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

Maybe you had to be there

While looking into our own War Museum's approach to the role of Bomber Command during WWII, I came across a site in Britain, detailing a recent exhibit in Manchester, England. The Imperial War Museum's air war display closed recently. It was called AGAINST ALL ODDS. When I read the piece I marvelled at their disparate ways in which this period in our common history have been portrayed.

The exhibit at the Imperial War Museum didn't omit facts -- it presented Germany's estimated death toll and examined German losses, but its focus was on the accomplishments of Bomber Command despite the risks, hardship, privations and fear faced by the airmen. It treated the fliers with respect and honour.

"Against The Odds is the first major exhibition to look at the role of Bomber Command. From the first day of the Second World War until the Allied invasion of Germany in 1944, the bombing of Germany and allied countries in the Second World War by British and American forces made a vital contribution to the defeat of the Nazis. Bomber Command was the only British force to strike directly at the enemy's homeland.

"They came from across the Commonwealth, and alongside the United States Air Force, their role was the destruction of Germany's industrial, economic and military strength.

"But the cost was great: 55, 888 Bomber Command personnel were killed in action or on active service. 51 out of every 100 flyers did not return."
Michael Simpson, Head of Exhibitions at Imperial War Museum North

Whether it's the length of time that's elapsed since WWII, or Canada's physical distance from the action in WWII, or simply that we have scarcely seen hostilities on our soil in nearly 200 years, the Canadian War Museum's plaque, AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY -- is a painful example of historical contrition without benefit of sufficiently balanced background information. The cries of neutrality are strained when presented against the entirety of the display. This sermonizing and genuflecting at the altar of anti-war zealotry seems an effort to distance ourselves from our true military past. It's like an act of penance to purge a national sin.

Canada's Veterans are a humble lot. They aren't inclined to glorify war or their own contributions. Most of them are anti-war because they've been there and they know war firsthand. The War Museum has been entrusted with the preservation of their stories inside the framework of the war itself. The Museum's unyielding attachment to this paragraph, and its unbalanced display, despite the offense and injury to our Veterans, is unfathomable. Our Veterans don't deserve to be treated as though their service is an asterisk in the war effort. They don't deserve to feel as though they are trying to keep skeletons in the closet.

Contrast this paragraph with the above text from the Imperial War Museum:

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead, and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

The author of this paragraph is unable to think outside post-1960s assumptions about war -- all war. He has failed as an historian, because he has been unable to see the world from the perspective of his subject. At the outset, he has told us of a debate, and we expect balance because he has indicated that there are two sides to the role and the outcome of Bomber Command's mission -- but then he presents only one. If this were fictional, I might call it author intrusion. The writer wants so badly for the reader to take a particular point of view, that despite claiming objectivity, he provides limited scope and gives speculation and conjecture in the form of 'fact'. It is irresponsible at best and it is unethical at worst.

In defense of the paragraph, Dean F. Oliver says:

The text panel, "An Enduring Controversy," has attracted more public attention than any other, but it reflects the museum's overall approach. (...) Nowhere in this approach -- and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans -- does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

It has been suggested that the Museum can't ignore 'difficult subjects' and that it's 'dangerous' to 'rewrite history' which implies the Veterans want the facts expunged from the display. What the Veterans really want, is for 'facts' to be presented at all. This plaque stands as a summary of the exhibit. It is general idea that visitors will take from the display. The people who run the War Museum have taken an intractable stance against the Royal Canadian Legion about this paragraph and the photographs chosen to reveal the story.

Let's look at the 'facts'.

First, most historians put the German civilian losses in a range from 350,000 to 600,000. Both are huge numbers, but the War Museum has taken the high-end estimate and used it as a factual total, and yet there is no accepted 'factual' total -- only estimates. The decision to use the high estimate without explaining that totals are impossible to ascertain, renders the credibility of the whole display suspect. It suggests the authors intended to lead visitors in a particular direction.

Second, by belittling the mission, it implies there was no reasoning behind the bombing, when in fact the strategy was used only after others had failed. Daylight raids had resulted in huge losses for the Allies early on in the war, so Britain used the Lancaster and Halifax Bombers, which were heavy and meant to be flown at night -- night bombing means area bombing. Little chance of pinpoint accuracy, but a better chance of getting the load off at all, without being shot down. Bomber Command put the safety of their fliers above the civilians of an enemy population bent on total war against all non-Germanic peoples. It was the only rational way to fight the war. Any other decision would have meant the deaths of more crews. As it was, even using night-bombing 51 out of every 100 fliers were killed in action. The Americans tried daylight, pinpoint bombing. It lasted less than a year -- not much longer than Bomber Command's initial attempts early in the war. The losses were simply too great. Later in the war, there were finally Allied troops on the ground in Europe and technology was moving ahead. Precision bombing became doable without being suicide. Strategy changed.

Third, it is misleading to say that "the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

Germany's production continued throughout the war because Germany had invaded all its neighbours and used their factories and workers to build munitions.
How many more guns, planes, bullets, mines, tanks, and V-bombs could they have built without the continuous disruptions of manufacturing and shipping lines by Bomber Command?
How much longer might the war have lasted?
How many more Allied soldiers and civilians might have been killed had bombing raids never happened?
How many more innocent people could have been sent to the ovens?

The War Museum plaque doesn't even ask these questions, let alone attempt to answer them. This is the synopsis, yet it has ignored issues which are imperative to understanding the role of Bomber Command.

AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY, the paragraph, is more "bitterly contested" than the rest of the Bomber Command display in its totality. Despite Director Oliver's assurance to the contrary, it is at the very least incomplete and because of that, it is indeed, disrespectful. The Museum's unwavering attachment to it, despite the anguish it has caused many Veterans, is shameful and unreasonable.

This is not about free speech. This is about presenting history realistically. No one wants to purge the historical record of evidence and facts, but our Veterans don't deserve to be equated with their wartime enemy. This display might be the only information a visitor will ever see or hear on the air war. Questioning their morality and belittling the value of their mission gives the impression of parity between the actions of the Nazis and those of Bomber Command.

It doesn't serve history well to ignore the painful parts, but neither does it serve our understanding of the past to take a sliver of time and interpret it, without conveying a sense of the historic reality. At least a century's distance from acts of war on Canadian soil has allowed us the illusion of being 'peacemaker' and 'peacekeeper' of the world. In order to reconcile its vision of our nice country with reality, the War Museum has chosen to pull a chapter from a bloody, protracted war and unjustly use it as a Scarlet 'A'.

And yet the Museum still doesn't understand the fuss. The Brits and the Veterans lived it. Maybe some people would have had to be there to get it.

canadianna

Oooops!

***UPDATE -- Vaasuhan was found yesterday afternoon and returned to the Whitby Mental Health Centre. Thank God.

It could have been a plot for a movie. Wait -- it was.

Reminiscent of the film The Dream Team, which starred Michael Keaton and Peter Boyle, a Whitby mental patient has gone missing from a 'field trip' to a baseball game. Unlike the movie, where the patients were lovable misfits, the real life missing man, Mylvaganam Vaasuhan, is a paranoid schizophrenic who is without the medication he needs to control his sexual urges.

Apparently, the 31 year old, who was found 'not criminally responsible' was put away after sexually assaulting two girls in 2001. This known pedophile 'wandered away' during the outing, and no one knows where he might have gone.

Earlier this month, the Whitby facility had trouble finding a different patient who had escaped. Yet just two weeks later, they obviously felt confident enough to actually bring a group of mental patients to a Blue Jays game.

What's that joke about the inmates running the asylum? Well, when a pedophile is involved, it isn't funny.

canadianna

Degrees of morality at the War Museum

Don Martin wrote again about the Royal Canadian Legion's fight against one of the exhibits at the Canadian War Museum. Martin is of the opinion that Vets are wrong to object to the wording of the contentious "An Enduring Controversy" display. Needless to say I think he's wrong as usual.

The exhibit in question attempts to give perspective and background to the role of Bomber Command and the air war prior to D-Day. This quote from the War Museum backgrounder is meant to set out the museum's position that they have handled this exhibition respectfully and accurately:

The panel states, essentially, that the morality and value of the Allies' strategic bombing campaign continues to be the subject of intense debate, that the raids achieved a high level of physical destruction throughout Germany, and that they failed to reduce substantially German war production until the later months of the war.

While arguing that this display is balanced because the Museum is simply reflecting the reality that the 'morality' and 'value' of the raids are debatable, they present as FACT that the raids were largely ineffective. If the value of the raids is subject to 'intense debate' why are they saying unequivocally that the raids were largely a failure? If the backgrounder is an accurate telling of what the display holds, a visitor might well come away believing not that the raids were 'controversial' but that they were IN FACT ineffective because that's what the display says. And yet we're told it's a point for debate . . . obviously it's a debate in which the CWM has decided to draw the correct conclusion for us.

Does it really shock them that the Veterans would take issue with such a poorly constructed idea?

Now, if the raids were ineffective, but caused 'large-scale physical destruction' of Germany -- it doesn't take a huge leap to realize that it is being broadly hinted that the raids were also 'immoral'. Such pervasive, continuous, long-term devastation resulted -- and yet without fulfilling any significant military goals. The question becomes why did they keep doing it if it didn't have value to the war effort? Weighed against the civilian death toll, what's a bunch of ineffective destruction?

Where's the debate?

Where's the side that says that the bombing drew resources and attention away from other battles and fronts and perhaps saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and civilians because of weapons never built and shipments that never reached their destinations. Where is the side that says that had the Allies not persisted in bombing, D-Day might never have been possible because the Germans would likely been able to hold the Allies off using the resources that would not have been destroyed in the raids? Apparently that's there. Sort of. The backgrounder doesn't give details, but it says:

The display presents an important episode in Canadian military history, some strategic perspective, relevant military details, and personal testimonies. These individual elements combine to give visitors a clear sense of the historical importance and continuing relevance of Canadian contributions to the air war.

If the display is as limited in its perspective as the backgrounder suggests, it has not presented a debate. It has stated that there is debate, and then it has pronounced its own version of truth.

But what really must irk the veterans is the suggestion that their actions were immoral. IMMORAL. That there's even a debate about this is an insult.

Don Martin thinks not -- he says:

The veterans went to great lengths to decipher defamatory meanings in seemingly innocuous words, argue the exhibit paints them as war criminals and insist it shows more empathy for civilian deaths than their casualties. (...) Unfortunately, despite being a class-act crowd, the veterans did not change my mind.

Is it really that hard to understand that it isn't the facts that are the main point of contention?

Questioning the morality of the participants is what has drawn their ire. It isn't just the morality of the mission the CWM is challenging -- which would be bad enough -- it is the morality of those airmen who obeyed orders as part of the bombing campaign. It stands to reason that if the raids were immoral, then so were its perpetrators -- and we've already established the CWM understanding of 'debate'. Following orders is not an excuse for immoral behaviour in the military. If the raids were immoral, we must conclude that so were our fliers. Maybe. But because we don't know for sure, that means the display is balanced.

How can we place modern day value judgments on the air raids of WWII? How can we make judgments at all without viewing the war in its totality, and purging ourselves of the knee-jerk anti-war sentiments that have coloured our perspective of all of our military history? The CWM insists:

This (display) cannot be done selectively, by ignoring difficult subjects.

It is one thing to say that 'today, we would not use these tactics' but the emphasis has to be on the fact that in those times, in those circumstances, those raids were not immoral. Context is essential, and although the backgrounder says it provides context and lauds the sacrifices of our servicemen, it's a backhanded commendation when this display has as its focus and first comments, the dubious morality of the events. The subject matter is not difficult --- the slant is.

The concentration camps were immoral.
The starvation and execution of our POWs at the hands of the Germans was immoral.

Those who run the War Museum might contend that they are not equating our fliers with the people who perpetrated those atrocities -- but then, what degree of immorality would they attribute to our airmen and their mission?

Germans have acknowledged and apologized for the events of the holocaust, but never have they questioned the morality of their war tactics against Britain. They have never hinted at regret about our POWs. We're not talking here of one-sided, wanton murder -- this was WAR!! Is there anything moral about war? If you've answered no, then get off the idea that these men are somehow deserving of this kind of particular and negative scrutiny in the morality department.

The backgrounder goes on to say:

In part as a result of public comments and suggestions, including consultations with veterans of the air war, the CWM subsequently added material defining the term "strategic bombing" itself and explaining the military-political context in which its use became commonplace. We also added the three first-person quotations mentioned above, additional material on the German resources drained from other fronts by the Allied air campaign, and a photograph of a massive German flak (anti-aircraft) tower. (...) Nowhere in this approach, and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans, does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

To pretend that this is about historical accuracy is disingenuous. It isn't. The display would have been just as accurate without impugning the integrity, character and morality of those who served in Bomber Command. There is no other way to interpret the suggestion of immorality. It taints everything else. It is not fact, it is a value judgment -- and it is a damaging one.

Don Martin said in March:

But after five prominent historians vetted and vindicated the wording, the only quibble from one was to wonder if the agreed-upon facts were worthy of public presentation and, thus, preservation. (...) Damn right they are. This is Canada, not a place like China where history is subject to periodic revision by the ruling class to create non-persons or purge unpleasant events from the record. Our history is factual, not popular fiction.

Unpleasant truths? This isn't the Somalia scandal. What is he implying the Veterans want to purge? They don't want to destroy the record -- they want to have the facts presented without Monday-morning-quarterbacks saying they were wrong to have done what they did, because their side of the 'debate' says they weren't. Is that side presented in the display?

Martin went on to say:

Lest we forget, 10,000 crew members in Bomber Command died defending our freedom. And nobody said that excluded freedom of speech.

So clever to use their sacrifices as a weapon against them -- but where is their voice in all this 'freedom of speech'?

Those who run the War Museum politely resent their efforts being deemed 'disrespectful', so they've set up the backgrounder to set out their point of view.

Gosh, imagine how they'd feel if they were veterans and their wartime service and that of their fallen comrades, was held up as possibly 'immoral' and definitely 'without value'.
They'd probably like to see the record set straight.

canadianna

Arts smarts? I think not

Writer Yann Martel is getting worldwide press about his campaign to get more federal arts funding by sending books to Stephen Harper. The first parcel Harper is scheduled to receive is "The Death of Ivan Ilyich" by Russian author Leo Tolstoy.

It's a cute idea really and has obviously garnered attention, which I guess is the point.

A couple of questions though.

If a Canadian author is trying to solicit funding from the Prime Minister of Canada, why is he using a Russian writer to do it? Aren't there examples of fine Canadian writing that might just as easily open Mr. Harper's eyes to the joys of 'art'?

And secondly, how much government funding do you figure Tolstoy received in order to complete this, or any other of his celebrated works?

canadianna.

Dion prefers the status quo

It's always bothered me that Quebec didn't ratify the Constitution. It feels like the whole family is gathering for a special dinner, and one member had a major issue about what was being served and his place at the table. Instead of putting off the dinner and working out the details to suit everyone -- it was prepared and served -- rushed into, despite that person's refusal to attend.

In a family, it might be necessary to proceed without all parties, time and outside obligations playing a part -- but in a nation, regardless of how rigid a demand or how unyielding the response, the dinner shouldn't have proceeded without all parties present. What was the rush to get the constitution through right then? It was a time of social and political upheaval in Quebec, and yet those at the helm were so impatient, that they adopted a nationally defining document that left out one of the elders of Confederation.

Maybe the framers relied on the idea that the ROC would see Quebec as a whiner and dissenter. They could actually grant Quebec special status within Canada, by adopting a constitution that Quebec wouldn't endorse. Those representing Quebec must have realized that so long as they remained outside the constitution, they would always have the 'distinct' status they sought, but without the constraints of working within the same boundaries that applied to the other provinces. Whatever, but the fallout from those decisions have carried through and will continue to haunt this country until something is done to heal this festering sore.

Stéphane Dion said Sunday that the Constitution should not be re-opened because:

“My view is that we have terrible challenges in Canada regarding competitiveness. The world is tough. If we want to keep our standard of living and pass on to our children a better quality of life, we need to tackle this issue. Climate change and the environment is [also] a huge issue and none of these issues that are facing us, including social justice ... request a constitutional change to deal with.”

There are plenty of things to think about besides some stupid piece of paper that we really didn't need in the first place, but were I a politician, I would think that having all of the provinces under the constitutional umbrella would be at least as important as climate change -- given that climate change is or isn't going to happen, regardless of Kyoto and carbon credits. Shouldn't we do as St. Francis prayed -- change the things we can rather than fixating on what we can't?

The constitution is an abstract to most of us. It doesn't really come into our every day lives, but doesn't it stand to reason that if our provinces were expending less energy competing with each other for federal attention, the might actually be more competitive globally?

The national unity issue comes and goes from our minds, but it is always there, simmering. It bubbles just under the surface and it affects everything the federal government does from transfer payments to awarding contracts. It causes suspicion and jealousy amongst the provinces and throughout the populace. Who amongst us hasn't felt at some point that Ottawa was pandering to Quebec or ignoring one or more of the 'lesser' provinces?

So long as Quebec remains outside the Constitution, a separate and disctinct entity within the nation, the need for Ottawa to take a special interest will remain. Dumont has opened up the possibility of Quebec ratifying the constitution. Given that under the Liberals we acknowledged Quebec's 'distinct' status, and now under the Conservatives, we have acknowledged their 'nationhood' -- why would Dion object to putting Quebec on the same footing as the rest of Canada constitutionally?

Maybe Dion likes the idea of a Quebec that stays outside the fray, a Quebec Ottawa will have to buy, a Quebec that is slightly more important than say, Alberta or Newfoundland because of it's perpetual promise to jump ship. Maybe Dion recognizes that without the Quebec card to play somewhere down the line, the Liberal hand is a loser.

Dion's brilliant -- May? Not so much

Most of the criticism of the Grit-Green deal in Central Nova is aimed at Stephane Dion, but that guy is one shrewd operator. In one fell swoop he eliminates the competition, while giving the appearance of having only altruistic motivations.

Clever.

The same can't be said of Elizabeth May.

The Green Party sees itself as centrist. It stands left on most environmental and social issues, and mostly right fiscally. It also sees itself as a fresh alternative to the 'big three' mainstream parties.

That's all gone now.

Elizabeth May has done a lot of damage to her party. Her message to Greens and prospective Greens is that the vision of the Party, the long-term aims that were just starting to be taken seriously -- those goals, those ideals -- are secondary to beating/humiliating Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. She's giving up on Green.

At a time when the Greens have seen their best showing in an election and have been the beneficiary of the election laws that augment their coffers for each vote, the Greens should have been prepared for the next election as being their break-through chance. The environment is their issue, and it's hot. They could be setting the agenda. Instead, it will likely be their demise.

Stephane Dion supported Elizabeth May in her bid to participate in the Leadership Debate. Although without a seat in Parliament it is unlikely she would have been allowed, she has just blown the opportunity of receiving scads of free publicity come election time. Her fight to join the leadership debate would have been the chance to get her message out during an election. It would have been a free vehicle to headlines. And she traded it in for a chance to lose, while being endorsed by a Liberal. What an idiot.

Dion is laughing. He's just neutralized his enemy. So what if there's no Liberal in Central Nova -- there's no Green in the Leadership Debate.

canadianna

Free? Nothing's Free

The lawyers for the plaintiffs in the class-action suit against OLG are proposing a 'free' lottery with a jackpot worth up to $1 billion, to make up for the corruption that's been alleged.

There's a lot wrong with the OLG, beyond even the current scandal. Things like spending millions of dollars to drop the 'C' from their logo and advertising --- millions of dollars -- all those light up store signs -- everything had to be changed in order to remove that word from the name. Who got the advertising contracts? the contracts to make the new signs etc.? With that kind of stupidity going on at the top, is it any wonder that there was also nonsense all the way down the ranks.

This class action suit might seem like a great idea, but in the end, all of us will pay -- even those of us who never play. How fair is that when there can be no actual evidence that anyone who joins the suit is actually a victim of OLG fraud.

There are things that could be done to prevent this sort of corruption. Maybe a law that would disallow vendors and their families from participating in the lottery, just like when the SUN or the Toronto Star hold a contest, employees and family members and people associated with the sponsors of the contest are not allowed to play.

Using tax dollars (a billion of them) to compensate people who might not even have been affected, or to encourage people to buy more lottery tickets in order to receive these 'free' ones, is not a solution.

Much as I sympathize with those who feel they were cheated out of winnings, there has always been a way to ensure you'd be the guy to receive the money if your ticket won -- you write your name on the back.

canadianna

Garth wants Dion's job

Why does the Toronto Sun persist in giving yet another venue to that tiresome bore, Garth Turner?

Garth always seems to have so much time on his hands. He spends much of it thinking up clever barbs he must believe will pierce the heart of his arch-nemesis, Stephen Harper.

Sometimes I think Garth should pilfer the CityTV tag line: EVERYWHERE because you just can't get away from the guy.

The time-wasting exercise showcased by the Toronto Sun, both yesterday and today, is Garth's recent post: 'Sixty-ways-to-dis-Steve-Harper' or '60 proofs Harper is a mean guy, na-na-na-na-na' or some such other silliness.

Garth Turner already gets more attention than he deserves and here a newspaper gives him yet another forum to vent his bitter bile. His list seems to be the product of an obsessive mind. It's like he's a spurned boyfriend or something, unable to let go of his unreciprocated love. Creepy. The list must have taken him a while and one can just sense the pinching resentment that has Garth's shorts all bunched.

He's included things that haven't even happened yet (an election in 2007) and he's taken the liberty of predicting that the GST won't be cut by another cent while Harper is in office by already calling it a 'broken promise'.

At least a couple of his points are repeated, but reworded or augmented so the list will fill out the full 60 (one point for each week of Conservative governance). For example, he mentions income trusts at least three times, with a different take on why Harper's handling of them was wrong.

Many of the points on his list are either untrue, twisted or out of context, like point 41 where he says Harper vowed to dismantle the gun registry 'after (a) fatal shooting in Montreal with registered weapons.' As though Harper's plan to scrap the registry was in response to that tragedy.

Some of the points are unsubstantiated and others are simply unfair -- pointing out how much Jim Flaherty spent on skates? What business is that of Garth's, or mine? Is Garth going to give us a listing of his personal family expenditures?

Other points are correct, and are reasons to applaud Harper -- such as number 44 -- Garth being kicked out of the Tory caucus. And if Garth is still lamenting that, then perhaps he should re-think his Liberal credentials.

The real interesting post from Garth's blog is from today. I ventured over there, spurred on by this gory curiosity that happens whenever he's been overwhelmingly Garthly, and I found this rumination:

We may be entering the age of romantic notions. Voters, at least a lot of them I’d say, are hungry for a none-of-the-above alternative to politics as usual. It may manifest itself as it did Monday night in Quebec, or last November in the London by-election. It may take form as a new kind of leadership, practiced by a new kind of leader – who consults with people using today’s technologies and opens the doors and windows of Parliament as never before. It could be one of the parties willing to forego the mushy, centrist policies of something for everything, and launches a crusade. (. . .) The man or woman who can stride outside of the establishment one day, talk directly to the people and move them to consider achieving the improbable, the noble and the slightly untamed, may find the time is precisely right.

Gosh now, who would that striding, talking, improbable, noble and slightly untamed beast be?

Garth, surely you jest -- but Stephane Dion might want to start checking over his shoulder and making sure Garth feels loved in caucus, or else the Liberal leader might regret the day he yanked the thorn from this lion's paw and invited him to the table.

Number 44 on that list looks better every day.

canadianna