Marchers message wasn't 'Peace'

This demonstration took place in Britain over the weekend. Police estimate over 20,000 people attended (organizers put the number at 100,000.)

Apparently, they're "ALL HIZBULLAH" now.
One wonders if those holding those signs understand the nature of the cause they're endorsing.

The URLs on the sign lead you to the Islamic Human Rights Commission and Innovative Minds, an anti-Zionist / anti-(US) imperialism organization.

On their website, the IHRC calls for:

and supports the national demonstration this coming Saturday (5th August) calling for an unconditional and immediate Israeli ceasefire in Lebanon and Gaza, as well as an end to US and British support for Israel’s terror.

Note that a ceasefire is only demanded of Israel -- apparently Hezbollah can continue bombing till all the Jews are dead.

This demonstration follows one held July 22 which was called:

Demonstration Against Israeli atrocities in Lebanon and Palestine

I suppose this one was in anticipation of the 'massacres' which had yet to occur. StopWar called it the International Day of Action Against Israeli Aggression. These rallies were held in cities around the world and across Canada.

At this weekend's demonstration, Stop the War spokesman John Rees said:

"Their (the British government's) silence is permitting mass murder in Lebanon by the Israeli forces. Look at the casualties: it's eight to one".

The gut reaction to that ratio is to imagine David (Hezbollah) vs Goliath (Israel) but the reality is that it's only Israel's restraint that has kept the ratio so low. If Israel fought the way Hezbollah does, by targeting civilians, the death toll would be in the tens of thousands and the ratio would reflect that.

The ratio would be more even too, if Hezbollah protected Lebanese civilians, instead of hiding amongst them.

If ratios of deaths are the issue, then why aren't these protesters demanding that Lebanon and Hezbollah start protecting their civilian populations, instead of using them as tools of propaganda?

Similar demonstrations took place here in Canada:

Some carried placards in support of Hezbollah and the group's leader Hassan Nasrallah, and others chanted "Vive Hezbollah."

These demonstration could have simply called for peace. They didn't. Their demands for a ceasefire could have been directed toward both Israel and Hezbollah. They weren't.
.
Instead it called for a unilateral ceasefire. This wasn't an anti-war march, it was a call for Israel to surrender and leave its fate to an intractible enemy. How comforting for Hezbollah to know that many in the west support their cause.

canadianna

On one condition . . .

Speaking without irony I'm sure, a Hezbollah Minister serving in the Lebanese government says that his terrorist wing will abide by the proposed UN resolution on the condition that Israel withdraw all its troops from Lebanon.

"We will abide by it on condition that no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land. If they stay, we will not abide by it," Mohammed Fneish said when asked whether Hezbollah would stop fighting under a U.N. resolution calling for a cease-fire or a cessation of hostilities.

I suppose that means they're planning on returning the kidnapped Israeli soldiers to ensure that 'no Israeli soldier remains inside Lebanese land.'

I'm sure France will be pleased that its push for diplomacy has moved this mountain.

canadianna

Hezbollah are people too

Sometimes I find its easier to respond to certain comments on the front page. If you've been following, kevvyd takes exception to the use of the word 'evil' to describe Hezbullah. He says:

To me, what I call "evil" says as much about me as it does about the creature /object/behaviour that I have decried, therefore the term is itself is too subjective to be really useful.

Later in the comment secition of my post, kevvyd quotes me, emphasizing my use of the word 'belief' when I call Hezbullah evil -- as though believing is a no-no in a political discussion, rather than the basis of one. Everything we state on these blogs represents our beliefs. Opinion pieces on blogs mean we recognise that our understanding world events is not an exact science -- but if were to refrain from posting our beliefs we would be news aggregators parroting stale information.

Calling them evil might make you feel better and might even make it easier to do evil things to them in return, but ultimately that just produces more evil.

It doesn't make me feel better to say Hezbullah is evil, it simply means I'm being honest and not allowing myself to cajoled into couching my words in warm-and-fuzzy terms like 'fundamental reasons' and 'root causes' or pretending that these viscious thugs have been driven to this by something that Israel has done (other than existing).

Do you really believe that good and evil are merely in the eye of the beholder? Do you seriously think that sort of moral relativity and ethical equivalency are helpful?

Why are people so afraid of the word 'evil'? Is it because it conjures up religious imagery? kevvyd has said that he objects because the word is subjective, but all judgements are subjective -- it's when we make them relative that makes them useless -- subjectivity is the object of commentary.

Evil is pure immorality (cruelty, violence, ruthless, savagery, depravity, absence of sympathy). It isn't by accident, or without forethought. Evil is repetative, sustained immorality by choice with no positive or constructive goal -- and therein, to my mind, lies the difference between Israel and the terrorists. One can judge whether Israel has a moral right to respond to assaults-- some people believe that all violence, even in self-defence is wrong -- but I think most people would also say they can identify with, and understand the use of violence in response to violence when the underlying motivation of the response is not simply an expression of hatred.

I don't have difficulty with the use of the word evil when describing Hizbollah or Hamas. They and their ilk are violence personified. They initiate, they don't respond. They attack, they don't defend. They are aggressors, not victims. Their aspirations can only succeed when Israel ceases to exist -- not even because they want the land, or because of some long ago perceived injustices -- there is no reason -- just blind hatred and a desire to see Israel gone. That is their purpose and they are proud of it and I won't pretend they and their actions are as you put it: "simply a tactic, it is a method of organizing and waging war - no more evil than that."

Kevvyd went on to say:

Furthermore, the retaliatory attacks by Israel on civilians and infrastructure in Lebanon has created more Hezbollah than existed before -people will rally when facing an outside invader

Hezbollah is the aggressor, the instigator, the ignitor -- the outside invader -- for six years since Israel withrew from the buffer-zone that provided some protection against attacks, Hezbollah has been randomly launching rockets into Israel's towns and cities.

It is the Israelis who have finally rallied against the relentless and unpredictable attacks launched from the very territory they held for nearly two decades in order to prevent this sort of assault. Their withdrawl from Lebanon was on the understanding that Hezbollah would be disarmed and the government would take control of the southern territory -- not only did that not happen -- Hezbollah is officially part of Lebanese government, and the Lebanese PM Siniora's ceasefire plan includes the same old promises -- and the possible 'integration' of the radicals from Hezbollah into the regular Lebanese army.

A negotiated settlement would be nice, but based on history it won't be honoured by Hezbollah. There will be more concessions required of Israel, and Hamas and Hezbollah will continue to pick at old wounds to see what festers. Israel's aim is to defend itself and prevent future attacks -- but the 'invasion' is not an invasion to grasp territory or resources -- it is to push back an armed militia whose proximity to the border presents no other choice. The Syrian backed conditions for cease fire open up another front where Hezbullah or some other terrorist organisation can set up a staging-ground and start launching their missles for a new and yet to be determined reason.

As kevvyd suggested earlier, Hezbollah might have some mundane nationalistic goals like borders or territory -- but their main objective is not peace, which is why when the present crisis is over, Hezbollah and Hamas will announce new problems to blame Israel for and more excuses to renew terrorist attacks targeting Israeli civilians.

If their aims are mundane and nationalistic, and terror is just a tactic of war -- then Hezbollah and Hamas truly are evil. Rather than build up their societies, they have chosen to create havoc in another -- what is more evil than destroying your own people, body and soul, in an endless and ruthless attempt to destroy someone else?

canadianna

That elusive and mystical 'middle ground'

Kevvyd is a thoughtful liberal blogger who wonders at the reaction of some bloggers on the right, to photographic proof of Hezbollah fighters in residential areas.

I mean, why is this news - we know that is the way terrorists operate. So why do some bloggers feel the need to wave this as if it is some kind of victory in an argument? Is it supposed to convince me somehow that killing more civilians is the answer to the problem? (...) I think that most of us on the peaceful middle ground side and those on the bomb Hezbollah into the earth side want the same thing in the end - an end to killings in Israel and Lebanon and the long-term establishment of peace. It's not like when I write that I think a military solution to this problem is untenable and unlikely to work that I'm really saying "go Hezbollah!" (...) Is that how I'm being heard on the right?

I guess what some of us are hearing is that you peaceful middle grounders feel it's best for Israel to ignore Hizbollah's munition installations when they are within civilian areas.

Given that Hizbollah consistently and deliberately operates within civilian populations -- to the point that their fighters dress in civilian garb -- are those who condemn Israel for civilian deaths suggesting that Israel should simply ignore Hizbollah and allow them to amass arms and launch missles at Israeli civilian targets with impunity?

People on the peaceful middle ground side insist that isn't what they mean, but if Hizbollah hides in neighbourhoods and they believe that Israel should avoid targeting neighbourhoods -- what exactly do they mean?

It is a fiction that there is some magical 'middle ground' ---that if Israel tried hard enough -- it could click its heels and end the annihilative aims of Hizbollah and its fighters. Such a place as middle ground doesn't exist. Impartiality is evil in the face of evil. It opens the door and keeps the door wedged open for fear of stating the truth -- at no time, in no way can Hizbollah ever be 'right' or 'okay' or even tolerated. Some ideologies are wrong. To suggest negotiation or compromise is to give a terrorist group legitimacy.

The peaceful middle ground side relies on words like 'compromise', 'negotiation', and 'neutrality'. It suggests that with enough concessions (by Israel, because Hizbollah is making none), Hizbollah will miraculouslly become a sane, rational entity and abandon its toxic ambitions.

But this isn't a war about a bit of territory as Hizbollah is now trying to pretend. Some farmland that is now a wasteland and which never belonged to Lebanon in the first place, is neither the catalyst to war, nor the key to peace. This is a war about the very existence of Israel. Those who see it as less than all-or-nothing are ignoring history. The Arab-Israeli wars of the past 60 years have been about the destruction of Israel -- the only reason that doesn't seem apparent is because Israel has won. As Golda Meir said of Israel: We don't thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.

There can be no compromise with the goal that Hizbollah harbours. The fact that their munitions seem unequal to the task of destroying Israel doesn't negate the threat -- they're not only fighting with weapons, they're fighting with lies and strategies that feed the peaceful middle grounders in the West and they're fighting with the souls of men who don't fear death, but welcome it when it comes in pursuit of the destruction of Israel and Jews.

Neutrality is a diplomatic term -- it's meant to imply a goal of peace, and yet when applied to the Middle East it ignores truth. There can't be peace without truth -- the truth is Hizbollah does not want peace. So long as one side in a dispute does not want a peaceful resolution -- the other side can reason, bargain, compromise, and negotiate but peace will never be achieved. To ask Israel to be the sole player in the 'peace process' is just plain stupid.

Even those of us on the bomb Hizbollah into the ground side aren't suggesting that 'killing more civilians' is the answer -- but neither is ignoring Hizbollah and allowing its aggression to go unfettered. It seems that the peaceful middle ground crowd is fantasizing that we live in a world where there are easy answers when dealing with psychopaths. If there were workable alternatives to bombing Hizbollah strongholds while not risking Israeli lives, surely someone would have thought of one by now.

A unilateral ceasefire is suicide. When you tell Israel to stand down, and you know Hizbollah is going to continue to be armed by Syria and Iran while it digs in and maintains its positions in civilian populations and continue its rocket attacks -- you are in fact saying 'Go Hizbollah'. Maybe you aren't meaning to, but you are.

canadianna

Gratitude & compassion

Peter Remple, Darcey and I have been taken to task by balbulican at Stageleft for our criticism of the Canadians evacuating Lebabon.

balbulican says that he doesn't blame the government given the circumstances but:

But I am sickened by the viciousness of the smug, small minded “Canadians” who feel compelled to pass judgement on fellow citizens who are exhausted, terrified, disoriented, and uprooted. I don’t care what your political or religious affiliation is: you don’t help people who are in trouble so that you can bask in their gratitude. You help them because they need help. Their response under extreme stress is irrelevant.

Listen, critics: I understand it’s difficult to have much compassion for people when the toughest thing you’ve had to deal with in your life is a hangnail or a slow internet connection. But at least have the decency to keep your mouths shut and refrain from broadcasting your narrow-minded nastiness to the world. You’re embarassing the Canadians who support the rescue - not for the praise or the thanks - but because it needs to be done for our fellow citizens.

I won't speak for Darcey or Peter -- I know they can speak for themselves well enough.

In these two paragraphs, a man who knows nothing of me or my life has accused me of being smug, compassionless, narrow-minded and vicious because I dared suggest that people who were leaving a war zone in a boat and not a bodybag should be grateful -- not to the Canadian people, not to the Canadian government -- but grateful to be alive -- grateful that the fates, providence, God, Allah, good fortune, luck, karma -- conspired to bring about the circumstances that meant they had a place to evacuate to, and a means to do so.

Our government has gone above and beyond the call --as have other governments the world over, but my suggestion that the evacuees should be grateful never even implied that their gratitude should be for the expense, or the time, or the logistics, or the manhours involved in bringing them home -- but rather, just for the very fact of being alive.

Maybe I'm small-minded for thinking that a crowded, stinky boat is better than the coffins that will carry home Al-Akhrass family.

Maybe I'm vicious for thinking that the twenty hours it took to be processed and transported to Cyprus is a better fate than the unknown months of war that face the family and friends many of these evacuees left behind.

Maybe I lack compassion for thinking a person should be grateful for leaving the uncertainty and violence in Lebanon, even if the journey to peace and freedom is slow and bumpy.

There is no smugness in what I've said. I've never been to a country being ravaged by war and I'm already grateful to have been so blessed.

How dare someone say that I'm "embarassing the Canadians who support the rescue" --I'm one of those Canadians who supports the rescue.

Pardon me for thinking that these fortunate Canadians might spare a thought for the family that won't be coming home and for the countless people in Lebanon who don't have the benefit of alternate citizenship.

Sometimes the best way to cope with an unpleasant situation is to remember that someone else has it worse -- that's compassion and it's the first step to gratitude.

canadianna

Whining their way home

Our military was left in such a state by our previous government that we couldn't even transport our own troops overseas, we had to hitch a ride with the Americans --and yet some of those who are being rescued from a war zone can't understand why they have to wait for help -- why the conditions are not First Class.

One angry evacuee said that on the five hour trip to Cyprus, the first wave of Canadian refugees had to face unpleasant conditions. There was "no food, no A/C, people had to sleep on the floor. People were vomitting -- we were treated like animals."

Well, I can think of 8 Canadians who would gladly trade places with them. Too bad they're dead.

Quit your whining and be glad that in this day and age all the governments of the world have decided to use this flare up to establish the precident of fully aiding and organizing an evacuation of all of their citizens from a crisis zone instead of just providing travel information and advisories.

Be thankful you're alive and that your governments care enough to help you stay that way.

canadianna

Taking sides on the Middle East

A commenter on my previous post suggests that I've only looked at one side of the coin when discussing the current Middle East crisis. Kevvyd says that both Israel and I have failed to make a distinction between Lebanon and Hizbollah. On his own page, kevvyd links to my 'Compare Israel' post and says:

The idea is that I might not have the right to comment on Israeli actions because I have never been in the shoes of an Israeli citizen, living under the threat of an attack at all times. It is obvious that this is both a dodge and true at the same time. It's a dodge because the same people that write this will in the same paragraph write that they want Israel to totally destroy Hamas and Hezbollah, which if my reading comprehension is correct, is also commenting on the situation.

I really, really hate my words being misrepresented. Disagree with me all you want, but don't assign your own meaning to things I've said.

To clarify, I never said that I want Israel to 'destroy' anyone or anything. I simply said that when comparing how Israel responded to the assault on its territory by an armed militia, the comparison shouldn't be made with the armed militia, but with other nation-states more similar to Israel. Making a distinction between Hizbollah and Lebanon is to some degree like differentiating between WWII era Germans and the Nazis. It works on a cerebral level, but not on a practical one. It's a sad reality that makes me glad to be over here and not one of the Israeli decision-makers.

I also never said that anyone who doesn't live in the area shouldn't be criticizing or commenting on the crisis. I simply suggested that when we pontificate (as bloggers are apt to do) we should remember that we do so from the luxury of a safe distance (both in terms of geography and experience). Never did I suggest that only those who take Israel's side should be allowed to comment.

kevvyd admits he would be scared etc. if he were an Israeli, then flips the coin:

Naturally, those that pose these questions of us Israel-critics (for want of a better term) seem unlikely to flip the question around and ask how they would feel if they were Palestinian. It's a useful exercise - try it. Since I'm good at following my own lead, I'll take that one on, too.

If I was Palestinian, I might be the second or third generation living in a refugee settlement without power and little or no water. I would likely have no job and come from a family in which no one has ever had a job. I very probably would know or be related to someone killed by Israeli shelling or rockets. (Body counts vary, but a rough estimate for the number dead during the recent Intifadah are about 3500 Palestinian and 1000 Israeli.) What's more, in all likelihood, I would have little or no hope of ever seeing any change in the situation for me or my kids. I'd be angry, scared, and hopeless. I might be angry at my government enough to do something aside from tossing protest votes at Hamas, but when the only alternative offers more of the same (with a smiling American stamp of approval), that is unlikely. It's more likely that if this world offers no solace I might make plans instead for the next one. And when those proffering the next world speak in the language of 72 virgins (or white grapes), I might just listen. (For what it's worth, I'd be a pretty churlish dead guy if it turned out to be grapes. I would haunt mosques. Unless they were really, really good grapes.)

Kevvyd implies that those who identify with Israel, do so because we have not tried to identify with its adversaries. Because his post is in response to mine, I can only suppose kevvyd means me.

Neither of my posts on Israel are meant to be unsympathetic to the plight of the average Lebanese, but my guess is that most people in the West, except for the most hardened souls, already do sympathize with them. But in my opinion, it's Israel's actions that require special understanding precisely because in comparison with its neighbours, Israel seems so much more powerful, more affluent, more organized, more civilized, more capable and therefore more open for criticism for its re-actions, than its neighbours are when they incite those reactions.

Critics tend to look on Israel as having an advantage because it is a modern state and they assign blame to Israel because its unfortunate neighbours are victim/underdogs -- as though somehow Israel's success is a result of, or to blame for, the failures of its Arab neighbours. I don't see any of the Arab states or territories as victims of Israel, I see them as victims of themselves and of each other. And while my post was primarily about the current crisis, I'll respond and say that I do pity the Palestinians, but not because they are 'victims' of Israel -- but because they are victims of their parents' and grandparents' hatred.

Rather than build up their own society, Palestinian leaders have tried for 60 years to destroy Israel. Blame checkpoints and humiliation, but remember -- those things wouldn't exist if terror weren't an everyday, ongoing, relentless threat to Israeli citizens.

Blame lack of electricity, and housing -- but don't blame Israel alone for those conditions. Remember that the territories where modern-day Palestinians have lived in squalor in refugee camps for 50 odd years, were not independent nations robbed of infrastructure by Israel --they belonged to Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, and are the remnants of the war their own Arab nations started and which Israel had the audacity to win. Millions of dollars in aid haven't helped their situation -- not because Israel hasn't allowed it -- but because the leadership has been too busy lining its pockets and stirring up resentment to be bothered trying to establish a better life for its people.

The Palestinian failure to create a viable society, is its own failure and that of its fellow Arabs/Muslims who put their hatred of Israel and Jews ahead of their people. The Arabs of the Middle East chose to let Palestine fester for 60 years. It was allowed to do so by the three nations that lost those lands to Israel, because doing so lent itself to creating more animosity toward Israel, and yet another excuse for its destruction. Those nations are the ones you should look to for WHY the Palestinians live in such deplorable conditions -- those three are responsible --- first for launching wars of annihilation, and later and still, for their failure to accommodate and assist their own civilian populations left behind in lands held by Israel when their quests for its annihilation failed.

Ask yourself if Israel would be a threat to the region if there were no threat to Israel. Israel's goal has been to exist in peace. That's why it has succeeded in building infrastructure, democracy and a viable social order while its neighbours have failed. And it is why if I were Palestinian, I believe that by now I'd be starting to look to my own society's leaders and aim my vitriol at them.

canadianna

Comparing Israel fairly

War in the Middle East is a minor inconvenience to most of us in North America. A rise in the price of gas is about as profoundly as we are affected. We have no stake in this conflict unless we have some familial connection to the region.

It's easy to sit back from the comfort of our privileged world and espouse on a situation that we can't imagine and will likely never experience but we do it, I suppose in an attempt to make sense of it all.

As I've wandered around reading opinions on this current crisis I've been surprised by the stupid analogies I've seen which seek to condemn Israel for it's response to the kidnappings and breach of its border.

Amongst the stupidest are: fighting a gnat with a hand grenade & attacking an ant with a hammer

Those who indulge in such inane comparisons might consider: fighting fire with fire or better still, a fight for one's life. These seem more accurate and still don't imply correct action on the part of the Israelis, but also don't understate the devastation that is being caused by Hizbollah.

It is disingenuous to compare the State of Israel with Hizbollah and pretend that a giant is swatting a fly. It is unfair to suggest that because of its superior equipment, infrastructure etc. that Israel should not respond or should respond weakly, to an overt act of war. The more realistic comparison would be made between Israel and every other country in the world -- what would the international expectations be of say . . . Germany . . . or Italy . . . or Japan . . . or Russia . . . or France . . . or China . . . or Canada --- if a terrorist organization, which had governmental recognition/ approval from its host country -- were to slip beneath the border between any of these sovereign nations and an unfriendly adjoining nation and murder and abduct military personnel?

What if diplomacy with this unfriendly nation had never worked in the past?
What if despite security concerns, you'd removed troops from their side of the border in good faith several years previous, but still could not guarantee the safety of your citizens because the terrorist organisation had been using that same area since your withdrawal, to launch attacks deliberately targeting civilians?
What if you offered to cease fire in the present crisis if your soldiers were returned but your offer was rebuffed?

There's much more to it, I know. I know Israel holds prisoners that Hizbollah and others dispute are terrorists. I know that Israel's superior firepower has meant more civilian casualties on the side of the Lebanese. I also know that some people will always see Israel as wrong (or right) and vice versa.

But we on the opposite side of the world who are thinking of these things should remember that of those seven nations mentioned above, only one has never invaded another country/initiated a war through beligerant action/joined forces with another nation to initiate war.

None of the above countries has ever responded to an act of war by another nation/faction within a nation, by turning the other cheek.

All but one of those nations have colonized, occupied or otherwise imposed themselves on a sovereign country and at least three continue to do so to this day.

All but one of these nations has used its superior military to suppress the goals of a nation under its control --- either currently or within the last 60 years.

None of these nations has ever willingly returned territory it gained through war -- particularly in those instances when they did not initiate the war.

Compare these nations to Israel because that is a more reasonable comparison. And remember, Canada is the only exception on the list -- and even Canada, provoked by the Yanks when they came north in 1812, didn't try to talk things out. We used all means at our disposal to fight because they breached our border. Our goal back then was not to thwart annihilation, only annexation and yet still we responded to an act of war, with war.

Even if people persist in drawing comparisons between Israel and its enemies, Israel still compares favourably, if only because of it's ultimate goals -- peace and co-existence with its neighbours. The fact that Israel is surrounded by countries/factions whose ambitions are diametrically opposed to those goals, puts Israel in a unique disadvantage -- a show of force draws criticism from Europe and the UN; a show of weakness emboldens those who pose the threat.

Israel is faced with a choice between criticism, and continued, perhaps escalating assaults and threats against its citizens. There is no such thing as 'doing the right' thing in war -- to Israel, there is capitulation and there is survival. It is easy not to see it in those terms from the comfort of our livingrooms.

canadianna

(edited for spelling thanks to 'grammar nazi' ;> )

On Israel . . . France should talk

Jacques Chirac's reaction to the Israel/Lebanon crisis is quoted at timesonline:

"One may well ask if there isn’t today a kind of wish to destroy Lebanon - its infrastructure, its roads, its communications, its energy, its airport. And for what? I find honestly - as all Europeans do - that the current reactions are totally disproportionate. In the Middle East we are currently in a situation of great fragility and instability. We are in a dangerous situation, a very dangerous situation. We must be very, very careful."

This is the same man who tempered his criticism of footballer Zinedine Zidane's head-butt in the World Cup final by saying that it was 'unacceptable' but that it must have been 'provoked'. The French leader is saying that disproportionate violence on the soccer pitch at an individual level is mitigated because nasty words are a sufficient instigator for a physical assault.

During much of recent history, France has danced with the devil while haughtily dishing out self-serving advice to other nations about use of force.

As recently as 1995, France was still conducting nuclear testing. France conducted 176 test blasts at the Mururoa and neighboring Fangataufa atolls from 1966 to 1995 despite the protests of much of the rest of the world. Even the US (a more likely target of an incoming attack) had stopped testing three years previous after the tensions of the Cold War had abated.

In 1985, France was responsible for the sinking of the Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior before it could protest French nuclear testing. (Talk about a pre-emptive strike.) That action by the French killed someone -- and recent documents show that France actually tried to blame Britain for the attack. The French response to non-violent protest --murder. Hypocracy thy name is France.

Then there's France's response to anti-French protests on the Ivory Coast. Between 20 and 60 Ivorians were killed during protests after France destroyed the Ivorian air force following attacks by the loyalist army that killed 9 French peacekeepers. France acted unilaterally and did not seek approval from the UN, despite there being 6,000 UN Peacekeepers on the ground who were potential targets for retaliation. Apparently France felt justified in not simply destroying the former colony's air force, but in killing people who protested that action. In fact, the French spokesman said that the reaction was 'moderate and restrained'.

Oh, and let's not forget France's special relationship with Saddam. The Oil-for-Food scandal has not shamed the French, despite people at the highest levels of their government being neck-deep in the affair. It is not unreasonable to think that if France had not been dealing duplicitously and illicitly with Saddam Hussein between the Gulf War and the Iraq War, that the Iraq War might well have been averted altogether.

Had France, Russia and China not been selling arms and raking in billions from Saddam, they might have seen the wisdom of calling Saddam's bluff rather than that of the US and Britain. Instead, the three sanctimonious nations correctly calculated that the left-tilting world would perceive the war to be aggression on the part of the US -- an insatiable lust for oil -- nevermind that these three are more dependent on Mid-East oil than is the US.

These three, with France at the fore, pretended to prefer peace, despite knowing full-well that a show of solidarity by the Security Council against Iraq's repeated breach of conditions laid out for the cease-fire, might have caused Saddam to back down -- instead, the three postured for the world press, openly slamming the US and lobbing accusations at Bush, while hiding their dirty linen behind their 'virtuous' anti-war facade. These three countries are hardly anti-war -- just look at their recent histories of use of force against less threatening adversaries.

Peace was never their goal -- shielding their misdeeds from scrutiny and maintaining the flow of bribe money-- with the bonus of sticking it to the US and Britain --that was their aim.

Forget whether there were WMD in Iraq, that's irrelevant -- Iraq had continually violated the UN Resolutions that had suspended hostilities in 1991. The Security Council had adequate reason to threaten a resumption of war to protest Saddam's non-compliance. Had every member of the Security Council been onside with the threat of war, actual war might not have been necessary.

Israel is responding to the breach of its border, the abduction of its soldiers and assaults on its population by an unreasonable and intractable enemy. As Hizbollah's missiles rain down on civilian targets in Haifa, ask yourself what France would do if it had to walk a mile in Israeli shoes? Sixty years ago, France might have thrown up its hands but its recent past shows that when it serves its own purposes, France is ready and willing to use excessive force to get its way or to seek vengence -- even when its own civilians are not at risk and when acting with force might put international troops in harm's way -- yet somehow Chirac feels entitled to suggest Israel should back off and use restraint when dealing with overt acts of war, which threaten not only it's population, but which could if left unchecked, threaten its very existence.

With its dodgy dealings in world affairs France is not a paragon of peaceful virtue. It is a nation that speaks out of both sides of mouth, and Jacques Chirac should just shut up.

canadianna

Misplaced sympathy

Women are not responsible for their own actions and can be controlled by the whims of strong men.
People with disabilities should not be held to the same standards as their 'able' peers.

Well, you could be forgiven for getting that impression after reading about an Edmonton court's decision not to hand a jail term to a woman with cerebral palsy who engaged in at least one sex act with her 6 year old son and who posted nude pictures of him on the Internet.

Justice Mary Moreau said the woman was 'spared' jail time because that would pose “unusual hardship”. This 'mother' imposed unusual hardship on her child --- and yet because she did it to 'please' her Internet lover, whom she was obliged to 'obey' -- this woman is being saved from jail time because of her gender and her disability.

The woman must perform 60 hours of community service, take counselling and treatment and is banned from using the Internet for the first three months.

This is punishment?

The newspaper says:

The woman suffers from cerebral palsy and has very restrictive use of her hands and difficulties with speech.

The judge said that the "physical infirmities and psychological vulnerabilities" of the woman played a role in her decision, and said that the woman was a "particularly vulnerable disabled victim," who was exploited by a "sexual predator." The judge said that the woman is classified as a low risk to reoffend and a jail sentence would be "considerably harsher" for her than for others.

Look how this reads . . . what about equal treatment for the disabled? The woman's infirmities didn't prevent her from operating a webcam and sexually abusing her son -- how could they possibly be relevant to a jail term when all government facilities are obligated to be accessible to the disabled?

Justice Moreau thinks that this women should be treated differently from other pedophiles and sexual offenders because she has determined the woman to be mentally and physically fragile. What does that say to the woman's child? That his violation at the hands of his mother is secondary to the mother's infirmities?

This woman was not the 'victim of an Internet predator' as the judge says -- that child was the victim of his mother. Period.

The criminal behaviour of this woman should not be excused simply because she was warped enough to act on the perverted ideas of someone she met on the Internet. She is guilty. She put herself above her child. She was not a victim trying to please her Internet lover --she is an adult who was pleasing herself by pleasing her lover.

People have to be held accountable for their own actions regardless of gender or disability. We have to stop excusing criminal behaviour --- even when perpetrator is pathetic.

canadianna

Degrees of sick and twisted

Thanks to Dr. Roy for catching the Globe & Mail editorial (click the title link to get around the subscriber wall).

The Globe's comment is about one of the cases I wrote about early this morning -- that of the 32 year old father who had been sexually abusing his daughter for two years, since she was 24 months old. The Globe has praise for the Quebec appeals court judges:

On balance, however, the appeal court did its job properly by looking dispassionately at the facts, and reducing the sentence accordingly.

According to the Globe, people like me jumped the gun because:

(The appeals judge) could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that rape had occurred. She noted that, while the young girl had been taken to see medical doctors for evidence of penetration, no such evidence was produced in court. The trial judge had not explained why she had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It might have been the photos. Or maybe it was the fact that the guy was convicted of sexually assaulting a six year old when he was 17. Maybe it was the testimony she heard first-hand.

But let's pretend for a moment that it never happened. Let's pretend this whackjob just simulated intercourse with an infant, took pictures and distributed them on the internet. The logic here is that if penetration didn't occur, daddy doesn't deserve that vast ten year maximium allowed for 'the worst cases'.

And maybe that's the problem -- 10 years maximum for the worst cases of sexual assault? Each sentence sends a message to the sexual predators in our midst and if ten years is the best we can do to punish the 'worst' perverts out there, we're already falling down on the job.

The Globe lauds the court for 'looking dispassionately at the facts' and maybe that's what disturbs me most. How can anyone look dispassionately on violation of a little child? Even if it was 'only' simulated, the man has sexually assaulted his daughter. A father who would even simulate sex with his infant daughter is scary and dangerous. Penetration should not be the determinant for whether something is equal to 'the worst'. Sexual violation is sexual violation.

The editorial cites examples of what it has determined is the 'worst' abuse, then makes the comparison:

Perhaps the worst known case involved a Russian girl, Masha Allen, now 13 (she has spoken publicly under her own name about what she endured), who was adopted by a Pennsylvania man when she was 5 and victimized until age 10. The man received a sentence of 35 to 70 years. In another case, an Edmonton man was jailed for 14 years last summer for sexual offences against his two stepchildren and two of the stepchildren's friends, ages 5 to 9. He set up a webcam on top of his computer and forced his stepdaughter to engage in sex while she could see a man watching on the screen.

Yet the Quebec case, horrifying as it was, was not comparable to these other two cases.

I wasn't aware there are degrees of sick and evil. This father, while twisted, was apparently not quite twisted enough to rate the harshest sentence the law would allow and Globe thinks that's just swell -- but that is a road we should not be going down -- comparing sexual assaults on children and saying 'this one isn't as bad as that one'.

The Globe got this one vastly wrong -- if anything, they should be advocating for tougher sentences for all sexual offenders rather than applauding a court for reducing a sentence when, in the Globe's own words:

The appeal court made some questionable assertions. For instance, it said the father's relative youthfulness -- he was 32 -- was a mitigating factor. No 32-year-old should have the excuse of youth. The court also said he had no criminal record, with the exception of a sexual assault on a six-year-old when he was 17. Some exception. And the court said the sexual assault on the little girl had not been done in a violent context of gagging, threatening or hitting her. It seems obvious a child that age is so vulnerable that the worst tortures are possible without resorting to heavy weapons. That hardly should have been a point in the father's favour.

Sick and twisted, is sick and twisted. Fifteen years wasn't enough for this guy, let alone nine.

canadianna

Canada - Great place to be a pedophile

Below is a list of news stories from the past 10 days or so.

The first case is of a father, who began raping his daughter when she was just 24 months old. He took pictures and uploaded them to the internet. He was sentenced to 15 years, but the Quebec appeal court has since reduced it to 9, because this was not the worst case of sex abuse ever and while there was penetration of a baby -- apparently there was 'no violence'. The judge sounds as warped as the rapist.
Pedophile's sentence too harsh, court rules

The next is the case of a 22 year old who went to Bosnia as a civilian contractor. While there, he witnessed 'very significant atrocities' including dead bodies -- so of course when he came back to Canada he needed a way to take his mind off things -- downloading pictures of children being raped eased the trauma of being a witness to other people's suffering. This guy has to perform 100 hours of community service. Maybe he can ease the suffering of victims who've faced the trauma of being witness to other people's tragedies by teaching them how to download kiddie porn.
You'd have to wonder if witnessing the suffering of others excuses one from any responsibility in downloading child porn -- how much could you get away with if you actually suffer yourself?
Trauma pleaded in child porn case -- No jail for man who witnessed atrocities

We tell ourselves we're a civilized society. We are shocked by the Dutch political group that would legalize child pornography, and eventually child-adult sex. We ask ourselves 'how could they?' and yet our judges are treating child rape as a non-violent crime and finding excuses to give child porn collectors house arrest and community service.

Child porn as therapy???? Child rape non-violent???

These are our judges saying these things -- the people who 'interpret' our laws and mete out punishment to violators --they are saying that those who rape babies and watch other people rape babies are not criminals.

What is to deter a pedophile from raping a child --a nine year sentence? By the time he gets caught, (not usually after the first) he might just think it's worth it -- because after a third off for good behaviour it's really only six years.

And why would anyone worry about downloading child porn? House arrest? Big deal. Community service? It's the community that's being punished there.

I've no doubt that in some not-so-distant-future that being a pedophile will be just another sexual orientation and it will be argued that if it's legalized, then at least the creeps wouldn't have to kill the kids.

It's a sick world and the lawyers and judges here should be as ashamed as the sickos in these articles.

Having child porn earns 14 months

House arrest for convicted former school teacher

Child porn collector gets 15 months

No jail time for convicted sex offender

Pedophile gets house arrest for child porn

Our children deserve better.

canadianna

Boycott CUPE

Oh, that's right. We can't. We're hostage to their political agenda.

Regardless of which side of the issue you come down on, CUPE Ontario's unanimous decision to support a motion to boycott Israel should cause concern.

With religious, political or charitable organisations, members are typically aware of the outlook and aims and have joined freely and are free to leave should the reality of the association not match the member's personal vision. CUPE membership is compulsory for most people who work in the public sector. There is no freedom from this association if one's job falls under the framework of the government. Almost sounds unconstitutional -- freedom of association should also mean freedom from association -- but for those whose employment is unionized, such freedom doesn't exist.

Likewise, as citizens, we have no option but to use the services provided by public sector employees. They provide essential services, and if we disagree with the political agenda pushed forward and imposed by the union, there is no method by which we can express our displeasure or outrage.

CUPE Ontario's news page was devoid of any mention of this vote this morning (I have tried to access the page since, but my connection keeps timing out) but this is the full text of the resolution as reported by Judeoscope.

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

1. With Palestine solidarity and human rights organizations, develop an education campaign about the apartheid nature of the Israeli state and the political and economic support of Canada for these practices.

2. Support the international campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law including the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution194.

3. Call on CUPE National to commit to research into Canadian involvement in the occupation and call on the CLC to join us in lobbying against the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state and call for the immediate dismantling of the wall.

BECAUSE:

• The Israeli Apartheid Wall has been condemned and determined illegal under international law. • Over 170 Palestinian political parties, unions and other organizations including the Palestinian General Federation of Trade Unions issued a call in July 2005 for a global campaign of boycotts and divestment against Israel similar to those imposed against South African Apartheid; • CUPE BC has firmly and vocally condemned the occupation of Palestine and have initiated an education campaign about the apartheid-like practices of the Israeli state.

I downloaded the CUPE B.C. education campaign and I was shocked by the half-truths, lies and opinion-presented-as-fact, unabashedly set out in this pious booklet. CUPE Ontario plans to follow their lead and I think it's vile.

The Preface of this booklet says that 'Trade unions deal principally with wages and working conditions, but (they) also serve as human rights organizations'. CUPE sees itself as a social activist group -- but unlike PETA, Greenpeace and Amnesty International, CUPE forces public employees to join, imposes dues on those employees and does not allow members to resign the union unless they also give up their jobs.

The 896 CUPE members who voted on Saturday (the Jewish sabbath, by the way) who represent 200,000 public sector workers, arrived at their meeting with no mandate to vote on an issue that is complex, emotional and controversial -- and yet they did just that.

With this vote, CUPE has not only suggested that members boycott Israel -- they are forcing all of its 200,000 Ontario members to financially support an agenda with which they might vehemently disagree.

You might not be a CUPE member, but without the ability to boycott public services, you are indirectly financing their proposed propaganda campaign.

canadianna

Say What?

Hyperbole and activists go hand in hand, and by doing so, they tend to diminish their cause.

Take for example Doreen Silversmith, member of the Feminist Organization for Women's Advancement, Rights and Dignity (FORWARD).

Ms Silversmith spoke to the press this week about the state of affairs in Caledonia, and about a UN report released Monday that cited several areas of concern with regard to Canada and discrimination.

Here are a couple of quotes from Ms Silversmith:

"It's all interconnected. You see the product of (neglect) in what's going on in Caledonia right now. Human rights are an illusion (in Canada).
(...)
We want to hold Canada up to its promises. The genocidal practices that the country is doing to our people must stop."

That's right -- genocidal. I know, I know -- some people like to use the term 'cultural genocide' to refer to the irradication of the language and heritage of a race group. The use of the word 'genocide' in this fashion has always irked me. Since the beginning of time, cultures have changed, grown and evolved -- sometimes due to invaders, sometimes simply as a natural progression. Historically, most invaders have to some extent, erased or irreversibly altered the culture of the native inhabitants of the conquered land. It is part of our global history --not just Canadian history, not just British/French history, not just Western history -- it has happened throughout the centuries in societies both east and west. Some conquering nations have long since fallen and some conquered nations are extinct. Only in the late 20th century did the expectation of compensation, reparation or restitution attach itself to historic injustices and iniquities.

But Ms Silversmith doesn't even use the modifier 'cultural' in reference to the 'genocide' that she says is being perpetrated against her people by Canada. The implication is more cynical when considering the continuing reality of genocide worldwide.

Whatever Ms Silversmith's grievances are, her attitude does nothing to advance her cause, and in fact tends to alienate people like me who might otherwise be willing to listen.

canadianna

Free advice to NPs Don Martin: Look in the mirror

The fourth paragraph of Don Martin's column today (subscriber only) is a promise that this piece is not:

"a tired rant about Harper holding journalists in disdain, which he does and we'd best get used to it because it's going to get worse."

If you want to read the rest, you'll have to buy a NP, because I stopped reading there. Whatever Martin had to say after that would likely be a lie, because that statement was.

In the previous two paragraphs Martin wrote that Stephen Harper had bypassed the podium set up by his staff and had instead, started up the stairs. Martin says:

"Having reached the desired altitude for showcasing his superior attitude in vintage Brian Mulroney style, Stephen Harper turned to lord over the assembled media with his message.

Free advice to the Prime Minister: Until you shape up, being filmed from below creates seriously lousy television optics. That button-straining gut fills the screen and the downward stare adds a chin or two."

Martin spews this sort of venom, then expects us to trust him that the rest of his piece is a balanced observation of the Prime Minister and his actions?

Advice to the columnist: Your inability to keep the personal jabs out of your writing belies your disdain for the PM. Don't expect me to take you seriously when you tell up front that your column isn't a rant, when you started it with a rant.

Don Martin's column might well be filled with the wisdom of the ages, but I couldn't get past his lie -- that his column had nothing to do with the animus between Harper and the media -- and I couldn't get past the fact that he tried to sell it immediately after slagging Harper with no less than three insults in the previous three sentences.

If the press wants us to see Harper as a bad-guy for his treatment of the media, they'd do well not to hit us over the head with it -- it makes them seem angry and petulent -- the exact qualities they attribute to Harper and claim to reject on our behalf. Better that they get to the point and in writer's terms-- show don't tell -- or better still, let Harper show how terrible he is, if in fact he is.

Martin's repeated personal attacks shut out any hint that what he has to say might be worthwhile. It's too filled with rage to be objective.

A scan of the rest of Martin's column uncovers the use of the words:

contempt, churlish, disregard, angry-Albertan, bitter and hard-done-by personality, furious . . .

Martin is apparently describing Harper with all of these adjectives, but I think he's projecting just a wee bit -- he could just as easily be describing himself.

canadianna