An Open Skies observation mission of the Six Nations Reserve? [Update]

Was there indeed a spy flight over the Six Nations Reseve?

Update [12:45pm on June 30]

I just got off the phone with LCol Reid McBride, responsible for Open Skies working in the Arms Control Verification Directorate of the Strategic Joint Staff in National Defence in Ottawa. With his permission, he is letting me use his name. He assures me with, with 100% certainty, that no Open Skies missions have been conducted in Canada over the last several months. We chatted about some of the finer points of the treaty, including some elements of particular relevance to Caledonia. For example, the treaty puts a limit on resolution for imagery, no better than 30cm. At that resolutuion, you can tell a tank from a truck, but you would find it impossible to evaluate a bunker, for example.

So what flew over the area? He says it could have been a cargo plane in a holding pattern waiting to go to Hamilton. Lots of cargo planes for smaller haulers are flying old DC-8s and 707s.

In other words, in the words of this professional, this was certainly an innocent coincidence.

More rumours of impending Canada Day violence [and ongoing updates]

I have yet another email, also difficult to substantiate, from someone close to the events in Caledonia. As before, I am posting it with a warning that none of the content is confirmed.

This time, the focus is on plans for a violent Canada Day long weekend in Caledonia:

Subject: Friday Night

Just got off the phone with my contact who lives on Thistlemore. Person visited yesterday by a rep. from the Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. Their purpose is to assess the amount of damage and costs incurred by the residents during this "Event". There were 5 questions. The rep took the questions with her but left an overview. My contact is photo copying this and bringing it over tomorrow [ed. I'd like to see it too, if I can].

There is increased activity at DCE. After the removal of the barricades, there were 2 out houses. Yesterday they brought in 5 more. They have been hauling in wood all day yesterday and today. They are stacking them in huge pyres.

Scanners are picking up on-going communication from the Warriors saying that they are going to help the Caledonians celebrate Canada Day festivities. No mention of specifics just continuous excitement over this coming weekend. My uneducated guess is that if they do show up at the dance, they will just stand and watch. Intimidate by presence. They hope that the Caledonians, fuelled with fire water will start the fight. They, the poor, peaceful natives, who only wanted to be part of the celebration will be forced to fight back to protect their women and children. Racist, violent Caledonia will be portrayed as just that.

Sunday night, the Baptist church had organized a church supper and entertainment. They had invited a Native Christian Band to provide the entertainment and felt it would be a sign of open hearts to invite the Mohawk Warriors. They did arrive in full camouflage with scarves. They sat and by the end of the entertainment seemed to be relaxed. After most of the congregation had left and there were only a few stragglers remaining, a warrior went up to the minister and told him what a great evening they had and what a lovely building the church was. He then told the minister that if there was anything that he felt emotionally attached to he should take it because they were going to take over the Church. He then saluted and left. The scanners are also picking up on communications that tells of a plan to immediately take over Notre Dame as soon as it closes. They feel that with most of the Canadian Army being deployed in Afghanistan, the most the army can come up with is 1500. They can beat that number with 1 hand tied behind their back. Also, that idiot, Monty Kwinter [ed. Monte Kwinter is Ontario's Minister of Public Safety and Security in Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government; Kwinter has a degree in fine arts], announcing that all was back to normal in Caledonia not only enraged us, but also enraged the warriors. Almost like a challenge. That's about it. Stay safe.

Stay tuned through this weekend.

Updates:

As I had hoped, I'm starting to get emails from others who are close to the events to help clarify the situation.

A person who attended the concert at the Baptist church has contacted me after contacting the pastor, and tells me that the pastor denies that a threat of a takeover was ever made.

Note that the church is behind the barricade on Argyle Street. Services have been held as worshippers have been let through the barricade.

So this party of the story could be relegated to the fevered imagination pile for now...

That still leaves the question of Notre Dame. The original email expects that people know these names. The Baptist Church is on Argyle Street at the intersection of Braemar Avenue. Notre Dame refers to the Catholic high school on Braemar, just 800 feet west of the Baptist Church.

That would put the school behind the Argyle Street barricade as well.

Today or tomorrow will be the last day of school. I guess we'll see if the takeover of the high school is a real plan.

More updates as I receive them.

Updates:

The church was behind the barricade, but is no longer. The Douglas Creek Estates development was immediately adjacent to the church, to the south and to the east.

The school is also not behind the barricade, but the development borders the school property on the south, and the access road to the development runs along the west side of the school. All the activity, the barricades, the Warrior flags -- everything can be seen from the school. Not good for the children, but perhaps a nice location to control, tactically speaking.

In any case, let's hope the intensity level drops over the next little while.

Ken Hill is on the run, and other rumours

I've received an interesting email from someone who in turn cannot vouch for the accuracy of the email, other than to say he trusts the source.

Keep that in mind.

We're talking here about events in Caledonia, where native protesters have taken control of a land development. I have written extensively about a potential alternative explanation of why this is happening, something beyond merely a land claim.

I'm posting this email with this warning about accuracy because I can't think of a way to confirm any of the allegations, other than to put it out there and see if I get any response from potential witnesses to these alleged events who are also readers of this blog.

So here goes:

Subject: Trouble At DCE [ed. "DCE" stands for the "Douglas Creek Estates"]

I was at a group discussion this a.m. and I can attest to the reliability of my source, as reliable as one can be without having been actually present at the events I will relate.

Apparently Kenny Hill's HumV was torched and he and his Russian mistress are on the run. "Hill On The Run" to be sung to the tune of "Man On The Run". This can only mean 1 thing. Kenny was funding the DCE from day 1. If he's been torched, it could only have been the Mohawk Warriors. To piss them off, he must have refused further funding.

Drugs, booze and guns are now openly used at DCE. There has been 1 confirmed rape and 3 unconfirmed rapes. There are daily fights. Most recently a huge native woman, perhaps in her 40's, was bitch slapping a younger man and screaming at him to get the "fuck" out of her house. They're fighting over the homes! I love it!

Did any of you notice yesterday a large aircraft, approximately the size of a passenger jet, flying straight over town? That was a USA spy plane specially equipped to take pictures of bunkers, ammunition holdings, well you get the picture. This was not a jet that had taken off or was landing at Mt. Hope [ed. Mount Hope is the location of Hamilton’s international airport]. It made several passes over DCE and then shot up into the sky! It would only be here with permission and permission would only be given if our politicians didn't acknowledge this is not just a warm and fuzzy, peaceful protest by moccasin wearing, bead stringing natives! This is war!

There's a lot there to process. First, the idea that Ken Hill has had a falling out with some violent faction in the reserve. If true, it is speculation about whether it was about further funding, or if some other motive is involved.

That chaos rules behind the barricades does not surprise me, if true. The protest has been about lawlessness in the face of a Liberal government unwilling to impose law and order. I'm not sure what other outcome could be expected.

Spy planes? Well, I have to wonder, if only because there are smaller reconnaissance aircraft that could be used instead of something the size of a passenger jet. But then the person who wrote the email is probably not a trained observer. Still, seems like a bit of a stretch...at least I hope so. The implications are quite scary.

And talking about scary, I received a compliment from my correspondent:

I especially like your Blog, as it doesn't bow to the gods of political correctness, like our mainstream media. Having lived in this area my entire life, I admire you for taking on the likes of Ken Hill, as people around here (and on Six Nations) have not done so in fear of their safety.

In fear of their safety?! Should I be nervous?

Who is MP Brent St Denis backing for the Liberal leadership?

I wonder who Brent St Denis is backing?

In case you are not up on your cast of Liberal MPs, Brent St Denis is the member of parliament for Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing. He has been an MP since 1993.

As far as I can tell he has not indicated which candidate for the Liberal leadership he is supporting.

You might wonder why I should care. Well, the reason I'm wondering is because it looks like one of his staffers was the one who created the "pubnight" PDF file announcing the Stephane Dion fundraiser that has been a topic of discussion.

The staffer is stdenb0@parl.gc.ca (the MP's account is StDenB, and his staffers are assigned the numbered email addresses 0 through 9, which is the standard way email addresses are created on the Hill, as far as I can figure).

The author of the PDF file is "stdenb0" -- there really is no other interpretation of that name.

Of course, individual Liberals can support whoever they choose. But if Mr St Denis is supporting, say, Michael Ignatieff over Stephane Dion, he might prefer that his staffers do their work on the Dion campaign more discreetly. It wouldn't do to have "StDenB" attached to Dion material.

On the other hand, Mr St Denis might be an undeclared Dion supporter. In that case, having his staff scribble up posters to help out Bryon Wilfert's staffer with the spam email and the big shindig fundraiser would be appropriate. Remember that Wilfert is a declared member of the Dion leadership team.

Yes, that would be entirely appropriate.

Well, except for the whole spam thing. And using government resources for fundraising.

Stephane Dion's fundraising email: A rebuttal

Jason Cherniak defends the parliamentary assistant and the use of a government email account to send out invitations to a fundraising even for Stephane Dion:

Email is free people!

Tonight was the Dion fundraiser in Toronto. It is the first time that I have been involved in organizing such a thing and I was quite happy with the result. Dion did well, we had great attendance and I enjoyed the celebration that followed. I even learned that a former cabinet minister in attendance (not Dion) used to babysit my mother!

At the moment, though, I am pissed off. It is because I just read this crock of $#!@. I am sick and tired of politically minded people pretending to be "Angry" because of completely meaningless tripe. Who the hell cares if an Ottawa staffer sends a political email from a Parliamentary account. For godssake; they work for POLITICIANS. Of course they are going to send political emails!

[Note that the fundraiser Jason attended is different from the one refered to in the email being debated here. Thanks to Jason for the correction.]

If you recall, I opened my post with a comment that I am also not concerned about a trivial email here or there.

But there's more:

For the record, I have not discussed this with my MP and he will make his own decision of what to do. However, if I were an MP I would insist that staffers use their parliamentary accounts for all political emails. I would then go out and defend this policy against those who are inane enough to complain.

In my posting, I left out the "To" list because I wasn't interested in where the email was going, just where it was coming from. But maybe that was a mistake.

This was not an email to one or two or a dozen people, each of them a personal acquaintance of the staffer in question, each being asked if they had planned to go to the event, so maybe they should meet somewhere and head out together, ya-da ya-da.

This was an email sent to a series of official distributions lists containing literally hundreds of names:

To: - SEN SENATORS' OFF/BUR. SENATEURS
To: - BQ DePUTeS/MEMBERS
To: - BQ: ADJOINTS
To: - CONSERVATIVE ASSISTANTS CONSERVATEURS
To: - CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS/DePUTeS CONSERVATEURS
To: - INDEPENDENT MEMBERS/DePUTeS INDePENDANTS
To: - LIBERAL ASSISTANTS
To: - LIBERAL MEMBERS/DePUTeS
To: - NDP MEMBERS/DePUTeS NPD
To: - NDP/NPD ASSISTANTS

Every MP. Every Senator. Every assistant. Every party was tagged.

Hundreds and hundreds of emails. Each with a 50KB PDF file attached.

Each received an impersonal email from someone almost all of them did not know, asking them to give money (it did not explicitly say that, but it did say it was identified as a leadership campaign event).

There is a name for this sort of email. It's called spam. Even if you accept that parliamentary accounts could be used for partisan purposes (and I have no problems with individual and personal communications), it should not be used to spam Parliament Hill. It's not just in poor taste, it could be considered illegal.

In retrospect, maybe I needed to be clearer on this. I did say everybody got this email, but then I wasn't all that precise.

I mean everybody got this email.

Spam should not be tolerated. Partisan political spam originating from inside the government itself especially.

Jason thinks this should not just be tolerated, but encouraged! That is wrong. It has the potentially of dramatically decreasing the signal-to-noise ratio of intergovernmental communications. Valuable messages are missed in the clutter as Liberal leadership candidates spam away. The more moribund the candidate, the more frantic the spamming. Angry recipients demanding their names be removed from official distribution lists. Network slowdowns, especially if someone does a mass mailing of a huge PDF or graphics image. Viruses inadvertantly being delivered to every account. Email might be free to the person sending it, Jason, but there is a cost to deal with spam for those who are inundated by it.

Stephane Dion using government resources for leadership campaign [update]

The debate continues, with Jason Cherniak defending the email, and my response.

I'll be the first to say that I sometimes wonder if something as innocuous as an email is really something to get upset about. But the rules are clear, and while one email might seem like nothing, it could easily become hundreds, thousands, even hundreds of thousands of emails -- so I suppose the rules make sense.

The rule I'm talking about is the one that forbids government employees from using their email accounts for political partisan reasons. A typical government email address is "@parl.gc.ca". These addresses are assigned to MPs and their assistants and are to be used to help in their work on behalf of their constituents.

Bryon Wilfert is the Liberal MP for Richmond Hill. He is also the caucus liason for Stephane Dion, one of the candidates for the leadership of the Liberal Party. One of Wilfert's assistants sent this email out using his or her parliamentary email account:

From: Wilfert, Bryon - Assistant 1
Sent: June 27, 2006 1:46 PM
To: ...

Subject: THUNDEROUS THURSDAY

Please join the Stephane Dion Campaign for an evening of fun at The Brig Pub (23 York St. - ByWard Market) this Thursday, June 29th from 5pm- 7pm. Our special guest will be the Hon. Don Boudria.

We're calling it: "Your Boss is Away… Come out to Play!"

I've cut out the "To" field because I don't think it's fair for people to be drawn into this just because they received an email. Suffice it to say, however, that just about everybody got this email.

So "Thunderous Thursday" is not a party hosted by Stephane Dion. It is being hosted by the Stephane Dion Campaign. That's important. This is a partisan Liberal leadership event. Don Boudria is a former Liberal MP who is now a senior associate at the public relations agency Hill & Knowlton. He is also a senior member of the Stephane Dion leadership committee.

And check out the flyer. See the big Stephane Dion logo? You'll see it in the upper right-hand corner of every page of Stephane Dion's leadership website.

This is not the first time this has happened, as we see in this story from Stephen Taylor. In that case, very similar to this one, the staffer apologized (sort of).

You might think this isn't a big deal. But this was a mass mailing for a leadership campaign event. It sure seems like Stephane Dion is letting his caucus liason MP Bryon Wilfert use his taxpayer-funded parliamentary resources (both the assistant and the email account) as Dion's personal fundraising tools.

I guess the Liberal leadership candidates really are hard up for cash. So much so that they're willing to do really dumb things to get their hands on any.

[And in case you were wondering, I got this information via a recipient, who in turn got in touch with me via a personal non-government account. He understands the rules.]

Update: Literally moments after posting, I received word that this assistant had sent out a "recall" message. Uh, too late. I think we deserve an explanation about how the rules apply to Stephane Dion's campaign.

Gambling profits and paramilitary parades

From the Hamilton Spectator (June 8):

First Nations chiefs from across Ontario pledged their support to Caledonia protesters yesterday, and warned governments to expect more occupations if native land claims aren't settled.

The 100 chiefs arrived at Douglas Creek Estates on the eve of today's 100th day of the occupation.

They were bused in to provide moral support to protesters and to urge the federal and provincial governments to exercise caution.

Chiefs took turns issuing veiled threats of violence. However, the presence of the Chiefs was a coincidence:

The Caledonia dispute wasn't on the chiefs' agenda, but their hosts invited the delegates to visit the site. They were driven there in two large passenger buses.

With a colour party of flag bearers in military fatigues, the Ontario chiefs were led across the survey to the entrance of Douglas Creek Estates, for the impromptu press conference.

So what were the Chiefs doing on this reserve at this time if it was not to take part in paramilitary parades?

The Ontario chiefs had been attending a two-day conference at the Six Nations reserve, where they discussed the distribution of proceeds from Casino Rama.

Casino Rama is the Native-owned and -operated commercial casino near Orillia, Ontario.

The distribution of the proceeds to First Nations people is managed by the Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership. I saw a familiar name on the list of directors of the OFNLP:

Steve Williams --- Independent Director, Vice President

Steve Williams is also the name of the former chief of the Six Nations. That Steve Williams was also a member the Six Nations Council Gaming Commission, until he was fired for help business partners Ken Hill, Jerry Montour, and Art Montour set up an internet gaming licensing enterprise running out of the offices of their cigarette firm, Grand River Enterprises, behind the back of the Council firmly in opposition of the legally questionable operation.

I can't be sure it is the same Steve Williams, but my gut tells me it is. So on June 8, the chiefs come to discuss splitting up gambling profits. Coincidently they take a tour of the land the Ontario government is about to buy for the Six Nations as a response to violent protests and barricades. The vice president of the partnership in charge of managing those profits the chiefs were discussing just happens to be one of the main backers of having gambling on the Six Nations reserve. His business partner, also part of the same pro-gambling team, is on the barricades and gets arrested for assault, defending the land claim that was the subject of the chiefs' military parade.

But maybe it's all just a coincidence.

Just one more thing. The Ontario First Nations Limited Partnership has its address in Hagersville, Ontario. You might think they would be located near Casino Rama, near Orillia. But Orillia is almost three hours away. Find Hagersville on the map, and you find yet another amazing coincidence. Both Caledonia and Hagersville are on the borders of the Six Nations Reserve. It's about a 15 minute drive Route 6 to Caledonia from Hagersville -- a mere 10 miles apart. Hagersville butts up the southern corner of the reserve, while Caledonia butts up against the north-east corner. That's why I think we're dealing with the same Steve Williams. And that's another reason to wonder just how much gambling interests are connected to the events in and around the Six Nations reserve.

The Six Nations Gambling Fight

The more I delve into the history of gambling on the Six Nations Reserve in Caledonia, the more I think there are issues behind the Caledonia land dispute that have nothing to do with land.

Imagine this scenario. You are a successful businessman. You want to expand into gambling, but you are being harassed by a local council that is worried about laws that you don't think apply. You try to do an end run around them, they fight back, you persist -- and in all of this, you are wondering just how can you get these troubling people out of the way. You know that gambling is not popular with the voters. If you can somehow swing the voters to your side, you can cut the council off at the legs and get what you want. You are the largest employer in the area, but that doesn't seem to be enough. You are respected, but the people aren't going to give you a blank cheque just because you run a local factory. You need to be a hero! What better way than to put it all on the line, take on forces larger than yourself in a classic David-vs-Goliath battle, and if you're lucky, get yourself roughed up, just a little. Now the people don't just respect you, they adore you. Those cowards on the local council know you have the people behind you, and realize that they will need to pay a price to keep their jobs. That price is to give what you wanted in the first place -- the sole right to managed a lucrative gambling interest without interference or resistance.

Is this Ken Hill's plan?

A white man's worst nightmare

From a reader who calls himself awhitemansworstnightmare (aka "Six Nations Resident, and Pround as hell to be native"), who posted this comment on June 24, 2006 at 3:46 PM:

I read alot of the stuff you creeps have on this website. Is this a KKK website? Of all the artcles and comments i read, not one had nething good to say about natives.

First things first. Thanks for coming by. I'm glad I'm being read by both sides in this conflict. I hope you keep coming back, and that you participate in the discussions.

Moving on, I'm not sure why you think you are the "white man's worst nightmare". As a man with children, my worst nightmare is probably very similar to the worst nightmare of all fathers regardless of their race or creed. If you are thinking of some lesser nightmare that is somehow a function of my skin colour, I suppose the worst nightmare of the white man is the same as the worst nightmare of the black man or the red man (I'm keeping with the colour motif, even though "redskin" has falling out of favour in modern parlance, and thankfully so). That is to be punished for something he can't help -- the colour of his skin.

Is that who you are? A person who seeks out and hurts white people just for being white? I suppose that would make you a white man's worst nightmare. Must keep you pretty busy, though. So many white men, women, and children out there...but then you said "white man's nightmare", so perhaps you have limits. Or maybe you just thought "white person's nightmare" sounded clumsy and therefore not as threatening (and you'd be right).

But back to the question of punishment. I don't mind being punished for something I have done. I would like to the see the protesters punished for the things they have done. But I don't want anyone punished just because they are white, or aboriginal.

And the same goes in the other direction. I don't want anyone to avoid punishment just because they are white, or aboriginal.

As for whether this is a Klan site, I can assure you the Klan would not have me. As a Polish Catholic, I would be no more welcome in their ranks than you, anti-Catholicism being a founding principle of the Klan.

But I suppose when you want to make a critical point, it always helps to toss out the accusation of racism. Trying to get the other guy to start apologizing and backtracking just to avoid the label, eh?

Ain't going to happen here. I know I'm not a racist. Just harshly critical of criminal behaviour, especially when it appears to be institutionalized.

Don't confuse harshly critical with racism. When you equate the two, you shut down criticism. Shutting down criticism is the mark of the Fascist.

[And some friendly advice. Drop the "creeps". It doesn't bother me -- name-calling rarely does -- which makes it a wasted effort on your part. It also makes you look petty, which means that should you decide to contribute something substantive to the discussion, people might ignore you, and that would be a shame. But hey, if that's your style and it works for you, carry on.]

CUPE: A house divided

The Ontario branch of CUPE, the Canadian Union of Public Employees, fancies itself a mover and shaker in international affairs. Recently, it passed a resolution calling on a boycott of Israel:

May, 27 2006 Resolution:

CUPE ONTARIO WILL:

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

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

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

BECAUSE:

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

When I googled to get the text of the resolution, the first hit I got was from Al Awda, to which I linked. Al Awda is an organization with a checkered history, according to the Anti-Defamation League:

Al-Awda - Right of Return Coalition, an international grassroots organization, argues that Palestinian refugees have the right to return “to their original homes and villages” which existed prior to the founding of Israel, and that they should be paid restitution for their losses. Al-Awda supports the intifada and the establishment of a Palestinian state over all the territory west of the Jordan River, including Israel. Al-Awda has organized large protests with the International Action Center and its anti-war affiliate, ANSWER. It has also been active in several anti-Israel boycott campaigns. Al-Awda considers its advocacy on behalf of Palestinians as being at the center of a global struggle against Zionism and American foreign policy. Mazin Qumsiyeh, a Yale University professor and an Al-Awda founder and leader, has called for supporting the “Iraqi resistance” against the pro-Israel “cabal” in Washington: “Only by awakening the US public and linking it to resistance movements from within the world community (including the Iraqi resistance), will this pathway to destruction be avoided.”

The website shows an Al Awda T-shirt with the phrase "Palestine will be free from the river to the sea" -- I guess that counts as the ultimate divestment of Israel.

Notice that ADL mentions that Al Awda has been active in anti-Israel boycott campaigns. One wonders if they were involved with CUPE Ontario and their leader Sid Ryan.

In any case, the resolution is tearing the union apart:

CUPE Ontario's decision to support a boycott against Israel has created "an unprecedented crisis" within the provincial union, according to the president of its largest single local.

In a letter dated June 20 and addressed to Ontario president Sid Ryan and national president Paul Moist, the head of the chapter representing 18,000 City of Toronto municipal workers says that the boycott has raised a host of problems that the Canadian Union of Public Employees could have avoided.

"As a result, much damage has been done to CUPE's reputation in the eyes of the members and the public," said Ann Dembinski, head of Local 79 in Toronto.

The unit represents about 10 per cent of the Ontario's wing's total membership.

Sid Ryan says what's done is done, and nothing can change it anytime soon:

In an interview, Mr. Ryan said the resolution was approved almost unanimously at the May meeting, which 20 members of Local 79 attended.

He said the decision could be reversed only at next year's annual meeting.

Of course, this is nonsense. The union executive can do whatever it wants if the survival of the union is being threatened.

In any case, with cheerleaders like Al Awda (and no doubt more sinister and less public organizations), it's not wonder that CUPE members are upset.

And one more thing. Did you notice that in the text of the resolution, CUPE keeps refering to Israel as "the Israeli state". Just once is the country named as "Israel". The rest of the time resolution avoids naming the "entity". Or should I say "Zionist entity"?

Nice bunch of guys, Sid Ryan and his clique. Next they'll pass a resolution demanding that the Protocols of Zion be made mandatory reading in Ontario classrooms.

[Hat tip to reader J]

The Humiliation of Caledonia

The latest from Caledonia has the police leaving residents to the tender mercies of criminals:

Amid concerns over lack of police action in Caledonia, the Ontario Provincial Police have turned over part of their policing responsibility on the outskirts of the town to Six Nations officers, the force confirmed yesterday.

OPP officers will no longer respond to calls from non-native home and property owners who live on the 6th Line, a county road running along the southwest border of a housing development occupied by native protesters — a move that has some residents feeling helpless and sick with worry.

"Residents are fully aware. We went door-to-door," OPP spokesman Const. Dennis Harwood told the Toronto Star yesterday.

This is just the latest twist involving the OPP that has many people — including a former OPP officer — questioning what the provincial force is doing. "They can't do that. People pay their taxes for policing by the OPP," said the former senior officer, who asked not to be identified.

People didn't just pay taxes. The County paid extra for a contract:

[Haldimand County Police Service] consist of several components. First is the actual delivery of policing which has been contracted out to the Ontario Provincial Police, second is Haldimand County Community Policing and thirdly is the Haldimand County Police Services Board. All detachments are required by provincial legislation to have a Police Services Board. The traditional policing functions are carried out under the auspices of a contract between the O.P.P and Haldimand County.

How much money was squandered on the OPP?

Protections to Persons & Property:
2005 YTD Actuals: $8,141,546

The people of Haldimand people spend $8 million for police protection, and when it really mattered, they got nothing. On the other hand, the protesters are virtually ignored by the police despite threats, robberies, and assaults, and they are rewarded with land bought at twice the amount the people of Haldimand County paid for the privilege of living under the rule of law:

Meanwhile, the developer who currently owns the land will get $12.3 million in an "interim agreement" with the province to cover the market value of the subdivision land "as is," with more money to come later, said Natural Resources Minister David Ramsay.

That land bought at $12 million (and probably much more) will be handed to the protesters sooner or later.

And it was paid for in part by the taxpayers of Haldimand County who have just wasted $8 million on nonexistent policing.

You know, fear fades with time. One day, when these events have receded into the past and daily life has settled into a new pattern, the people of Haldimand Country will wake up and they won't be afraid any more. But I bet they will feel humiliated by all this. And the thing about humiliation is that, unlike fear, the sting of it has a way of being felt as keenly as when it was fresh. You never quite shake humiliation -- it stays with you for the rest of your life.

Creepy gay groups

The Conservatives are moving ahead on yet another promise:

The Conservative government introduced a bill on Thursday that would raise the age of sexual consent by two years to 16.

If passed, the new law would mean most adults who have sex with girls or boys aged 14 or 15 could face criminal charges.

"Adults who sexually prey upon young people are the targets of these reforms, not consenting teenagers," said Justice Minister Vic Toews, who said the bill will rename the Age of Consent law to the Age of Protection law.

Teen sex is not outlawed, though:

The proposed legislation includes a close-in-age exception, which means that teens who are 14 or 15 can have a sexual partner who is "less than five years older."

So a 40-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old will now face criminal charges.

Not everyone is happy. Egale Canada, a gay-rights advocacy group, is against it:

Egale Canada supports the current general age of consent to sexual activity of 14 because: the current Criminal Code already protects 14- and 15-year-olds from exploitive sexual activity and internet predators; the evidence does not demonstrate that increasing the age of consent will do anything other than criminalize non-harmful sexual activity; the prospect of legal sanction and third-party disclosure could discourage young people from accessing preventive and therapeutic health services and other forms of information and assistance. This effectively drives sex underground, isolates 14- and 15-year-olds, and thereby makes them more vulnerable to sexual predators.

Now note that the only sexual activity being criminalized is that between a 14- or 15-year-old teen and someone 20 or older. Sex between teens is still fine.

Egale Canada (and other gay advocacy groups against this law, such as Coalition For Lesbian And Gay Rights In Ontario) say that teens will not seek therapeutic health services.

Like buying condoms? Obviously not. Egale mentions "information and assistance". Again, what exactly are they not going to be able to find out on the internet or from friends?

Teens having sex with teens will be legal, as it is now. Nothing has changed.

The only thing that is different is that 14- and 15-year-olds are off limits to adults.

And then it stuck me. Is this what the gay lobby is really upset about?

Are gay relationships skewed more heavily towards adults having sex with young teens? Is this law really discriminatory, in that the majority of heterosexual relationships are not going to be affected, but a significant portion of homosexual ones will?

I was leery of putting this up until I saw this post on rabble:

Gay men and lesbian women seldom grow up in queer or even queer-friendly families. In my experience, for many of us, one of the first steps in coming to terms with who we are is through a relationship with someone older and more experienced who can share her or his experience and insights and help us deal with all the homophobic bullshit that we absorb from less than friendly families and communities.

Is this how adult homosexuals who have sex with teens see themselves? Helping children "find" themselves?

What's the rush? If a teen doesn't have gay sex by the time he or she is 16, he or she might go straight? That's silly.

What about young Catholic girls? If they are following the rules put down by the non-progressive Church, they are waiting until they get married. But then they aren't finding themselves sexually either. Should middle-aged men be allowed lurk near Catholic all-girl high schools so that they too can help these girls deal with the "Catholic bullshit" that they have to absorb from their "less than friendly families"?

Do these people even realize what they sound like? Look, a confused 14-year-old boy. If it weren't for the law, I could help him understand his feelings. It'll only take a few minutes...just let me get this belt...stupid thing is stuck...no wait, don't run away...I'm here to help you...damn belt....

[I patiently wait for the furious condemnations of my patently obvious homophobia. For what it's worth, I don't like to see homosexual teens being taken advantage of by predacious adults any more than seeing it happen to heterosexual teens.]

Update: I should point out that Planned Parenthood (now called the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health in many cities) is also against the change in the age of consent. Planned Parenthood is clearly not a gay advocacy group (though the group does have a major "anti-oppression" program aimed at high schools for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth). Planned Parenthood is primarily a pro-abortion group. You would think that any law that could have the effect of discouraging some teens from having sex and so cut down on unwanted pregnancies is something Planned Parenthood would applaud. The negative reaction (also wrapped in the nonsense that kids would still be having sex but less likely to talk about it) can be traced to the fact that anything the reduces the number of abortions in the country is something Planned Parenthood will fight vigourously against. If every pregnancy was planned by responsible and mature adults, what would Planned Parenthood have left to do? More frighteningly, how would Planned Parenthood be able to justify the $2.3 million of funding they receive each year from Ottawa? That's 80% of their budget, for crying out loud. If unwanted teen pregnancies were to decrease, some bright bulb in the government might tell Planned Parenthood that they should try to raise their money privately, assuming they are seen to provide a service perceived as valuable by their clients.

"Get out of jail free" card

This is too subtle for me to understand:

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a judgment sure to spark political controversy, has refused to boost the sentence of one day in jail for a Winnipeg teenager who beat a man to death with a billiard ball wrapped in a sock.

In a 7-0 ruling Thursday, the court said the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as currently written, doesn't allow for increasing a sentence just to send a get-tough message to the public.

That seems to be true. The YCJA is not there to protect society, because society doesn't need to be protected from children:

The YCJA sets out distinct sentencing provisions for young persons which are different in important respects from the sentencing provisions for adults in the Criminal Code. Denunciation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, and incapacitation, which are sentencing objectives for adults under the Criminal Code, are not sentencing objectives under the YCJA.

In particular, the provisions under 718 of the criminal code do not apply to young offenders. For example, 718.1 reads:

718.1 A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

So for a young offender, a sentence need not have any relation to the gravity of the offense, at least inasmuch as 718.1 is concerned.

There is one exception, 718.2(e), which deals with sentencing adult aboriginal offenders. This one portion of the sentencing guidelines in the Criminal Code is supposed to be considered when sentencing young aboriginal offenders. It's the section that reads "No jail!":

(e) all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of aboriginal offenders.

So if you are a young aboriginal who deliberately beats a man to death with a stick, you will not be subject to sentencing in proportion to the gravity of the offence, and in particular, the judge is required, by virtue of your aboriginal status, to make a concerted effort to come up with any sort of punishment that doesn't include imprisonment.

And yes, the case in front of the Supreme Court involved a 15-year-old aboriginal. A drunken young aboriginal who killed his victim slowly:

After exchanging heated words on a downtown doorstep in August 2002, the teen, who cannot be named, followed Chya Raup Saleh, 22, to his car. He smashed one of Saleh's car windows with the hidden billiard ball before using the makeshift weapon to strike Saleh in the head.

Saleh managed to drive himself back to his apartment where he was later found dead. An autopsy showed the cause of death to be blunt trauma to the head.

The teen, now 17, pleaded guilty to manslaughter even though he said he doesn't recall committing the crime because he was too drunk. He was sentenced to 15 months community service and one day in prison.

And what was the argument about?

[Saleh] apparently looked at the killer's sister the wrong way.

What? They weren't fighting about an ancient land claim? Colour me shocked.

Saleh was trying to earn enough money to bring his wife and parents to Canada from Iraq.

Anyone want to take bets on whether this young offender, being given the gift he has by the criminal justice system, will use his second chance, a chance denied to Saleh and the family that depended on him, to turn his life around and become yet another success story for the Youth Criminal Justice Act?

Didn't think so.

Ken Hill, Entrepeneur: Confirmed

The major media has finally reported Ken Hill's identity, weeks after the arrest warrant was issued:

Prominent Six Nations businessman Ken Hill has been arrested and charged with two counts of assault in connection with a fracas on a Caledonia street June 4.

Hill, 47, senior supply and marketing officer and 10 per cent shareholder in Ohsweken-based cigarette manufacturer Grand River Enterprises Six Nations Ltd., was arrested by the OPP in Cayuga yesterday morning without incident.

He will appear in Cayuga court July 19.

Hill is one of six people named in a batch of warrants issued for various charges by the OPP following three violent incidents around the native-occupied Douglas Creek Estates June 9.

An OPP spokesman said yesterday the charges against Hill relate to a pushing and shoving incident on Braemar Avenue between native protesters and Caledonia residents the night of June 4. There were no injuries.

The altercation at the barricade was sparked when an OPP vehicle which made a wrong turn onto the Sixth Line -- an agreed upon no-go zone for police -- was surrounded by natives and the officers inside were ticketed for trespassing.

Caledonia residents rushed to their side of the barricades and an altercation followed.

OPP spokesman Constable Dennis Harwood said Hill was arrested "at a Cayuga business" just after 7 a.m.

The report says Hill was arrested at a business location, while I was told it was a wedding. I doubt it matters much which.

Curious what business is open at 7am, though. Maybe he was picking up a pack of GRE smokes at the local 24-hour convenience store.

Ken Hill has been arrested

On the topic of Ken Hill, there has been quite a bit of discussion. There is a Ken Hill in the Six Nations reserve who, with Jerry and Art Montour, runs Grand River Enterprises, a cigarette concern. They seem to run "the gambling commission" on the reserve (internet gambling via the Six Nations Network) out of the GRE offices. Art Montour is also a leader of the Mohawk Warriors.

One question has centered on the identity of the Ken Hill wanted by the OPP on two counts of assault. I've been fielding a lot of emails from people who think I have different Ken Hills confused.

They point out that it seems unlikely that a major businessman, even one involved in less than wholesome businesses such as smoking and gambling, would be rioting at a barricade.

I voice the same doubts. But at the same time, I pointed out that if the real motive behind the Caledonia protest is to get their hands on partially developed land (at the expense of the Ontario taxpayer) to use as a site for a real bricks-and-mortar casino, then it seems reasonable to assume that Ken Hill might very well be on-site to protect his investment.

The link to Mohawk Warrior Art Montour via business partner Jerry Montour (all three made a joint donation to the Cruz Bustamante election campaign in California in 2003) helped bolster that theory. The Mohawk Warriors are known to be deeply involved in gambling interests (as well as the drug trade and cigarette smuggling), and are of course driving the protest.

I've been in touch with several people who assure me that this is indeed the same Ken Hill. One is based on a family link, the other via a recreational association. For now, I am happy to proceed with my original reasoning.

With that in mind, we have news of Ken Hill's arrest:

(Caledonia, ONT.) On June 21, 2006, the Ontario Provincial Police made an arrest related to an incident, which occurred in Caledonia on June 4, 2006 at approximately 9:45pm.

Charged with two counts of Assault is Ken Hill, age 47 of Ohsweken, Ontario.

The charges relate to an incident involving an alleged confrontation between the “occupiers” and Caledonia citizens near a barricade at the end of Braemar Ave. An investigation followed resulting in an arrest warrant being issued for Ken Hill. The accused was arrested at approximately 7:05am in Cayuga, Haldimand County without incident.

Ken Hill will appear in Cayuga court on July 16, 2006 to answer to the charges.

My sources tell me he was attending a wedding when he was picked up. Apparently, he was in the presence of members of the Six Nations Police, but the OPP came to execute the arrest warrant. It is not clear if the Six Nations Police helped or hindered justice in this case. They may indeed have brokered a deal to allow Hill to be picked up.

That deal might have included his subsequent release from custody. There is no report of a bond being posted. It might be that he is seen as an upstanding citizen who poses little flight risk.

That would surprise me. He is a member of the Six Nations Reserve and can cross the Canada-US border at will (the reserve spans the border), and so exit the reserve into US territory.

My mistake. The reserve does not span the border. I had a map of the Quebec reserves that figured in the news a fews back in my head. Sorry about that.

On the other hand, he might want to stay close to the site to oversee the archaeological dig.

Archaeological dig?

Another email to me says that large construction equipment has been moved onto the disputed land by the protesters. Apparently, it is for an archaeological dig.

Maybe they expect to uncover a casino!

Pushing the North Koreans

The North Koreans and the US are might be getting ready to start shooting at each other, after a fashion:

The Pentagon activated its new U.S. ground-based interceptor missile defense system, and officials announced yesterday that any long-range missile launch by North Korea would be considered a "provocative act."

Two Navy Aegis warships are patrolling near North Korea as part of the global missile defense and would be among the first sensors that would trigger the use of interceptors, the officials said yesterday.

The U.S. missile defense system includes 11 long-range interceptor missiles, including nine deployed at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and two at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The system was switched from test to operational mode within the past two weeks, the officials said.

One senior Bush administration official told The Washington Times that an option being considered would be to shoot down the Taepodong missile with responding interceptors.

Imagine if this plays out. If the Americans miss, the Pentagon will have to put up with a lot of abuse from Democrats on Capital Hill about the useless boondoggle that is ballistic missile defense. But I think the Pentagon is willing to ride out that storm for a chance at a real live test.

And the generals and admirals must be pretty confident to take the gamble.

Now imagine if the North Korean missile gets knocked down.

First, a lot of naysayers will have to rework their criticisms. And the Pentagon will have a lot of new friends willing to fund more missile work and other weapons systems.

But the real effect will be on North Korea.

There will be the loss of face when the missile is lost. Of course, the North Korean government will never admit to a failure to their own people, but other governments will know what happened.

Loss of face is one thing. Loss of revenue is something else. When potential customers for this missile see it blasted out of the sky by the American destroyers, you can be sure they will wonder if their defence dollars would be best spent on fighter jets from France. For North Korea and its moribund economy, a loss of hard currency from missile sales could be disastrous.

In fact, I wonder just how bad it could be. Could the loss of revenue destabilize the government? If Kim Jong Il perceives a real threat to his power if the missile is destroyed, what would he do?

Delay the test? More loss of face. And fewer sales could still result if potential customers see Kim Jr step back from taking on American missile defence.

Stop the Americans? How? Send a Romeo- or Whiskey-class submarine after the Aegis destroyers? The Romeos date from the 50s; the Whiskeys from the 1970s. The Whiskeys might not even work anymore (the North Koreans only had 4, compared to over 20 Romeos). In any case, it seems unlikely that the old subs would pose a real threat, especially if a modern American attack sub is lurking near the Aegis destroyers to defend against such an attack.

Maybe the North Koreans will have a better chance sending a squadron of their missile boats. A launch of multiple SS-N-2 Styx missiles would give even an Aegis destroyer reason to be worried. I doubt many of the patrol boats would survive to return to home port, but then Kim would lose little sleep over that.

Even an unsuccessful attack might disrupt a launch of the anti-missile missiles. Not likely, but the North Koreans have few options.

And that's really the problem. The North Koreans have few options about anything. Belligerence is the only language they can use, because they saw what happened when the Soviet Union opened up under Mikhail Gorbachev. And North Korea is in far worse shape today than the Soviet Union was in the 80s. They insist on pushing and pushing, because they know if they stop, they'll collapse. But even as they push, they are egging on others to push back. So far, most have resisted the temptation to push as hard they are capable of pushing, knowing that pushing too hard could ignite a war on the peninsula. But the North Koreans just keep on pushing.

Update: Looks like the North Koreans are trying to find a way not to fire the missile:

North Korea said Wednesday it wants direct talks with the United States over its apparent plans to test-fire a long-range missile, a day after the country issued a bristling statement in which it declared its right to carry out the launch.

Tensions in the region have soared following intelligence reports that the North was fueling a ballistic missile believed capable of reaching U.S. territory. The United States and Japan have said they could consider sanctions against the impoverished state and push the U.N. Security Council for retaliatory action should the launch go ahead.

North Korea said in comments published Wednesday that its self-imposed moratorium on testing long-range missiles from 1999 no longer applies because it's not in direct dialogue with Washington, suggesting it would hold off on any launch if the U.S. agreed to new talks.

I don't think the sanctions worry the North Koreans too much. The fact is that sanctions can be busted, especially when there are governments out there more than happy to do anything that messes with US policy. Yeah, Iran, I'm looking at you. But having the missile knocked out of the sky by an American defence system? And a relatively immature fefence system at that? Kim Jong Il might simply be unwilling to take that risk, and is looking for a way out.

But does Stephane Dion really suck?

Does Stephane Dion's executive assistant know something about the suckiness of Stephane Dion that he plans to share with us one day? Or is he protecting his boss from charges of suckiness he expects to be leveled against Stephane Dion in the near future?

Rolling up the troublemakers

Remember Audra Ann Taillefer, the woman from Victoria, BC, an exp-prostitute, whose goal in life was to be a positive role model for aboriginal youth?

She had decided that inducing heart attacks in elederly white males constituted a positive example.

She was one of the seven people wanted in relation to the violence in Caledonia. Well, she was picked up:

(Caledonia, ONT.) On Friday, June 16, 2006, Six Nations Police acting on an arrest warrant has made an arrest relating to a June 9th incident. The Six Nations Police transferred custody of the accused to the Haldimand County OPP Detachment.

Charged with Intimidation and Robbery is Audra Ann Taillefer, age 45 of Victoria, British Columbia.

The charges are in relation to an incident that took place before noon involving an elderly couple from Simcoe who were visiting the Caledonia area. An altercation occurred between themselves and the “occupiers” resulting in an elderly male victim being taken to West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville as a precaution.

Audra Ann Taillefer will appear in Cayuga Court to answer to her charges.

No word on whether she was spotted by police, she turned herself in, or if someone ratted her out.

In an opposition state of mind

It looks like the Liberals are starting to settle into the long-term role of opposition:

Joe Volpe is spoiling to be the bad boy of the otherwise polite and low-key Liberal leadership race, now accusing his rival Michael Ignatieff of sharing the same politics as Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

At the second leadership debate, in Moncton yesterday, Volpe pointedly singled out Ignatieff in his opening remarks, waving a newspaper headline about his views on Canada's role in Afghanistan, and arguing that only Harper would agree with the former Harvard law professor.

Volpe did it deliberately and unapologetically, declaring to reporters later about Ignatieff's debate performance: "I only heard Harper's narrative."

Volpe doesn't have to agree with Ignatieff. I'd be surprised if the two of them agreed on much of anything. But when you measure the validity of the other's position only by how much it resembles someone else's, then it follows that you don't have any arguments of your own. For Volpe, Stephen Harper is Volpe's argument.

And that puts Stephen Harper in control, at least inasmuch as Volpe is concerned.

Remember the first Liberal budget after the 2004 election? The Conservatives voted in support of it because it contained enough elements that they agreed with. That it was from Paul Martin did not change that fact. After Martin changed the budget as the price for NDP support, many of those elements were removed, and the Conservatives withdrew their support. Again, consistent with the objective reality of the budget document. Stephen Harper kept his emotional reaction, his distaste for the Liberal Party and whatever personal animosity that he held for Paul Martin, in check.

Joe Volpe, on the other hand, seems to have been reduced to nothing but emotional reactions.

I'm not the only one who has noticed:

Other leadership candidates don't seem pleased about Volpe's performance or even his presence in the race.

Former public health minister Carolyn Bennett, also among 11 vying for the leadership title, said her views fall smack in the middle of rival Bob Rae, a former Ontario premier, and Ignatieff on the question of Afghanistan.

But on Volpe's provocation, she is unequivocal, saying he is becoming a problem for the contest and the party's reputation overall.

"I'm concerned that this is not what this (contest) is supposed to be about," she said, arguing Volpe was already tarred enough by the controversy over accepting $5,400 contributions from teenagers.

On the question of Volpe being a problem for the party's reputation, it has to be said that he isn't making things worse. The Liberal repution is already in tatters. He is delaying the recovery, perhaps, but then that might be giving Volpe too much credit.

What I do think is significant is that for Volpe and an unknown number of Liberal supporters, the notion that "Conservative = Bad" is an attractive one. It requires minimal mental calculation to come to a conclusion, it lends itself to a standard template for insults, and it is emotionally satisfying.

It is also useless, since any voter who is not a dyed-in-the-wool Liberal will wonder whether the Liberals have anything more to offer than Conservative-bashing. If Volpe or someone like him wins, it will be a while before the Liberals do.

That's fine by me.

A tax grab makes for a Conservative opportunity

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have an opportunity here:

The GST cut is not coming to City of Toronto facilities, programs, parking lots or cabs.

Everything from golf courses to dance classes, recycling boxes to museum admissions will not be cheaper when the GST falls to 6% from 7% on July 1.

Instead, the city will pocket the extra cash.

That's because city staffers are recommending that reducing the GST isn't worth the change.

"Unbelievable," John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said yesterday. "This is meant to be a tax cut that benefits all taxpayers across the country, not go into the pockets of governments."

To reduce the GST, the city would have to change billing systems, websites and printed publications to reflect the new, slightly lower fees, staff reported.

It might also force an amendment to the municipal code or other bylaws.

OK, so even though the Conservative government in Ottawa will charge only 6% for the GST, Toronto will continue to levy a 7% surcharge, send 6% to Ottawa, and keep the 1% for itself.

Now this brings up some interesting questions.

Will the receipts be changed to show this breakdown? I doubt it. The complaint seems to be that it would be too difficult to change things. So I suppose when the City of Toronto bills you for a service, it will still show 7% GST.

Is that a case of fraudulent billing? In principle, I could charge 20% GST, blaming Ottawa, and secretly keep 14% for myself. Of course, no one would fall for that, but then Mayor David Miller expects us to fall for exactly this sort of chicanery.

Doesn't the principle of transparency in government require the City of Toronto to explain exactly how the taxes are being charged? Shouldn't they be honest about which taxes are which, and even more important, report them accurately on paperwork? Such as on receipts printed by billing systems, on websites, and on printed publications?

Is this even legal? The City cannot levy a general sales tax -- it is not within the taxation power. The City can set property taxes, and charge municipal taxes on alcohol served restaurants and bars, and on movie and entertainment tickets. Those powers are granted by the provincial government. A general sales tax can only be levied by the federal and provincial governments. But by not changing the tax collected, the City has essentially created a 1% goods and services tax for itself.

That's just wrong.

Can 1% have an effect? This from the Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association on the issue of the alcohol tax:

In the City of Toronto alone, it is estimated that licensee sales will decrease by $2.95 million for every 1% of municipal sales tax applied to liquor.

Of course, the CRFA has a particular point of view, but it seems pretty obvious that not lowering the tax on city goods and services eliminates a major area for city-wide savings for businesses and residents. Those businesses, of course, will not be able to pass on the full force of the GST cut to consumers as long as they are shouldering the old tax rate on anything they get from the City.

I think the City of Toronto has no choice but to recalculate the taxes being charged. If it wants to increase the base price of all goods and services it provides by 1%, it certainly can do that, but then it must explain to the voters why it is doing that. And that to me seems no less difficult than lowering the tax charged by 1%.

How can this be stopped? A business can try to take on City Hall in court, but then that business would shoulder the cost of fighting for a benefit everyone, including competitors, would enjoy. So I don't think any would be quick to volunteer.

But I know who can take on City Hall on behalf of all Toronto residents. The federal government. If the City continues to print materials and hand out receipts claiming that Ottawa is charging 7% GST, and is pocketing the 1% difference, the federal government certainly has an interest in correcting the situation, for three good reasons.

First, the City is attributing a higher tax rate to Ottawa than Ottawa is actually charging, and that can be construed as libel.

Second, the City is effectively levying a goods and services tax, which is not in its power to do. Other levels of government have an interest in making an example of Mayor David Miller and his administration. It sends a message to other municipalities to play by the rules and to be honest.

Third, and perhaps most important, the Conservatives have a wonderful opportunity to show voters in Toronto, who elected no Conservatives in the last election, that the Conservatives care about them. What better way than to fight for lower taxes on their behalf. Might result in a few seats the next time around.

Still trying to pick a winner

Some people go through life backing the wrong horse race after race. From a distance, you can't help but feel sorry for them. But when they jump on your bandwagon, well, most of us break out in a cold sweat.

I mean, what if curses are real?

Do you think Michael Ignatieff wonders that?

Michael Ignatieff had a very successful meeting with the Edmonton Women's Policy Association, a club within the Women's Commission in Edmonton on Sunday, June 11, 2006. This club has been active for nearly two decades. We had 27 women and 5 men at the meeting. Many of these people were undecided voters and had some tough questions for Michael.

Of course, everyone was impressed with how smart he is and the detail behind all of his answers.

This club sent letters to all campaigns, asking for the number of women in key positions in the campaign and for a meeting. The Ignatieff team was one of the first to respond with the names and positions of the women. Michael has clearly made a serious effort to be inclusive. His was the first campaign to respond with a date for a meeting. Interestingly, after he said yes, many other campaigns that had said maybe or no changed their minds.

Thank you Michael,

Debby Carlson
Alberta Vice-Chair

Ah, Debby Carlson.

She was an MLA in the Alberta legislature, representing the provincial riding of Edmonton Ellerslie since 1997. In 2004, she decided it was time to move on.

She must have decided that being one of only six Liberal MLAs was a losing proposition. Time to join a winning Liberal team! The federal team of Paul Martin!

She won the hotly contested nomination for Edmonton Strathcona in 2004, and only after an appeal of a razor-thin victory:

Liberal MLA Debby Carlson has been confirmed as the party's federal candidate in Edmonton-Strathcona after an internal party panel dismissed an appeal of her five-vote nomination victory over rival Jonathan Dai.

Do you think she felt lucky that day? During the election, she felt that times were a-changing:

What I'm hearing on the doors is that Edmonton Strathcona wants in!!! You want to be on the winning team for a change. Paul Martin is a winner. A vote for me puts Edmonton Strathcona in the winner's circle in Ottawa when decisions are made that affect you right here at home.

Of course, the Sponsorship Scandal took its toll. Six weeks after the "winning team" comment, Carlson realized she might not have picked a winner with the federal Liberals under Paul Martin, any more than she had with the provincial Liberals:

Other Liberals who had high hopes of making breakthroughs in Edmonton aren't feeling as confident as they were six months ago when it looked like they would be able to ride Martin's coattails. The $100-million sponsorship scandal brought the new prime minister's high-flying popularity crashing to the ground.

"We never said it was going to be easy," acknowledged Debby Carlson, a former Liberal MLA running in Edmonton-Strathcona. "What I'm getting on the doorstep is that people are satisfied with the way the prime minister is dealing with it."

Right. Well, as it turned out, the voters weren't satisfied, and Conservative Rahim Jaffer won the riding by 5,000 votes (which I suppose in Alberta counts as a close win for the Liberals). Paul Martin, of course, led the Liberals to a victory overall, despite Carlson's failure to take Edmonton Strathcona, but went from a 168-seat majority government to a 135-seat minority. History will probably record that government as being one of the most ineffectual since Confederation.

So much for Debby Carlson picking a winning team.

Now she has hitched her wagon to Ignatieff. I wonder if her luck is going to rub off on him.

Joe Volpe's traditional support

Joe Volpe has begun to publish what he promises to be a monthly list of donors:

Winnipeg, June 9, 2006 - The Honourable Joe Volpe, Member of Parliament for Eglinton-Lawrence and Liberal leadership candidate, announced he is releasing an updated list of contributors to his leadership campaign. “I believe that we need to be as transparent as possible during this leadership process. I have said, that I intend to set the bar higher. Although Elections Canada and the Liberal Party do not require it, we will release my lists of donors, on a monthly basis.” said Mr. Volpe.

Mr. Volpe released a list showing over $58,000 of new donations that have been received by his campaign since the last filing. “I will release an updated list of donors on my website www.joevolpe.ca, monthly and I will be asking the Liberal Party of Canada to also post this information on the Liberal Party web site.” Volpe added.

Here is the list (recreated here because, well, just in case someone tries to sneak in a change):

NAME	AMOUNT
Alzaibak, Mohammad	$ 500.00
Alonzi, Fred	$ 300.00
Altomare, Tony	$ 1, 000.00
Arvanitis, B.J.Wil	$ 500.00
Bain, Allison	$ 500.00
Bancheri, Tony	$ 1, 000.00
Battison, Edward	$ 125.00
Battison, Flavio	$ 125.00
Brazeau, Jean	$ 1, 000.00
Canitano, Louie	$ 500.00
Ceolin, Fred	$ 500.00
Chant, Maureen	$ 5, 400.00
Desantis, Rene	$ 1, 500.00
Dolan, Richard	$ 500.00
Dorn, Walter	$ 500.00
Eligio, (Joe) Reina	$ 500.00
Fazzari, Frank	$ 300.00
Genova, Louie	$ 500.00
Gimigliano, Mario	$ 1, 000.00
Guido, Salvatore	$ 500.00
Guizzetti, Andrew	$ 1, 000.00
Iannuzzi, Maria	$ 1, 000.00
Kam, Michelle	$ 1, 000.00
Ladisa, Nick	$ 1, 000.00
Lamanna, Giuseppe	$ 1, 000.00
Leduc, Helen	$ 1, 000.00
Locilento, Angelo	$ 1, 000.00
Magnotta, Rossana	$ 500.00
Mazzotta, Josie	$ 1, 000.00
Monte-Lisi, Lucy	$ 2, 000.00
Montesano, Donato	$ 1, 000.00
Montesano, Madelein	$ 2, 000.00
O'Reilly, Francis	$ 1, 000.00
Pace, Al	$ 1, 000.00
Panarese, Luigi	$ 1, 000.00
Pellegrini, Deanna	$ 250.00
Pellegrini, Paul	$ 1, 000.00
Pellegrini, Sereno	$ 100.00
Pimentel, Carlos	$ 1, 000.00
Pontiero, Bruno	$ 2, 000.00
Primucci, Joe	$ 1, 000.00
Primucci, Sam	$ 5, 000.00
Ragusa, Joseph	$ 1, 000.00
Raif, Daliah	$ 1, 300.00
Reeve, Mark	$ 500.00
Saccoccia, Art	$ 500.00
Shnaider, Alex	$ 1, 000.00
Simone, Nick	$ 500.00
Taddei, N.	$ 1, 000.00
Tiberini, Galliano	$ 500.00
Tremamunno, Domenic	$ 1, 000.00
VanStaveren, Greg	$ 5, 000.00
Viele, Anthony	$ 500.00
Vranich, Darko	$ 1, 000.00
Yorke, Michael	$ 1, 000.00
Zentil, Garry	$ 500.00
TOTAL	$58, 900.00

 

Joe Volpe seems to depend a lot on support from the Italian-Canadian community. About two-thirds of the names are Italian. Of course, it might simply be that he is tapping into his traditional supporters first, and that as time goes by, we'll be able to see a shift as Volpe drums up support from across other ethnic groups. It'll be interesting to see how those monthly reports work out.

The Right Side

Don't forget to visit The Right Side with Doug Aldridge. This week's interviews will deal with homegrown terrorism, support for the military, and the race for Ottawa's mayor.

Grand River Enterprises and smuggling

Grand River Enterprises was caught up in a massive smuggling case:

Federal prosecutors quietly stayed all charges against nine alleged members of an organized cigarette-smuggling and distribution ring that operated in the Edmonton area. The RCMP bust of the smuggling ring made front-page headlines in 1996. Police seized more than 5,000 cartons of tax-free cigarettes allegedly smuggled into Alberta from an illegal tobacco plant on an Ontario Indian reserve. The charges were stayed Nov. 15, 1999, but the stay did not come to light until now.

This report is from July 2000. The nine people set free were from Alberta, and the reason they were let go was that too much time had passed since they were arrested, and the Crown was concerned that the case would be dismissed on that basis.

Of course, the fact that they wouldn't hire lawyers helped drag things out for three years.

The illegal cigarettes were manufactured by a native-owned company called Grand River Enterprises, located on the Six Nations reserve near Hamilton, Ont. The company had been denied a federal tobacco manufacturer's licence because it refused to pay excise taxes. Nine people from the reserve were eventually charged in the massive smuggling operation and, in a plea bargain, agreed to fines totalling $660,000 to avoid jail sentences. Peter Montour, the operation's ringleader, was fined $640,000. He immediately handed over a cheque for $500,000 when he was sentenced.

Peter Montour is Jerry Montour's father. Jerry and Art Montour made a significant donation to the Californa governor's race in 2003. The head of the Mohawk Warriors is also named Art Montour.

It's estimated the smuggling operation took in $25 million before it was shut down by police. The cigarettes were allegedly shipped from the Six Nations reserve to a warehouse in the Riel Industrial Park in St. Albert. Police believe the financier of the Alberta operation was bringing in about 40 cases of cigarettes each month from Ontario, making a tax-free profit of more than $20,000 a month. The cigarettes were resold to distributors for about $850 a case. Each case contained 50 cartons. And each carton was being sold for about $25, which works out to about $3 a package, roughly half the price of taxed cigarettes.

These guys were making some good money on the whole smoking thing. Maybe if someone had told anti-tobacco Premier Dalton McGuinty that the Six Nations protesters in Caledonia were smoking illegally purchased cigarettes while beating on journalists, he would have let the OPP go in and restore order.

Seriously, though, if the Montours are sitting on this sort of cash, and if they are involved in the protests, it might help explain just how the protesters are funding their protest for three months and counting.

California dreaming

In my post on Grand River Enterprises and what might be links to the events in Caledonia, I noted that in 2003 Ken Hill, Jerry Montour, and Arthur Montour had made a joint donation of over twenty thousand dollars to the gubernatorial campaign of Cruz Bustamante, who was seeking to replace recalled Governor Gray Davis. Arnold Schwarzenegger eventually won the race to be governor of California.

At the time, I wondered what possible reason the chief officers of Grand River Enterprises, a Canadian cigarette maker on a native reserve, would have to be donating money to an American political campaign in California. My post was focused on the links between GRE and gambling, and several people pointed out that Bustamante was linked to Indian gambling interests during the campaign.

GRE was not named specifically, though.

I found a more direct link, however, between GRE and California, though this link has to do with cigarettes:

"A judgment of default has been entered against defendant Grand River Enterprises/6 Nations, Ltd. by the Sacramento County Superior Court. The defendant has been ordered to comply with California's Nonparticipating Manufacturer (NPM) Reserve Fund Statute (Health & Safety Code, sections 104555-104557) and is prohibited from selling any of its cigarettes to consumers, either directly or through a distributor, retailer, or other intermediary, within the State of California. This ban takes effect immediately and remains in effect until the defendant establishes a qualified escrow fund, deposits $195,876.93 into the escrow fund, and provides proof of its compliance with the Reserve Fund Statute to the Attorney General. The ban extends to ALL brands manufactured by Grand River Enterprises/6 Nations, including but not limited to "Scenic 101" and "Capitol" brand cigarettes. To view a copy of the judgment, click here."

This judgment was entered against GRE in December 2004. The recall election was held on October 7, 2003. The Attorney General of California who brought the charges was Bill Lockyer. Lockyer, a Democrat, voted for Schwarzenegger, and described the list of Democratic choices as "crappy":

In comments to reporters after his speech, Lockyer had this to say about why he didn't vote for his fellow Democrat: "You know the people in your profession really well. You know who works hard and who doesn't. You know who is honest and who isn't. Cops know that about cops. Doctors know that about doctors. I know that about politicians. The common thing to all these professions is none of them say it. That's all I'm going to say."

I guess he didn't say Bustamante was dishonest directly. Bustamante is known for being pro-tobacco, at least mildly:

Bustamante took nearly $80,000 from tobacco companies during his five years in the state Assembly. During that time he voted against a smoking ban in restaurants and bars that voters later approved. He then unsuccessfully pushed for a delay in implementing the ban in bars.

Could the donations have been an attempt to avoid a judgment in one particular case by helping a sympathetic politician become governor?

Just something to ponder.

The monopoly on violence breaks down -- a new order emerges

Though several people thought I was too cynical or just some sort of fascist, it is as I said it would be -- when the monopoly on violence is broken, there is no government, and anarchy reigns.

Until, of course, a new government forms:

Angry residents living near the Douglas Creek Estates housing development occupied by aboriginal protesters say they'll protect their homes and families if the police won't.

Residents say the protesters are using tactics of aggression and intimidation along their backyards to bait Ontario Provincial Police into action, and so far the police response has been ineffectual.

A “resident response plan” has been circulated in the neighbourhood urging fearful homeowners to sound car alarms or horns “in the event a home or resident comes under attack.”

Residents would then gather and confront the protesters to force them back onto the territory they have claimed.

This community group is essentially forming a government. They even have borders:

The plan calls for residents to “repel the aggression by creation of a large presence and advance together as one unit peacefully, if possible, until the offending persons remove themselves from the property and back into their own area.”

David Hartless, author of the plan, said the intention is not to create vigilantes.

Residents would not pursue protesters past the “borderline” (yellow police tape), he said.

All they want is order and safety to be maintain in their area. If Premier Dalton McGuinty is unable or unwilling to maintain order, they'll do it themselves.

Of course, once they realize that they are providing for their own protection, these people might start to wonder just what exactly their taxes have been going towards.

More Caledonia connections

Recall that one of the people wanted by the OPP on charges related to violence at the Six Nations stand-off in Caledonia, Ontario is Ken Hill. Hill is a major business presence on the reserve, involved in cigarettes and probably gambling.

His partner is Jerry Montour. a Mohawk from Wahta, as was revealed in this post. The Wahta reserve is made up of people who were relocated in 1881 from Kanesatake, and strong links have been maintained between the two communities.

Kanesatake is famous, of course, for the 78-day stand-off between Mohawk Warriors and Quebec police (and later Canadian troops) in 1990 in the nearby town of Oka over land.

In the aftermath, a gambling operation was started:

A few years after the crisis, the Mohawks of Kahnawake established the Kahnawake Gaming Commission and started issuing "licences" to gambling operators who host their Internet gaming websites on their reserve. Both the Canadian and Quebec governments dispute the legality of this operation, but have not risked taking further action. The websites hosted by the Kahnawake Gaming Commission are the only gambling sites that have operated in North America without legal action being taken against them.

The Warriors are not involved only in land disputes and gambling, but drugs too:

The Warriors are up to their necks in narcotics, but sometimes seem anxious to appear to be clean. After the 40-kilo find of cocaine in New York in September 1993 was publicized, Art Montour, the Warrior leader from Akwesasne, gratuitously emerged to publicly disavow Warrior participation in the cocaine industry. This was before New York State Police had even mentioned to apparent connection between the Warriors and the cocaine shipment. Art Montour did tell Dan D’Ambrosio, a feature writer for Gentlemen’s Quarterly that both of his sons use drugs.

Montour’s disavowals ring hollow in the law enforcement community. In May 1990, as police forces flooded onto Akwesasne in the aftermath of the coup attempt, 21 arrests were made in connection with a major cocaine smuggling ring centred on Akwesasne. Kanesatake, despite the small Warrior presence before May/June 1990, was the site of a methamphetamine laboratory. An RCMP raid in April of 1988 scooped up the lab and 3 kilos of 70% pure product. The lab could produce 2 kilos a day with a street value of $200,000.

Notice the name?

Art Montour.

Besides drugs, cigarette smuggling is another lucrative business for Art:

Art Montour, the leader of the Warrior’s Society in Akwesasne, insists smuggling is an expression of native sovereignty and gave the "Fifth Estate" a modest estimate of the profits of the cigarette trade as being "probably in the high tens of millions." An RCMP officer in Cornwall estimates that $1.1 billion in contraband tobacco passed through Akwesasne in 1992. The smuggler’s share of contraband usually runs to about 15% of cost, or $165 million for Montour’s colleagues. In 1993, over $1.8 billion in cigarettes filtered through the smugglers of Akwesasne.

Jake Thomas, a traditional Cayuga chief on the Six Nations Reserve, is cited in a September 1st, 1993 Globe and Mail article: "money is what makes the power of the Warrior Society. They are just using sovereignty and the Confederacy name. But at the same time, they don’t want to listen to the Confederacy. Some native people say they are smuggling just because of sovereignty. I don’t believe its right to use sovereignty for their own welfare."

Recall that Jerry Montour and Ken Hill own Grand River Enterprises, the largest company on the Six Nations Reserve. GRE makes cigarettes. The address of GRE is also the address provided for two on-reserve "gambling commissions".

Is Art Monrour related to Jerry Montour? I believe they are. Both Jerry and Art (and partner Ken Hill) made a joint donation of $21,200 to the Cruz Bustamante campaign during the California gubernatorial election in 2003:

*****
CRUZ BUSTAMANTE

*$21,200 from AT&T.

*$21,200 from Diamond Contribution Package/Arthur Montour, Jerry Montour, Kenneth Hill.

*$21,000 from Menendez for Congress of New Jersey.

(Note: Why would they be interested in Cruz Bustamante winning? I don't know. But I bet there is a story there, too. Makes me wonder if understanding the link would help explain the interest the US Border Patrol has in this.)

How could they not be related?

Art was at Oka in 1990. The violent fight was allegedly about a grave site threatened with desecration by the expansion of a golf course. The result was a major gambling operation being started.

Jerry and partner Ken Hill are involved in gambling interests in the Six Nations reserve. Jerry's relative Art is a Mohawk Warrior leader. The Mohawk Warriors are leading the violent fight in a land dispute. Hill is wanted on charges, so we know he is directly involved.

Did Jerry call on Art to come lend a hand? If so, why? Art might be concerned about land claims, but he is also concerned about profit from cigarettes, gambling, and drugs.

Any guess as to what the outcome is going to be in Caledonia if the land is ceded to the reserve?

Caledonia and Gambling

Update: More links between the Caledonia protests and unsavoury criminal interests.

The OPP are looking for several people with regards to violence at the Caledonia stand-off involving the Six Nations Reserve.

One of those people is Ken Hill:

Ken Hill, 47, of Ohsweken, faces two counts of assault

Ken Hill is not just some two-bit hooligan. He's a two-bit hooligan with a business plan:

Ken Hill, a Mohawk from Six Nations, and Jerry Montour, a Mohawk from Wahta, are partners with others at Grand River Enterprises, which is located on the Six Nations Indian Reserve. GRE, which is a cigarette manufacturing plant, is the largest private business on the Six Nations Reserve, employing approximately 175 people. They have recently expanded operations to a plant located in Germany and are also looking at establishing a plant in South Africa. Ken and Jerry will talk about this exciting international project.

Besides smoking, Ken Hill is interested in gambling as well:

Preliminary Report On Six Nations Gaming Commission And Internet Gaming Activities On The Reserve

On May 13, 2003 Steve Williams, then Chair of the Gaming Commission, met with Harvey Filger, Director of Economic Development, to discuss a proposal he had worked on in his capacity as Chair of the Gaming Commission. He advised that a third party on the reserve wished to use a private facility consisting of 12 computers for internet gaming.

During the month of June Chief Roberta Jamieson, and Councillor Sid Henhawk attended a meeting at Grand River Enterprises (GRE). Gerry Montour, Ken Hill and Steve Williams attended the meeting. During this meeting, Mr. Montour and Mr. Hill stated their interest in operating a call center and becoming involved in on reserve internet gaming. Chief Roberta Jamieson requested a legal opinion and business plan on the proposed initiatives and Mr. Montour agreed to forward these documents to the Six Nations Economic Development Committee.

Now this planning for an internet gaming operation was hung up on legal matters. The Council was not satisfied that the reserve could host internet gambling without running afoul of Canadian law despite their status as a reserve. But that did not stop someone from moving forward with the idea.

First, there is the Six Nations Network, a server hosting company dedicated to bringing "your offshore hosting back to the main land." Most internet gaming interests maintain their servers on small islands in the Caribbean to avoid law enforcement entanglements in the US and Canada. Apparently, someone at Six Nations thinks being on a reserve amounts to the same thing, but affords the client the comfort of knowing the servers are close by (and not in the path of hurricanes). Interestingly, there is a link from the site to the Six Nations Gaming Commission, though the link dies.

Somebody then started up AbsolutePoker.com, and claimed it was being managed by that same Six Nations Gaming Commission:

A commercial internet gaming site www.absolutepoker.com currently hosting its website on the Six Nations reserve with a company or partnership called Six Nations Network (SixNet), www.sixnet.ca, which indicates that it has received a license to operate on Six Nations by the Six Nations Gaming Commission.

This will advise all Six Nations members and the general public that this commercial activity has not been approved by the Six Nations Council. [October 2003]

The poker site is still active, and it still claims to be regulated in the Six Nations Internet Gambling Regulatory Body.

There is another gambling authority operating on the reserve called the Haldimand Mohocks and Allies Gaming Commission. They are also connected to the Six Nations Network. Two commissions? Not unless they share an office. Both are located at 2176-B Chiefswood Road on the reserve (see here and here).

Guess who else has an office exactly at 2176 Chiefswood Road. If you bet all your chips on the name Ken Hill, you would have won! In fact, the cigarette company Ken Hill owns, Grand River Enterprises, has their office there.

OK, I think it's fair to say that despite the protestations of the Six Nations Council, Ken Hill is deeply involved in internet gambling using the Six Nations Network as his "offshore" server farm.

Is Ken Hill still trying to make it into the lucrative world of reserve gaming, the bricks-and-mortar kind? Is he looking at the Douglas Creek Estates land as a potential site for a casino?

For a businessman with significant responsibilities, it seems strange for Ken Hill to be engaging in riots and assaulting people -- unless there was something in it for him.

Something big.

Stop Iggy!

One thing you have to say about Michael Ignatieff -- he inspires people.

In this case, he has inspired someone at Thunderline Internet Solutions, a website development house in Thunder Bay, Ontario, to create StoppIggy.com, a website dedicated to achieving one goal -- keeping Michael Ignatieff from destroying the world!

I kid you not:

Every Canadian should become involved in the effort to prevent Iggy from becoming leader of the Liberal Party. This is because the reality is that every Canadian is affected by whomever leads the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party is not called the “natural governing party of Canada” for nothing. They have governed for all but a handful of the past hundred years, and every single leader of the party since Sir Wilfred Laurier has become Prime Minister of Canada. Thus, the damage that Igg [sic] can do extends beyond the Liberal Party and potentially to the entire country, and international community.

Yikes! I am freaked out. What can I do?

I wish I could say I added the emphasis, but I didn't. The website actually averages about 50% boldfaced characters.

The person behind this (the registration information says only to contact Thunderline, which is a company run by a fellow named David James) doesn't care who wins, as long as it is not Michael Ignatieff. Even Joe Volpe would be better. Here's the insightful analysis that explains why:

Although we at STOP IGGY know very little about this guy, we are happy he is running because he is NOT IGGY!

Against intellectual titans like these, what chance does Ignatieff have?

Two things of note.

First, there is a page describing how to become a member of the Liberal Party and then how to vote to STOP IGGY! (Sorry, but that phrase is somewhat contagious.) Among the advice given, sign up as many friends and family as possible to help win the vote.

Second, one of the staff at Thunderline in a young man named Justin Davis. Justin was convicted of hacking back in 1998:

A computer hacker in Thunder Bay who virtually shut down a local Internet provider's system was sentenced yesterday to six months in jail. Justin Davis, 19, was convicted of fraud for using a computer decrypting program and two counts of fraudulently using a computer password. Judge F.A. Sargent said NorLink Communications and Consulting was forced to spend thousands of dollars purchasing new equipment after the incident. Judge Sargent placed Mr. Davis on probation for two years and ordered him to make $10,000 restitution to NorLink. Defence lawyer Christopher Watkins said his client believed he was being challenged to break a code to gain entry into the NorLink system. (The Globe and Mail; September 1998)

Now he works for Thunderline. [Actually, this turns out not be true, according to Thunderline]:

Mr. Davis, convicted last May of offences related to illegally obtained passwords he used to gain free Internet access, now hacks for a living, legally, for Thunderline Internet Solutions, a company that tests systems, networks or Web sites to see how hackable they are.

"Most companies are just sloppy when they set up their Web sites. They don't take the time to become aware of how their systems function. Some even forget to set up passwords", he said.

I wonder if the Michael Ignatieff website is sufficiently protected against malicious hacking. Hacking is a bad thing, but to these people, such niceties fall to the wayside if it helps to STOP IGGY!

(Sorry, there's that phrase again.)

By way of a footnote, I can't be certain that the site was actually created by someone at Thunderline. That is an assumption based on the fact that the registration lists Thunderline as the administrative contact. But the site itself looks so basic that I find it difficult to believe it was created by someone who works at website development firm.

Violent ex-prostitute is an aboriginal role model?

Audra Ann Taillefer is wanted on charges of robbery and two counts of intimidation related to her violent actions at the Caledonia stand-off.

If this is the kind of role model young aboriginals have to look up to, no wonder things are so messed up:

Audra Taillefer is from the Mohawk Nation. She has spent 20 years in and out of the commercial sex trade. Audra had the privilage [sic] to work with Cherry Kinglsy [sic] and Melanie Mark on the Sacred Lives Project about sexually exploited Aboriginal Youth. After making contacts at a national level, Audra has travelled to help create programs that promote prevention. She has travelled to Ottawa and sat on the Youth Justice Policing Awards and even to Whitehorse for Community Development. Currenty she teams up with the RCMP Drug Awareness Campaign and does prevention workshops in the local schools. She has been featured on many radio stations and appeared in various newspapers. Audra is the Coordinator of the Indigenous Response Team working with Aboriginal People in the sex trade in the greater Victoria area. Audra's goal is to be a positive role model for Aboriginal Youth. [emphasis added]

I guess her new goal is to stay out of prison.

Will the real Canadian please stand up

From the Toronto Star:

[Prime Minister Stephen] Harper echoed [President George W] Bush's they-hate-us-because-we're-us speech that followed 9/11, telling Canadians last week that "as at other times in our history, we are a target because of who we are and how we live." He said that Canadian values, such as freedom and democracy, were under attack.

Might Canadians not rally around Harper as Americans did around Bush?

From Ottawa, [Liberal party national director Steven] MacKinnon disagreed.

"That's not how Canadians process that kind of thing," he said. "I don't want to sound like I suffer from moral superiority, but I don't think Canadians respond with jingoism and nationalism to problems which require complex and sophisticated solutions."

There is the typical Canadians are oh-so-much more sophisticated than knuckle dragging Americans attitude you see in Canada, usually in the media and in left-of-centre political parties.

What gets me is this sort of thing appearing in editorials and in columns just about everywhere:

Yet, in this intense climate in which suggestions that radical Islamic fundamentalism plays a part in this case, it is vital for all residents to show restraint, to let the justice system work as it should, and to avoid prejudging members of south Asian or Arab descent, or those who are Muslims.

The National Post, in contrast, made no such patronizing, and utlimately useless, plea.

Why warn us against that sort of base emotional reaction if we are supposed to be so complex and sophisticated? And don't tell me that the message was aimed at a small fraction of the community, so unsophisticated that they are likely to react this way. Somehow, I doubt they read the editorial pages of major newspapers.

I think Steve MacKinnon is confused. Canadians in general respond with jingoism and nationalism when the country is threatened, just like most people do in most countries. When your home is threatened, you stand up for it.

It is the media elite that by and large responds with complex analysis and careful introspection. They are the ones with the sophistication required to realize that the appearance of caring too much is to be avoided at all costs. They are the ones who will view everything in life through a lens that judges just how American that thing is, and who will criticize that thing on that basis alone.

These are the people who Steve MacKinnion thinks are the real Canadians. The rest of us flag-waving yahoos who ask harsh questions about terrorism and the links to Islam aren't really Canadians. The real Canadians won't rally around Stephen Harper.

MacKinnon is right. But the funny thing is that all those faux Canadians with their unsophisticated nationalism still get to vote, and are they likely to vote for the party that sees them as simpletons?

The likelihood of many more peaceful operations

Earlier today I wrote about the monopoly on violence, the State, and how the insurrection in Caledonia is undermining the legitimacy of the McGuinty government in Ontario:

The thing about the monopoly of violence is that you have to use violence to maintain it. Some monopolies form because prohibitive costs prevent other competitors from getting into the business. On the other hand, anyone can be violent. That means that the government can maintain its monopoly only by being more violent, forcing you to make the choice between the cost of defying the government versus the cost of submitting. [emphasis added]

Later, this article appeared in the Toronto Star, in which OPP officers are complaining that they can't do their job right because of political interference:

For instance, the highly trained and heavily armed members of the OPP tactical team have not been allowed to wear their tactical uniforms.

"It's okay to have an officer walking around in tactical uniform at Wasaga Beach on a long weekend, but it's not okay in Caledonia," [Ontario Provincial Police Association president Karl] Walsh said.

The standard practice for OPP officers dealing with an unruly crowd — as both the protesters and the townsfolk have sometimes been during the past months — is to dress in riot gear, with helmets, visors and shields.

Leave it to the Star to describe riot gear as some sort of turtle's shell. Besides the protection, a typical riot gear outfit includes a solid steel baton and a gas mask. The baton is displayed to make a very visible promise that anyone who starts causing trouble is going to get a serious beating. The gas mask reminds potential troublemakers that the severe burning in the eyes and nose and throat, the copious and uncontrollable nictitation, the nauseau, the vomiting, and the burning sensation wherever someone touches you -- all symtoms of exposure to 0-chlorobenzalmalononitrile, or tear gas -- are symptoms that are going to be enjoyed by the protesters only, and not by the police.

Notice that unruly crowds are rarely outfitted in riot gear.

That is what I mean by the State being "more violent". And the OPP understands that. It's the politicians in the Liberal government who do not:

"But these officers were ordered not to wear them for optical purposes," said Walsh. The OPP doesn't want to give the media, the protesters or residents the idea "there's an increased level of aggressiveness" in what they consistently have called a "peaceful" operation.

But that's the point. By not presenting a credible and seriously aggressive posture early on in the stand-off, the government ceded its role as the sole legitimate agents of violence to the protesters. Once that was done, it has been almost impossible for the government to recover.

Any bets on how many more of these "peaceful operations" are going to occur going forward? Any thoughts on how many fewer had this one been met with a serious and forceful response the moment the barricades went up?

The monopoly on violence

I have written before on the concept of the monopoly on violence as being the fundamental underpinning of government. It doesn't matter what kind -- democracy, dictatorship, all points in between -- a government is a government because it is recognized as the only entity within a defined area that can use violence to defend its position. Moreover , it is accepted by the people that violence is a legitimate means for that entity and only for that entity (acceptance can be compelled by that very violence, of course, in less enlightened forms of government).

Once that monopoly on violence is established, we have government and all that flows from that.

That monopoly is real, and it is exercised regularly. When someone is arrested and tossed in the back of a police car, that's a form of State violence. Only registered agents of the State can do this -- anyone else doing it would be guilty of kidnapping. Indeed, kidnapping is a crime in part because it represents a threat to the government monopoly.

When the monopoly is broken, we have anarchy. In Africa, we have Somalia. In Asia, the border regions of Pakistan. In North America, Caledonia:

Two news cameramen were assaulted by protesters today, prompting Premier Dalton McGuinty to condemn the latest violence at the site of an aboriginal occupation in Caledonia, Ont.

The CH TV camera operators, one of whom needed stitches to close a head wound, said Ontario Provincial Police did nothing despite their pleas for help.

"The police were right behind me and I asked for protection," said Ken MacKay, a CH TV camera operator.

"I said, `I'm being assaulted, I need protection, they're trying to steal my camera' and nothing happened.

For weeks, the anarchists in Caledonia have acted with impunity. They have established roadblocks, interfered with commerce, and threatened and assaulted journalists.

The thing about the monopoly on violence is that you have to use violence to maintain it. Some monopolies form because prohibitive costs prevent other competitors from getting into the business. On the other hand, anyone can be violent. That means that the government can maintain its monopoly only by being more violent, forcing you to make the choice between the cost of defying the government versus the cost of submitting.

Those who choose to defy are criminals, but that label really only means "not government". The government performs acts of violence on the criminals (arrest and incarceration) and so retains its legitimacy.

As long as the government stays on top of the situation (the criminal problem, that is), threats to the monopoly can be controlled for a reasonable cost.

In Caledonia, the monopoly has effectively been broken. The agents of the government stand by and do nothing. The government itself is paralyzed:

In Edmonton where he was meeting with the country's premiers, McGuinty expressed dismay at the attack.

"It was with great disappointment that I learned of the violent incidents in Caledonia," he said in a statement.

"I would like to express sympathy and concern for those injured."

McGuinty also condemned the violence "by an irresponsible few" and called it "a repugnant attempt to derail the important progress we are making."

Condemning the violence is not the answer. A government does not have the luxury of being passive, and certainly not pensive. Violence must be met with State violence, or the credible threat of imminent State violence. The alternative is chaos until a new order is established and a new monopoly formed.

This might sound almost primitive, and in a way it is primitive. But that's because we're talking about the most fundamental concepts that define how societies, all societies, work. The protesters understand that. That is why they are taking these actions. They know that if they establish themselves as the only force for order in the disputed area, they will have won the fight.

The government can only win by showing that the government are the only force for order -- and that means ejecting any competitors. That cannot be done with negotiation, because negotiation is done between governments, and the government cannot afford a rival government to form within its borders.

The real problem facing McGuinty is that he has waited too long. Early in the process, a few arrests might have been enough to re-establish a monopoly on violence for the Crown. As time goes by, the cost goes up. The truly frustrating thing is that a government that was unwilling to put a few protesters under arrest is hardly likely to approve of the sort of assault required now to dislodge the protesters.

What will happen? I'm not sure. One possiblity is that an OPP officer who understands the concepts I've been trying to explain and understands his role as an agent for the State, will take it on himself to do what the Liberal government is unwilling to do, or even threaten to do, and that is meet violence with even more violence.

When that happens, when agents of the State feel compelled to act on their own initiative to save the State unwilling to save itself, then the breakdown is complete.

Watching out for democracy -- A call for ideas

Duff Conacher has emailed me a response to the criticisms I've posted (which also appeared in print in the National Post) aimed at Democracy Watch's plan to involve the Ethics Commissioner in evaluating the "honesty" in the political process of introducing a bill. My opinion is that the legislative process already includes opportunities for criticisms to be heard, and that in the end, evaluating honesty is the ultimate responsibility of the voter.

That's just my opinion. Duff has his own, and we agree to disagree. But that doesn't mean that I don't think Duff's opinion is worth listening to, or that I'm so certain that he is wrong. So I'm posting his response, and I want to draw your attention to the last paragraph in particular, where he asks to hear other creative ideas on the question of honesty. Take him up on the offer and post your ideas as comments.

Have fun.

Dear Steve and others who have written:

First, to Steve's question. There are 2 ethics codes, one for MPs and one for Cabinet ministers (that also covers some of their staff, some Cabinet appointees, and some senior public servants). The "act with honesty" rule that Democracy Watch complained the Prime Minister, Treasury Board minister John Baird, and PMO staffer Sandra Buckler have violated is in the Cabinet ministers' code.

Second, to a couple of other questions/points raised: There are, of course, many situations where the facts are clear and it is easy to determine whether someone has been dishonest (if you actually review Democracy Watch's complaint, you will see that the facts are clear about the Conservatives' broken promises). And yes, the Ethics Commissioner can review complaints filed by the public. And yes, election promises are promises that cannot be fulfilled unless a majority of Parliament votes in favour of the bill/resolution that fulfills the promise.

However, as I explained in my earlier posting, Democracy Watch has complained that the Prime Minister and the Treasury Board minister introduced a bill (Bill C-2 - the "Federal Accountability Act") that did not contain 21 measures promised during the election. Under our system of government, ministers represent the government, while Parliament reviews proposals submitted to it by the government. Democracy Watch's complaint is that the ministers (the government) have broken their promise by introducing a bill that does not contain promised measures. Therefore, the role of Parliament in reviewing the bill is completely irrelevant in terms of whether the ministers acted dishonestly in introducing the bill in the first place.

To everyone else who has written, unfortunately you have done the same as Steve, commented without knowing the facts. And as result, like Steve, you have made false claims (which, as I'm sure Steve and everyone else realizes, is not polite criticism or scrutiny, it is dishonest and unreasonable).

If you had taken the time to read about the complaint (easily found on Democracy Watch's searchable website -- the direct address is http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/RelsMay3006.html) and other materials on Democracy Watch's website, you would have seen that Democracy Watch has been concerned about dishonesty in politics for several years, and has also pursued and continues to pursue several ethics complaints against Liberal Cabinet ministers and Liberal Party-connected lobbyists (You can see all the details on the following Democracy Watch webpage:

http://www.dwatch.ca/camp/Ethics_Court_Cases.html

In fact, if you search Democracy Watch's website using the search word "honesty" you will come up with 85 webpages (almost all news releases dating back to 1997).

In contrast to the people who have falsely charged Democracy Watch with being uninterested in honesty in politics for the past 13 years, and have falsely charged that Democracy Watch is only raising this issue now to obtain donations, a couple of the commentators (including Steve) have raised the reasonable argument that there should not be a Commissioner who decides whether a politician, political staff person, appointee or public servant have been honest in what they say and claim to have done (which is the essence of Democracy Watch's complaint and proposal for an "honesty in politics" law that would cover everyone in the federal government (and, of course, a similar law is needed for every other government in Canada)). These commentators believe that voters can effectively decide on their own whether politicians and the other government officials listed above have been honest, and punish them at election time.

Of course I disagree, for the following reasons:

• if Democracy Watch had not filed its complaint 99 percent of Canadians would not have even known that there was an issue as to whether the Conservatives had broken election promises, so of course they would not have been able to decide for themselves whether or not the Conservatives were honest;
• if Democracy Watch had not filed its complaint, 99 percent of Canadian voters would not have the information needed to determine whether the Conservatives had broken election promises;
• even if a voter knew and had the information, an election is a very inaccurate method of penalizing politicians for dishonesty, as people vote for all sorts of reasons and the combination of these votes often does not effectively penalize the politicians who should be penalized (as we know from the elections of 1997 and 2000);
• of course, Cabinet appointees and public servants don't face elections, so elections can never penalize them for dishonesty;
• the federal Competition Bureau takes complaints from the public about false advertising by Canadian corporations (only 6 people have to complain for the Bureau to be required to investigate and decide whether an ad has to be corrected, and whether the corporation should be penalized (for example, in spring 2005 Sears Canada was penalized for baiting customers with a false ad and then switching the products that were actually available);
• Securities commissions across Canada take complaints from the public about corporations being dishonest with shareholders;
• if corporate leaders and staff cannot lie to customers, why should political leaders be allowed to lie to voters;
• given that a full review of very detailed information is usually needed to determine whether someone's statements or actions are "honest" and given that most voters do not have the information easily accessible or time to do such a review, and given that elections are an ineffective method for penalizing most of the people involved in the federal government if they are dishonest, I can only ask those who think that the Ethics Commissioner should not take complaints and do such reviews what effective system do you propose for ensuring honesty in government?

And remember, a large majority of Canadians want an effective system for ensuring honesty in government.

I look forward to your suggestions, and if you can come up with a better method than having some sort of court/tribunal/judge taking complaints and reviewing them and ruling on whether someone has been dishonest, Democracy Watch will be very happy to advocate that your proposal be established for the federal government and every other government in Canada.

Sincerely,
Duff Conacher,
Coordinator Democracy Watch

A Liberal Party supporter? Really?

On January 16, 2006, the Toronto Sun published this letter from Anthony Nalli, ripping into fellow Ontarians who looked likely to vote Liberal:

Enough excuses, Ontario

When I hear the reasons people are still considering voting Liberal, it makes me wonder why they deserve the same voting power as me.

"I don't trust Harper," they say. But you trust the Liberals?

"Better the devil you know." A lazy and ignorant brush-off.

"The Conservatives want to reopen the same-sex marriage issue. We need to move forward." By giving 12 years of Liberal inactivity on countless issues a pass?

"The Conservatives don't care if Quebec separates." And Liberals have made so much progress with Quebec relations?

"The Conservatives can't afford their campaign promises." Hogwash. Dalton McGuinty was promising everything to everyone and red Ontario bought that hook, line, and sinker.

It makes me want to scream. Please Ontario, this time let's try to prove to the rest of the country that we're not the idiots they think we are!

Anthony Nalli

(Ontario may surprise a lot of people Jan. 23)

The real surprise came on May 23, when "Anthony Nalli" loaned $200,000 to the Liberal leadership campaign of Maurizio Bevilacqua.

Is this the same Anthony Nalli who questioned whether people voting Liberal should even be allowed to vote? As best as I can tell, there is only one.

Weird.

Update: On January 16, 2007, I received a friendly email from Anthony Nalli, and in it he explains that he is, in fact, not the same Nalli who donated the money. Glad we cleared that one up.

Joe Must Go!

Petitions are great. Not because they are always effective -- they often aren't directly. But because of the way they undermine the target and limit his freedom to act. A petition demanding that Joe Volpe abort his leadership bid in light of the donation controversy means that should Volpe decide to bow out now, he will do so with the implication that he was chased out. If he had bowed out before the petition was started (as well as all the other criticism), he could have avoided that association, one that will follow him to end of his (possibly dramatically shortened) political career.

But enough thinking. More signing!

Note that the petition is open to Liberal Party supporters. As I am not a supporter, I have not signed it. Please keep it honest. And anyway, if you support the Conservatives, you probably want Volpe to stay as long as possible.

Liberal Party rushes to fill in the cute gap

Newsflash: Stephen Harper doesn't eat kittens! He nurtures them!

All too often, family pets such as dogs and cats find themselves in shelters as a result of being abandoned or rescued.

The Harpers are proud to support and participate in the Ottawa Humane Society's Foster Program, which provides temporary homes for pets in the community who are not yet ready for adoption.

The program fosters out animals with mild health or behaviour issues who need individual care and nurturing to help them recover before they are adopted by new, loving foster families.

Laureen and Stephen have been foster parents to many cats during the past year. At any given time, the Harpers have provided foster care to numerous cats at their Ottawa home.

Needless to say, the Liberals are in a panic. The Conservatives have managed to open a significant "cute gap". Steve MacKinnon, national director of the Liberal Party, announced that a Liberal Party focus group will be formed to determine what animals are cuter than kittens (he favours bush babies), with the intention of guaranteeing a minimum number of Liberal riding nominations to be reserved for the little critters.

Leadership hopefuls are also rushing to respond.

Michael Ignatieff has backed off his previously published writings, insisting that his thinking on the torture of kittens who might have knowledge of impending terrorist attacks has evolved.

Joe Volpe has agreed to return thousands of dollars in donations from Mr Whiskas, the beloved cat (and six-legged three-eyed former test subject) of Apotex drug manufacturer head honcho Barry Sherman, though Volpe insists that no Elections Canada rules were violated.

Bob Rae insists that his three cats, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, have always been Liberal cats at heart.

Martha Hall Findlay showed pictures of the thousands of animals she has fostered, rescued from certain death, or scrubbed clean after oil spills. No one in the media noticed.

Ian Davey for leader of the Liberal Party!

Ian Davey?

"It's a different thing altogether. I mean a political donation is a political donation. A loan is a loan, it's not a donation, it's a loan. So, I don't see the logic frankly," said Ian Davey, campaign manager for the Ignatieff campaign who has loaned $125,000 to Mr. Ignatieff's campaign.

Now if you work for me, but I owe you money, doesn't that mess up the whole you-work-for-me dynamic? What happens when Michael Ignatieff disagrees with Davey's advice? What if Davey holds his ground?

What if Davey holds the load over Ignatieff's head to compel him to follow Davey's plan? Can Ignatieff even fire Davey if it means the loan will be called in? Or does Davey become the power behind the throne, as it were? The real leader, if Ignatieff should win.

This isn't hypothetical. Ian Davey has been in exactly this sort of situation before. In 2003, a serious disagreement over political tactics that eventually led to his resignation:

Ian Davey, chief communications strategist for [former Liberal Finance Minister John] Manley's leadership bid, said Thursday he quit after deep disagreements with other organizers over the campaign's approach.

What if Ian Davey had been the primary contributor to Manley's campaign? If he had been, would he have lost that debate, and his job?

I don't think there should be a rule against this sort of loan. God knows we have enough rules on political money that seem to cause more problems than they solve. Better yet to leave it out of the rules, because it is an opportunity for potential leaders to show common sense.

In this case, Michael Ignatieff seems to think it makes sense for a senior campaign strategist to be a major contributor.

That doesn't speak well for Ignatieff's ability to think of the implications of a decision, or to consider past history.

Too bad no one in the media has brought any serious focus on this question.

A discordant note in the echo chamber

Today I was listening to Toronto's talk radio station CFRB. Host Bill Carroll had Warren Kinsella on just before the 10am news, and Kinsella was plugging the "I Am Not Afraid" campaign. Part of the campaign will include a mass rally in response to the recent terror arrests.

Kinsella was invited to be on, and the interview focused on the facts. But for the next twenty minutes, after the 10am news break and after Kinsella was politely asked to complete his comments for the news break, Carroll proceeded to criticize the idea. Kinsella was already off the air. Essentially, Carroll's problem with IANA is that it taunts the terrorists, and he would not want to in the crowd if a terrorist decided to shoot into it. Fair enough, but Carroll would flip back to his other constant complaint that morning that Torontonians did not take the terror arrests seriously enough and weren't doing anything about it.

Inconsistent? Possibly, but Kinsella was no longer on the air and thus couldn't ask Carroll to reconcile his position.

Personally, I think it's less than sporting to invite someone on to your program, then dump on their idea after they've gone. As a format, radio has the advantage over blogging of being live, so it would not have been all that difficult to keep Kinsella on for five minutes to directly address Carroll's criticisms.

In any case, the segment after the 10am news break consisted of a parade of callers ridiculing IANA, echoing Carroll's position back exactly. Now here's my problem. Not once, to the best of my recollection, did Bill Carroll say on the air, "I'd like to hear from someone who thinks IANA is a good idea."

I was listening for that. A plea for a contradictory opinion. A promise to put that person on as the next caller. It never came.

Echo chambers are dangerous in that they substitute reinforced opinion for objective reality. Hear over and over again that the Conservatives have a hidden agenda, for example, and it becomes an incontrovertible truth. After a while, no plea to go read the actual platform available on the website will convince a person otherwise.

We naturally gravitate to people who share our opinions. That's normal. But to actively avoid contradictory opinions? My blog has always maintained, and will always maintain, a list of links to bloggers from Canada's centre and left, not just the right. I want my readers to be exposed to other opinions, and so I help make that happen. I have never banned a person from commenting on this blog, and certainly not for disagreeing with me. I've told people via email how much I appreciate that they come to my blog to post contradictory opinions because I value the debate, for both myself and for the rest of my readers. I do so in the hope that it encourages them to continue to be the few lonely discordant notes in the right-of-centre composition that plays here day after day.

This blog would suffer if Dr Dawg, Steve D, Ian, and others stopped coming by and making noise.

So I listened to Bill Carroll's show, and the same opinion being echoed over and over again once Kinsella was off the air, and I wondered why Bill Carroll would be satisfied. Why doesn't he say "Stop. This is boring. There has to be people out there who think IANA is a good idea. Explain to us why you think that."?

There could be many reasons to think IANA is a good thing. A gesture of defiance to send a message to those on the edge of radicalization that Toronto is a dangerous place for them. A way of improving the morale of the police and security services within our borders, and of the troops in places like Afghanistan, that they are not alone in the fight. A message to the Americans, both the government and the people, that their perception of Canadians can no longer include the word "spineless".

There are probably many people in Toronto who could have expressed those opinions on Carroll's show.

They won't, of course, because I doubt any of them listen to his show. Maybe Carroll knows that, and so he didn't bother asking for contradictory opinions.

I wonder if Carroll prefers it that way. Not a note out of place.

Not me. I like it noisy. That's probably why I'll never be asked to do talk radio.

Magically appearing boxes

The CBC is using sketches to help us imagine what is going on in the Brampton courthouse as the terror suspects make their brief appearances.

On June 6, the CBC ran the story of the beheading plot. Here is the accompanying sketch. One face is partially obscured by an opaque black box overlaid on the sketch.

In this report, only one suspect is named, Steven Chand, also known as Abdul Shakur.

On June 7, the CBC ran the story of the length of time the suspects were under surveillance. Here is the accompanying sketch. This time two faces, including the one from the day before, are obscured with even larger boxes.

In this story, the suspects named are Zakaria Amara, Amin Mohamed Durani, Shareef Abdelhaleen, and Saad Khalid.

As you can see, there is no correspondence between the names and the faces being obscured by boxes.

As far as I can tell, the boxes serve no purpose except to irritate me and cause me to write this post.

And yet something tells me that can't be the real reason. Any better guesses?

Casey Sheehan's monument -- Forced as part of the divorce agreement

Casey Sheehan has his monument. Finally.

What about the story behind the story?

Well, here is what I know, from a reporter close to the events. Cindy Sheehan paid for the monument, which she described as "very expensive". There was a small ceremony on Memorial Day (also Casey's birthday) which she attended. It was a private affair -- no media. Apparently, she was embarrassed that the grave was unmarked for two years, and so wanted no one around. Earlier in the day, there was another ceremony attended by local dignitaries and veterans.

Cindy Sheehan did not attend the public ceremony.

To get a better sense of what happened, I got in touch with the family, and here are more details. The details cast a shadow on this moment of closure.

People wonder why it is that now Cindy Sheehan, who controls the money, is putting up a monument. According to my source, Patrick Sheehan forced her to approve of the monument as part of the divorce agreement.

Shocking. I would never have expected that.

The selection of the headstone itself and the verse engraved on it was the result of the effort of Patrick Sheehan and the children, Andy, Carly, and Jane, Patrick did the verse. Cindy Sheehan apparently had no say. It is not clear if she offered no input, or if she was was rejected. I suspect the former. Cindy Sheehan saw and approved the final design before it was completed.

As for the ceremonies: There was a small ceremony on Casey's birthday, May 29, which was attended by immediate family and some local friends. Afterward the group went to a local restaurant. Cindy Sheehan arrived late and left early, made no statement or comment and did not go to the restaurant afterward. Apparently she had a flight to catch. Some political event, I would guess -- but that's only speculation.

There will be another family ceremony, including Casey's paternal grandparents, and sans Cindy Sheehan, at a later date.

So even the conclusion of the saga of Casey headstone, an opportunity for reconciliation and for healing, seems to have been sullied by Cindy Sheehan's intrasigence. Fortunately, the rest of the family seems to have moved on, leaving Cindy Sheehan to plot her own path. It's too bad, because whatever else he might be thinking, Casey certainly could not have wanted this for his mom.

Run, don't walk, away from Volpe's campaign

In a sign that Joe Volpe has not been able to put the donations controversy behind him, Sukh Dhaliwal, the Liberal MP for Newton-North Delta, has withdrawn his support for Volpe.

More at Public Eye Online.

Canadians are allowed to "Support Our Troops"

Gerry Nichols of the National Citizens' Coalition has received word from the Department of National Defence that the Support Our Troops campaign is perfectly legal.

In addition, DND will work with the NCC to see how the campaign can be helped along.

Bravo!

Casey Sheehan's monument

Casey Sheehan finally gets his monument (via email from the family).

The incription reads:

CASEY AUSTIN SHEEHAN

May 29, 1979
April 4, 2004

Our Casey

Ever faithful, kind, and gentle. Good
son, beloved brother, brave soldier, dear
friend. You loved your family and lived
your life serving others 'til the end.

Rest in peace.

This is good news. However, the occassion of the monument finally being placed was not one of reconciliation and healing.

Poisoning the jury pool?

Imagine you've been arrested on serious charges. You are facing the possibility of living the rest of your life in prison.

What do you do?

Focus on your defense? Or have your lawyers generate a non-stop stream of complaints about what would seem to be trivialities under the circumstances -- being allowed to pray but not with your co-accused, not having a hot meal in the first hours of incarceration, being given Koran in your native English and not in Arabic.

The kind of stuff guaranteed to irritate potential jurors.

Seems like a dumb idea -- or a brilliant one.

One defence lawyer, Gary Batasar, held an impromptu press conference, in which he revealed elements of the accusations against his client Steven Chand. The most stunning was Chand's desire to behead the Prime Minister:

Mr. Chand's lawyer, Gary Batasar, read the allegations in court yesterday, and afterward discussed them with reporters.

"The allegations suggest that [Mr. Chand] would personally like to behead Prime Minister Stephen Harper," he said.

Mr. Batasar said he made the allegations public because he's concerned that his client will not be treated fairly.

"The reason I came out in the media is to make sure that this is not something that is . . . dealt with secretly," he said.

Actually, I wonder if Batasar is trying to make certain that his client won't be treated fairly. Interestingly, the Globe and Mail has viewed a synopsis prepared by the Crown:

The Parliament buildings are said to have came up. So did the Toronto headquarters of the CBC and RCMP headquarters in Ottawa. So, too, did the notion of taking politicians hostage. (One lawyer's assertion yesterday that his client stands accused of plotting to "behead" Prime Minister Stephen Harper was not seen in the document The Globe viewed yesterday.)

The allegation might be in the full documentation. Assume for the moment it is. It is interesting that in the summary, the Crown is leaving out the sensational detail of planned beheadings. But the defence lawyer is splashing it all over the front pages.

And the defence lawyer is worried about a fair trial?

Actually, I'm starting to think that is exactly what Batasar is worried about. Batasr has seen the evidence, and knows that in a fair trial, his client is doomed. So his only option is to prevent a fair trial from taking place, and so lay the groundwork for an appeal.

It sounds like a longshot, but maybe that's all he's got to work with.

Just some food for thought.

Our military should be focusing on people who don't like them

You would think that the Canadian military would have its hands full dealing with people who don't like Canadians in uniform -- the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example. You would also think that the military would grateful for any support sent its way.

If so, you would also think this downtown Toronto billboard, directing people to a fundraising effort to support military families was a good idea:

Gerry Nichols of the National Citizens' Coalition has sent out an email about why this turned out to be a bad idea.

Here's is what Gerry says in his email:

The Department of National Defence is ordering the National Citizens Coalition to take down a “Support our Troops” billboard we put up in downtown Toronto.

The DND is also telling us to remove any reference to “Support our Troops” from our website and to stop handing out “Support our Troops” car magnets.

Why?

Section 291 of the National Defence Acts states:

1) Every person who uses

(a) the words "Canadian Forces" or "Canadian Armed Forces" or the name of any component, unit or other element thereof or any abbreviation thereof or any words or letters likely to be mistaken therefore,

(b) any picture or other representation of a member of the Canadian Forces, or

(c) any uniform, mark, badge or insignia in use in the Canadian Forces,

in any advertising or in any trade or service, having been requested in writing by the Minister to cease that usage, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

It is up to the Minister to request, in writing, that the advertising stop. In this case, though, the request came from DND directly (from the National Post):

Defence officials confirmed the facts yesterday, explaining the group's decision to give magnets in the shape of a red ribbon, which say "Support our troops," to people who donate cash to a trust fund would interfere with a similar campaign being conducted by the Military Family Resource Centre, which is selling yellow magnets.

"It's shocking to me," Mr. Nichols said. "We're just doing something to say thank you and to support the men and women who are putting their lives in danger in places like Afghanistan and we're told we can't do it."

Cmdr. Denise LaVoilette said the Forces are flattered by the gesture, but said it interferes with a government-run program, which takes precedence. It also contravenes the National Defence Act.

If the Minister does get involved, it should be to remind to military that the law is to prevent the gratuitous use of military symbols for personal gain. And if people want to raise money privately for military families, they should be allowed to.

And finally, Canada has enough enemies at home and abroad to be picking fights with people who want to help.

If you want to express your opinion, drop Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor a note, or contact his office.

Segregated chatrooms?

Strict Muslims often practise very severe gender segregation -- separate entrances to buildings, segregated education, burkas. The purpose is to promote chastity, since men are likely to, well, annoy women if they see their charms:

The Qur'anic verses which address the interaction of men and women in the social context include:

"Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity: this will be most conducive to their purity - (and,) verily, God is aware of all that they do. And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and to be mindful of their chastity, and not to display their charms (in public) beyond what may (decently) be apparent thereof; hence let them draw their head-coverings over their bosoms.(24:30-31)"

and

"O Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters, as well as all (other) believing women, that they should draw over themselves some of their outer garments (when in public): this will be more conducive to their being recognized (as decent women) and not annoyed.(33:59)"

Many Muslims insist that intellectual interation is allowed, as long as physical temptation is avoided:

Implicit in these verses is the expectation that men and women will be interacting. Muslims are instructed to do so in such a way as to focus on attributes other than the physical, namely the spiritual and intellectual.

Then how do you explain this?

Separate chatrooms for men and women? Put aside the practical problems of how to be certain the person in the room is male or female. As they say, on the internet, nobody knows you are a dog -- which is sort of funny in this context, since dogs are considered impure by Muslims.

You would think that given the strictures against physical proximity between men and women, Muslims would embrace the internet as a way for men and women to interact without any chance of physical temptation.

You would be wrong, apparently.

I get the feeling some Muslim men just don't like women very much...period.

Little problems

From the Toronto Star:

[Lawyer Donald McLeod, who represents Jahmaal James,] also complained that the accused were being refused their religious rights — a court order prohibits the 15 from communicating with each other.

“They’re Muslim,” said McLeod. “Clearly they’d like to be able to pray as a group. I’d like to facilitate that religious freedom they’re entitled to.”

You know, there are big problems and then there are little problems.

This is a little problem.

If James needs to pray in a group, then I would suggest we find 15 members of the RCMP or of local regional police forces who are Muslims. Maybe some staff from the Crown Attorney's office. They can pray with James.

He has his desired group. He should be satisfied, since he should not care with whom he is praying as long as they are observant Muslims sincere in their faith. And the Canadian justice system is confident that a religious observance is not being used as a means to subvert criminal proceedings by affording the accused the opportunity to compare notes with his co-accused and fashion a consistent set of lies to tell prosecutors.

See, little problems are easily solved. Next!

Racism?

From the Toronto Star:

Other friends and family of the accused arriving at the courthouse also complained of media "harassment."

"These (family members) are not the accused," said Tarek Fatah, communications director for the Muslim Canadian Congress. "This is racism. It is the people who appear to look like Muslims that are the ones being questioned about their families." [emphasis added]

The Islamic community in Toronto has already started in with the allegations of "racism", aimed at the media and at the police.

Two comments.

First, I didn't know Islam was a race. I thought it was a religion.

Second, the accusation is being leveled at the wrong people. The media and the police aren't the racists. The racists are the alleged terrorists (as well as the the real ones who have been convicted in the US, in England, and elsewhere around the world) who refuse to allow Italian Catholics, Swiss Calvinists, Russian Orthodox, Indian Hindus, Japanese Shintos, or even your run-of-the-mill atheist join in their plots and attacks.

As long as Islamic terrorism remains a Muslims-only club, then Muslims are the ones who are going to be arrested.

Perhaps the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal should look into this.

Joe Volpe's pit bull

Joe Volpe was given a rough ride in British Columbia over the donations he accepted from children:

[Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca constituency association president Jason Walker], an adjunct assistant professor with the University of Victoria's school of child and youth care, said he walked out on Mr. Volpe because the candidate "didn't say what happened was wrong. He just didn't get the fact that taking money from children in that way is wrong. And it shouldn't have happened....I was embarassed. And I said so. And I left."

For his principled stance, he was "hassled" by Volpe's national campaign coordinator, Jim Karygiannis:

Mr. Walker also confirmed he was "hassled" on his way out of the room by one of Mr. Volpe's supporters - whom others identified as being the candidate's national campaign coordinator Jim Karygiannis. "He was very angry. He was angry that I raised the issue...And my response was this is about children and it is not open for debate. It involves children. It is wrong. And this is not what our party's about. And we need to step up and take responsibility. And, as a president, I don't expect to be harassed on my way out of a meeting by an observer."

Well, the Liberal Party has a reputation of roughing up people who ask embarrassing questions. Recall the incident during the election when CTV host Mike Duffy was roughed up by Liberal strategist John Duffy for bringing up the question of the military ads.

But the Jim Karygiannis has a reputation for belligerency. From the Ottawa Citizen in July 2002:

A Liberal MP blew his top at Toronto's Pearson Airport earlier this month, verbally attacking customs agents for their lengthy questioning of two Middle Eastern men, airport sources told the Sun.

MP Jim Karygiannis reportedly tore a strip off the officers July 1 in front of airport staff and passengers disembarking a flight from Greece.

Witnesses say Karygiannis accused the customs agents of "racial profiling" for questioning the Middle Eastern men -- who were carrying U.S. passports -- more extensively than other passengers on the flight.

"He started yelling at the Canadian officers," said a source.

"He was belligerent, he was yelling, he was rude. He's in their face. He's using words like racial profiling."

Karygiannis was meddling in something he simply didn't understand:

Customs agents referred the two men to Immigration and Citizenship because they felt the duo weren't clear as to their place of residence or why they were in Canada, another airport source said.

"At that time a background check revealed they have a criminal record in the U.S.," a source said.

Both men were found to have a rap sheet including convictions for drug possession and domestic violence.

"When they were confronted with their history they decided to return home," a source said.

The Conservative government has wasted no time in labeling the Tamil Tigers as a terrorist group. Like the airport incident, Jim Karygiannis seems to have a blind spot in identifying the bad guys. From the National Post in July 2003:

The Liberals have turned themselves into Canada's institutional ruling party in large part by cozying up to multiculti urban constituencies such as the Tamils.

A hunger for Tamil votes has apparently allowed bagmen for a terrorist group and its various front organizations to be given free rein in this country.

Sometimes, the Tiger-coddling is brazen: In June, 2000, a party was held in Toronto to celebrate the group's recent military campaigns. Jim Karygiannis, a local Liberal MP, showed up to hoist the Canadian flag next to the rifle-festooned banner of the Tamil Tigers.

He thinks that yelling at foreign officials and heads of state makes for clever diplomacy and effects positive change. From CTV on March 1, 2006:

Two Canadian women who fear Mexican authorities consider them as suspects in the murders of an Ontario couple proclaimed their innocence Tuesday, saying the accusations are "ridiculous."

"Where is Stephen Harper? What is he waiting for?" demanded Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis on Tuesday.

"He (needs to) get on the phone to (Mexican President Vicente) Fox and say 'what the hell is going on?' These are Canadian people," Karygiannis told CTV Newsnet.

On the other hand, comments critical of Canada by a foreign official are way out of line. From the Ottawa Citizen in March 2003:

Prime Minister Jean Chretien insisted Wednesday that his government is not anti-American even as some Liberal backbenchers called on him to censure or expel U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci for publicly denouncing Canada's refusal to participate in the war on Iraq.

Toronto MP Jim Karygiannis suggested Mr. Cellucci should have kept his comments to himself. "Mr. Cellucci does not get elected in our constituencies, he does not get elected in Canada. We're the ones that express our views for our constituents."

OK, so we've established that Jim Karygiannis is the sort of guy who has one set of rules for himself and his friends and supporters, and another set of rules for everyone else.

We've also established that when you break one of those rules in front of Jim Karygiannis, you're likely to get yelled at.

So does it surprise you that for Joe Volpe's campaign, free speech does not include criticizing Joe Volpe, and if you do break that rule, Jim Karygiannis is going to do his best to make you regret it?

Mike Duffy just has to get this guy on his show and ask him about the kiddie donations.

Democracy Watch responds -- to the wrong guy

A reader, Angry Canadian, forwarded to me a piece of unsolicited email he received from Democracy Watch on the subject of the Ethics Commissioner becoming involved in the framing of legislation.

Of course, some people call unsolicited email "spam".

Interestingly, this reader never posted a comment on that story, though he has posted comments elsewhere on my blog. He's not sure why he received the email. It looks like Democracy Watch doesn't realize Angry in the Great White North is Steve Janke, and is different from Angry Canadian.

In any case, here is the text of the email:

Dear Angry,

Steve Janke is, of course, free to express a negative opinion ("Watching out for democracy" - June 2) about Democracy Watch's May 25 complaint to the federal Ethics Commissioner requesting a ruling on whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Treasury Board minister John Baird, and Prime Minister's staff person Sandra Buckler violated the federal ethics rule requiring that they "act with honesty" when they failed to include 21 promised measures in Bill C-2 (the "Federal Accountability Act") and made claims that the bill includes some of those measures.

However, Mr. Janke's opinion is unreasonable because it is not based on reality.

Mr. Janke bases his negative opinion of Democracy Watch's complaint on his false claim that the complaint asks the Ethics Commissioner to force the Conservative government to keep their election promises by adding the 21 measures to Bill C-2.

In fact, Democracy Watch is only seeking a decision on whether the rule requiring "honesty" has been violated.

Mr. Janke may feel that there should not be a rule requiring honesty in government (he doesn't say either way) but every survey in the past decade shows that a large majority of Canadians want such a rule. Mr. Janke's article neglects to note that part of the dishonesty Democracy Watch has complained about is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues have neglected to inform the public that Bill C-2 proposes to remove the "honesty" requirement from federal ethics rules.

It is more than disappointing to see the National Post publish such a false, and therefore unfair, attack on Democracy Watch's dishonesty complaint (especially given that the Post has not published any other article about the complaint). One would have thought that a newspaper would be more interested in honesty, accuracy and fairness.

Sincerely,
Duff Conacher, Coordinator
Democracy Watch
P.O. Box 821, Stn. B
Ottawa, Canada
K1P 5P9
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Fax: (613) 241-4758
Email: dwatch@web.net
Internet: http://www.dwatch.ca

Democracy Watch's website is the #1 citizen organization website in the world when the Internet is searched using Google and the search words "democracy" or "government ethics" or "bank accountability"

I think my point is still correct. Conacher states that the they don't expect the Ethics Commissioner to alter the legislation, just to pass judgment on whether the rule requiring honesty has been violated. But if it is a rule, and if it has been violated, then presumably somewhere someone will force the rule to be followed, which in turn will affect the bill.

Or else why would it be a rule?

If the Ethics Commissioner makes the ruling, he would trigger the punishment. And the code allows the Ethics Commissioner to suggest measures to be tkaen against MPs who violate the code.

The bottom line is that my argument hasn't really been addressed. Unless Democracy Watch has some reason to believe that the Prime Minister or others are making decisions based on some secret agenda, for instance, to make money in the stock market, then the bill is the bill. Democracy Watch might not like it, but that doesn't make it unethical. And there is a process by which organizations like Democracy Watch can influence a bill.

Complaining to the Ethics Commissioner is not it. Appealing to a committee of elected MPs studying the bill is.

Because, at the end of the day, those MPs in the committee, and the MPs who framed the bill, will have to submit to the judgment of the electorate. The Ethics Commissioner does not.

Blog Troubles

People have emailed me about problems with posting comments. Many have you have no doubt noticed that the blog has been down for an hour or more at a time over the last couple of days. The mu.nu servers have been hit with a double whammy: a failed disk on one server and a denial-of-service attack on the other. So be patient -- the problem is being worked on.

Getting confused on the size of the bomb [cleared up, and then muddied again]

I've been trying to reconcile the different weights and measures being bandied about since yesterday. I'm having problems.

The alleged terror plot uncovered in Toronto involved 3 tonnes of ammonium nitrate.

A tonne, or a metric ton, is 1000 kilograms, or 2,204 pounds. A short ton is 2000 pounds, or about 0.91 metric tonnes. So conveniently, a short ton and a metric tonne are essentially interchangeable.

Now the bomb that destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995 weighed 5000 pounds, or 2300 kg, or just over two metric tons (according to Wikipedia, and a similar number is quoted in other sources). It was a mix of ammonium nitrate and the racing fuel nitromethane.

During the news conference, RCMP Assistant Commissioner Mike McDonell stated that the Oklahoma bomb contained 1 metric ton of ammonium nitrate.

So that would mean a 50-50 mix of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil. But that's not how you make an ANFO bomb. The real mix is closer to 94% ammonium nitrate and 6% fuel oil. You don't need much fuel oil because the fuel oil just starts the reaction (the fuel coats the pellets in the mixture, and ignites them -- trace amounts of other materials can enhance the reaction).

Maybe there are other legitimate ratios (I'm not a bomb expert or a chemist), but I'd be surprised if any approached anything close to 50-50.

Using the 94% ratio and the size of the overall bomb, and ignoring the RCMP stated amount of ammonium nitrate used, the Oklahoma bomb used 4700 pounds of ammonium nitrate, or 2.1 metric tons. That means the size of the bomb being imagined by the Toronto terrorists was somewhat larger than the Oklahoma bomb, but not as large as suggested at the news conference. Closer to 50% larger, and not 200% larger.

Maybe there is something missing here. I could be wrong about the ANFO ratio used by Timothy McVeigh. Or maybe the overall size of the bomb is being misquoted. Or maybe someone who has the details the RCMP used to prepare the news conference can verify the numbers and show us the math.

I don't want to say the alleged plot was somehow less horrifying, but if you are going to make comparisons, make sure they are fair ones.

Update: I found a recipe that splits the explosive ratios by weight as 36% ammonium nitrate, 55% potassium chlorate, and 9% fuel oil. If we use that recipe, and the number quoted by the RCMP, the Oklahoma bomb consisted of 1 metric ton of ammonium nitrate, 1.5 metric tons of potassium chlorate, and a quarter metric ton of fuel oil. That adds up 2.8 metric tons, which is about the size of the Oklahoma bomb.

The Toronto bomb therefore would have been 3 metric tons of ammonium nitrate, 4.6 metric tons of potassium chlorate, and 0.75 tons of fuel oil -- a total of 8.3 metric tons of explosives.

If that's true, these terrorists were planning to create a much more sophisticated and devastating bomb, or more likely series of smaller bombs -- three or four times the size of the Oklahoma bomb, depending on the specific recipe they were going to use. Just as indicated at the news conference.

On the other hand, this sort of bomb is harder to put together. These guys were getting advanced advice.

Glad I got that cleared up -- I think. I guess I'll keep an eye out for confirmation of the sort of bomb these guys are alleged to have been planning to mix.

Another update: Robert McLelland made this point on Andrew Coyne's blog where this discussion is also taking place. The Oklahoma bomb was a homemade Kinepak explosive, meaning a mixture of ammoniun nitrate and nitromethane. I've spent some time lurking around creepy homemade explosive message boards, and the "standard" ratio is 40% nitromethane and 60% ammonium nitrate. The testimony of Terry Nichols confirms that these were the components in use, but he was not clear on the ratios.

Using these numbers and the accepted weight of the bomb as 5000 pounds, the amount of ammonium nitrate in the bomb was 3000 pounds, or 1.4 metric tons. It's a bit off from the number reported by the RCMP, though not by much.

From what I gather on these boards, everyone who plays with explosives recreationally has their own favourite recipes anyway. So it's possible that McVeigh used 1 metric ton of ammonium nitrate and a somewhat larger amount of nitromethane than the accepted standard ratio.

I've learned a lot from this piece.

Now the RCMP made the point of comparing the planned Toronto bomb mix with the Oklahoma bomb by comparing the amount of ammonium nitrate in the possession of this group with the amount of ammonium nitrate used in the Oklahoma bomb. If I've learned anything from this exercise is that the comparison is meaningless if the underlying formula is different. Many different bomb recipes use ammonium nitrate. The amount used might constitute anything from as low as 35% of the total weight of the bomb, all the way up to 95%. So a stockpile of 3 metric tons of ammonium nitrate could yield from 3 to 9 metric tons of high explosive.

But then each formulation has different properties. From what I can tell, some of those more complicated ones give you both more material and more destructive power, but at the cost of having to acquire more components (a risky propositiion for terrorists trying to remain unnoticed).

An update on the state of free speech in Canada

Well, it's been a couple of days since the controversy over Liberal Party leadership candidate Joe Volpe's odd donations (including thousands from several young children of drug company executives) boiled over. One of the casualties was a parody website, YouthForVolpe.ca, a wickedly funny send-up of the sort of people who would use children to evade political funding limits. On the word of the Volpe campaign manager, the website was shutdown by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority.

I wrote on the terrible precedent this sets, where criticism of political figures can be silenced. Many other bloggers did the same.

I have just gone through each of the candidates' websites, and not a single one of them has acknowledged the actions of Joe Volpe, either in support of free speech and so critical of Volpe's actions, or supportive of Volpe.

Obviously, these candidates, each of whom would like to be prime minister one day, would rather not take a stand.

That's not good enough, not on this issue, not for me.

So I've written to each of them:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to each of you as the registered candidates for the Liberal leadership campaign in search of an answer to the question, "Are you in support of political free speech?"

In the recent controversy surrounding candidate Joe Volpe's campaign donations, a parody website www.YouthForVolpe.ca was created. The site was careful not to attribute any actions, real or imaginary, to Mr Volpe. The site was created by the Apotex executives to entice children to donate to Mr Volpe's campaign -- or at least that was the joke. There were no quotes from Mr Volpe, real or imaginary, nor any attributed actions, even as innocuous as saying Mr Volpe appreciates all the help he can get. Mr Volpe was essentially a passive backdrop to the satire.

In my mind, it is hard to claim defamation when the remarks in question don't actually say anything about the subject claiming defamation.

But even if it cuts it close, doesn't political freedom require the greatest possible latitude, the most generous interpretation, in order to maintain a healthy democracy?

The Volpe campaign was successful in having the site shut down on the basis that it was defamatory. To many people, that is a chilling action. Will you, as a Liberal leadership candidate, take a stand to say that shutting down such a site is unacceptable, or at the very least, an over-reaction?

What can we expect of the the current crop of Liberal leadership candidates when the media and the public at large find themselves at odds with them? Are you willing to say that criticism has a special place in political discourse, and that the actions of Mr Volpe and his team were heavy-handed?

Or is criticism of our leaders not a Liberal value?

I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.

Best wishes,
Steve Janke
(aka Angry in the Great White North)

P.S. All responses (or lack thereof) are subject to publication. All responses will be published without any editing.

I'll post the responses as I get them.

Will they respond? I'm not sure, but I'm not hopeful. It might make for an interesting discussion tomorrow on Charles Adler's radio program. I'll be on around 3:30pm eastern to discuss the Volpe situation, his takedown of the website, and the role of satirical free speech in politics.

You can find links to the live internet broadcast at CharlesAdler.com

.

CAIR-CAN on the right side of the news

CAIR-CAN (the Council on American-Islamic Relations - Canada) issued a statement:

CAIR-CAN joins all Canadians in expressing relief that a potential terrorist attack in Toronto has been averted and applauds the efforts by Canadian security forces to combat terrorism and other criminal activities. CAIR-CAN stands with all Canadians in the pursuit of safety and security for the residents of our country.

“As Canadian Muslims we unequivocally condemn terrorism in all of its forms. Canada is our home and we are deeply concerned about the safety of our country,” says Karl Nickner, CAIR-CAN’s Executive Director.

Security officials held a news conference Saturday morning to announce the arrest of an alleged terrorist cell in Toronto. According to reports, about 17 individuals, most of whom are Canadian citizens, have been arrested for allegedly plotting a terrorist attack.

“We stand behind our security forces and the Canadian government in their desire to protect Canada. We also have confidence that our justice system will accord these individuals transparency, due process and the presumption of innocence,” he added.

CAIR-CAN is also asking Canadian Muslims to cooperate with Canadian security agencies in order to combat any terrorist or other criminal activities.

Good for them.

Update: A comment from Road Hammer makes a good point. Why should I have expected anything else from CAIR-CAN? Am I guilty of the "soft bigorty of low expectations"? There is a reason I checked on CAIR-CAN in particular. CAIR-CAN was pushing a story of a religious attack on a Sikh teen in BC, a story that within days was shown to be a fabrication. That they were peddling that discredited story weeks after it was shown to be false undermines their credibility. That they are still peddling it today, a full year after, is mind-boggling! Under "Civil Rights" on the home page you see a story that starts with "CAIR-CAN: Canadian Muslims...". Check the URL -- it is the same as the story entitled "CAIR-CAN: Canadian Muslims Condemn Attack on Sikh Teen". Now the link doesn't seem to work any longer -- I don't know it that's temporary or an attempt to fix the mistake. But then if they were fixing the mistake, why the bad link and why no retraction? CAIR-CAN does not impress me with their way of spinning the news. They've set my low expectations, I'm afraid.

When the list comes out...

When the list of targets is made public, and the scope of the death and destruction that might have been wrought sinks in, who thinks the issue of capital punishment in Canada might once again be breached? Is it appropriate for special circumstances such as indiscriminate mass murder? It'll be interesting to see what the opponents will say now that the scenario is no longer merely hypothetical.

Any bets on a free vote on capital punishment within the next 18 months?

Thinking about potential targets

The authorities have been tight-lipped about the potential targets of the 17 terrorist suspects arrested in Toronto:

Police claimed the men had the means to make powerful bombs.

"This group took steps to acquire components necessary to create an explosive device using ammonium nitrate, which is a commonly used fertilizer," [RCMP Asst. Commissioner Mike McDonell] said.

"Three tonnes of ammonium nitrate was ordered by these individuals and delivered to them. It was their intent to use this for a terrorist attack."

"This group posed a real and serious threat. It had the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks," McDonnell said.

The RCMP would not name any of the suspected bombing targets, but said the Toronto Transit Commission -- a network of public buses, subways and streetcars in Canada's largest city -- was not seen as a potential target.

Can we infer what the targets might have been? We know from the FBI that these Canadians had contact with US citizens Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, both from Atlanta, and both under arrest on terror-related charges. The American affidavit provides suggests government and economic targets:

Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, both U.S. citizens who grew up in the Atlanta area, met with at least three other targets of ongoing FBI terrorism investigations during a trip to Canada in March 2005, the FBI agent's affidavit said.

The affidavit said the men discussed attacks against oil refineries and military bases and planned to travel to Pakistan to get military training at a terrorist camp, which authorities said Ahmed then tried to do.

The Imperial Refinery in Nanticoke refines crude oil from Western Canada. There are two refineries in Sarnia, Imperial and Sunoco. Shell has a refinery in Corunna. All these places are located in southern Ontario. Though there are plenty of military bases throughout Ontario (Trenton, Petawawa, Borden, etc), I would pick softer targets -- administrative buildings located in urban centres, or other high value targets not likely to be associated with a heavy military presence, such as Canadian Forces Station Leitrim, a part of the ECHELON program, a critical piece of the US-UK-Canadian surveillance effort against terrorists.

Then there are plenty of federal buildings, not to mention non-governmental targets like the Toronto Stock Exchange. And if you are going to target someplace in downtown Toronto, why not hit St Michael's Hospital to mess up the emergency response.

With three tonnes of fertilizer, these guys could make a lot of smaller bombs.

Dangerous fertilizer [now with video]

Three tonnes of ammonium nitrate is a very dangerous amount of fertilizer.

What is worse is the other kind of fertilizer -- the sort that springs from the thought processes of the ultra-left.

Check out this video [video is now available] where Jack Layton shares his thoughts on Canada's anti-terrorism laws. Which is worse? That his sort of BS would leave Canada in a weaker position to fight domestic terrorists in favour of soothing some hurt feelings, or that he'd spread his mental manure in a cheap attempt to garner some specific ethnic votes at the expense of the safety of the general public.

Until the video is available, here is a taste of what Jack said:

ONMI News South Asian edition - May 23, 2006

[host]: Jack Layton says Canada’s anti-terrorism laws should be scrapped. The NDP leader says it has led to too much racial profiling of Muslim and Arab Canadians.

[Jack Layton]: “We also have to put an end to the security certificates – the security certificates and that whole piece of legislation, bill C-36, must be thrown out!”

Terrorists in Toronto

From CTV:

In a sweeping raid, police arrested about a dozen men in the Toronto area on terrorism-related charges Friday night, the RCMP announced.

Intelligence sources allege the men were part of a terrorist cell, close to carrying out attacks on one or more Canadian targets.

Police seized chemicals used to make explosives and weapons.

Actual chemicals? These guys were well beyond the make-a-video-tape-of-the-CN-tower stage.

The suspects are either second-generation Canadians or recently immigrated to Canada with their families.

I wonder if Toronto Mayor David Miller will blame the lack of basketball courts and community centres to give potential terrorists a more constructive outlet for their energy. That might seem unfair, but for those who live in the Greater Toronto Area, you know what I'm talking about.

So what were these guys after?

Sources discounted earlier reports that the CN Tower and the city's subway system were allegedly potential targets by the group.

Still, no mention of what the targets were. Until I hear otherwise, I can't believe the subway wasn't a target. A bomb in a subway car is guaranteed to generate massive casualties, with the explosive force confined to a small space, and then the subsequent death and injury from panic-stricken passengers rushing for exits. Not to mention the city-wide disruption for days afterward while the subways are closed.

There will be a news conference tomorrow at 10 AM.

Watch for the effect on issues like our mission in Afghanistan, our policy on immigration, our relationship with the United States especially when it comes to security, and our attitudes to law and order in general in the days and weeks to come.

And then watch the political side, as Canadians consider which prime minister they would rather have in power in a situation like this, Stephen Harper or any of Paul Martin's would-be successors.

The dark side of Joe Volpe

Those words were spoken by the Chinese ambassador to Canada in October of 2003, speaking to the Canada-China Legislative Association.

For most people who know anything about China, the towering hypocrisy makes one's skin crawl. Chinese prisons are filled with people who offered "good-natured criticism", many of whom will suffer the fate of being executed so that their organs can be harvested and sold on the black market.

But Canada is better, right? Canadians understand the importance of free speech, especially the freedom to criticize and to dissent, right?

I know one group of Canadians who seem to have a problem with this -- Joe Volpe and his Liberal leadership campaign team.

When the Joe Volpe campaign was caught accepting thousands and thousands of dollars in donations from families, including children, each family headed by an executive of the generic drug manufacturer Apotex, people immediately cried foul, accusing Volpe and his people of accepting a corporate donation far in excess of the legal limit by hiding the money in individual donations.

Of course, it was the use of children as donation mules that drove the story.

So Mike Hunt created a parody site, www.youthforvolpe.ca. It featured hilarious send-ups of earnest children glad to have the chance to send money Volpe's way:

"Joe Volpe's deep commitment to integrity inspired me to support his campaign! I borrowed $5,400 from my parents in a manner compliant with all campaign finance regulations as they then existed." -Ann Lee, age 4, Calgary

That site was shut down by Volpe's people (it has since re-appeared under a different address):

Mr. Volpe's campaign had the site shut down without knowing, it seems, who put it up: "Hi Everyone," wrote Brenden Johnstone, who is with the Volpe campaign, in an e-mail to other leadership campaigns. "There has been concern about how the issue of the Volpe donations was reflecting on the leadership race.

"My Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with. . . ."

CIRA acted on the basis of "defamation":

When the website creator discovered the site had been removed, an email was sent to the registrar asking why the actions were taken. The registrar advised the site creator that it had violated Article 3.1 Paragraph (h) (i) and (ii) of CIRA Policies which allow CIRA to suspend a domain name. The rules say CIRA may suspend a domain if the site is directly or indirectly, defaming or contributing to the defamation of any other Person or unlawfully discriminating or contributing to the unlawful discrimination of any other Person.

Defamation is the act of injuring the reputation of another person through false statements. I dare say Volpe had done plenty of injury to himself -- to blame a parody site and then have it shut down shows him to be as oblivious to his situation as he is disdainful of freedom of speech.

And where was the defamation? The site was "Youth for Volpe" -- the joke was that a third party (a group from Apotex) was enticing children to donate to their favourite candidate, not of Volpe himself tricking children into giving him money.

If the people at Apotex were the targets of defamatory statements, then why did Brenden Johnstone of the Volpe campaign get involved? The people at Apotex can afford their own lawyers. Johnstone answers the question in his own email, and strikes at the heart of the matter:

There has been concern about how the issue of the Volpe donations was reflecting on the leadership race. [emphasis added]

The issue was the donations, not the website. In other words, the website amplified the issue, but did not create it.

But then that is the role of political humour, to bring into sharp focus the actions of public figures, especially those who would wield great responsibility over our lives. If every politician took action like Volpe, there would be no political cartoonists working in Canada. Volpe's actions (and I attribute the actions of his team to him personally, since he is their boss) are abhorrent in a democracy. Volpe has shown himself to value personal power over the rights and freedoms of citizens in this country. Subjected to a joke aimed squarely at the actions he took in accepting and then defending questionable donations, he attacked the person making the joke, perhaps hoping to quell further discussion. The 18th century German satirist Georg Christoph Lichtenberg said, "A person reveals his character by nothing so clearly as the joke he resents."

Volpe's actions against the website, and the support he received from CIRA, should be denounced in the strongest possible terms, especially by those who use the Internet as a means of political and personal expression. I hope people reading this take the time to register their anger. Don't stop, though, with an email to Volpe. Get in touch with your MP to point out that you feel that your freedoms have been diminished by this action. Get in touch with the editor of your favourite newspaper or your favourite talkradio personality. Tell that person you expect him or her to take a stand when political speech is being threatened.

They, of all people, ought to understand just how precious that freedom is. Their livelihoods depend on it.

Which brings me full circle. Why did I choose to quote the Chinese ambassador? There have been plenty of far more worthy people throughout history who have spoken words in defense of political dissent than this hypocritical ChiCom mouthpiece.

The reason is the delicious irony. Present when the ambassador delivered his remarks was the Vice-Chair of the CCLA, a man dedicated to improving relations with the Mao's dictatorship. It was our very own Joe Volpe. Part of his job was to help the Chinese improve their attitude towards human rights and political freedoms. Instead, it looks like Volpe was the one getting advice.

List of bloggers calling Volpe out on a censorship charge:

• Stephen Taylor
• Dust My Broom
• The Daily Bayonet
• A Frank Perspective on Politics
• Left Wing = Hate
• Canadian Christian Conservative
• Blue Blogging Soapbox
• Larry Borsato
• bound by gravity
• Wolfevillewatch
• Blind Mind's Eye
• Civitatensis
• Random Bytes
• Abandoned Stuff
• The New American Citizen
• Generalized Nonsense
• Spiderman's Web
• Uncle Meat
• little green footballs
• Captain's Quarters
• slashdot
• boing boing
• Canadian internet sleaze
• Rob Hyndman
• Jay Currie
• Generation Zel! Radio

Send me a link and I'll add you to the list.

Watching out for democracy

This piece appears on page A-18 of today's National Post, as well as on the online edition:

Watching out for democracy

Steve Janke, National Post
Published: Friday, June 02, 2006

On May 25, the organization Democracy Watch filed a complaint with the Ethics Commissioner against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and two others for being dishonest. Specifically, the group contends that Bill C-2, the Federal Accountability Act, omits 13 promises made by the Tories in last January's election.

The action being pursued by Democracy Watch is wrong-headed. Even if its concerns about Bill C-2 are valid, Democracy Watch has adopted a very undemocratic approach in attempting to affect the business of government.

During the course of lawmaking, a bill is sent to a committee made up of elected parliamentarians representing all parties. The committee listens to submissions and presentations made by members of the public (often through organizations like Democracy Watch). That feedback helps the committee fashion amendments to improve the bill. In the end, the amended bill comes to the House of Commons for a vote to pass or reject it.

Is the result always a good law? Of course not. But that's why we have elections -- so we can all pass judgment.

Instead of embracing this system, Democracy Watch has decided to go to the unelected Ethics Commissioner, and have him compel the government (in some undefined manner) to change the bill outside of the regular process of committees and House votes.

Crafting a law is tricky business. Competing interests have to be balanced, especially in a minority government, and the result has to pass constitutional muster. The only guaranteed outcome of the process is that no one will be entirely satisfied. As Otto von Bismarck said: "The less people know about how sausages and laws are made, the better they'll sleep at night."

Designing a bill like C-2 is a political exercise, not an ethical one. Like deciding what bits go into the sausage, it is not for idealists. But so long as those decisions are taken without undue influence from outside interests, the Ethics Commissioner has no role to play. His mandate focuses mostly on financial conflicts of interest. That's as it should be: Judging a person's ethics is best left to higher beings, but it's usually easy to tell if someone stands to gain financially from a particular piece of legislation.

As a voter, I'm pleased that the power to judge the actions of politicians lies with me and my fellow citizens -- not an appointed officer of Parliament, and not Democracy Watch.

Can you donate to any Liberal leadership campaign in a secure manner?

I came across an interesting thing last night. I'm not sure it is significant, and maybe an expert on online security can explain it better.

With the business of Joe Volpe accepting donations from children, I decided to check out the online donation page. Note that the donation portion is inside of a scrolling box.

In fact, that donation subpage has its own URL: https://www.liberal.ca/donate_e.aspx?cand=3

If you alter the "cand" number, you get a sublist of leadership candidates:

1. Michael Ignatieff
2. Bob Rae
3. Joe Volpe
4. Gerard Kennedy
5. Stephane Dion
6. Martha Hall Findlay
7. blank
8. Scott Brison
9. Ken Dryden
10. Carolyn Bennett
11. Maurizio Bevilacqua
12. blank

Update: On June 2, Maurizio Bevilacqua was registered and a donation page was created for him.

Everthing past 12 appears to be blank. Note that this is the full roster of registered candidates. Hedy Fry has announced her campaign, but is not registered yet.

Now here's the interesting thing. Imbedded in the webpage is the URL for the security certificate. It's the same for each variant of the page. When I visit the certificate, this is what I find:

Apparently, all online donations to the Liberal Party since January 28, 2006 have not been SSL-secure [or they are secure, but you can't be guaranteed that the information is going to the Liberal Party server, thanks to readers for helping with the distinction -- in any case, it is damn sloppy].

Did the Liberal webheads just miss this on their to-do list? Well, only if they haven't been reading their emails:

Entrust will notify the Authorizing contact listed on your SSL Certificate order application one month prior to the expiration date of your Entrust SSL Certificate. Entrust will also notify the Technical contact listed on your Entrust SSL Certificate order application two weeks prior to the expiration date of your Entrust SSL Certificate. Instructions on renewing your Entrust SSL Certificate will be contained in this expiry notification email.

The authorizing contact for the liberal.ca domain is John Arnold, the Director of Finance and Administration. The technical contact is the registrar at technical support at Magma Communications.. John Arnold reports to Steve MacKinnon, the National Director, the same fellow who said accepting donations from 11-year-olds was perfectly legal. Do you think MacKinnon is going to tell us that there is nothing wrong here either?

Maybe I run the risk of sounding partisan, but I would recommend that going forward, everyone stop making online donations to the Liberal Party until the question of security is resolved. The same goes for the Liberal leadership campaigns.

No what about the other parties?

Here is the security information from the Conservative donation page:

Up to date and good until April 3, 2007.

The NDP? Couldn't tell. They use a service called e-xact to process credit card payments, but I couldn't tell if the security scheme is current.

So the Conservatives assure everyone that the site is secure. The NDP, not certain. The Liberals? They seem to be definitely not secure, and haven't been for four months and counting.

Do you think the Liberal Party should get in touch with each and every donor who made an online donation since the certificate expired and let them know that they made an Internet transaction that wasn't secure? If the Liberal Party refuses to, should they be compeled to?

Recall that the Conservative donation site was also not secured for a brief period of time back in December 2005. The party was rightly blasted for it, and the page was quickly corrected. Given that experience, you would think that all the other parties would have learned a lesson.

You would be wrong, it appears.

I can't believe we trusted the Liberal Party people with our money for 13 years. But then with Adscam and the HRSDC boondoggle and so on, the Liberals have never shown themselves to be too concerned when it came to being careful with the money entrusted to them.

More terror in the Liberal Party ranks?

Stephen Taylor has the scoop on Liberal Senator Raymond Lavigne, appointed by Jean Chretien. Apparently he is alleged to have submitted a bogus travel claim in the amount of $20,000!

A Senate hearing on the matter was held today, and word is that a call is going out to the RCMP to perform a criminal investigation.

Lavigne is the poster boy of old-style senate appointments that lack any merit. He was not rewarded a Senate seat for years of service in parliament. The man was only first elected in 1993, and only as part of the landslide that saw Kim Campbell and the Progressive Conservatives swept from power. Over the next 9 years, he never held a cabinet post, and warmed the back benches through the 1997 and 2000 elections.

So why the Senate seat? Because he was using up valuable space. Liz Frulla, a former Quebec cabinet minister, was recruited by the federal Liberals and needed a seat (she would later be made a caninet minister in the doomed Paul Martin government).

Up goes Lavigne, and Frulla wins the subsequent by-election. Not that it mattered -- she was turfed in the 2006 election. Ironically, Lavigne still has his job.

But if Taylor is right, maybe not for much longer.

For the Liberal Party, this is the nightmare that never ends. Corruption and scandal and thievery...it is a maelstrom of ethical lapses and downright criminality that is likely to destroy this party if it is not somehow stopped.

The funny thing is, the timing always seems to play into the hands of the Conservatives. Adscam put the Martin government on the ropes and convinced enough Canadians to give the Tories and their untested leader a chance at governing. Joe Volpe's Kiddiegate has reinforced every negative impression people have of the Liberal Party and its relationship with special interests, as well as the Liberal disdain for children, just as the party is trying to rebuild and select a new leader. Now a potential Senate scandal centered on a Liberal Senator could do two things. First, Liberal senators who think they can start resisting Conservative legislation might keep their heads low if this Lavigne thing heats up, especially if they haven't been all that careful about adding up travel expenses. Second, moves to alter the Senate will likely garner a lot of popular support if the Senate is seen as a place of idle corruption by unqualified political wannabees.

The money is going back, but it's too little and too late

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Joe Volpe kiddie donations are going back:

Liberal leadership hopeful Joe Volpe says he has returned controversial donations from the children of corporate executives.

A spokesman for Volpe says donations of $5,400 each from five donors under the age of 18 have been returned.

It’s an attempt to quell controversy over $108,000 in donations Volpe received from 20 former and current executives of Apotex Inc. — a generic drug company — including their wives and children.

A standard Liberal non-apology has been issued:

Spokesman Corey Hobbs insists the donations broke no rules and the return of the money is merely to “clear the air on the perception out there.”

Clear the air? So if no one had made a stink about this, they would have kept the money. Nice.

Well, it's all about the rules, isn't it?

Well, it isn't. It's about his attitude, and the Liberal Party attitude, towards children. Joe Volpe's initial response when the story broke (issuing threats of legal action against critics) shows he is not fit to lead the country. Ironically, he might be perfect for the Liberal Party. Nevertheless, the non-apology seals it -- Joe Volpe is not leadership material.

Beer and popcorn, redux

Let's recap.

People who want to see Joe Volpe as the next Liberal Party leader use children to write cheques in the amount of thousands of dollars and so evade donation limits:

Two 11-year-olds donated $10,800 to Joe Volpe's Liberal leadership campaign, and their 14-year-old brother gave another $5,400.

The sums were from children of former Apotex Inc. vice-president Allen Shechtman and were among the 20 donations totalling $108,000 to Mr. Volpe's campaign from five current and former executives of the firm and 15 of their family members.

Liberals in Joe Volpe's camp think there is nothing wrong with this:

Earlier, however, Mr. Volpe's national campaign co-ordinator, Scarborough MP Jim Karygiannis, insisted that nothing was wrong with the donations from 11-year-olds, and noted that it is legal for children of any age to donate to an election campaign.Mr. Volpe's spokesman, Corey Hobbs, said Monday that all the donations are in full compliance with the law, and that none will be returned.

Indeed, Volpe is ready to sue anyone who criticizes him:

Yesterday, Mr. Volpe's lawyer, Steven Polak, sent a letter to [New Democratic Party MP Pat Martin] demanding that he retract “false, malicious, and slanderous statements about Mr. Volpe and contributions to his leadership campaign.”

The Liberal Party itself thinks using children as money-laundering mules is just good campaigning:

The national Liberal Party said yesterday it has no reason to investigate donations to leadership candidate Joe Volpe from current and former executives of a generic drug firm and their relatives.

While other parties criticized the donations, national director Steven MacKinnon said the Liberal Party has not made any inquiries with the donors.

"Elections Canada regulates contributions to leadership candidates. The Liberal Party does not," Mr. MacKinnon said.

He said donors to political parties must be Canadian citizens -- in fact landed immigrants can also donate -- and must contribute their own money. "Until we have a reason to believe that neither of those is the case, no action is warranted."

This isn't just about Joe Volpe. It is about the Liberal Party as a whole. There are many who are critical of Volpe, but many more who are not (or at least not until the bad press started), including those in key executive positions.

This is the Liberal Party attitude towards children.

When Communications Director Scott Reid criticized the Conservative plan to give money to parents of children, he worried that Canadian parents would be irresponsible and spend the money on "beer and popcorn".

I guess he was right after all. He just didn't go far enough. I mean, Liberal parents are likely to spend money in the childrens' names on beer, popcorn, and sleazy leadership campaigns.

Too bad there is no way to keep the childcare cheques from going to irresponsible Liberal parents.

Oh well.

The good news is that we have avoided having the Liberal Party implement a nationalized daycare plan. Imagine being compelled to trust these people and their lackeys and supporters with our children.

"OK, children. Today for arts and crafts, we're going to make Liberal campaign buttons! See, volunteer labour does not count againt donation limits. Who can say 'donation'? Very good!"

It's a chilling thought.

More Volpe creepiness: Not just a guy who takes candy (and campaign cheques) from a child, but an enemy of free speech too.

Joe Volpe vs the Child Catcher

From the 1968 movie, "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang", the Child Catcher:

From the 2006 Liberal leadership race, Joe Volpe:

This bit of fun was inspired by Youth for Volpe.

Joe Volpe loses the Toronto Star [and some bloggers, too]

Though not from the editorial board, Toronto Star columnist (and Liberal Party booster) James Travers thinks Joe Volpe needs to go, and to me that pretty much means Joe Volpe can't count on the Toronto Star for help:

In a more perfect Liberal leadership contest, Joe Volpe would quit now while Carolyn Bennett struggles to the last ballot on the first weekend in December. By doing the right things for the right reasons, Volpe would help the party shake its past even as Bennett charts its future.

A Liberal party that finally exhausted public patience with serial scandals cannot afford to let a whiff of odour waft around the leadership. That would only boost Conservatives who are doing everything possible - including the transparent stunt of taking Liberals to court over the Quebec advertising horror - to remind voters about the party's affinity for the cookie jar.

Transparent stunt? Well, I did say Travers was a Liberal Party man. Still, he's right about the fact that the Liberals have to appear squeaky clean. Anything less, and they'll never be able to escape that stench of corruption.

Liberal supporters will spin Volpe's troubles as being blown out of proportion, that Volpe is not being given the benefit of the doubt, that everyone plays the "limits" game (and they do). But those with at least some honesty like James Travers (who I suspect has more than just some honesty) will realize that Joe Volpe represents all that is bad about the Liberal Party. That rules are meant to be pushed to the edge. That anything is justified if it means winning. That scandal can be avoided by simply acting offended, as if being Liberal means one can do no wrong.

Joe Volpe's actions, and the response so far, plays into every bad stereotype. And worse yet, he is reinforcing the notion that the Liberal Party is made up of competing crime families -- there's Joe Volpe and the generic drug manufacturers, here's Scott Brison and the Bay Street crowd -- which is so ironic given Joe Volpe's Italian-Canadian roots and his hypersensitivity to mobster parallels.

Hopefully Volpe will listen to Travers. More likely, he'll resist until he can't resist any more, and the Liberals will have a very bitter and angry ex-leadership candidate on their hands.

Can't say I feel too sorry for them.

Update: Several Liberal bloggers are demanding that "sleazy" Joe Volpe immediately exit the leadership race. Will the list grow? Stay tuned for updates:

• Views from the Left: "Sleazy Joe Must Go"
• A View from the Left: "Get Out of the Race, Volpe"
• Battle of the Grits: "I always thought Volpe was a dirty politician..."
• Bob the Red: "Joe, Joe, Joe"

Angry in the Great White North by Steve Janke is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License. Based on a work at stevejanke.com.