Outremont

Je soutiens les droits démocratiques de tous les membres du PLC, et j'espère que le chef, nonobstant ses propres coups de force depuis qu'il est revenu au Canada, aura au moins, pour une fois, la sagesse de respecter ces mêmes droits démocratiques.

Colombia FTA=Supporting Uribe=Wrong

Take off, eh? led me to Creekside and Brison's idiocy: "If we isolate Colombia in the Andean region and leave Colombia exposed and vulnerable to the ideological attacks of Chavez's Venezuela, we will be allowing evil to flourish." What. The. Hell!? I didn't realise until now that Brison was quite such an imbecile on foreign affairs. I mean, I know he supported the Iraq & Afghan wars, but even so, this is stunningly stupid. And the LPC has decided to support this Uribe-legitimising FTA? Iggy & Brison are making our foreign policy? What of Bob Rae - does he approve? For Gods' sakes! I had meant to post about this before, as I know quite a few educated progressive Colombians and Canadians involved there, and not one thinks we should be effectively legitimising Uribe through an FTA, which is far more than simply managing trade relations but implies some moral sanction. Liberal MPs do know about Uribe's "Filmon-like" (ie. literally everyone around him is a criminal, though much more serious stuff in Colombia) links to terrorism, right? Right? Bloody hell, do some research, dammit. And Brison, for uttering a phrase of such Bush-like imbecility should be relegated to backbenches and have his mouth taped shut. Here is a taste of Uribe's rep from the Canada-Colombia Project, now go do some research yourselves:

In view of this, we consider that the Canadian people, in recognition of its democratic tradition, especially in regards to the protection of human rights, cannot condone the presence of a president such as Mr. Uribe, who is directly responsible for crimes against humanity in Colombia, as follows:

1. For his direct link to the persecution and harassment of judicial due process in order to prevent the investigation and prosecution of his family members, and political supporters (Deputies and Senators) of his past presidential and re-election campaigns for their roles in the establishment, involvement and support of paramilitary groups and their complicity in crimes against humanity in Colombia. In view of this, Mr. Augusto Ibañez, the President of Colombia’s Supreme Court recently requested that the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur for Judicial Independence come to Colombia to act as a witness and guarantor of the independence of the judicial process in these legal proceedings;

2. For his involvement in maintaining and protecting his political allies and personal friends in their offical state capacities and government roles, while having full knowledge of their involvement in aiding and abetting crimes committed by paramilitary groups. One example is Jorge Noguera, ex-director of the Administrative Department of Security (DAS), currently in prison and accused of being an accomplice to paramilitary groups, in the assassinations of trade union, civil society and leftist leaders. Uribe appointed Noguera as Ambassador to Italy, and was investigated for activities in that position by Colombia’s Attorney General. A similar example is Uribe’s political party colleague, personal friend, the ex-governor of Sucre Department, Mr. Salvador Arana, who was identified in the presence of Uribe by Eudaldo Diaz, mayor of El Roble Municipality, just before he was assassinated. A few days later, Uribe rewarded Arana by appointing him as Ambassador to Chile. Subsequently, following his arrest by Interpol, Arana was convicted for assassination, and aiding and abetting crimes by paramilitary groups, such as the Chengue Massacre;

3. For his direct family ties, through his cousin Mario Uribe and brother Santiago Uribe, in the planning of assassinations committed by paramilitary groups, such as the Aro Massacre in Antioquia Department. The material author and principal witness of this massacre, Enrique Villalba, was recently killed in Colombia. This also happened in the case of Mario Uribe, whose involvement in land robbery as its frontman was carried out through murders. These investigations are currently being brought to the National Attorney General, the highest level of judicial investigation;

4. For his direct responsibility as Commander in Chief of the Colombian Armed Forces in judicially-proven criminal offences, committed by high-level military officers, such as aiding and abetting of massacres and systematic civilian assassinations, such as the so-called “false positives” scandal;

5. For his direct responsibility in permitting the impunity, in Colombia, of paramilitary leaders for the crimes against humanity committed by them, by prioritizing their extradition to the USA for narco-trafficking , rather than standing trial in Colombia. (Investigative journalists have argued that Uribe has done this in order to avoid being implicated in their crimes, should they be brought to trial in Colombia);

6. For assuming a policy of indifference in the face of attacks by paramilitary groups that have refused to demobilize and that, according to their communiqués, now have the intention to take control of Colombia through a campaign of terror;

7. For the direct link of the Presidential Palace in ordering the wiretapping of telephone conversations between the Administrative Department of Security and judges of the Supreme Court of Justice, opposition politicians, trade unionists, civil society leaders and journalists, in order to continue and facilitate ongoing political persecution; and

8. For his direct responsibility in maintaining and pursuing a policy of war, wrongly called “democratic security”, directed primarily at peasant farmers, Afro-Colombian communities and indigenous peoples, which is incrementally adding to Colombia’s grave humanitarian crisis and conditions of absolute misery, as has been corroborated by recent reports of Amnesty International, the International Federation of Human Rights, the Office of the High Commission of Human Rights, and the Organization of American States.

Lenin, Reid & Robinson vs. Iggy's Judgment

Paul Robinson openly contrasts Iggy's political judgment with that of Lenin and implicitly, our own little Lenin, Scott Reid (I prefer the original Kill him. Kill him dead. version): You don't turn down power True leaders have the ambition and sense of purpose to seize the levers of power at any opportunity -- it seems Michael Ignatieff does not
'Take power, you son of a bitch, when we offer it to you," a sailor shouted to Viktor Chernov in the midst of a massive demonstration in Petrograd in July 1917. Chernov was leader of the most popular party in Russia, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, and despite having the means to do so, he and his colleagues had refused to overthrow the ruling Provisional Government.

Others had fewer scruples. A month earlier, at the first Congress of Soviets, leading Menshevik politician Iraklii Tsereteli remarked, "In Russia at the present moment there is not one political party which would say, 'Give us the power in our hands'."

"Yes there is!" a heckler intervened. The heckler was Vladimir Lenin.

"Tsereteli said that there is no political party in Russia which would express its readiness to take upon itself the whole power," said Lenin, "I answer there is. No party can decline to do that, and our party does not decline. It is ready at any minute to take the whole power."

The audience laughed, but today everybody knows who Lenin was, while Chernov or Tsereteli have faded into obscurity.

One may wonder whether a hundred years from now anybody will have heard of Michael Ignatieff. At present, it seems unlikely.

In January of this year, the Liberal party had the chance to do what Lenin did, and seize power. It ducked the challenge. As Ignatieff said a few days ago, "I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada. I turned it down."

His reasoning appeared to be that governing in coalition with the NDP would discredit the Liberal party, that the economic recession would make the Conservative government unpopular, and that a change of leadership would revitalize Liberal support. Together these factors would enable him to topple the Conservatives a year or two down the road and then win a majority to govern by himself.

Things have not gone according to plan. The latest opinion polls suggest that the Conservatives are poised to win yet another election, albeit probably with another minority. A Liberal majority seems most improbable, but last week Ignatieff ruled out governing in a coalition with other parties. This implies that he would rather that the Conservatives continued in office than that he shared authority with others. In turn, this leads one to doubt how much he really longs to control the levers of state.

Lenin understood the central fact of politics -- it is all about power. When you have a chance, you must seize it. As Shakespeare wrote, "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the flood leads on to fortune. ... And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures." Having turned down power, Ignatieff is about to discover that he may never get to hold it at all.

The very fact of having power fundamentally alters the dynamics of the political situation in favour of those who possess it. American author Ron Suskind reported a conversation with an official in the heyday of the Bush administration who told him, "when we act, we create our own reality." The quote inspired much derision, but the official was not entirely wrong. Governments do have the ability to shape events: they set the political agenda, determine the patterns of discourse, and dispense cash and patronage. Canadians might have said that they did not want a coalition, but once they had one, the situation would have changed fundamentally.

By ducking the chance when he had it, Ignatieff showed that he lacked that lust for power, that killer instinct, which distinguishes the Lenins of this world from the Chernovs and the Tseretelis and leaves the latter, as Trotsky said, "in the dustbin of history." Stephen Harper, by contrast, has that instinct in buckets, which is why he is prime minister now and Ignatieff is not, and why even if an election is held this autumn, he will probably still be prime minister this Christmas, while Ignatieff will still be languishing in political exile.

The great leaders of history combine immense personal ambition with a powerful sense of purpose, a strong belief in what they do, and a corresponding dislike of their political opponents, whose destruction they miss no opportunity to achieve. One senses none of this at present in the Liberal party or its leader. The Liberals chose Ignatieff because they believed he had charisma, not because he represented any political idea, any particular system of belief. Unfortunately, he has never given the impression of having deep and irreconcilable differences with his Conservative opponents, something which cannot be said in reverse.

Consequently, the necessary passion for power is absent. The Liberals must think more deeply about why they want power, and if the reasons are not sufficient to seize any opportunity which comes their way, they should reconsider why they are in politics at all.

The sailors who had once backed Chernov and his Socialist Revolutionaries eventually lost patience and switched their allegiance to somebody with the passion to act. After all, why should anybody back a party which cares so little for its supporters that it refuses to govern on their behalf?

"History will not forgive us if we do not seize power," Lenin said. That may yet prove to be Michael Ignatieff's political epitaph.

Paul Robinson is an associate professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.

David Cameron=Gerard Kennedy/Justin Trudeau?

Ibbitson & Gagnon agree: "Perhaps we're waiting for a political party to realize that this century's Canada needs a new generation of leaders." And reflecting on my previous post, I realised there was another analogy for the LPC, the Conservative succession in the UK. The tough as nails leader who led them to three successive majorities was forced out, replaced by the Finance Minister, who won one election, but whose reign was marked by ethics scandals, leading to defeat for the party in the next election (CPUK & LPC both won four consecutive elections). In the UK, the Conservatives, in many ways the natural governing party, had trouble coming to grips with Opposition, and a most wily opponent in Tony Blair. The two subsequent leaders, William Hague & IDS can be seen as composites of Dion, good and bad, and received much the same praise and criticism, meaning all in all, perceived as ineffectual, as unfair as that may be. The next leader, Michael Howard, was installed as leader without competition (Hmm). Howard managed to get a grip on the party's internal affairs, and mildly improved its electoral performance, but still lost badly. He at least had the humility and good sense to appreciate the situation, and having somewhat restored the party's strength, resigned, allowing David Cameron, a more open, new-generation leader to take over, and who is poised to win the upcoming election.

I hope someone will remind Iggy & Rae of Howard's post-defeat reaction: The day after the election, on 6 May, Howard announced that he did not feel it was right to continue as leader after defeat in the general election, also saying that he would be too old to lead the party into another campaign and would therefore step down.

Read Steele, Pray NDP Folds & Dump Iggy

Andrew Steele reinforces my argument. Let's hope NDP folds. And then save ourselves from the Tsar of Misjudgement before it's too late. We need a proper French-connected federalist (maybe we can recruit Perreault, Martin & Robert. Esp. Perreault, the (most?) beautiful centrist)

Stop Fish Farming, It's Killing Ecosystem

I was cc-ed the following by someone I respect who knows about this stuff, who wrote to political representatives at all levels and in all parties: It is a sad tragedy unfolding in the waters of British Columbia and it is happening now. Sea lice from fish farming is destroying a critical natural resource. This is something we are responsible for and a tragedy it is in our power to reverse. Wild salmon are a free service of nature, enjoyable by everyone, important to rainforest ecosystems, and a critical cultural element to many. This is a very source of life, but once destroyed, it is irreplaceable.

From a risk perspective, wild salmon are genetically designed (over thousands of years) to resist variation in nature and survive. The fish farming industry is highly reliant on very specific economic conditions to survive - its viability is highly dependent on the price of oil, consumer preference and other uncertain factors. Would you replace something that is so reliable with something so tenuous, dependent, and potentially short-lived? The benefits of which are even less certain?

We know what is destroying wild salmon. And what a sad shame it is, because the 'benefit' of fish farming is so small. I received a brochure in the mail from the fish farming lobby recently and I was shocked to read their figures (surely inflated). According to the fish farming lobby (mostly foreign companies), there are 6000 persons employed in fish farming. Is that all? Is this piddling industry really worth the irreversible destruction of such a beneficial service of nature that is the wild salmon run? How many in the wild salmon fishery, and other fisheries dependent on the salmon's role in the ocean ecosystem, have lost their source of employment?

Do not make the salmon a victim of ideological principles. Look at the numbers. Look at the bigger picture. Think beyond three years. Use wisdom, not ideology. It is possible to manage the wild salmon resource responsibly. The fish farming industry as we know it is not worth this disaster. The avoidability of this tragedy is what makes it so ridiculous and disgusting.

Thank you for reading this post/email.