Apr. 21 - Cheering crowds greet Queen on birthday walkabout but the real tribute is from Beaverbrook.

Off to work.

Posted by: Debbye at 07:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Apr 21 - Fox reports some interesting news - FBI: Two U.S. Citizens Met With Islamic Extremists in Canada to Plan Terror Strikes - with one glaring omission: Canada is a big country and the "where" might be of interest to folks up here and, I suspect, to folks down there.

Get with it, FoxNews.

(The alleged meeting was in Toronto.)

[Just to clarify that post title, it is in reference to people up here who oppose the new regulations requiring people from Canada to present passports when they try to enter the U.S.A. There seems to be some weird attitude by Canadians that they have a God-given right to enter the US at will, which is kind of funny coming as it does from a country in which the English population doubled by the many Loyalists who left the USA after the Revolutionary War.]

Posted by: Debbye at 07:16 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

Apr. 5 - The Globe and Mail headline shouts Brief Throne Speech hails U.S. as 'best friend' - death quotes theirs, as though that statement is a bad thing - which is why it continues to bewilder me that so many in the MSM express opposition to new regulations which require Canadians crossing the border to carry passports. Are we to suppose that the Globe and Mail thinks Canadians should have the kinds of consideration merited by long-standing ties of friendship between the two countries without the friendship part? (Actually, yes, but don't ask me to explain it.)

It seems below much of the media's radar up here that some decidedly unfriendly words and actions by columnists, activists and even members of the previous government have led many Americans to not count Canada as a friend and, too well aware that Canada was a member in good standing of the Axis of Weasels, regard this country as little better than France and deserving of the same disdain and treatment.

The formation of the Congressional Friends of Canada was widely hailed up here but should have been a huge warning flag. It was reactive, not pro-active: a reparative act in response to a woeful admission that relations between the two countries have deteriorated to the point that such an organization is needed, for why bother if there was no need to counteract the altered perception of Canadians by Americans?

Things have changed since Sept. 11. Before that day we tended to brush aside the slings and arrows thinking that we were "big enough to take it" but once we were attacked we took careful note of who were friends and who were foes and Canada came up sadly short. Blame Chretien, Parrish and Martin or applaud them, just don't overestimate our willingness to overlook or forgive because it's no longer about hurt feelings but about our very survival.

Also, for all the anti-Bush sentiment and professed preference for Democrats up here, please don't fail to note which party is increasingly becoming the party of protectionism and isolationism. Those who don't believe such sentiments will hurt trade are sadly mistaken.

The funny part is that the Globe and Mail is supposed to be business-oriented, yet the attitudes and policies they promulgate would have a devastating effect on the Canadian economy. Go figure.

Posted by: Debbye at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.

Apr. 5 - The Speech from the Throne was delivered to Parliament yesterday and the 2006 session opens today under something of a cloud due to the pay increase that puts MPs in the top 2% of income earners.

The themes of the speech echo much of the philosophy and promises made during the election campaign but, as always, the test will be in the ability of the minority government to get legislation passed by the House. Nevertheless, the opposition would be foolish to block the passage of a bill to strengthen accountabiliy and protect whistle-blowers (although they may try to water it down.)

The issue of child care will continue to be a major bone of contention. Those who claim that lack of child care forces many women to stay at home overlook an uglier reality: high taxes and prices force many women to work outside the home even when they'd much prefer to raise their children themselves. The Throne speech affirmed that parents should be able to choose the form of child care that works best for them.

The extent to which the federal government plans to return power to provinces in unclear. The speech spoke of facilitating "provincial participation in the development of Canadian positions that affect areas of provincial responsibility" which is not the same thing as returning power formerly held by the provinces.

We'll see how it goes.

Lorrie Goldstein looks at the double-standard and hypocrisy by Liberals criticizing yesterday's speech.

Posted by: Debbye at 08:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

Apr. 3 - Good news and good news: Police cheer PM's tough talk on crime and I cheer his resolve to abolish the long gun registry ... but leave it to the Star to search out and quote someone who supports keeping the gun registry. Is there a policeman in Canada who assumes that someone doesn't possess a gun just because they aren't a registered owner? The illegal, unregistered hand-guns used in the incessant gang warfare here in Toronto answers that question pretty decisively.

PM Harper's speech today on crime is here and the speech of Vic Toews, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, before the Canadian Professional Police Association is here (via Newsbeat1.)

Parliament opened today. It will be interesting to see how much this minority government will be allowed to accomplish inasmuch as the leadersless Liberals are not likely to want an election any time in the near future.

Posted by: Debbye at 10:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 161 words, total size 1 kb.

Apr. 3 - Richard has written a persuasive, low-key open letter to PM Harper about continued federal funding for the CBC over at Cannuckistan Chronicles.

It's a nicely restrained letter with lethal pin-point accuracy. After citing some examples from Tony Burman, Editor in Chief of CBC News, of his self-aware political bias the letter concludes:

Freedom is an interesting word Mr. Harper. As Canadians we have the freedom to provide funding and support to any number of activist groups should we choose to do so. We have the freedom to make that choice. Except when it comes to the "activist" CBC, as it's funded by our tax dollars.

As such Mr. Harper, I respectfully request that you level the playing field. ..

Posted by: Debbye at 08:43 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 138 words, total size 1 kb.

Apr. 3 - M.K. Braaten proves that pictures are better than words and in doing so utterly discredits the Wardrobe Controversy the media has tried to create over PM Harper's choice of apparel during the Cancun summit.

(Note to Americans: the first photo is of former PM Paul Martin and the second is of current PM Stephen Harper. If you thought much of the American media gave Clinton a free pass ...)

(Via Newsbeat1)

Posted by: Debbye at 06:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.

Apr. 1 - Some Canadian exposure of revelations about Abderraouf Jdey that emerged from the Moussaoui trial: Al-Qaeda plotters sought Canadian as pilot, court told because al Qaeda believed that those who held Western passports would more easily pass through security checks. One correction though: the Sept. 11 commission was in fact told specifically that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed claimed that Jdey and Moussaoui were both to have hijacked planes out of Indonesia to attack the U.S. west coast (more on that here and google search results here.

Note to Globe and Mail: Kindly check your ... Oh forget it. I realize your people have far more important things to do, like complain about Harper's wardrobe.

18:07 This goes beyond the ridiculous: today's CTV poll question (on their main page) is if I think it matters what Stephen Harper wears when he attends high profile meetings with foreign leaders. What are they trying to do, turn him into a metrosexual?

It's nice to note that there are so few issues of substance these days that the Canadian news media can address this sort of urgent issue. And they wonder why Canadians watch US news channels.

Posted by: Debbye at 05:11 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

Apr. 1 - It appears that there is more than one way to supress press freedoms, and I'm finding it hard to restrain the contempt I feel as I report that a Canadian human rights commission in Alberta is complicit in an attempt to do just that.

The Western Standard magazine published those Danish cartoons last February. Attempts to get the police to stop publication were denied but now a complaint has been filed - and accepted - by the Alberta Human Rights Commission that claims that reglious rights were violated by the publication of the cartoons and charges Ezra Levant with hate mongering.

Few things anger me more than the frivolous manipulation of those agencies which are intended to protect citizens' rights, and when the agencies themselves are complicit in the frivolity they destroy their own credibility. But it's not just stupidity propelling this but action by the usual, politcally correct suspects to limit freedom of expression.

But herein lies the rub. Although there is little if any chance that the Western Standard will be found guilty they will have to pay for their legal defense (whereas of course the complaintant's bills will be covered by the taxpayer) and, being a small newspaper, it is going to hurt because those costs are not reimbursible.

So I'm asking you to help not only this Canadian magazine but also yourselves, because unless suits of this nature are immediately met with outrage and direct, tangible support to fight them they flourish, and that's bad news for all of us.

There is more information on the suit here and a link to a .pdf file of the complaint. I doubt I need to remind anyone reading this that defending press freedoms is part and parcel of the war on terror or how imperative it is that we rise up as one when our freedoms are attacked.

So I'm asking you, no, begging you to click on the image above or go here to donate to this fight. (In truth, American readers, if only because a small Canadian newspaper shamed a lot of big American ones, I'd say that donating to this cause is even more incumbent upon Americans!)

Canadian and American soldiers are protecting our freedoms overseas and we owe it to them to do our part to protect those freedoms when they're attacked here. It really is that simple.

Posted by: Debbye at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 411 words, total size 3 kb.

March 31 - Prime Minister Stephen Harper's visit to Afghanistan could not have been timed better coming as it did right before the annual spring Taliban offensive. In contrast, the calls by the Opposition parties to debate the Afghan mission in Parliament could not have been timed worse. It effectively gave the Taliban reason to hope that Canadians would cut and run once blood had been drawn and why the assault on the base was stronger than expected; they well understand the nature and tactics of opposition parties which hope to bring down a minority government by any and all means. It was essential that Harper renew Canada's committment then and there, with his boots on the ground, and assure the troops (and Afghans) that the Canadian government and people supported them.

Not bad for a rookie prime minister, eh? And the response here has been overwhelmingly positive and makes one wonder what the heck is going on with Canadian sensibilities. Media pundits, meanwhile, gripe that Harper, who never received any respect from them, doesn't respect them. There have been major firefights in Afghanistan and the media is focused on themselves. Right.

Harper's visit and brief speech also marked a welcome shift in policy as he asserted his confidence in Canada - not as a heckler but as an active player on the world stage by recognizing that you can't "lead from the bleachers." Andrew Coyne's analysis on this is well worth reading and I won't go over the same ground but want to speculate about some possible implications on how that speech might affect the role of the Canadian military in foreign affairs and how it might affect Canadians as they perceive themselves.

Significantly, Harper asserted that the troops were in Afghanistan to "defend our national interests." Now I don't know how often the Liberals openly justified foreign policy on the basis of national interests but I'd hazard it would be somewhere between "not often" to "rarely if ever." Canadian participation in the NATO mission in Afghanistan, for example, was portrayed as one of altruistic peacekeeping -- as though Canada did not have a stake in the establishment of a democratic, peaceful Afghanistan. (Harper did elide over the fact that it is a NATO mission by referring to it as a U.N. mandated mission. The political reality is that Canada tends to regard the U.N. as a Canadian accomplishment so invoking the U.N. confers better legitimacy. Sigh.)

He also stated that Canada has a stake in the role on terror, and by affirming that Harper broke new ground - not so much because of what he said but because he was completely and utterly sincere. If Americans regarded former prime minsters Chretien and Martin as indistinguishable from France's Chirac maybe it's because that perception was accurate: the previous governments were perceived to be paying token lip service to the war on terror and justified Canadian participation by playing the trade card, as though Canadian security and national interests were not at stake and as though terror attacks on innocent civilians were not an affront to Canadian values. Yet, like France, Canadian security forces have been more active than is publicly recognized here. It's as though they are contributing but don't want anyone to know about it - something that is insulting to Canadian citizens who are entitled to know what their government is doing.

Harper also reminded the Canadian troops of the two dozen Canadians that died on Sept. 11, something the Liberal government had been quick to shrug aside just as they underplayed the deaths of Canadians who have lost their lives in other terror attacks. The previous government followed much of the world by pretending that the U.S. alone was the target -- as though the name World Trade Center was as devoid of symbolism as was the death roll of citizens from around the world.

Right about this time three years ago the booing of the U.S. national anthem at a Montreal Canadiennes game was noted by the American news media (although not so much the determined cheering of the anthem at a Blue Jays game in Toronto.) There were a lot of people up here who recognized that, despite one's attitude about the war in Iraq, the ties of friendship and shared values were worth defending, and it was in that spirit that the Friends of America organized rallies across Canada in early April of 2003.

The Toronto rally was on a Friday afternoon and, despite the freezing rain, some 2,000 people attended. One of the most spirited speakers at that rally was Stephen Harper, then leader of the Alliance Party, who ended his speech with the cries "God Bless America" and, very significantly, "The Maple Leaf Forever!"

The response was electrifying. By invoking that cry he hearkened back to an earlier, pre-Trudeauian era when Canadians were internationally regarded as tough and gritty - bold men and women who strode down from the North with determination and got the job done. (The song Maple Leaf Forever is quickly recognizable because it was often background music in war films where Canadian troops were featured, and was the unofficial song of Canada before Oh Canada was institutionalized.)

The capabilities of the Canadian military have been so diminished that that when Canadian soldiers first arrived in Afghanistan they were wearing forest green uniforms. It is to their credit that they scrounged for paint in order to create desert-camo fatigues and blankets but they shouldn't have had to go to such lengths, nor should Canadian troops have had to hitch a ride for the deployment. Sea Kings should not fall out of the air nor should a sailor die on a second-hand submarine and it is hard to swallow the pious sentiments expressed at cenotaphs on Remembrance Day when it is government indifference that most puts military lives at risk.

Polls indicate that Stephen Harper's approval ratings shot up after his trip to Afghanistan and it has been reported that enlistment numbers for the Canadian military are steadily increasing. Is it possible that a long-stifled urge is at work here, an urge for Canada to count as a player on the world stage and be recognized by her deeds rather than by the empty words of past governments? Is it possible that the energy checked by too much political correctness is about to spring free?

I still can't gauge how Canadians are reacting to the reality that her soldiers in Afghanistan are engaged in active warfare as well as reconstruction efforts but the lack of demonstrations argues that Canadians are fine with it. American forces in Afghanistan as well as Iraq have been doing both for a long time and I suspect that Canadians are sensible enough to recognize that there is no reason why, with proper support, Canadian troops can't do so as well, but there is also a deeper recognition that springs not so much from American sentiments but from Western sentiments: we are not only willing to die for our values but also willing to kill to defend those values.

There is a part in most of us that is dismayed when we ask our sons and daughters to kill. That is it should be in a moral society and is a key value that separates us from those who enthusiastically rejoice when their children commit murderous terror acts which kill inocent civilians. Yet the fact is that killing and detaining terrorists are the best if not only ways to protect civilians - including Muslims, Christians, Jews and Hindus - from terror attacks, and those who will not defend the innocent are selfishly immoral.

As I prefaced earlier I'm just speculating, but there's a reason why Don Cherry was voted to the Top Ten List of Canadians and why hockey thrives up here. If the Canadian youth are totally anti-war then why are they wearing desert camo clothing? There's something askew, and as neither Don, hockey nor military wear are for sissies, maybe there's something going on that neither the media nor the polls have addressed but which Stephen Harper has.

Confidence is a concept that has been eroded by fretting over self-esteem. It takes confidence "to do" but one needs neurosis to obsess over self-esteem, and a less neurotic and more confident Canada can be a strong and valuable participant on the world stage. I sincerely hope that Harper can tap the wellspring of Canadian confidence sufficiently to render ludicrous accusations that such is an American-style approach to life and the world because the detractors are dead wrong: confidence is not the sole province of Americans but is God's gift to the world as surely as is liberty, and there are no more confident people on the planet than free people.

To repeat Harper's exhortation of three years ago, The Maple Leaf Forever! Stride onto the world stage with the same gritty confidence that once marked Canada as a force to be reckoned with and show 'em what Canadians are made of and yes, do it for the children - including mine.

[It only took me three days to write, edit, and re-write this. Heh, maybe that's why I don't post as often as I used to. Oh well, Stephen den Beste and Bill Whittle I ain't.]

Posted by: Debbye at 11:19 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1525 words, total size 9 kb.