Harper 1 Ignatieff 0

I've never been so insulted since last Thursday! My take on the contrived fracas over Harper's prudent reluctance to step into nationalist traps. UPDATE: Michael Ignatieff, I see, was not so well-advised.

Front-running federal Liberal leadership candidate Michael Ignatieff said yesterday that in his eyes Quebec is a nation, but maintained its nationhood is best served by being part of Canada. "Quebec is a nation, not just a nation, but a civic nation," he said in a speech to warm applause from nearly 200 Liberals gathered at a St. Hubert restaurant on the south shore... He said Quebec qualifies as a nation in that its people has its own language, a deeply felt attraction to a territory, a collective memory and specific values. "It is a historic reality that can not be denied."

But Harper didn't deny it. He just didn't say it. Anyway, it gets worse.

He was also applauded when he said that one of Canada's strengths is that Quebecers can consider themselves Quebecers first and Canadians second. "I am against having to choose between parts of your soul."

This is the worst sort of tripe, and pandering tripe at that. It is hardly a "strength" that Quebecers consider themselves "Quebecers first and Canadians second." It may be a reality. It may be something we have to live with. But it is not a "strength." Membership in a society entails not only benefits, but also, at times, sacrifices. For people to be willing to make sacrifices for one another, they have to put each other first: they have to feel a connection to each other that transcends all others. When we say that Quebecers feel themselves "Canadians second," we mean they put other Canadians second, and to the extent that is so, it means they will not be willing to sacrifice for them -- not, certainly, if it conflicts with their interests as Quebecers. That may be many things, but it is not a "strength" -- not, at least, if Canada is your concern. Ignatieff says he is against having to choose between parts of your soul. But it is belied by his previous statement. What he means is that Quebecers have chosen, and he's okay with it. Oh, but it gets worse:

But he also pointed out that there are about 5,000 civic entities in the world that qualify as nations according to his definition, yet fewer than 200 countries. "Not all nations have a state," he said. "You have a state and it is Canada." The Quebec nation can develop fully within Canada, he said. "For me that is the essence of Canadian federalism."

Quebec is a "nation," but Canada is merely a "state." The "essence of Canadian federalism" is that "the Quebec nation can develop fully" within it. This is the chrysalis theory of Canadian federalism: Quebec is maturing within its Canadian cocoon, eventually to ... well, you know. Canada is a source of nutrients to the fledgling nation, a shelter against the elements, but nothing more. For now it is useful, but may be discarded once it no longer serves its purpose. I am used to this kind of rhetoric from Quebec nationalists. I am not so used to hearing it from would-be leaders of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Speaking to reporters after his speech, Ignatieff said he is open to new discussions to bring Quebec fully into the Canadian constitution, something Quebec refused to accept at the time of the last constitutional revision in 1982. "Quebec must be brought into the Canadian constitution because the legitimacy of the federation remains in question here in Quebec," he said.

Quebec is fully within the Canadian constitution. It has never been out of it. It was not Quebec that refused to accept the 1982 constitution: it was the Quebec legislature (though it has never hesitated to use it when it suits its purposes). The Quebec members of Parliament voted almost unanimously in favour of it. To dismiss that as irrelevant, explicitly or implicitly, to say or imply that the only legitimate voice of the people of Quebec are the members of the provincial legislature, is essentially to make the separatists' argument for them.

But constitutional recognition of Quebec's nationhood presents difficulties to which he doesn't have a ready answer, he said. "I am open to a new discussion on this question, but it is somewhat problematic to say in a formal way that we have 10 provinces, but one province is a nation."

Constitutional recognition of Quebec's nationhood? What?? That's not just "somewhat problematic." It's Meech to the power of 10. No one, so far as I am aware, is asking for this. Why is he even discussing it? I can't go on. This is very distressing, and quite makes hash of any Trudeau comparisons.

Meanwhile, back in Quebec

Uh-oh.

Crown attorneys have in their hands more files from police investigations into the federal sponsorship scandal and are studying them, says the prosecutor who handled the fraud trial that led to the conviction and jailing of former bureaucrat Chuck Guité.

Oh dear.

After several months of silence, the RCMP says it is investigating allegations that the federalist side broke Quebec electoral law during the 1995 referendum on sovereignty.

Oh dear.

The Parti Quebecois was aware it illegally received $96,400 over five years from employees of an advertising agency at the centre of the sponsorship scandal, a report said Wednesday. "The party knew the situation and closed its eyes," retired judge Jean Moisan wrote in his report released by Marcel Blanchet, Quebec's chief electoral officer.

A related Globe editorial adds some colour:

In fact, [Judge Moisan's report] adds, one party fundraiser spelled out for Mr. Brault the wisdom of channelling the money into the PQ's coffers: If "you watch the plane go by, you'll get nowhere. To travel, you have to buy a ticket."

The MPs Expense Account (Shhh, Don't Tell the Public) Support Act

Didn't we just get rid of these expense-account dodges? Wasn't that the argument for increasing their pay? Yet here they are again, raising their own pay again, on the sly, minutes before skipping town. Again. Even the Star is onto them this time:

At a secret meeting May 1, Speaker Peter Milliken and the House leaders of the four parties decided to boost the MPs' expense allowance for living in Ottawa by 20 per cent, from $20,000 to $24,000. Although the base salary for MPs now stands at $147,700, the attendees at the closed-door meeting concluded that to house themselves in Ottawa, the people's representatives needed $2,000 a month... They didn't issue a press release advising taxpayers. They didn't call a press conference so the media could spread the good news. What they did was to wait more than a month, and release the minutes of their meeting last Friday, the day the House adjourned for the summer recess. What happened to the "new way of doing business" in Ottawa, to the promise of transparency to enable taxpayers to know how their money is being spent? If MPs really did need another $4,000 to get by on, they should have made the case to their employers — the taxpayers — and had the courage to defend that request, instead of doing a deal in secret, and keeping it under wraps until they could run away and hide for the summer. Shame on the Conservatives. Shame on the Liberals. Shame on the Bloc Québécois. And shame on the New Democrats.

Mind you, it could be worse:

Gold rings customized for Newfoundland politicians were among $2.7-million worth of baubles and trinkets apparently purchased with misappropriated public funds, the province’s auditor general said Tuesday in a scathing report that added fuel to a growing spending scandal. John Noseworthy, who last week issued an audit of constituency allowances that led to the resignation of a cabinet minister, also accused the legislature’s financial operations director of breach of trust and conflict of interest. The stunning allegations follow a decision by Premier Danny Williams to reverse an order that prevented the auditor general from examining the finances of the house of assembly between 2000 and 2004. Noseworthy’s findings have revealed that spending controls in the legislature were virtually non-existent until last year.

Adscam goes to Newfoundland! More here and here and here. All I can say is, thank God for equalization. Otherwise Newfoundland politicans would have to pay for their customized gold rings out of their own pockets.

The Canadian Autoworkers (Overpriced Sole-Source Subway Contract) Support Act

Oh, God.

Toronto city councillors will debate a controversial proposal Wednesday to award a $700-million subway contract to a Canadian company without seeking any competing bids. The Toronto Transit Commission contract for more than 200 new subway cars is the single largest purchase the City of Toronto has ever considered. Mayor David Miller and members of the TTC have defended a proposal to hand the contract to Montreal-based Bombardier. They say the price is competitive, and that the contract will protect hundreds of jobs at Bombardier's Thunder Bay plant. German company Siemens has also expressed interested in bidding on the contract. Siemens says it can save the city as much as $100 million, in part by building the cars in China... A number of unions agree with Miller, however, and say politicians have a responsibility to protect local industry. "If municipal councillors and legislature cannot support Canadian workers and Canadian business, we'll remove them," said Bob Huget, of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. "They don't deserve to hold office if they cannot support Canadian manufacturing jobs and Canadian workers."

It's so simple it's brilliant! We overcharge ourselves to prosperity! But why stop there? By paying too much for everything, we can keep everyone employed. Each industry could be assigned to a single company, charging monopoly prices to all the rest. So everyone pays more for their supplies, and everything costs more to consumers. But then we legislate an increase in wages, and ...

The Nova Scotia Gas Station Profits Support Act

Gas price regulation comes to N.S.:

Filling up at the pump will cost drivers about the same anywhere in Nova Scotia under gas price regulations that take effect this weekend. As of July 1, the price of self-serve gasoline across the province will be fixed for two weeks at a time.

Ah, Dan McTeague's wet-dream! At last, government steps in to prevent consumers from being ripped off! Um, not exactly.

Premier Rodney MacDonald says regulating gas prices will mean less volatility at the pumps and a guaranteed profit for retailers, but not lower prices... "Many retailers are looking to have that guaranteed margin and that's important for their long-term stability and for keeping a number of stations around rural Nova Scotia."

Guaranteed profits for gas stations! Now there's a slogan you can rally around. UPDATE: In fact, if you read McTeague's stuff, that's what he's on about, too. It's not a price ceiling he wants, but a price floor, the better to protect the profit margins of "independent" retailers. Because -- stay with me -- if we didn't prop up prices to support the independents, the majors would cut prices, which would lead to higher prices in the long run, because the independents -- the ones we're propping up prices for -- are the only ones who can compete with the majors. Who are all in cahoots. Well, them and the Trilateral Commission.

Plus ça chicken

Sigh.

Federal Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl says he will defend Canada's controversial supply management system this week at trade talks in Switzerland, but cautions that changes could be on the horizon.

Strahl, who concluded meetings with provincial and territorial counterparts in St. John's on Tuesday, is under pressure from farmers to protect the system, which regulates the production of eggs, chicken, milk and cheese. At the same time, Strahl is aiming to persuade other countries to reduce their own protectionist measures to allow for greater Canadian exports of grain and beef.

Strahl, who will attend World Trade Organization talks starting Thursday in Geneva, said striking a balance will be difficult, but assured Canadian dairy farmers they will not be forgotten.

"We think the system has worked well for Canada. It's a system other countries should consider as part of their agricultural policy," Strahl said.

Oh, yes. Other countries are just dying to charge their consumers three times the world price for milk. What a triumph of public policy! What a giant leap for social justice -- single moms may not be able to feed their kids, but they have the pleasure of knowing that the hefty markups they are required by law to pay on milk, cheese, eggs and chicken are going to support Canadian agribusiness. And thank goodness all four parties support it!

Rock 'n' roll!

Flaherty: Cash-strapped provinces should raise taxes

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says the provinces should raise taxes to pay for their own programs rather than expecting the federal government to deliver billions in extra cash.
Flaherty says with eight of 10 provinces posting budget surpluses, the so-called fiscal imbalance between the two levels of government has obviously moderated.
Flaherty, who is meeting with his provincial counterparts today, says the provinces have the same taxation powers as Ottawa if they feel they need more money.
He adds it’s not the responsibility of the federal government to tax Canadians in order to fund provincial programs.

There's no fiscal imbalance? The provinces have the same taxation powers as Ottawa? They should raise their own damn taxes to finance their perennial spending sprees, rather than using Ottawa as their piggy bank? Do my ears deceive me? Or have the Conservatives had an attack of common sense?

What was that wager again?

A. Columnist, May 6:

It is increasingly clear the Harper government is not talking about fiscal imbalance at all —- or not in the sense the provinces attach to it. It is talking about disentanglement: about reducing overlap between the two levels of government, restricting use of the federal spending power in provincial jurisdictions... But there will be no wholesale withdrawal of the federal government from national life, nor does it intend to simply cut a bunch of fat cheques to the provinces. Rather, issues of fiscal federalism will be rolled into a larger discussion about improving the federation, specifically the economic union —- a negotiation ... in which the feds will bring their own set of demands. These are listed, prominently and repeatedly, throughout the budget: a common national securities regulator; harmonization of provincial sales taxes with the GST; and a general reduction of provincial barriers to trade and labour mobility. The message is unmistakable. You want the quid? Come up with the quo.

N. Spector, May 6 ("The column I'm glad I didn't write"):

The National Post’s Andrew Coyne is onto fiscal imbalance, and I’ll wager he has it wrong.

Globe and Mail, June 26:

Provincial finance ministers seeking bigger slices of Ottawa's wealth are gathering at federal counterpart Jim Flaherty's invitation this week, but the Conservative government's senior economic steward is looking for something from his guests, too. Mr. Flaherty hopes to sell them on a series of economic reforms that he believes should go hand in hand with negotiations aimed at a better equalization deal and richer per-capita transfers. For instance, he wants provinces to agree, at long last, to form a common securities regulator. This would replace 13 different regimes across Canada that frustrate attempts to raise capital. He also wants action on lowering interprovincial trade barriers and co-operation on integrating skilled immigrants into the work force, among other things. The Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont., meeting of finance and securities ministers ... is Mr. Flaherty's attempt to broaden the fiscal imbalance debate beyond how big a cheque the Conservative government might cut to share the wealth.

Canadian Press, June 25:

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has a blunt message for Canada's premiers: Fixing the country's fiscal imbalance will not include giving the provinces billions in extra cash... Flaherty's recipe for reducing fiscal disparities among the provinces, and between them and the federal government, is much more modest. It includes some additional cash for post-secondary education and a new formula for calculating equalization, although not necessarily putting any more money into the wealth-sharing program... Flaherty is also serving notice that there's something he wants from the provinces in return for fixing the imbalance: a stronger economic union. That means knocking down interprovincial barriers to trade and labour mobility and agreeing to a common, national securities regulator. "There's no formal quid-pro-quo, but I think we should all engage in all of these issues and not just some of them," he said. "Any successful negotiation is a two-way street."

UPDATE: Then there's this piece of "reporting" in the Toronto Star:

Harper and company appear determined to turn back the clock by abandoning the central role Ottawa has played in national social and economic programs as the country evolved over the past century into a modern, urban state. The Conservatives' under-the-radar thrust is starting to raise questions about the country's ability to mount effective, national social programs and, in the worst-case scenario, ensure the continued unity of Canada.

Funny, I could have sworn that CP story said the exact opposite:

While he's promising that the federal government won't intrude on provincial jurisdiction, Flaherty said there are three primary areas where both levels of government have what he called mutual obligations-health care, post-secondary education and infrastructure... He maintained, as he has done before that there's no need for more federal health-care funding beyond the $42-billion, 10-year agreement negotiated by former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin in 2004. And he said there's already "substantial funding available" for infrastructure, with his first budget committing $16 billion over four years, although the details must still be worked out. That leaves post-secondary education, "the area in which there's the most to be done." The federal government has promised to carve out a separate education transfer from the current Canada Social Transfer and is prepared to pump more money into it. While he wouldn't give a precise amount, Flaherty said he's looking at long-term funding commitments for 10 or 20 years to ensure "proper funding of research and development and innovation through our colleges and universities and skills training."

Doesn't sound like the end of Canada as we know it. But then, what does CP know? They only interviewed Flaherty. Whereas the Star interviewed Roy Romanow...

This is my favourite story ever

From The Birmingham News:

Ronald Wayne Blankenship, a candidate in the runoff for the Democratic nomination for Jefferson County sheriff, says it's coincidence that a man with a criminal past shares his name and birthdate.
It's strange but true, he says, that both he and a man who faked his own death in 1990 are married to women named Judy Ruth Green Stonecipher Blankenship.

Stonecipher Blankenship? Weren't they an acid-metal band in the 70s? But wait, it gets better.

Blankenship calls himself an underdog. The Bessemer shoe shop owner received 12,218 votes or 25.9 percent in the June 6 primary last week. He did little campaigning and spent little money. He is vying for the Democratic nomination for sheriff with Ron McGuffie, a former sheriff's deputy and dispatcher. Blankenship, 63, beat out veteran lawman C.D. Horton to make the runoff. Little was known about Blankenship during the campaign. He refused to release personal information and declined to be interviewed, citing fear of identity theft.

And with good reason: it's bad enough that guy using his name to fake his own -- not his, the other Ronald Wayne Blankenship's -- death. Not to mention his thieving wife, whatshername. But wait, it gets better.

Blankenship, who said he's a former policeman, 20-year Ford Motor Co. worker and U.S. Navy veteran, said he's never been in trouble. "I stand before the Lord," he said. "I've never been convicted of anything." Vestavia Hills police Lt. Rick Miller said he's surprised Blankenship is running for public office because he knows Blankenship is the man he arrested in 1990...

Arrested, maybe, but never convicted.

In April 1990, a Jefferson County SWAT team - called in to assist Vestavia Hills on a theft warrant - stormed a condominium where Blankenship lived. Officers didn't find him, but found a cache of weapons inside a mattress box spring, officers said. Police believe a trap door in the condo leading to a storage area allowed the occupants to elude them... Vestavia Hills and Hoover police ended up arresting Blankenship in May 1990. Vestavia Hills wanted the man on a warrant of second-degree theft of property. Bessemer had a second-degree assault warrant, and the man was wanted in Atmore on burglary, theft of property and forgery charges. The Atmore charges stemmed from a home burglary in which an urn with cremated remains and a death certificate were stolen. There were three copies of the death certificate in the car when Blankenship was arrested, police said.

But never convicted...

Miller said it turned out the ashes and death certificate belonged to a Blankenship uncle in Atmore. Ron Blankenship wasn't charged in the faked death because the insurance claim was denied, Miller said. His wife, however, was charged with forgery.

That would be the lovely Judy Ruth. Sadly, she is no longer with us.

Her trial was set for 1991 but was postponed after she suffered a brain aneurysm and was not expected to recover. Several years later, however, federal authorities issued a fugitive warrant for her after they learned she was no longer in a coma at a Florence hospital.

It's a miracle! And yet...

The Blankenships were taken into custody in Killen in April 1995. A Jefferson County judge dismissed the forgery charge against Judy Blankenship in June 1995 because he determined she was incapacitated and couldn't stand trial.

But back to our hero.

In an interview last week, Blankenship was shown the news clippings, one of which bore his picture. He said it was the first he'd heard of the story. "It looks like me in a way, but all Blankenships get to looking alike," he said. He also gave his birthdate, then said it was a different date. He had earlier given a third birthdate.

But never -- oh. Never mind.

According to Jefferson County jail records, Ronald Blankenship, who listed his occupation as shoe repair, was booked into the jail on June 2, 1987, on a bad check charge, and released that day. On Feb. 8, 1989, he was jailed on a second-degree assault charge and bonded out the same day. On May 3, 1990, he was jailed for second-degree assault and failure to appear, with bond set at $20,000. The victim in that case, records show, was Terry Armstrong. Blankenship later testified that he beat Terry Armstrong after discovering Armstrong and Blankenship's 19-year-old stepdaughter, Christe Stonecipher, together at Armstrong's mobile home on Overton Mountain. Blankenship was convicted on a misdemeanor third-degree assault charge and sentenced to a year in jail, court records show. He remained in the county jail until Dec. 18, 1990, when his sentence ended.

Ladies and gentlemen... I give you... the next sheriff of Jefferson County!

Blankenship says he is not the man described in police reports and court documents. "Do you know how many Ronald Blankenships there are?" he asked. "That's why I started going by Ron."

UPDATE: More on this unfortunate misunderstanding here and here.

The only solution for the CBC

Put it on pay. It's a suggestion I've made many times in the past (sigh), to the usual response: ie none whatever, a tiny pebble cast into a vast yawning chasm of indifference, a small voice of reason drowned out by a (Oh, shut up -- ed.)

It's ice dancing, with more bruises and fewer sequins. A thoughtful little homily on hockey and lesser sports.

Happy morning!

This is without a doubt the strangest ad for anything, ever.

UBY

Wanna see the future of music? I'll show you the future of music: ubiquitous wireless. (Ubi-wi?) Stream music off the 'net wherever you are. Why bother with podcasts, when you can just stream the same content whenever you like? Satellite radio? Strictly a transitional technology. There are thousands of internet stations offering the same selection of music at a fraction of the price -- or free. Indeed, why even bother with an iPod? Who needs to lug around 30 gigs of music on a tiny, skip-prone hard drive? Just stream your tunes from your home computer. Or a friend's. Or any computer on Earth (provided you have access). Any time. Anywhere. That's the future of music.

E pluribus bin Laden?

Does multiculturalism lead to terrorism? Colour me skeptical.

Twofer

My Wednesday column considers whether there is any principle underlying the equalization debate, or should be. Also, in case you missed it, my take on the Ahenakew business from last Saturday.

You can't make this stuff up

The Democratic presidential candidates hone their message...

Anti-war activists at a liberal gathering booed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday for opposing a set date for pulling U.S. troops from Iraq. Facing down the jeers, Clinton said Democrats need to have "a difficult conversation" about the war.
Another potential presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, spoke to the group later in the day and offered an emphatically anti-war appeal...
Kerry, who was widely criticized as the party's standard-bearer in 2004 for being too cautious in his criticism of the war, said Tuesday that politicians "cannot have it both ways."

Plus ca change, cont'd

Flaherty rejects request to end oil tax breaks

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has rejected a request from environmental groups to end an estimated $1.4 billion in annual tax breaks to the booming oil industry.

In a seven-page response to the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Flaherty defends special tax treatment for the resource sector noting its importance as a source of investment and jobs.
Greg Stringham of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers denied the $1.4 billion tax-break estimate, which is based on research by the Alberta-based Pembina Institute.

He said the estimate is based on outdated information but couldn't provide a current estimate. The industry made $27 billion after taxes last year, he said, a return of 14 per cent.

Stringham said the breaks for the oil industry parallel those available for renewable energies.

Hey, I've got an idea! How about we don't subsidize either of them? MORE: This piece by Larry Solomon makes clear how utterly incoherent our current energy/transportation policy is. We subsidize everything. I make much the same point in this piece.

Plus ça change (Tory edition)

CanWest ace Allan Woods, with the latest triumph of the "moderate, mainstream" Conservatives:

The Harper Conservatives are using the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to help their provincial cousins in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick win election campaigns and stay in power, the opposition alleges. The accusation comes after CanWest News Service analyzed the funding announcements made by the federal Tories through three regional development funds. Ottawa spent more than $90-million in the four Atlantic provinces between February and late May -- double what the Liberal government spent in the equivalent four months in 2005. The analysis also found that the bulk of the federal investments benefited Nova Scotia, which wraps up a provincial election today, and New Brunswick, which is gearing up for a provincial campaign... Peter MacKay, the Foreign Affairs Minister, who is responsible for the development program, has come under fire for overtly political comments that suggested it would be easier for a Nova Scotia riding to win ACOA grants if it elected the Tory candidate. Mr. MacKay was quoted telling Tory supporters at a Nova Scotia election rally May 19 that, once elected, the local Progressive Conservative candidate will have easy access to the funding. "There is money that the people in Preston are entitled to, and I can tell you he's going to come knocking and we're going to deliver," Mr. MacKay said at the rally. His party was elected on a platform that promised to "de-politicize" Ottawa's regional development programs, and maintain their existing budgets. In the 2004 election campaign, Stephen Harper promised to get the federal government "out of the business of corporate welfare."

The Edmonton Journal, in an editorial, adds

Besides the election boost to a fellow Tory, last month MacKay hinted that a spat with a Nova Scotia Liberal MP over ACOA may cost his riding: "I'll be looking at projects coming out of his riding, but his ability to influence me, you can imagine, is going to be severely diminished," he told a Halifax newspaper.

UPDATE: Fat lot of good it did them.

Comments are working again. Sigh.

Fisking Fisk first!

The great Robert Fisk -- the thinking man's Pilger -- has honoured us with a visit, or at least a flyover: just time to stop in for a couple of adoring interviews on the CBC and a quick scan of the papers. That was enough, however, for him to devote one of his justly celebrated columns in The Independent -- sober, even-handed, good-humoured are just some of the antonyms that come to mind -- to denouncing the Canadian press as "irretrievably biased" and "potentially racist" for its coverage of the arrest of 17 suspected terrorists. Ordinarily, I don't go in for "fisking," the literary form -- a line-by-line demolition of a particularly outstanding piece of wingnuttery -- to which the great man inadvertently gave birth. But given that he came all this way, it seems rude not to.

This has been a good week to be in Canada -- or an awful week, depending on your point of view -- to understand just how irretrievably biased and potentially racist the Canadian press has become.

"Potentially"? Is that like "allegedly"? (see below)

For, after the arrest of 17 Canadian Muslims on "terrorism" charges, the Toronto Globe and Mail and, to a slightly lesser extent, the National Post,

We demand a recount!

have indulged in an orgy of finger pointing that must reduce the chances of any fair trial and, at the same time, sow fear in the hearts of the country's more than 700,000 Muslims. In fact, if I were a Canadian Muslim right now, I'd already be checking the airline timetables for a flight out of town. Or is that the purpose of this press campaign?

You understand: the press are so irredeemably hostile to Muslims -- that would be the same press that spent the next several days after the arrest wringing its hands over a nonexistent "backlash" -- that they are actually trying to drive them out of the country. And it appears the leaders of every Muslim organization in the country are in on the plot, since every last one of them a) praised the work of the police, b) expressed faith in the Canadian judicial system, and c) accepted that the Muslim community must confront the problem of extremists in their midst.

First, the charges. Even a lawyer for one of the accused has talked of a plot to storm the parliament in Ottawa, hold MPs hostage and chop off the head of Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"Even" his lawyer? So he's "sowing fear" and "finger-pointing" too?

Without challenging the "facts" or casting any doubt on their sources -- primarily the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or Canada's leak-dripping Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) -- reporters have told their readers that the 17 were variously planning to blow up parliament, CSIS's headquarters, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and sundry other targets.

Well, no they haven't. I doubt Fisk can find a single story that says they were planning such things -- only that they are "charged", "suspected" or "accused" of same. Which is true: that's why they're called the accused.

Every veiled and chadored Muslim woman relative of the accused has been photographed and their pictures printed, often on front pages.

What's your point? The pictures were taken outside the courthouse, where the accused were being arraigned. We shouldn't have taken their pictures? We shouldn't have printed them? They should have stayed home?

"Home-grown terrorists" has become theme of the month -- even though the "terrorists" have yet to stand trial.

In common with every other major trial of any kind. The unstated hypothesis of every news story in such cases, rightly or wrongly, is that the Crown's theory probably has some sort of basis -- though only a trial can prove or disprove it conclusively. In this case, there's the added factor that the security authorities have been warning for months that Canada has become home to dozens of terrorist cells, involving hundreds of individuals -- a thesis that has not been seriously disputed. That doesn't mean these 17 are guilty. But it does mean the willingness of police and Crown to invest their credibility in this case, with all that that might mean for future investigations, is a matter of some significance.

They were in receipt of "fertilisers", we were told, which could be turned into explosives. When it emerged that Canadian police officers had already switched the "fertilisers" for a less harmful substance, nobody followed up the implications of this apparent "sting".

What implications?? Got something to say? Say it.

A Buffalo radio station down in the US even announced that the accused had actually received "explosives". Bingo: guilty before trial.

One report on one radio station -- in another country. Bingo: the entire Canadian media are guilty.

Of course, the Muslim-bashers have laced this nonsense with the usual pious concern for the rights of the accused.

Fisk has offered no evidence or even charged anyone with Muslim-bashing to this point. It's just assumed -- exactly the same rush to judgment of which he accuses others. Viz:

"Before I go on, one disclaimer," purred the Globe and Mail's Margaret Wente. "Nothing has been proved and nobody should rush to judgement." Which, needless to say, Wente then went on to do in the same paragraph. "The exposure of our very own home-grown terrorists, if that's what the men aspired to be, was both predictably shocking and shockingly predictable."

Now, had she not included these disclaimers, you can imagine Fisk's reaction. But -- as those familiar with Fisk's oeuvre will know -- every piece of evidence to the contrary only confirms the thesis. So she insists that "nobody should rush to judgment"? Ha! She probably denies she's a racist, too.

And just in case we missed the point of this hypocrisy, Wente ended her column by announcing that "Canada is not exempt from home-grown terrorism". Angry young men are the tinderbox and Islamism is the match. The country will probably have better luck than most at "putting out the fire", she adds. But who, I wonder, is really lighting the match?

Gosh, I don't know: maybe the hysteric who urges Muslims to grab the next flight out of town?

For a very unpleasant -- albeit initially innocuous -- phrase has now found its way into the papers. The accused 17 -- and, indeed their families and sometimes the country's entire Muslim community -- are now referred to as "Canadian-born". Well, yes, they are Canadian-born. But there's a subtle difference between this and being described as a "Canadian" -- as other citizens of this vast country are in every other context. And the implications are obvious; there are now two types of Canadian citizen: the Canadian-born variety (Muslims) and Canadians (the rest).

I want to be fair here. I can only conclude from this passage that the great man, in the course of his brief stay, did not have time to read more than a cursory account or two, and hence missed the point: the reference to "Canadian-born" is not meant to distinguish the suspects, let alone "the entire Muslim community," from other Canadians, but to distinguish "Canadian-born" terrorists, alleged as they may be, from "foreign-born." There isn't a single Canadian, Muslim or otherwise, who read those words as he did.

If this seems finicky, try the following sentence from the Globe and Mail's front page on Tuesday, supposedly an eyewitness account of the police arrest operation: "Parked directly outside his ... office was a large, grey, cube-shaped truck and, on the ground nearby, he recognised one of the two brown-skinned young men who had taken possession of the next door rented unit..." Come again? Brown-skinned? What in God's name is this outrageous piece of racism doing on the front page of a major Canadian daily? What is "brown-skinned" supposed to mean -- if it is not just a revolting attempt to isolate Muslims as the "other" in Canada's highly multicultural society? I notice, for example, that when the paper obsequiously refers to Toronto's police chief and his reportedly brilliant cops, he is not referred to as "white-skinned" (which he most assuredly is).

This seems to have been the trigger for this whole business, the quote that set him off. I can see why. One look at the names of the authors of this despicable piece is enough to confirm the obvious Anglo-Saxon, white supremacist agenda: Timothy Appleby and, um ... Unnati Gandhi. This revolting practice of describing people with brown skin as "brown-skinned" has clearly taken hold in the racist Canadian press. Why, just the other day that outrageous, Muslim-bashing racist Thomas Walkom used the phrase in the Toronto Star: "The young men charged this week apparently didn't bother with this kind of tradecraft. They apparently didn't realize, or perhaps didn't care, that large groups of brown-skinned urbanites dressed in camouflage are not a common sight in rural central Ontario.." I'm sure the Star, when it reprints the Fisk column, will make a point of mentioning this.

So I put this question to Jonathan Kay, a Post columnist and a man not averse to a bit of fear-splashing in his own paper. Wasn't "brown-skinned" pushing journalism into racism? Here is his astonishing reply: "These things are heavily idiomatic in the sense that, you know, 40 years ago, we would have said 'coloured'." Whoops! Idiomatic? My dictionary defines the word as follows: using, containing, denoting expressions that are natural to a native speaker. In other words, it's perfectly natural in Canada these days to refer to Muslims as "brown-skinned". Am I supposed to laugh or cry? Mr Kay believed that, if asked to describe Toronto's top cop by his racial origins, "you'd say the 'white police chief"'. Quite so.

Note to Jon: do not, under any circumstances, give interviews to Robert Fisk. Or be thankful the quote did not appear as "I ... am ... [a] ... racist."

Amid this swamp, Canada's journalists are managing to soften the realities of their country's new military involvement in Afghanistan.

That would explain why every traffic accident over there is front-page news.

More than 2,000 troops are deployed around Kandahar in active military operations against Taliban insurgents. They are taking the place of US troops, who will be transferred to fight even more Muslim insurgents in Iraq.

How do you know they're "Muslims"? Aren't you just assuming that? And how do you know they're "insurgents"? Isn't that what the Pentagon calls them?

Canada is thus now involved in the Afghan war -- those who doubt this should note the country has already shelled out US$1.8bn in "defence spending" in Afghanistan and only $500m in "additional expenditures", including humanitarian assistance and democratic renewal (sic) -- and, by extension, in Iraq. In other words, Canada has gone to war in the Middle East. None of this, according to the Canadian foreign minister, could be the cause of Muslim anger at home, although Jack Hooper -- the CSIS chief who has a lot to learn about the Middle East but talks far too much -- said a few days ago that "we had a high threat profile (in Canada) before Afghanistan. In any event, the presence of Canadians and Canadian forces there has elevated that threat somewhat."

I'm getting tired of this, and so are you. But the next line is the clincher, the closer, as concise an explanation of the Fisk method as you will ever read, from the man who, during the Iraq war, reported US forces were nowhere near Baghdad airport even as the American networks had begun to broadcast from the facility.

I read all this on a flight from Calgary to Ottawa this week,

Quite so.

So that's broken promise number, what, 209?

Ontario reneges on coal-power pledge

The Ontario government retreated yesterday from a campaign promise and conceded what has been obvious to its critics for some time: it can't meet a self-imposed deadline to shut down the province's aging coal-burning electricity-generating plants.

Cats and dogs, living together...

German police praise 'impeccable' England fans

You might think that. I couldn't possibly comment.

Michael Ignatieff's years in Britain were not entirely ill-spent. He seems to have picked up the art of the political stiletto, applying the knife to his rival with exquisite courtesy:

And there is no way to avoid the fact that Mr. Volpe’s campaign difficulties have caused reputational damage to a party that I’m sure he loves as much as I do. Mr. Volpe must draw his own conclusions.

As for Volpe -- well, no, he's never been one for subtlety, so why start now?

"I don't need to take lessons about how to serve the party from anybody," Volpe snapped... Afterward, Volpe told reporters that Ignatieff is "very Republican-minded."

Canadian politics in one lesson

A Conservative Prime Minister gets a standing ovation from a group of Indo-Canadian businessmen, traditionally supporters of the Liberal Party. Is this because of his pledge to hold an inquiry into the Air India affair? His declaration of interest in a trade and investment pact with India? His praise of Indo-Canadian values of hard work and higher education? Is it because, according to the Indian High Commissioner, he is "even more handsome" in person than on TV? Uh, no.

Indo-Canadians have traditionally been supporters of the Liberal Party in Canada, but as the community prospers that may change, said Kam Rathee, executive director of the Canada-India Business Council. "There's a disillusionment amongst the community because they backed the Liberals for so long, but they haven't gotten anything in return," he said, referring to the lack of South Asian appointments to government boards and agencies. "Also, Indians by nature are a conservative people. And they like to back a winning horse."

Caution: terrorists crossing

Everyone had a great time mocking that Congressional committee for voicing its alarm at the discovery of a possible terrorist cell just across the border. The Globe somehow found it relevant that the chair of the committee was "a fierce opponent of abortion," while the CBC's Neil Macdonald concentrated on dropping heavy hints that a Canadian witness before the committee -- David Harris, the former director of strategic planning for CSIS -- was some kind of kook. In Parliament, the opposition demanded that the government do more to counter the misinformation being spread by the committee, which task the government gravely promised to perform. But other than the chairman's reference to "South Toronto," no one seemed to think it necessary to identify just what the committee had got so egregiously wrong. Is Canada not home to a good many terrorist cells? Should we not have been more careful about screening applicants for admission to this country, and if we had, would we not have rather fewer of these characters in our midst? Have we not suffered the odd lapse in security -- the Ahmed Ressam case, for example? Was the last government not notoriously slow to deal seriously with Hamas, Hezbollah and the Tamil Tigers? For pity's sake, until quite recently you could still get a tax credit on your donations to these "charitable" organizations. Ah, but that was then. Things have tightened up quite considerably since. Oh yes? Have a read of this Globe story, and tell me if you find it reassuring. It tells the tale of how two of the suspects were arrested at the border last year carrying concealed weapons -- or rather, how they very nearly weren't.

The officer searched the car for 10 minutes. Nothing. It's a drug stop, but there's no sign of drugs, he told a colleague. His colleague took the men's IDs and tried to run their names through the Canadian Police Information Centre, the master database for law enforcement. The master database wasn't working. On his way back to the car, the officer passed a bulletin board, where he happened to spot a notice containing the names of Mr. Mohamed and Mr. Dirie. It was a warning for weapons, not drugs. The officer ran outside to warn his colleague. Border officers aren't allowed to carry guns, and it's a sore point for many who say they're placed in dangerous situations without adequate warning... As he reached around the young man's waist, the officer felt a telltale bulge. The officer had no training on how to deal with weapons. "We've got a gun!" he shouted. Mr. Mohamed resisted as the officer grabbed for the loaded handgun tucked into his belt. A scuffle broke out. The officer, who weighs 230 pounds, struggled to twist Mr. Mohamed's arms behind him and apply handcuffs. A supervisor helped to subdue Mr. Mohamed... The border officers were scared. This was no drug bust. In a draft of a letter sent to Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day this week, union president Ron Moran said that the police, unlike the Canadian Border Service Agency, knew what they were dealing with and took precautions. "From what we understand thus far, a CSIS terrorist lookout appears to have been altered and downgraded to a Caution: drug smuggling lookout," he wrote. "Based on our inquiries ... we now fear that CBSA management may have had the correct terrorism-related information about these two persons, but deliberately altered or downgraded it from our members so as to prevent them from exercising their rights under the Canada Labour Code to refuse dangerous work."

This is how we protect our borders -- by tricking unarmed customs officers into confronting suspected terrorists?

He taunts us still

Chretien says system works as some who stole sponsorship money go to jail:

Chuck Guite's conviction and impending prison sentence show the system works, says former prime minister Jean Chretien, who created the sponsorship program and sent in the RCMP to investigate the resulting scandal. "He was found guilty, it ends there," Chretien told reporters Friday in his hometown of Shawinigan.

Star solves terror mystery!

In investigators' offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator. -- "The ties that bind 17 suspects?", Toronto Star, June 4

The majority of the accused are young Canadian citizens from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The one common trait is they are all devout Muslims, linked by a complicated web involving several Toronto-area Islamic centres, mosques, and high schools. -- "Jihadist generation," Toronto Star, June 10

And in just six days! UPDATE: In fairness, today's piece is pretty good. But for a concise explanation of the many voices, here and abroad, claiming to speak for contemporary Islam -- the source of much confusion, inside the faith and out -- read Peter Goodspeed's clarifying piece in today's Post.

Dancing on the head of a pinhead

David Ahenakew's hate crime conviction overturned by Saskatchewan judge:

A Saskatchewan judge has overturned the hate crime conviction of disgraced First Nations leader David Ahenakew and ordered a new trial.

In a 35-page decision released Thursday, Chief Justice Robert Laing of Court of Queen's Bench said the original trial judge did not properly assess whether the former head of the Assembly of First Nations had the requisite intent to be convicted of a hate crime.

This is absurdity squared. First absurdity: pretending that a statement that Jews are a "disease" who deserved to be "fried" was not hate speech. Second absurdity: prosecuting people for their opinions, however addled. MY SATURDAY COLUMN explores the argument in more detail.

Plus ça change

The new-look, cleaned-up, thoroughly chastened Liberal party, working hard to regain your trust:

A number of Liberals are using taxpayer-funded parliamentary offices to promote party leadership bids and would be breaking federal election laws if they fail to refund the public purse.
Supporters of at least eight of the 11 leadership candidates have used MPs' offices on Parliament Hill to distribute partisan campaign material, according to e-mails obtained by The Canadian Press.
During parliamentary business hours, offices have churned out invitations on campaign letterhead to meet candidates, attend leadership launches, or get together with campaign staff.
One Liberal MP called the practice unethical and said it runs deeper than just e-mails.
"This is the tip of the iceberg," he said. "There are interns being used to do (campaign) work, there's the odd phone call to twist a colleague's arm.
"But that's not traceable"...
A spokeswoman for Elections Canada said MPs' staffers are ineligible to work on campaigns while being paid for their time from the public purse.
"These rules are very similar to those applicable to MPs during an election period," said spokeswoman Diane Benson.
She said any work done during business hours should be paid by the individual leadership campaign - not by the taxpayer.

But not to worry, the party brass -- last seen shrugging at Joe Volpe's indiscretions -- is on the case:

Liberal party officials pointed out that leadership candidates still have a year to disclose their campaign expenses. They will be in full compliance with the law if they refund the government for the public resources they use.

But if that's the standard -- take it now, put it back later -- then why is this guy getting the bum's rush?

A Liberal senator has been turfed from caucus and allegations against him sent to the RCMP after a parliamentary committee found he had misused office resources. Senator Raymond Lavigne had been under the microscope for allegedly using his office staff to do personal work for him, and for allegedly using his office budget to pay for personal travel between Ottawa and various locations... Lavigne was asked last week to pay back $23,666 to the Senate, which his lawyer said he was prepared to do. But Lavigne made it clear to senators that he did not acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Now this is a backlash I can get behind

It's already been linked to numerous times elsewhere, but this is a remarkably strong, brave piece by Tarek Fatah of the Muslim Canadian Congress:

Keep politics out of our mosques Three years ago when Kuwaiti Islamist scholar Tareq Al Suwaidian told a Toronto crowd that "Western civilization is rotten from within and nearing collapse ... it (the West) will continue to grow until an outside force hits it and you will be surprised at how quickly it falls," he was lustily cheered by the nearly 2,000 young Muslim men and women. I was deeply offended by the hostile remark, but the thunderous approving applause of the young audience simply stunned me. All I could do was muster the courage and stage a polite walkout. That day I resolved to fight this hostility toward the modern nation-state and Western civilization that was engulfing a section of Canadian Muslim youth; one that was being fanned by the leadership of the traditional Muslim organizations and Islamic radicals who took inspiration from the ruling elites of Iran and Saudi Arabia. Last weekend's arrests and the alleged role of young Muslim men in a terror cell may not have been inspired by the fiery rhetoric of the visiting Kuwaiti scholar. But if the RCMP allegations are true, the actions of this group definitely have roots in the cult of hate and death that is glorified by a tiny segment of Muslim clerics. While the overwhelming majority of Canada's Muslims have been stunned by this development, few can honestly deny that they had seen this coming. For years, some of us have been incessantly talking and writing about the growth of this extremist phenomenon, this contempt for secular parliamentary democracy and non-stop berating of Muslim youth who become "Canadian" and warnings to them that they will be punished in the hereafter if they do not adhere to the barren version of Islam where joy itself is a sin. In the last five years, we Muslims have had more than our share of terrorism done in the name of our faith. Whether it is terrorist attacks in India or the hundreds of simultaneous bombings in 300 cities of Bangladesh; whether it is massacres of Muslims by Muslims in Iraq or the genocide of Muslims by Muslims in Darfur, the traditional leadership of the Muslim community responds repeatedly in a similar manner: abject denial. Every tragedy that has befallen the Muslim world has been labelled as an American or a Zionist conspiracy.... On a live TVO Studio 2 debate on Monday, Toronto imam Ali Hindy clearly insinuated that the entire RCMP operation was being conducted to justify the continuing war in Iraq and Afghanistan. He referred to the arrests as "show business" and stated the "show must go on." During the discussion, Hindy claimed he knew eight of the accused. According to his analysis, the suspects may have been involved in military training to fight a jihad overseas. He went on to say that when young Muslim men come to him asking to go overseas to fight, he discourages them and tells them to fight their jihad "here." Flabbergasted, host Paula Todd asked him, "Why? What do you mean?" Cornered, he took refuge — like so many Muslim clerics who encourage jihad, take when trapped — in philosophy: "By jihad I mean the inner jihad ..." Monday night's discussion on TVO was also significant because it is only in non-Muslim institutions that Muslims can debate from adversarial positions. There is not a single mosque in Canada where Muslims with opposing views can debate anything political, social or theological. The doors of debate are shut by the cement of orthodoxy. Only doublespeak and hypocrisy are allowed to flourish. As long as Muslims can find someone else to blame for our ills, the problem is seen as resolved. I say, enough is enough. Muslims cannot go on behaving as if everything is normal. We cannot sit still while a fascist cult of Islamic supremacy takes over our mosques... I urge Muslims to recognize that a mosque is not the places for politics, it is a place of worship. Imams who peddle politics need to be told to take their politics to the electorate and not to the pulpit. Religion and politics is an incendiary mixture and invoking God on one's side in a political dispute is dishonest, callous and dangerous. Let us tell our imams to keep their politics to themselves and not to stain our religion by using the divine texts to score political points and promote terror...

More on our friend Hindy here. Meanwhile, CP reports, a growing number of Muslims are saying, keep the mosques out of our politics:

But some in the Muslim community say goodwill efforts that involve visiting mosques and shaking hands with imams comprise a simplistic and naive approach that excludes those who believe in the separation of religion and politics. Toronto police Chief Bill Blair's televised meeting Sunday with religious leaders might easily have left those watching it with the impression that the Muslim community is a homogenous entity with a single identity, said artist Asma Arshad Mahmood. Religious leaders do not speak for every one of Canada's 750,000 Muslims, especially since not everyone interprets Islam the same way, she said.

Some more encouraging words from two Muslim MPs here.

Whoop!

I'm loathe loath to cheer at any man's death, but... I'll make an exception.

... let me put in a good word for hypocrisy, euphemism and political correctness... My Wednesday column is on the uses of euphemism -- under the circumstances. EQUAL TIME: David Frum demolishes my arguments (without even trying to) here. But there's a difference between sucking up to the radicals, as I gather has been the case in Britain, and merely keeping mainstream Muslims onside. Muslim leaders have been taking it upon themselves with increasing frequency to confront the evil in their midst. Best leave the field to them. CRAZY TIME: On the other hand, this Star story is just bizarre:

In investigators' offices, an intricate graph plotting the links between the 17 men and teens charged with being members of a homegrown terrorist cell covers at least one wall. And still, says a source, it is difficult to find a common denominator.

Tim Blair has some fun with this, in an episode of CSI Toronto.

CSIS made him do it!

The Globe's Colin Freeze got a peek at the Crown's dossier. It's full of juicy details:

It has been called a made-in Canada plot against Canadian targets, but this is only half the story. It's alleged the group's emir, or leader, was Fahim Ahmad, and that he was in touch with shadowy terrorist figures in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Britain... Mr. Ahmad, who faces the most charges of any suspect, cuts a distinctive figure in the Crown dossier. He is accused of bearing the brunt of the responsibility for the gun-running, the training and the final phase of the operation, a series of ammonium-nitrate truck bombs to be exploded against Canadian targets. According to Crown information, the group discussed many possible targets before settling on three main ones: an unspecified Canadian Forces base, the Toronto Stock Exchange and the downtown Toronto office of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. According to Aly Hindy of the Salaheddin Islamic Centre, Mr. Ahmad blamed constant spying by CSIS for forcing him into criminal activity.

Other stories of note: RCMP foiled dozen plots in past two years Terror Suspect served in the Canadian Military