowed to play at all. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.

These MPs have stretched their authority under the pretext of 'accountability' because the Team receives federal funds. Do they insist on looking into who is hired at Bombardier because it receives so much public dough?

Jack Layton says 'it (the selection of Doan as Captain) is taking away from the enthusiasm everyone wants to have.'

No Jack. Most of us are don't need parliamentary approval to cheer for our team. You idiots on the Hill seem to think you've got to be the final arbiter of every single thing in our lives --- LEAVE HOCKEY ALONE!!!

Go Canada Go!

As a PS -- why are they allowed to hold a Parliamentary Committee on something that's before the courts (Doan sued Denis Coderre who counter sued)?

canadianna

Rules of war

Perhaps the Taliban detainees should sue Canada. They were captured by Canadians, taken to a Canadian base for interrogation and then transferred to their torturers by Canadians. Surely they should be compensated by Canadians for their suffering.

Not to minimize the egregious wrongs committed by the Afghan police/military against their own countrymen in their own country -- but why are we supposed to care?

I suppose I'm at the limits of my compassion here. These detainees are the same people responsible for the caskets draped with Canadian flags. It isn't a tea party; it's war. I don't want Canadian soldiers participating in torture, but neither do I expect them to lose sleep about it if the prisoners they hand over are subjected to it.

The Opposition parties and other bloggers are citing Article 12 of the 3rd Geneva Convention which states:

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention (. . . ) if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

The upshot being that the Afghans haven't signed on to the Geneva Convention, so the detainees should never have been transferred in the first place, but since they were, Canada bears the responsibility for their alleged abuse and must request that the detainees be returned to Canadian custody if they can't assure 'humane' treatment.

Okay, so if Article 12 applies, then does Article 17?

Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.

If these detainees are not card-carrying soldiers, should Canadian soldiers even be allowed to capture them? After all, they might be using the weapons of war, but they aren't soldiers if they haven't got those cards, right? They're just armed civilians. Prove they're not. They'll tell you -- they're just poor fellas . . . minding their own business . . . the guns and bombs are for protection.

How ridiculous it is to apply old fashioned ideas about rules of war -- y'all think old fashioned ideas about marriage and family can be pitched out the window because times have changed, perceptions have changed, the reality and understanding of right and wrong has changed. Why are you so wedded to the Geneva Conventions and their constraints, when as much as any social institutions have changed with time, so has war.

Does the Geneva Convention even apply here -- with Canada not being an invading belligerent force, but in effect an associate force in what is almost a civil war? Can Canada expect to dictate the terms on which it gives over captured insurgents to the host power? What does the Convention say about a country's treatment of its own.

As a nation, we ignored the former Taliban government when they beat and execute women in soccer stadiums. We continue to quietly watch the annihilation of entire ethnic groups in the Sudan and the rape and murder of the civilian refugees in Kenyan camps. But when it comes to they guys caught trying to blow up our troops or destroy Afghan villages -- those guys are worthy of our particular attention. G-d forbid a Taliban insurgent in a war zone might be mistreated by his own countrymen -- if he was first captured by a Canadian.

Such a principled stand. Don't you just feel so smug and superior?

Just wait until this new generation of Canadian warriors gets their write up in the Canadian War Museum. Our Veterans from Bomber Command haven't fared well with the keepers of our military history. Those who do the judging are unwilling to look at the big picture while they luxuriate in that soft, self-indulgent, peacetime, pedagogic castigation of conflict.

The Geneva Conventions were written during times of conventional warfare. They assumed all parties would play by the rules, and would accept the consequences if they didn't. There can be no assumptions about the enemy in Afghanistan, and yet our soldiers still live by the Conventions. The shrill, hypocritical cry of 'humanity' from the sidelines underscores the deep disaffect between our sensibilities and the real world.

In a perfect world, the Geneva Conventions would be a quaint remnant of history, but in our world they are antiquated handcuffs that no longer apply. But rather than face modern reality, we smear our soldiers. In an attempt to scandalize a sitting government, we are demoralizing our troops.

canadianna

Paying our troops lip service

"Support our Troops"

It slides easily off the lips, even of those whose support is more show than substance. The lips keep moving, mouthing 'support' but when it's politically expedient and might damage the Conservative government, support turns to implied accusation. Of course we support our troops although we are standing up in the House demanding action on their complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees. Of course, it isn't our soldiers we blame -- it's the government.

The pleas across the House of Commons for relief for the detainees must burn the ears of our soldiers. They bind their wounds, send home their fallen friends in boxes, and then listen to the opposition parties preach about right and wrong in a part of the world where friend and enemy wear the same clothes and trust leads to death, but you trust anyway.

Our troops hear evangelizing about 'human rights' in a country where the detainees in question would ensure 'human rights' never exist. Still these soldiers treat the detainees -- murderers and maimers of friends and comrades -- they treat them with kindness and dignity.

Stephane Dion said it was "shameful" that the Canadian government is knowingly turning over Afghan detainees despite evidence of torture. "We cannot send human beings to torture even though they are the enemy. We cannot."

The laugh of it is that the people who play by no rules, are dictating them.

It's right to take stock of our mission. It's right to carry the values of our nation into warzones. But is it necessary to accept responsibility for the treatment of detainees, in their own country, at the hands of their own countrymen?

Opposition MPs, most of whom have never served, prattle on about the Geneva Conventions and warn of our troops participating in 'war crimes' because of treaties signed in the wake of wars fought by more modern nations than this one where our troops serve. Those nations attempted to give war the artifice of refinement by imposing 'rules'. These were grown up countries making an effort to police themselves in the dirty, but seemingly inevitable business of war.

Our soldiers must shake their heads. It isn't enough to do their own jobs well; they are being expected to impose the ideals of developed nations, like prisoners' rights, honour and justice, in a country that barely meets the definition of civilization.

Torture is wrong. But unlike the countries that signed on to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan is a fledgling nation with no history in recognizing human rights let alone prisoner rights. Though it might be difficult for our elites to stomach, imposing our value system on them from outside is not going to change their worldview. It won't stop the torture and it won't stop the insurgents. Afghanistan must develop a social conscience from within the way Western nations have. A forced social conscience is an illusion. It might make us feel better, but it won't allow for real change and real stability will never happen.

Canadian soldiers set an example in both strength and compassion every day. In time, hopefully, the Afghanis will choose to follow that example, or be forced to change by a population ready adopt more Western-friendly values. In the meantime, blame and accusations are unhelpful. It ignores the realities on the ground.

Is it wrong to condone torture or to turn a blind eye? The simple answer is yes, but there are no simple answers. Not when your friends are going home in boxes and the enemy doesn't abide by conventions.

canadianna