19 November 2014

The legitimate anger of the jihadis

As the season of wallowing in warrior worship wanes, we might think upon those warriors we love to hate—the young Muslim men from around the globe migrating (or trying to migrate) to the Middle East to fight for ISIS.

Their motivation is much discussed. Some, alienated from their society, seem driven by nothing more than a desperate search for meaning in their lives. The mentally-unbalanced, drug-addicted, homeless Michael Zehaf-Bibeau serves as an example. Others seem to simply want to participate in society, any society, in a meaningful way. Such is likely the case for youth in the Middle East and elsewhere where unemployment is rampant and the prospect of doing anything constructive for themselves or others is bleak.

And then there is another quite reasonable motivation not driven by desperation. It is dead easy to understand why any young Muslim who is aware of the treatment of his co-coreligionists in the Middle East over the past century would be deeply angry. I can get angry about it myself and I'm an atheist. Consider the invasion of Iraq: tens of thousands of innocents dead, millions of refugees driven from their homes and entire cites reduced to rubble. All this as a result of a Western aggression based on lies. And then there is the endless oppression of the Palestinians about whom the West often seems largely indifferent.

Hamilton lawyer Hussein Hamdan, an active member of the city’s Muslim community, has had considerable success in dissuading young men from joining groups like ISIS. He begins his counseling by recognizing their anger. "What we need to do is show them that whatever grievances they feel are legitimate," he said, "But if you really want to make a difference … you have to do something that pleases your creator."

Not all young Muslims will accept Mr. Hamdan's advice to reject violent jihad, even violence as thoroughly evil as ISIS, but in this country there are many alternatives for legitimate expression of dissent. These young men should be instructed in how to employ them and encouraged to do so. The West has committed many sins against the Middle East over the past century and honestly recognizing the grievances that result should be part of our policy toward that benighted region.

18 November 2014

Energy East—another reason why we need Quebec

Among the arguments that might be made to keep Quebec in Canada is simply that it's our most progressive province. One can cite ample of evidence for this: it showed the strongest support for the Kyoto Accord and gay marriage, it has the most advanced child care program, it is probably the major reason we said no to the Iraq war ... the list goes on.

Earlier this month, the province demonstrated its progressive credentials once again. Quebec's National Assembly called on the provincial government to exercise its environmental jurisdiction over TransCanada’s proposed Energy East pipeline. The resolution, which passed unanimously, is effectively a vote of non-confidence in the National Energy Board's review process for the pipeline.

It stated two specific concerns: first, the NEB doesn't consider the environmental impact of producing the crude that will flow through the pipeline; and second, the federal government still hasn't adopted carbon emission regulations for the oil and gas sector.

What the NEB is in effect ignoring is the 650,000 or more barrels per day of production from the tar sands that the pipeline will carry and the attendant generation of an additional 30 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year (the equivalent of adding more than seven million cars to Canada’s roads). A review that ignores the emissions the project will facilitate would seem to be not much of a review at all.

While the federal government has lost interest in regulating emissions from the oil and gas sector, Quebec it seems has not. Nor is it willing to overlook the upstream emissions resulting from pipelines. A sensible position that other provinces should emulate, regardless of the merit of Energy East.

17 November 2014

The G-20's failure on growth

There are, in my humble opinion, two overwhelming threats to humanity, either one of which will undermine global civilization if not dealt with adequately and quickly. The recent G-20 conference dealt with one—climate change—but not only ignored the other, it pushed us further down that path to Armageddon.

Article 19 of the Leaders’ Communiqué from the conference read:
We support strong and effective action to address climate change. Consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its agreed outcomes, our actions will support sustainable development, economic growth, and certainty for business and investment. We will work together to adopt successfully a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the UNFCCC that is applicable to all parties at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris in 2015. We encourage parties that are ready to communicate their intended nationally determined contributions well in advance of COP21 (by the first quarter of 2015 for those parties ready to do so). We reaffirm our support for mobilising finance for adaptation and mitigation, such as the Green Climate Fund.
Very good stuff indeed—if, of course, it translates into action. But notice in the second sentence "our actions will support ... economic growth." This deals with the second great threat: resource depletion. We cannot have the "sustainable development" the communiqué promises if we continue to exhaust the planet's resources faster than it can replenish them, and that unfortunately is exactly what we are doing. We are now well beyond the Earth's ability to satisfy our demands upon it.

Growth, in the sense the G-20 uses it, i.e. GDP growth, must stop or we will suck our planet dry. Yet, what is the conversation about growth among the world's leaders? More of it. While they have at least recognized the threat of climate change, even if they aren't doing nearly enough about it, they seem to be completely oblivious to the threat of resource depletion. Tragically, our leaders do not seem ready yet to fully accept the inevitable consequences of our profligate ways.

11 November 2014


05 November 2014

Oh my God! The Japanese make better whisky than the Scots!

A year of firsts for whiskey. For instance, it's the first time in the 12-year history of the World Whisky Bible's rankings that a Scottish malt has failed to make the top five. Depressing news for the Scots. And it gets worse. Much, much worse—it is also the first time the top whisky was distilled in Japan.

The grand accolade was taken by Yamazaki Single Malt Sherry Cask 2013, from the Suntory company's Yamazaki distillery near Kyoto. The next three spots were taken by American bourbons. And then, to add insult to injury, the prize for best European whisky went to Chapter 14 Not Peated from the English Whisky Company (take that you Scottish separatists).

The Whisky Bible is produced by Jim Murray, arguably the world's foremost expert on whisky. According to Murray (yes, he's English), the winning dram possesses "a nose of exquisite boldness” and is as “thick, dry, [and] as rounded as a snooker ball," whatever the hell all that means.

I'm not a whisky drinker myself, but I wouldn't mind trying a sip of that Yamazaki Single Malt Sherry Cask 2013. And a sip is about all I could afford. It's priced at $180 a bottle, a tad out of my price range, and in any case only 18,000 bottles have been made so not much chance of one coming my way. I will have to resort to my own favourite brew, Big Rock Brewery's Traditional Ale, to help me commiserate with the Scots.

04 November 2014

Naheed Nenshi—world's best mayor?

Recently, Canada suffered through the pain and embarrassment of having the world's worst mayor. Is it possible we can now rise above the humiliation with the world's best mayor?

Calgary's mayor Naheed Nenshi has made the short list for the 2014 World Mayor Prize, awarded every two years to a mayor "who has made outstanding contributions to his and her community and has developed a vision for urban living and working that is relevant to towns and cities across the world."

The prize is awarded every two years by the City Mayors Foundation, a non-profit international think tank that "encourages city leaders from across the world to develop innovative and sustainable solutions to long-standing urban challenges such as governance, society, housing, transport, education and employment." Anyone can vote for a mayor as long as he or she includes "a thoughtful supporting statement."

A first round of voting has shortlisted 26 candidates including Mayor Nenshi. The Foundation's board of fellows will now choose the winner based on the number of votes and "the strength and passion of supporting testimonials.”

The Mayor is a worthy candidate. He has both an academic and pragmatic grasp of what makes modern cities work along with the common touch—a gracious man who understands the ordinary person. If he wins, and I'm betting on him, he will be the first Canadian to be so honoured.

31 October 2014

Democracy inches along in Tunisia

The Arab spring, one of the most encouraging events from a democratic perspective in recent years, has unfortunately mostly failed. Egypt, the most important Arab country, and the country where democrats' hopes where highest, has lapsed back into an increasingly oppressive military dictatorship. But one country, the one where it all started, continues to follow a democratic path.

Tunisia recently held its second election since the overthrow of the autocratic Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2011. The election was by all accounts free and fair with a decent turnout (60 per cent). A liberal party, Nida Tunis, won the most seats, replacing the moderate Islamist Ennahda as the dominant party in parliament and gaining the right to name a prime minister and lead a coalition government. It has ruled out a coalition with the Islamists, turning instead to a collection of smaller parties.

The country faces serious problems, particularly economic. For instance, youth unemployment of around 34 per cent is turning young people off politics, not a good sign when these were the very people who provoked the revolution. Nonetheless, the democratic experiment is progressing well.

True, Tunisia has advantages other Arab countries do not: no sectarian, ethnic, religious or tribal divides to speak of; a largely urbanized and educated population; a substantial middle class and a thriving civil society. Pessimistically, without the same advantages, other Arab nations may be immersed in a world of violent Islamists, military dictatorships, corrupt theocracies and oppressive monarchies for a long time. Optimistically, the fully-fledged democracy of Tunisia will inspire them as an example of a better way. It offers hope. Western governments should embrace and support it.

MacKay makes the right noises

With all the feverish reaction from politicians and a good part of the media to the two recent "terrorist" incidents, it is encouraging to hear Justice Minister Peter McKay say some of the right things, specifically that the law already has the tools it needs to deal with these kind of crimes. No need for muscling up the cops. "There are already some pretty robust measures that we can use [that] allow for the type of preventive … interventions—if I can use that word—for the police," he told reporters.

He referred to Section 83.3 of the Criminal Code, which allows for preventive arrests, and Section 810, which deals with peace bonds. Human rights lawyer Paul Copeland observed that Section 83.3, "could have been applied and should have been applied to Mr. Couture-Rouleau, and it probably would have stopped him from doing what he did."

MacKay also seemed to dismiss the idea, rumoured around Ottawa, that the government might try to eliminate the requirement that a judge sign off on a Section 83.3 order, giving discretion solely to the minister of public safety. "I always would come down on the side of judicial oversight before you would make any interventions,” he said. That sounds about right.

Now if he can only talk some sense into Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney who is not only proceeding with Bill C-44, which expands the powers of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), but has promised yet more legislation dealing with "terrorism." Blaney is the guy who once insisted that terrorism was "the leading threat to Canada's national security," overlooking such minor threats as nuclear war, traffic accidents, climate change, the flu, domestic abuse, and so on and on. What we need at this time is more oversight over our spies, not more power for them. Let us hope that Mr. MacKay's bout of rationalism infects Mr. Blaney.

30 October 2014

About those Canadian values

The shooting spree by Michael Zehaf-Bibeau on Parliament Hill that resulted in the death of soldier Nathan Cirillo has resulted in a rush of rhetoric about a threat to Canadian values. As I commented in a previous post, Zehaf-Bibeau's rampage was no such thing. The idea that an irrational act of violence by a mentally-unbalanced crack addict is some kind of threat to our values is ludicrous. As has been remarked by others, this event represents less a terrorist issue than a mental health issue.

An interesting take on Canadian values does emerge from the aftermath of the rampage. The death of Cirillo has been treated with extraordinary pomp and ceremony by our federal government—flags at half-mast across the country, wreaths at the war memorial, the prime minister at the funeral, a hero's commemoration for a man who had in fact done nothing heroic.

The same day as the tragedy in Ottawa, a young woman was found beaten to death on a bike path in Longueuil, Quebec. Understandably her murder received less attention than the excitement in the nation's capital, but why one wonders does her remembrance deserve so little, the soldier's so much?

"Terrorist" murder, if that's what Cirillo's death was, is no threat to Canadian values, but violence against women most certainly is, particularly against aboriginal women. An RCMP report detailed 1,181 cases of missing or murdered aboriginal women since 1980. They are three times more likely to become victims of violence than other Canadian women. All the premiers, the Assembly of First Nations, and the UN’s special rapporteur on indigenous rights have all asked for a national inquiry. The federal government flatly refuses.

So, what Canadian values are displayed here? The death of one soldier merits lavish ceremony, but the deaths of hundreds of Native women merit not even an inquiry. A threat to this set of values would be welcome.

23 October 2014

Terrorist or misfit?

Canada doesn’t often capture the attention of the world’s media, but Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, with his murderous rampage on Parliament Hill Wednesday, has managed to put us on front pages around the globe. And who exactly is Michael Zehaf-Bibeau? Well, so far we know that he’s a 32-year old man with criminal records in two provinces who recently converted to a radical sect of Islam that preaches violence. In short, he’s a misfit.

Nonetheless, for someone who has heretofore accomplished little in life he has our leaders waxing eloquent about Canadian values and threats to same. PM Harper warns us about "attacks on our country, on our values. on our society, on us Canadians as a free and democratic people,” but assures us, “We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated." Mr. Mulcair, too, is resolute in his patriotism, "Canada is shaken today but we shall not waver. We woke up this morning in a country blessed by love, diversity and peace and tomorrow we will do the same. … We will persevere and we will prevail." And from Mr. Trudeau, “we have never bowed to those that mean to undermine our values and our way of life. We have remained Canadians and this is how we will carry on."

Really, gentlemen. Yes, an ugly murder was committed and more were narrowly averted, but the notion that this was a threat to Canada or Canadian values is ludicrous. When we behave as if it was, we play to the intentions of these misguided misfits, elevating their importance vastly beyond what they deserve. What happened on Parliament Hill was simply an act of wanton violence. Let us not give the perpetrator credit for anything more. Let us not build a tragic fool into a threat to the nation.

21 October 2014

When Khomeini said no to nukes

When Iran claims it is not developing nuclear weapons because they are incompatible with Islam, the U.S. and its European allies suggest this is mere propaganda. According to an article in Foreign Policy magazine, they simply don't understand how profoundly the Iranians hold this view for both historical and religious reasons.

The prohibition against chemical and nuclear weapons began with what was essentially a fatwa by the Islamic Republic's first supreme leader, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. During Iran's war with Iraq, both its civilians and soldiers were attacked with mustard and nerve gasses. Mohsen Rafighdoost, minister of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps under Khomeini, proposed that Iran develop both chemical and nuclear weapons. Khomeini forbade both as anathema to  Islam. Regarding chemical weapons, he pronounced, "It doesn't matter whether it is on the battlefield or in cities; we are against this. It is haram [forbidden] to produce such weapons. You are only allowed to produce protection." Prohibiting retaliation in kind against Iraq's use of chemical weapons put Iran's military at a major disadvantage and contributed to the decision to accept a cease-fire in 1988.

As to nuclear weapons, the Supreme leader told Rafighdoost, "We don't want to produce nuclear weapons. Send these scientists to the Atomic Energy Organization." The Atomic Energy Organization is Iran's civilian nuclear-power agency.

Even though Khomeini's edicts against the use or production of chemical and nuclear weapons was never written down, Rafighdoost took it as a fatwa—a judgment on Islamic jurisprudence by a qualified Islamic scholar. Because it was issued by the nation's "guardian jurist," it is state policy, legally binding on the government. The current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, has maintained the fatwa.

The significance of the Iranians claim they are not attempting to develop nuclear weapons has been demonstrated by their willingness to risk the loss of a war against a merciless enemy rather than take that step. One could hardly observe better proof. When the allies were faced with a similar fate in WWII, they never hesitated in both developing and using the nuclear option, an interesting moral contrast.

17 October 2014

Saudi Arabia—beheading capital of the world

Of all the atrocities committed by the Islamic State, the ones that got the most attention were the very public beheadings of two American journalists and a British aid worker. Beheading is indeed a sordid act. And yet we remain on excellent terms with the beheading champion of the world. Saudi Arabia, good friend of Western nations and member of the U.S. coalition against the Islamic State, has publicly beheaded 59 people so far this year, for crimes including adultery, sorcery—yes, sorcery—drug smuggling, murder and, this is Saudi Arabia after all, political dissent.

Beheadings are a popular event in the Kingdom of the Sauds. According to one wit, they are the only form of public entertainment aside from football matches. Nor does the entertainment necessarily end with the decapitation. For certain crimes, the corpse is crucified, the head mounted above the body, where it will be left for public view for up to four days. The executions are generally clean but not always. For example, when Rizana Nafeek, a 24-year-old Sri Lankan maid accused of murdering her employer’s 4-month-old son (she claimed the baby choked on its milk bottle), swayed from side to side, the chopping took a very messy turn.

Lighter entertainment allows the public to witness the hacking off of other body parts—hands, legs—depending on the crime. According to one of the state executioners, Mohammed Saad al-Beshi, if it is a hand he cuts at a joint and if it is a leg he explains, "the authorities specify where it is to be taken off, so I follow that."

Currently awaiting execution for "sedition" and "disobeying" the kingdom's rulers is the prominent Shia religious leader and anti-government protester Nimr al-Nimr. Most of the country's Shia minority live in the east which also happens to be home to most of the country's vast oil reserves. They have long alleged severe discrimination by the Wahhabi majority who dominate religious institutions, the courts and education. Nimr is paying the price of their dissent.

So while we rightly condemn the Islamic State for its atrocious beheadings, this barbaric, misogynous regime remains our bosom friend, the United States and Britain's favourite customer for arms sales and a country to whom we are trying to increase our own weapons traffic. Of course, the victims of the Islamic State were innocents but then, given the quality of Saudi justice, so might victims such as Rizana Nafeek and Nimr al-Nimr.

Oh, what a difference a barrel of oil makes.

16 October 2014

Will we have to bomb the Shias now?

We are all familiar with the depravity of the Islamic State. Tragically, some of their foes are also descending into the moral depths. According to a report by Amnesty International, Shia militias, often armed and supported by the Iraqi government, "have been abducting and killing Sunni civilian men in Baghdad and around the country." Their complicity with government forces ranges "from tacit consent to coordinated, or even joint, operations."

Although the abductions and killings are often retaliation for Islamic State atrocities against Shias, they frequently have a more mercenary purpose. After abducting a young man, the militias extort his family. Many families report paying hefty ransoms "only to discover that their loved one had been killed." Even the retaliatory attacks often sweep up Sunnis not connected to the Islamic State but who simply happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

One story illustrates the hopeless situation of many Iraqis. A man whose family fled the Islamic State and are afraid to return frequently visits Fallujah to check on his house and property. "Only I can go, he says, "because I am old. My sons cannot go. It would be too dangerous for them. They could be killed by Shia militias on the road between Baghdad and Fallujah, as they treat anyone going to or coming from Fallujah as a terrorist and often kill people on that road. And the IS gangs in Fallujah would consider my sons as government collaborators because they left Fallujah and are living in Baghdad."

The Shia militias are formidable, the largest containing tens of thousands of fighters, their power growing as the Iraqi army collapsed. They can operate like regular armed forces but with impunity.

According to Amnesty, "The existence of these sectarian, unregulated and unaccountable militias is both a cause and a result of the country’s growing insecurity and instability. They preclude any possibility of establishing effective and accountable security and armed forces able and willing to protect all sectors of the population." Amnesty insists that the Iraqi government must get them under control, but one wonders if that is any longer possible.

Iraq is in a state of collapse. Shias, Sunnis, Kurds and the Islamic State are now involved in a godawful civil war over the spoils. The American coalition's notion that it can do any good here may be nothing more than hubris run wild, turning a Middle Eastern war into an international one with no possible idea of where it will all end. And that prompts the question, Where does our participation end, and what can we possibly hope to achieve out of this mess?

15 October 2014

Will Republicans believe their military on climate change?

The American Republican Party is a major obstacle to the United States acting responsibly on climate change. In the manner of our federal government, they do not allow science to interfere with their dogma. But while they have little use for science, they are great admirers of the military, so is it possible they will start listening to the Pentagon when it comes to climate change?

If they will, there's hope for them, and their country, yet. According to the Pentagon, global warming is changing the way the U.S. military trains for and goes to war. Strategic planners have long believed that climate change has the potential to provoke hostilities over migration and food shortages, make old conflicts worse, and present new military challenges in the Arctic.

In a Pentagon report that came out just this week, Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel wrote, "A changing climate will have real impacts on our military and the way it executes its missions. We are considering the impacts of climate change in our war games and defence planning scenarios." The report pointed out that military installations and personnel are already exposed to climate change. For example, Virginia's Hampton Roads area, which contains the country's largest concentration of military forces and already floods during high tides and severe storms, could see sea levels rise half a metre over the next 20 years. Military bases in the southwest face water and electricity shortages due to droughts, and Arctic installations are shifting because of melting permafrost. The Pentagon is worried about global warming before they even rev up a tank, and their concerns increase along with climate change.

So will the Republicans pay attention to their fighting men? If nothing else will convince them of the seriousness of global warming, will a threat to their ability to fight wars do the job? So far it has not. Republicans have used their majority in the House of Representatives to preclude efforts by the Pentagon to adjust to global warming. For a party obsessed with national security, they have displayed a remarkable disdain for their country's greatest threat. Let us hope for all our sakes that as their military increasingly sounds the alarm, they will be forced to accept the inconvenient truth.

UK MPs vote overwhelmingly to recognize State of Palestine

It was overwhelming. British MPs voted 274 to 12 this week in support of a motion to recognize Palestine as a state. The vote was only symbolic, as it isn't binding on the government, nonetheless it sends a clear message on how sentiment is going in the UK and elsewhere on the Palestine issue.

MPs from both sides of the House supported the motion, some making it very clear why. Conservative chairman of the foreign affairs select committee, Richard Ottaway, long a strong supporter of Israel, said, "The annexation of the 950 acres of the West Bank just a few months ago has outraged me more than anything else in my political life. It has made me look a fool and that is something I deeply resent."

Although the vote does not bind the government, it should accept the clear will of the House of Commons and officially recognize the State of Palestine, as134 other countries have done. And so should our government. We, like the UK, believe in a two-state solution to the Palestine issue. It is simply churlish therefore not to accept Palestine's peaceful accession to statehood. Instead we adopt uncritically the Israeli line that a Palestinian state only be recognized at the successful conclusion of negotiations between the two sides. But as former British foreign minister Jack Straw said this week, "Such an approach would give the Israelis a veto over whether a Palestinian state should exist." And as Palestine has no veto over a Jewish state, it is pure hypocrisy to allow Israel a veto over a Palestinian state.

Furthermore, all the leverage in negotiations lies with the Israelis. They have the most powerful military in the region, equipped with nuclear weapons and backed up by the most powerful nation in the world. And they control most of the territory and the water. When one side holds all the cards, demanding the other party negotiate with them is nothing more than demanding they submit, that they accept any crumbs they're offered. Naturally, this holds little appeal for the Palestinians.

The British MPs have done the right thing. Now it is up to their government to follow suit. And for ours as well.

09 October 2014

Mr. Harper, listen to the Commish

She's your commissioner, Mr. Harper, appointed under your watch. She is a former mining industry executive, the kind of credentials you respect. So when she speaks, pay attention. And she recently spoke loud and clear.

As federal Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, Julie Gelfand heads her department's Fall 2014 report, which is not at all pleased with your government's greenhouse gas emissions record. No doubt, you have read the report and encountered the following scolding:
Overall, we found that federal departments have made unsatisfactory progress in each of the four areas examined. Despite some advances since our 2012 audit, timelines for putting measures in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have not been met and departments are not yet able to assess whether measures in place are reducing emissions as expected. We also found that Environment Canada lacks an approach for coordinating actions with the provinces and territories to achieve the national target, and an effective planning process for how the federal government will contribute to achieving the Copenhagen target. In 2012, we concluded that the federal regulatory approach was unlikely to lead to emission reductions sufficient to meet the 2020 Copenhagen target. Two years later, the evidence is stronger that the growth in emissions will not be reversed in time and that the target will be missed.
In short, you are failing to meet your own target for emissions reductions, your government doesn't know how to meet it, and your approach wouldn't have worked in the first place.

It's a sorry story, Mr. Harper, and it isn't coming from those radical, foreign-funded environmentalists. It's coming from your own government's Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development. So listen up.

Calgary inches closer to a charter

In 1867, Canada's founding fathers created two levels of constitutional government—provincial and federal. The municipal level didn't make the cut. This was excusable at the time. Over 80 per cent of Canadians lived on farms and in villages, so local government seemed rather unimportant in the grand scheme of things and was left to the tender mercies of the provinces.

How things have changed. Today, over 80 per cent of Canadians live in towns and cities. In Alberta, over half the population lives in just two cities: Calgary and Edmonton. Arguably now more important than provinces, cities are the centres of politics, social life and commerce—our major wealth creators. They deserve recognition and power accordingly.

In an initial attempt to recognize their new importance, the Alberta government signed an agreement in principle in 2012 to establish charters for Calgary and Edmonton. The charters would grant the cities more powers and change the way they are funded. This week the charters moved a step closer when new premier Jim Prentice signed a framework agreement with the Calgary and Edmonton mayors to work toward formalizing the charters, the details to be finalized by spring 2016. "Calgary and Edmonton face serious infrastructure deficits," said Mr. Prentice. "They need the freedom to come up with innovative, homegrown solutions."

Other Canadian cities—Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver among them—have charters, but theirs, like Calgary and Edmonton's, don't release them from constitutional subservience to provinces. Provincial governments retain the right to bestow authority on cities, and the right to take it away. A charter granted to Halifax in 1841 was extinguished by the provincial government on April 1st, 1999—April Fool's Day.

Nonetheless, charters will enhance Calgary and Edmonton's abilities to govern themselves even as they remain creatures of the provinces. Ideally, cities would be brought into the Constitution as, in fact, Lord Durham recommended in his famous report of 1838. But we are all aware of the current level of enthusiasm for constitutional change.

So this baby step is to be welcomed. We will remain for the foreseeable future an urban nation lumbered with a distribution of powers from a rural age, but we are nonetheless moving, albeit very slowly, in the right direction.

07 October 2014

Pity the Americans—running an empire ain't easy

Running an empire is tough. There are always tribesmen out on the fringes who fail to appreciate that you are bringing them civilization. In their lack of gratitude, they act up, and you are forced to send in the legions to bring them to heel. Such has been the case throughout history, from the Roman Empire to the British Empire and now for the American Empire. The need for war is perpetual.

The American Empire is different in that it doesn't colonize the lands of those it conquers—well, not any more, anyway. It is content to maintain an extensive network of military bases throughout the world from which to suppress threats to its power and safeguard access to resources. With hundreds of bases worldwide, the U.S. military deploys over a quarter of a million personnel in over 150 countries.

This empire is also different in possessing a new vulnerability. Previous empires always had a secure homeland, a place the empire-builders could return to after toiling away at their imperialist work and find sanctuary. But due to modern communications and transportation that is no longer the case. On September 11th, 2001, for example, recalcitrant tribesmen struck at the very heart of the Empire, striking the fear of God (or Allah) into its citizens. Never before had an empire suffered such vulnerability at the height of its powers. The ingrates, it seems, can now do to you in your backyard what you are doing to them in their backyard.

So pity the U.S. The job of running an empire is tougher than ever. And yet, at the risk of sounding callous, I must say I am completely lacking in sympathy.

06 October 2014

CEO pay—how much is too much?

The American Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) has compiled a list of CEO compensation in 19 developed countries and the results are of considerable interest to Canadians. It turns out that the ratio of our CEO's pay to that of the average worker is second highest of the group, behind only—no surprise—the U.S.A. The average Canadian CEO makes over two hundred times the pay of the average Canadian worker (the average American CEO makes 354 times as much). The average Canadian CEO pulls in $8,704,118 while the average worker makes $42,253. The CEO pay package includes salary, bonuses, stock awards and other perks.

In Norway, with workers making about the same as Canadians, the ratio is only 58 to one. In Germany, where workers also make about the same as Canadians, the ratio is 147 to one, high by European standards but substantially less than North America.

One wonders what we get for our money. Norway has a highly successful economy, yet they only need to pay their top execs a third of what ours get. Germany is arguably the most successful industrial nation in the world, its companies superbly managed, and their CEOs receive only two-thirds the compensation of our overpaid lot. The answer I suppose lies in our proximity to the U.S., the most inequitable country in the developed world, a very bad but highly influential example. In 1965 the ratio of CEO to average employee in the U.S. was only 20 to one. Are CEOs really seventeen times better than they were back then?

A large part of the reason the gap is tolerated is that people grossly underestimate what CEOs receive. For example, a recent study, How Much (More) Should CEOs Make? by Sorapop Kiatpongsan and Michael I. Norton showed that Americans believe the ratio is about 30 to one but should be only about seven to one when in fact it is 354 to one. This gross discrepancy between what people think is fair, what they believe executive compensation to be, and what it actually is, is universal. If people around the world ever discover the reality about what CEOs are making, we may see an equally universal demand for a maximum wage.

05 October 2014

Are we too dumb for democracy?

Hey, the above is not my line. I plagiarized it from a CBC article about a new thesis from the University of B.C. that suggests our brains aren't up to the rational, autonomous thinking required for democracy. Ph.D. political science candidate David Moscrop says voters across the political spectrum tend to vote with instinct rather than reason, i.e. with their "lizard brains," that ancient part of the brain responsible for instinct and emotion, i.e. gut feelings.

I'm not so sure I would write off the voters' capacity for rational, autonomous thinking too readily, although the force that drives us politically, that make us progressive or conservative, is certainly not reason. In any case, one point where I agree completely with the young Mr. Moscrop is with his strong support for “deliberative” democracy, i.e. providing opportunities for citizens of all political views to gather, discuss and debate issues, and using the results to influence politicians and educate other citizens.

When citizens act as a community, rather than as isolated individuals, they are much more likely to support rational policies and indeed more democratic ones. That is why I have long advocated for citizen assemblies. Randomly selected groups of citizens can represent a town, province or nation in microcosm, bringing together a full range of views. Released from the grip of party loyalty and its tribal instincts, and from manipulative media, they are free to deal with their fellow participants on an equal, open, intimate and informal basis, more willing to allow the heartfelt views of others to influence their own. Provided with comprehensive packages of information and access to experts, such assemblies can produce policies underlain by passion but ultimately determined by reason and compromise.

We are smart enough to do democracy, but we need better structures than we have now, structures that allow for well-informed citizens deliberating equally as members of a community.

03 October 2014

Who is "part of the problem," Mr. Cameron?

Recently British PM David Cameron, even while encouraging Iran to help deal with ISIS, couldn't resist taking a shot at the country. In his UN speech, he stated superciliously that Iran can be "part of the solution, not part of the problem." Iran's president, Hassan Rouhani, took umbrage, declaring the remark "wrong and unacceptable." A spokeswoman for Iran's foreign ministry, Marzieh Afkham, was rather more caustic: “The speech by the British prime minister at the UN general assembly shows the perpetuation of the egocentric attitude of a government which has a history of [causing] trouble in our region.”

The lady has a point. Britain does have a long history of making trouble in the Middle East, particularly for Iran. In the 20th century it invaded Iran twice. In the 1950s, it collaborated with the U.S. in overthrowing Iranian democracy. Most recently, it participated in the coalition that invaded Iran's neighbour, an invasion that ultimately lead in no small part to the creation of ISIS.

Britain has complained about the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons while hypocritically possessing nuclear weapons itself for no apparent reason but to strut on the world stage. Might we believe it is more responsible as a nuclear power than Iran would be? Well, Iran hasn't invaded anybody in two centuries while Britain has invaded other people all over the map, including Iran, fairly regularly during the same period.

It would seem, Mr. Cameron, that your country is rather more a part of the problem than Iran.

02 October 2014

It will be lonely without the animals

We are a rapacious species. Since we first walked out of Africa we have been decimating our neighbours. Today, according to the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2014, we are annihilating other species on a grand scale. The report claims we have reduced the numbers of other animals in the world to half what they were 40 years ago. The numbers are based on measuring representative populations of more than 10,000 mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish around the globe.

And how do we do this? Where to begin. We do it by destroying their habitats.We clear too many forests for lumber and for farms. We exhaust too many rivers to irrigate crops, and we spray too many pesticides and fertilizers. We pave over too many meadows for streets and parking lots. We introduce too many alien species that overwhelm local species. We poach and hunt and fish excessively.

We just demand too much, much more than our fair share, and the Earth can no longer satisfy our demands. According to the report, it would take 1.5 Earths to satisfy our current appetite for the planet's resources. Unfortunately, we only have one at our disposal. Some of us are much more demanding than others. For example, if everyone on the globe lived at the same standard as Canadians, we would need more like four planets.

As other species' numbers decline ours steadily increase. Not only do we demand more and more, but there are more and more of us demanding it. Yet one thing never changes—human society depends entirely on the environment. If we don't come to terms with the other species on Earth, we have no future.

Hong Kong—a people who actually care about democracy

North Americans don't seem to care much about democracy. Canadians don't, and our good neighbours the Americans don't. We enjoy considerable freedoms along with our electoral systems of government, but our systems are hardly democratic, and it doesn't seem to bother us. If it did, we would never tolerate them.

Observation of the American system suggests a plutocracy, not a democracy. A recent study entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, by Martins Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, which analyzes what influences the U.S. federal government, confirmed this. The study states, "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence."

The rich have excessive influence in our governments as well, if not to the same extent as with our southern neighbour, and even our method of choosing leaders is undemocratic. Our federal government, for example, is run by a political party that over 60 per cent of voters did not want running the country. This condition of governments being run by parties who have the support of only a minority of the people is also endemic among the provinces. A people who truly cared for democracy would never put up with this mockery of democratic process.

This lack of concern about the lack of democracy is depressing. It is therefore refreshing to observe the passionate interest in democratic process currently being displayed by the citizens of Hong Kong. A decree by China that candidates for chief executive must be endorsed by a special nominating body in Beijing before before they are allowed to run for office has brought massive numbers of Hong Kong citizens into the streets. The protesters, led not surprisingly by students, demand fully democratic elections.

This pro-democracy movement, known as the "umbrella revolution," is gathering international support, with solidarity demonstrations popping up in Australia, Canada and the U.S. Yes, even in Canada and the U.S. Perhaps if Hong Kong residents ever escape the autocratic clutches of Beijing, and that may take a very long time, they will ultimately become as jaded about democracy as we are, but in the meantime their enthusiasm warms the heart of this old democrat.

30 September 2014

Greyer is greener

As I slip slowly into my dotage I have at least one consolation—I'm less of a burden on the planet. A study by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany found that per-capita carbon dioxide emissions in Western countries rise steadily as children become adults and as adults become more affluent, but after the age of 60 emissions decline by roughly 20 per cent.

The German study indicates that since 1950, aging has caused a 30 per cent increase in German emissions, as the baby boomers grew into middle age. But after 2020, "as the proportion of people older than 80 continues to increase and the population size shrinks, emissions will decrease and reach pre-1950 levels by 2100."

Health costs will rise, but even that will be less of a problem than often thought. Studies show that most of the bills for looking after old people occur in the last two years of life, regardless of their age, and healthy life expectancy is rising as fast as total life expectancy.

So you may become a little more demanding of society as old age creeps up on you, but more importantly you are less demanding of mother Earth.

National Post climate change deniers "paranoid"—so says their own editor

The prattling of climate change sceptics/deniers in the National Post has been ridiculed by one of its own editors. In recent comments on the CBC's The National, Jonathan Kay repeated observations he made in a column some years ago in which he accused deniers of being "a liability to the Conservative cause." In his article he observed, "In the case of global warming, this [cognitive] dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism—and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned—is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally."

Referring to the blather of such journalists as Terence Corcoran and Rex Murphy, he declared that it was "Fine-sounding rhetoric—but all of it nonsense." One wonders why the National Post persists in publishing what one of its own editors thinks is nonsense.

Particularly when he believes "the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper ... Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined—and discredited—by its noisiest cranks and conspiracists." What with Stephen Harper's enemies' list and Joe Oliver's ranting about environmentalists hijacking our regulatory system with the help of foreign interests, one wonders if that isn't already the case.

29 September 2014

Will capitalists save us from global warming?

In her latest book This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Naomi Klein argues that if we are to defeat climate change we must defeat capitalism. At this week’s UN climate summit in New York, a number of corporate leaders seemed determined to prove her wrong.

For example, a group of investment institutions that included pension funds and corporate asset managers promised to "decarbonize" their investment portfolios by $100-billion by 2016. This would mean divesting from investments in fossil fuels and palm oil plantations. Their motivation wasn't so much altruistic as pragmatic. According to Mats Andersson, CEO of AP4, a Swedish pension fund, "Climate change is more and more recognized as a financial risk." His conclusion echoes the report Better Growth, Better Climate: The New Climate Economy issued by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate which came out just before the summit and claims that a low-carbon economy offers faster economic growth.

Another group of investment companies that manage $24-trillion in assets called for a global system of carbon pricing to reflect the environmental cost of emissions. Such a system, they claimed, would force them out of fossil fuels and into low-carbon energy.

And not only bankers were committing to a new world order. A number of companies that trade in agricultural commodities—including Unilever, the world's largest supplier of supermarket products, and palm oil suppliers Wilmar and Cargill—have recently committed to avoid crops grown on newly deforested land. At the New York summit, these companies joined governments in signing the New York Declaration on Forests, pledging to halve forest loss by 2020 and reach "zero net deforestation" by 2030. This is no small deal. Nigel Sizer, forest director at the World Resources Institute, said the declaration, "could result in more emissions reductions than removing every car, bus and plane from the U.S., China and India combined."

So let's not write off capitalism as a climate villain yet. When profits are at stake, and with climate change they are, capitalists will act in their own best interests. And as we all know, nothing speaks louder in the halls of government than big money. The corporate sector will almost certainly wield a bigger environmental stick with politicians than the 300,000 marchers in the streets of New York.

25 September 2014

Homeowners opt out of sprawl

Homeowners, it seems, at least in the Greater Toronto Area, are opting out of sprawl, or they would like to. So says the Royal Bank of Canada, the country's largest residential mortgage lender, and the Pembina Institute, an environmental NGO, in a new report on the preferences of GTA homeowners. The conclusions were drawn from a survey conducted by Environics Research Group in May.

According to the report, “When housing costs are not a factor, 81per cent of respondents would choose to live in an urban or suburban neighbourhood where they can walk to stores, restaurants and other amenities, and where they can access frequent rapid transit. They would choose these neighbourhoods even if it meant trading a large house and yard for a modest house, townhouse or condo.”

Unfortunately, price is a factor, a major one—over 80 per cent of respondents choose a neighbourhood because of affordability. In other words, they opt for price over preference. Interestingly, however, the young buyers (18-34) and the older buyers (over 60), the two groups most interested in location-efficient living, would pay more for a smaller home in a neighbourhood that was walkable and transit-accessible than a larger home with a yard in a neighbourhood that was car-dependent.

The challenge here is obvious—build more location-efficient communities. A more compact, efficient city is not just the dream of city planners, it is the preference of most homeowners. Build it and they will come.

Congratulations, Edward, well-deserved

If I had heroes, Edward Snowden would be among them. Sacrificing his career, accepting exile from his homeland, and risking long years in prison, Snowden revealed to the world the lies behind our intelligence agencies’ claims they did not spy on us, that they did not engage in egregious invasions of our privacy. This act of great courage and great importance has earned him the 2014 Right Livelihood honorary award from the Swedish charity the Right Livelihood Award Foundation. The foundation recognized Snowden for his “courage and skill in revealing the unprecedented extent of state surveillance violating basic democratic processes and constitutional rights.”

He shared the award with Alan Rusbridger, editor-in-chief of the Guardian newspaper, who was recognized for his role in “building a global media organization dedicated to responsible journalism in the public interest, undaunted by the challenges of exposing corporate and government malpractices.” The Guardian published a series of articles based on documents leaked by Snowden.

The Right Livelihood Award, often referred as the “Alternative Nobel,” is awarded to “honour and support those offering practical and exemplary answers to the most urgent challenges facing us today.” Established in 1980 by philanthropist Jakob von Uexkull, it is presented annually in a ceremony at the Swedish parliament.

Snowden and Rusbridger are deserving winners. They delivered a blow against big brother at a most appropriate moment.

24 September 2014

Instruct your MP to support Bill C-621

When it comes to taxes, corporations can be shifty. For example, some shift profits by setting up a storefront office in an offshore tax haven and then sending large invoices back to the Canadian head office charging “management” or “licensing fees.” Another gimmick is for a company to sell a patent to an offshore subsidiary and then charge itself licensing fees for use of the patent. Profit shifting has been made famous by corporations such as Apple, Google and Starbucks, but Canadian companies such as Cameco and Gildan are also playing the game.

This week, NDP National Revenue Critic Murray Rankin proposed legislation (Bill C-621) that would make it easier for government and the courts to bring such tax avoiders to heel. His bill focuses on proving “economic substance,” i.e. corporations must be able to prove that a transaction has an economic purpose other than reduction of tax liability in order to be considered valid for tax purposes.

Taxes the corporations are unfairly avoiding have to made up by the rest of us. In order to help ensure they pay their fair share and lighten our load a little, send a message to your MP here. And you can read the bill here (it's very short).

ISIS—a force for peace?

A juxtaposition of two articles in the Guardian this week suggested a very odd development indeed in the Middle East—the barbaric hordes of ISIS currently marauding through Syria and northern Iraq may actually be, in the longer term, a force for peace.

The first article referred to a meeting in New York between British PM David Cameron and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. The meeting, to discuss the support Iranians can offer in the fight against ISIS, is the first between British and Iranian heads of state since the 1979 revolution. It represents a significant thaw of the relations between the two countries. Cameron, while remaining critical of Iran's nuclear program and its support for Syia's President al-Assad, stated, "If Iran is willing to join the international community to defeat ISIS then we will work with them on that."

The other article concerned a foreign minister-level meeting between Iran and Saudi Arabia, indicating another possible thaw in some deeply frigid relations. Shia Iran and the conservative Sunni Sauds have been bitter rivals for influence in the region. After the meeting, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was quoted as saying, "Both my Saudi counterpart and I believe that this meeting will be the first page of a new chapter in our two countries’ relations. We hope that this new chapter will be effective in establishing regional and global peace and security and will safeguard the interests of Muslim nations across the world." Prince Saud, for his part, referring to the advancing ISIS, added, “We are aware of the importance and sensitivity of this crisis and the opportunity we have ahead of us. ... These two countries are influential in the region and cooperation between them will have clear effects on the establishment of regional and global security." Amen to both of you.

A common enemy often unites the strangest of bedfellows. The trick is to remain united after the crisis passes. If these bedfellows can achieve that, or at least be less divided, this would be an ironic but most welcome outcome—the emergence of a silver lining from a very dark cloud indeed.

20 September 2014

Good use of the American military

As a frequent critic of how the United States uses its military in the world, I was delighted to hear that President Obama has made a major commitment to use the U.S. Army against the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

Many nations are responding to the crisis—Cuba is sending 165 health workers, China will send 59, the U.K. is building a 62-bed hospital, etc.—but all these are dwarfed by the American military response. Up to 3,000 army personnel will provide logistics, supplies, engineering and transport of supplies and personnel to the epidemic, and construct at least 17 new hospitals. They will also build a training facility to instruct up to 500 local and foreign health workers a week in infection control and self-protection.

With the epidemic now out of control in three countries, the assistance is badly needed. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, science writer Laurie Garrett reports, "Nothing short of heroic, record-breaking mobilization is necessary at this late stage in the epidemic. Without it, I am prepared to predict that by Christmas, there could be up to 250,000 people cumulatively infected in West Africa." The disease has a fatality rate of over 50 per cent.

Full credit goes to President Obama for recognizing the severity of the threat and taking strong action. By using his military for constructive purposes—a very welcome change—he shows the U.S. at its best. Our current government has been quick to support American initiatives, so might we assume it will direct our military to follow the U.S. Army into battle against ebola? We are waiting, Mr. Harper.

18 September 2014

Why are Americans so frightened?

ISIS has thrown the fear of God into Americans. According to a poll conducted by the Opinion Research Centre, ninety per cent of Americans believe the group is a direct threat to the U.S. with over seventy per cent believing it already has cells inside the country.

All of this might make sense—ISIS is a really scary outfit—if it were true. But it isn't. At least not according to the man who is paid to know about these things. Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, stated categorically, “At present, we have no credible information that ISIS is planning to attack the homeland of the United States.”

So why the rampant fear? Partly, perhaps, because of the gruesome videos showing the decapitation of two American reporters. Or perhaps just the general brutality ISIS displays. And then there is the hysterical cries for revenge from various media and political quarters. But none of this justifies fear of a threat that according to the country's best-informed official doesn't exist. The bogeyman is real but he isn't under Americans' beds.

The Iraq war was justified in part to end a terrorist threat to the U.S. and as it turned out, that threat didn't exist either. The invasion, however, contributed to the emergence of ISIS, the biggest, baddest bunch of terrorists yet seen. This time, the Americans would be well advised to proceed with great caution lest their irrational fears lead them once again to create a dragon even more fearsome than the one they hope to slay.

11 September 2014

The Islamic State—should we be helping to clean up the Americans' mess?

In early 2003, there were no Islamic extremists in Iraq, or at least none that dared raise their heads above ground. Then the Americans and their "coalition of the willing" invaded.

Today, Islamic extremists so vile even al-Qaeda disowns them have taken control of a huge swath of the country including major cities and now threaten Baghdad. And, in a particularly unpleasant development, young men from the West, including Canada, are joining their ranks. The U.S. and its allies created chaos in Iraq and from the chaos has arisen a bogeyman even nastier than Saddam Hussein. So, right on cue, the Americans are creating a new coalition, this time a "core coalition" to confront the Islamic State, as the insurgents refer to themselves and their "caliphate."

Unlike the last time, Canada has opted to be part of this new crusade. Why, one must ask, has our government volunteered to participate in a war that does not threaten us. We ask because, firstly, this is largely a made-in-the-USA mess and therefore the Americans should be largely responsible for cleaning it up. And, secondly, we ask because the countries who should be most concerned with the threat, i.e. Middle Eastern nations, should be the members of the coalition. In fact, the only non-Western member is Turkey.

The United States has for a long time been generous to the Egyptian military, supplying it with more military equipment than any other country outside of Israel. Both the U.S. and Great Britain have made massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Indeed, the Americans recently completed the greatest arms deal in their history with the Sauds. So what was all this largesse for, if not to deal with threats to their countries and to their region? If anyone is obligated to act against the Islamic State and follow the U.S. into war it is these guys. They have the money and they have the weapons, and it is their turf, not ours.

If Canada can help victims of the Islamic State, we should of course be generous. That's where our money and expertise should go. But we should be very wary indeed of getting involved in a now-extended American imperial adventure, keeping in mind that it began with an illegal invasion in the first place, an invasion neither sanctioned by the UN Security Council nor in accordance with the UN's founding charter. Only if any action taken is on firm legal ground should we even consider participating.

03 September 2014

Hamas popularity surges

Whatever damage Israel did to Hamas during the recent war, it didn't harm the group's standing among the Palestinian people. Quite the contrary. According to a survey by the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, the popularity of Hamas has surged in both Gaza and the West Bank to the point that if elections were held today it would win, as it did in the last Palestinian election in 2006. Hamas leader Ismail Haniya would defeat Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas two to one in a presidential election.

Furthermore, over half of the survey's respondents said armed resistance would help gain a Palestinian state while only 20 percent supported non-violent means. An overwhelming majority of West Bankers want to transfer “Hamas’s way” to the West Bank. For the first time ever, Hamas’s official TV station is the most popular in both Gaza and the West Bank (followed by al Jazeera).

As time passes, the support for Hamas will fade, but in the meantime it has been given a significant boost. It seems that Israel's attempts to destroy Hamas only rejuvenate it. This is not surprising. Nothing rallies the people around their government more effectively than dealing with an external threat, a threat to the tribe.

Nor is it surprising that the Palestinians believe violence may be the only way to win their own state. Fighting Israel causes them great suffering but endless talks with their overwhelming enemy, against whom they have absolutely no leverage in negotiations, have gained them exactly nothing. Or less than nothing—they remain under Israel's boot and more of their land is stolen every day. Putting up a fight, no matter how futile, at least allows them to feel like more than victims.

30 August 2014

Sister Simone for pope

What you may ask is a non-Catholic, indeed a non-Christian, doing recommending someone for pope. Well, it's partly tongue-in-cheek, of course, even if American Sister Simone Campbell might very well make a better pope than anyone else around, including Francis himself. I am quite aware that the Catholic Church, immersed in misogyny as it is, keeps women in their place and that place doesn't include running the outfit.

My inspiration to recommend Sister Simone regardless of Catholic dogma came from an article in the August issue of Harper's, "Francis and the Nuns" by Mary Gordon. Ms. Gordon outlines the current pope's treatment of nuns and finds him wanting. She lays out a sordid history of men religious dominating women religious in the oldest Christian faith, a domination that continues under Francis.

She gives as an example the reaction to an open letter to Congress written by Sister Simone, head of Network, a progressive Catholic lobbying group, and cosigned by dozens of Catholic sisters' groups, including the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. The LCWR represents the leaders of 90 per cent of America's 59,000 nuns. The letter was in support of Obamacare. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had opposed the legislation on the grounds it would require Catholic employers to cover contraception and abortion, a claim the nuns' letter disputed.

In response, the Vatican initiated a 3-year investigation of the LCWR and ultimately censored the group. Further, the Vatican imposed an "apostolic visitation" that would examine in minute detail the works, prayer lives and finances of every nun in an apostolic community in the U.S. To put it bluntly, the nuns were to be harassed for their effrontery and masculine authority clearly established. Author Gordon provides a number of other examples of the male church flaunting its power to discipline uppity sisters.

But Sister Simone is not intimidated. Further to the Obamacare letter, she organized Nuns on the Bus, a cross-country tour to protest the cutbacks to social services proposed by Catholic Congressman Paul Ryan. And the good sister's work has not gone unnoticed. She has been a guest on The Colbert Report, spoken to the Democratic National Convention, and was invited by President Obama to the signing of the Affordable Care Act into law.

She is a highly intelligent woman of courage, she is charismatic and an excellent organizer. She has all the characteristics of a good leader. But why a leader of a church specifically? This is why. When asked where she got her courage, she answered, "It's not courage, not really. When your heart's been broken, nothing can stop you. And living beside the poor, I had my heart broken every day. ... When you are with the poor, you weep with them, you weep for the world. Weeping becomes part of your prayer."

I may be an atheist, a mere observer of the religious scene, but this sounds to me close to what the gentle Jesus was all about. It is something many bishops never seem to discover, but something a pope should have above all else. And Sister Simone has it.

28 August 2014

Putin leads Russia from Communism to Fascism

Russian president Vladimir Putin is on record as saying that the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the 20th century's major geopolitical disasters. Some might say this suggests he is an unregenerate communist but that, I suspect, is not the case. He was comfortable enough in the USSR, serving the state as a member of the infamous KGB, but I doubt he misses communism very much. The empire, yes, and certainly the strongman rule.

A communist would not, for example, restore the power of the church. Putin has overseen the reconstruction of some 23,000 churches that had been destroyed or fallen into disuse and returned all church property that had been seized during the Soviet era, making the Russian Orthodox Church the largest landowner in Russia. He has flaunted his own faith, into which—rare for a KGB agent—he was baptized as a child.

The support is mutual. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Rus', who has referred to Putin's rule as a "miracle," commented during street protests against Putin’s return to the presidency that “liberalism will lead to legal collapse and then the apocalypse.” Father Alexey Kulberg adds, “The President’s ideology for developing Russia coincides with the direction of the Russian Orthodox Church.”

That direction includes demonizing homosexuals, providing Putin with a convenient scapegoat. When the czars felt their people were getting fed up with their ruler, they would institute a pogrom as a distraction. As one Russian interior minister was reputed to have said, "If the people can't hate the Jews, they'll hate the Czar." Under Czar Putin, it appears gays are the new Jews.

So how do we describe this new Russia? Fascist would seem to fit the bill. Historian Roger Griffin describes fascism as having three core components: "(i) the rebirth myth, (ii) populist ultra-nationalism and (iii) the myth of decadence." This fits Putin's politics rather neatly: rebirth of the nation's spiritual traditions, encouraging chauvinistic attitudes, and rallying his people against the decadence of the West.

Rebels in the eastern Ukraine claim their violence is justified by excessive fascist influence in Kiev. How ironic. The fascism they should be concerned about lies in the east, not in the west.

26 August 2014

Evidence for Democracy

Our current federal government's aversion to facts is now, unfortunately, well-established as a fact itself. Examples are legion, but I will just mention one.

Health Minister Rona Ambrose has assured Canadians that her government is a firm believer in science-based policy. Unfortunately, in a recent CBC interview she went about proving herself wrong. On the subject of drug treatment, she stated, and repeated with variations, a number of times, "There is no evidence at this point that heroin—giving heroin to heroin addicts—is any way an effective treatment." Science, it seems, disagrees. A study by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, prepared by researchers with the National Addiction Centre at King’s College in England, states:
"Over the past 15 years, six RCTs [ randomized controlled trials] have been conducted involving more than 1,500 patients, and they provide strong evidence, both individually and collectively, in support of the efficacy of treatment with fully supervised self-administered injectable heroin, when compared with oral MMT [methadone maintenance treatment], for long-term refractory heroin-dependent individuals. These have been conducted in ... Switzerland ... the Netherlands ... Spain ... Germany ... Canada ... and England."
It appears Ms. Ambrose isn't even familiar with the most recent research in her own country. Canadians who despair at a government that has such little regard for facts in their policy making, have ample opportunity to respond. They can, for instance, support any of the other three major parties. They can also support Evidence for Democracy (E4D), A national, non-partisan NGO that "advocates for the transparent use of science and evidence in public policy and government decision-making."

E4D is looking for experts from all fields to help monitor and report on whether government decisions are being based on the best available evidence. Even if you aren't an expert on anything, volunteers are needed to help with research, social media, communications, graphic design, video production, campaigning, fundraising, writing, and English-French translation. It's an opportunity for every Canadian, at least every Canadian who believes in evidence-based policy (and what member of Progressive Bloggers doesn't?), to do their bit for science and enlightened governance.

Calling the bluff on "we must compete in the global marketplace"

The soul-numbing mantra "we must compete in the global marketplace" is much heard these days. Conservative politicians and business groups toss it out tirelessly as an argument to reduce taxes, and weaken labour and environmental laws. Unfortunately, their argument is valid. Trade agreements have so reduced the ability of national governments to tax and to provide legislative protection for workers and the environment, or indeed to act in way that might reduce corporate profits, they are now largely at the mercy of corporate whim.

Governments have seen their power slip away, turning democracies into plutocracies. Indeed, that and not trade often seems to be the primary goal of these agreements. One answer to this challenge is global agreements on worker rights and environmental policy. Another is global taxation.

Movement in this direction is showing signs of life. For instance, 11 members of the European Union have agreed to create a financial transactions tax (FTT), sometimes called a Robin Hood tax, to be levied on trades of shares and some derivatives. The FTT is popular among the European public because it generates new revenue from the under-taxed financial sector. It may also dampen speculation that contributes to financial crises. The tax is expected to have only marginal effect on economic growth. Other countries may join later although the U.K. is opposed to an FTT (as is the U.S.).

In his best-selling book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, French economist Thomas Piketty goes much further, arguing for a global wealth tax. He refers to the tax as “the only civilized solution” for avoiding capitalism’s "endless inegalitarian spiral.” It must be global, he argues, because it has become too "difficult for any single government to regulate or tax capital and the income it generates.”

Piketty admits the idea is utopian, but the idea is in itself useful. It can serve as an effective challenge to the conservative argument that government taxing power is limited by our need to compete in the global marketplace. We can counter by pointing out that that is a choice, not an act of nature as they seem to imply. We can liberate ourselves from corporate blackmail by matching global trade with global taxation. If they reject the idea, then they are choosing to undermine democracy. We can, in other words, call their bluff.

23 August 2014

Who would you believe—Stephen Harper or Willie Nelson?

Apparently the $24-million of our tax money the federal government spent on an ad campaign to promote Canadian oil and the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington has gone down the drain. According to experts on Canada-U.S. relations, the campaign was a bust. "Buy our oil because we’re nice people—that doesn't fly," said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre in Washington.

But the feds had better keep their ad blitz going because Willie Nelson is coming to town. Well, to a farm near Neligh, Nebraska, actually. He will join our very own Neil Young for an anti-Keystone concert in a local cornfield. Yes, cornfield. The field is in the path of the pipeline—a group of farmers, ranchers and Native Americans, along with artist John Quigley, carved an anti-pipeline message into it earlier this year. The concert is September 27th.

And why, one might ask, should anyone believe what a couple of singer/songwriter/guitar players have to say about pipelines? Well, one might ask the same question about the Harper government. Nelson and Young are, in fact, both long-time environmentalists, but that's not the point. We are talking about promotion here. What will best reach Americans' hearts and minds? Ads by the Canadian government or the warmth and charm of a country music icon? I'm betting on Willie.

22 August 2014

RIP—and thanks for the beer, Ed

The inventor of my favourite beer died this week. Ed McNally, former lawyer and barley farmer, who founded Big Rock Breweries in 1985 and introduced Traditional Ale (Trad to us aficionados), the world's finest beer, a year later.

Ed was a pioneer in craft beer. Unimpressed by the pale, fizzy, lagers mass-produced by the major breweries, he decided to exploit Alberta's barley and glacial waters to make traditional European-style beer without additives, preservatives or pasteurization. The result was Big Rock Breweries, now the largest and longest-running independently-owned craft brewery in Canada.

Much more than an entrepreneur, Ed was also a philanthropist and will be missed by Calgary's arts community, of which he was a strong supporter. He was a member of the Order of Canada and has been inducted into the Calgary Business Hall of Fame.

If there was a heaven and God liked his beer, no doubt the two would be having a pint as we speak. Cheers!