Archive for February, 2006

26
Feb

(Guest Column) Much Ado About Nothing?

On September 30, 2005, Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of cartoons unfavourably depicting Islamic religious figure, the Prophet Muhammad. Depicting the Prophet Muhammad in any way, shape or form is condemned in Islamic practice. The initial printing went largely unnoticed. On January 10, 2006, a Norwegian news publication became the first of many European publications to reprint the cartoons which followed suit February 1. Reaction among Muslims was vehement and violent.

On January 26, Saudi Arabia became the first Islamic nation to recall its ambassador to Denmark. January 30, Palestinian gunmen raided the EU’s Gaza offices demanding an apology. On January 31, the Jyllands-Posten apologized for offending the Islamic community, shortly thereafter, the Danish Prime Minister condemned demonizing any religious or cultural group. This, however, did little to prevent further uproar. Danish dairy company Arla, among others, has seen its profits plummet due to boycotts. Protestors in Syria besieged Danish and Norwegian foreign embassies February 4. The following day the same happened to the Danish embassy in Beirut.

Opinions on the cartoons are varied. Various European and North American newspapers have expressed support for free speech and secular democracy. Others have expressed dismay at the insensitivity of publishing what could be construed as hate literature. Extremists throughout the world have called for, “Death to Denmark,” and for the “hand that drew to be severed.” Who is in the right?

The issue is especially contentious in the wake of rioting that rocked Paris in the fall of 2005. Members of France’s sizable Muslim community were largely responsible for the rioting. This, of course, in addition to talk among the OECD of sanctions against Iran, a Hamas victory in Palestinian elections with Ariel Sharon in a coma and an American occupation in Iraq. One need not be reminded of the events of September 11, 2001, or the American “War on Terror”.

This is only the latest event in a long-standing historical divide between Europeans, Christian, secular or otherwise, and Middle Eastern Muslims. In fact, this conflict dates at least to 635, when Islamic troops under caliph Abu Bakr seized Demascus and defeated the Byzantine Empire at the Battle of Yarmuk. This was the first of many in a long series of battles between Byzantine and Islamic forces, culminating in the conquest of Constantinople and its conversion to Istanbul in 1473 at the hands of the Ottoman Turks. At least nine crusades resulted from this period of conflict.

The Ottoman Empire persisted until 1922, frequently sparring with the neighbouring Austro-Hungarian Empire which lasted until it lost World War I. In the 1820s France, Great Britain and Russia intervened militarily on behalf of Greeks struggling for independence from the Ottoman Turks. Not the first or last time such an alliance of European powers confronted the Ottomans. The Spanish inquisition, founded in 1478, was largely a tool to unite the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile under a single religious banner following years of Islamic dominion in the region. Europe owes much of its modern day political character to opposition of Muslim religious and political forces.

Conflict meant exposure, and increased involvement with Eastern powers meant a reintroduction of classical thought into western European society. These events precipitated the European Renaissance and the development of humanist philosophy. Conflict also meant trade. Trade meant an injection of capital and technology, such as the Arab sail-building and navigation techniques that allowed the Portuguese to round the Cape of Good Hope, Columbus to reach the Caribbean and Magellan to circumnavigate the globe. As the European locus widened, humanism developed into individualism and secularism and eventually the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. By the end of the 18th century Enlightenment ideas such as secularism and democracy took hold across the European continent through revolution and reform.

Modernist notions of progress paved the way for industrialization. Throughout the 19th century a clear gap developed between the industrial imperial powers, concentrated in Europe, and the rest of the world. The 20th century changed little. The end of World War I established the United States of America as an industrial power on the world stage, and placed a great deal of the Middle East under European control by mandate of the League of Nations. The end of World War II saw the US and the USSR rise to global dominance poised to do battle in a grand ideological conflict. In addition, Allied action created the state of Israel. Through two world wars and the creation of modern day states such as Iran, Iraq, Syria and Egypt, Europeans and Americans found themselves altering the political character of the Middle East.

The creation of Israel, possibly the single most divisive political issue in the world today, spurred immediate military violence and drew the lines upon which modern day ideological warfare would be fought. Terrorism became a watch word in the West because of Yasser Arafat and the PLO and events such as the massacre of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. Growing industrialization meant that the Middle East also possessed a highly valued commodity, oil. High crude prices in 1960 created American and European pressure to create the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, a worldwide pricing regulatory body. The Yom Kippur War of 1967 led Arab members of OPEC to create their own overlapping Organization of Arab Petroleum Producing Countries.

The Middle East, trapped between Eastern and Western Europe, was of utmost strategic importance to both major Cold War powers. Americans and Russians frequently tested their arms in Israeli and Egyptian conflicts. Brits and Americans installed successive regimes in both Iran and Iraq and backed these regimes in conflicts against one another. The Cuban Missile crisis ended in a Russian pledge to remove weapons from Turkey. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 preceeded the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and, with American funding and training, created the Osama Bin Laden of today.

Which brings us to September 11. To invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. To bombings in Spain and Britain. To riots in France. To Danish cartoons. Back to today. Back to the question of who is in the right. Is this a conflict of ideas? Of religions? Of cultures? Of politics? Of history? It is all of these, to be sure. Who is in the right? Not the bigots who publish hate literature in European newspapers. Certainly not the reactionaries who incite violence among fellow Muslims.

Who is in the right? Those in the right are those who recognize the commonalities of their respective cultures who share so much history. Those who realize that the highest ideals are love, compassion and understanding, according to Jesus Christ, the Prophet Muhmmad, Spinoza, John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre. If Danes are entitled to publish disrespectful cartoons, disrespected Muslims are entitled to react. Muslims, to be sure, have a great deal to be angry with the Western world about. If by one’s reaction, however, one serves only to further alienate and anger, one does Muhammad injustice in more ways than one. Hatred is a vice in any language, religion or culture.

——————

This column was reprinted with permission from the author. Dashmaster will be collaborating with myself and others on a new website called “With Good Reason”, scheduled to be launched March 2006. More details are forthcoming.
-Cynapse

24
Feb

(Guest Column) Gangs of the World – And Offensive Cartoons

Why is the controversy from a few satirical pseudo-humourous cartoons by the obscure Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten still news?

Perhaps the answer does not lie within the powder keg of today’s angry Muslim world, but rather in the nature of human behaviour itself.

Is it an insult to any religion, including Islam, if a non-believer says or draws something out of ignorance? How about atheistic conviction? In some ways, being offended insinuates that everyone must accept an imposed set of moral values (as defined by a given religious belief system).

The growing tension can be traced to the following point of conflict: different groups may have different moral values. And some groups feel their values are supreme.

However, this over-simplification belies the complexity of the violent reactions around the world. Why are we seeing churches, flags and embassies burned? Do Muslims genuinely feel they are under attack? Is the existence of non-religious secular societies a threat to any religious theocracy? The answer is probably yes to the latter two questions.

Belligerence is a characteristic that you can find in many places and on many levels. In nature, certain creatures are left alone because would be attackers know the consequences of a confrontation. A great example is the skunk – size advantage does not alleviate the fear of having several days of tomato juice baths. Belligerence is effective.

To see how collective destructive behaviour is a product of the human experience, we need look no further than a typical schoolyard bullying episode. Gradually increasing the scale, there are many (too many) cases of ‘groups’ feeling and acting out aggression towards other groups. Yugoslavia in the 1990’s, Sudan today, the American experience with Native, African, and immigrant Americans, L.A gang wars, and gun violence in any major city where one group of youth has to make a ‘statement’ against another.

Does Islam promote belligerence? As with Christianity, Islam was at least partly spread with the sword, but proselytizing through force (in the name of any religion) has likely seen its heyday. That said, if we isolate the passion behind mass collective feelings, we can deduce a pattern. Large-scale violence for a cause (religious, or ideological) is nothing new. Has the Muslim world collectively decided that violence and terror somehow is an effective deterrent against competing cultural ideologies? Is this a defensive strategy? I am certain that the majority does not engage in violence or terror, but it is likely that mainstream attitudes do hold sympathy, or at least understanding for it.

Can we get any insights from other ‘competing’ cultures? Unlike previous iterations of international communism during the Cold War, China doesn’t seem to see the existence of democratic countries as a threat. Is belligerence simply not a character of the Chinese culture? Or have the Chinese strategically adopted elements of capitalism in order to maximize their national benefit?

In general, communists worldwide have given up on the idea of international revolution. Let’s hope cooler head prevail in the current Muslim world. Should the tide of violence and intolerance toward secularism continue, we may be witnessing the onset of a new Cold War between ‘East and West’. If this is the case, let’s hope that the inevitable global rise in nuclear proliferation does not cross paths with religious-based fanatical terrorism.

Unlike the conflict with the Soviet Union, it is hard to imagine any stability coming from Mutually Assured Destruction. Deterrence is irrelevant when actors are genuinely convinced of their righteous place in the afterlife.

The fundamental boundary between church and state is still being defined in much of the world, particularly the Muslim world. Until such basic issues are resolved, we are speaking different languages, and we will continue with competing cultures.

—————————

This column was reprinted with permission from the author. NewsJunkie will be collaborating with myself and others on a new website called “With Good Reason”, scheduled to be launched March 2006. More details are forthcoming.
-Cynapse

22
Feb

Game Review – Prime Minister Forever

Prime Minister Forever

Disappointed with Stephen Harper’s election performance? Think you could have done a better job taking out the Liberals? Was Paul Martin’s campaign a complete disaster next to your grand scheme to save Canada’s natural governing party? Thanks to 80Soft’s Prime Minister Forever you can put your political prowess to the test in an electronic re-creation of the 2006 Canadian Election.

The game lets you choose between Canada’s 4 major parties (Liberal Party, Conservative Party, Bloc Quebecois, NDP) and several minor parties (Green Party, Marijuna Party, Christian Heritage Party, Marxist-Leninist, Canadian Action, Progressive Canadian, Libertarians). You can even run as an independent. After selecting a party, player can choose to run with the real-life candidate or create a new character (yes you can insert your own picture – knew you were going to ask)

Prime Minister Forever

The goal of the game is of course to win a majority government (130 seats) or take the consolation prize minority government. The game takes place on a War-Games style grid with each player moving in turn. During a turn players choose one or more of several tasks to perform:

  • Fly to a new region for a round of baby-kissing and barbecuing
  • Respond to newsflashes and try to spin the story
  • Create advertising to either boost the party’s image or cut down an opponent’s image
  • Barnstorm a few ridings to add support for candidates running close races
  • Fund private polls to counter the inaccuracy of the freely-available public polls
  • Research the issues and make according adjustments to the party platform
  • Prepare for televised debates
  • Deliver policy speeches
  • Exercise influence over major newspapers and trade organizations that can in turn reward the party with positive press, money or foot-soldiers

Actions are limited by several factors including physical health (measured in energy points), command points and of course money.

Prime Minister Forever is a micromanager’s dream. Far beyond the basic “national poll”, statistics can be broken down to the riding, with individual ratings for each party’s candidate. Themed ads can be run in specific regions on different media for varying lengths of time. The main map can be overlaid with information on targeted regions or advertising. Political platforms can be adjusted from hard left to hard right in 18 different categories, each of which have varying importance to the public. Real-world events unfold as the game progresses (e.g. charges against Conrad Black, gun violence in Toronto) and affect public prioritization of issues. True to the current political landscape, it is virtually impossible to win a majority with any party besides the Conservatives or Liberals. Regions behave characteristically – seemingly no amount of bribery and policy adjustment could persuade Torontonians to vote for Cynapse Harper, while oil-crazy Alberta was completely immune to the environmental overtures of the NDP and the Greens.

Prime Minister Forever

Of course, such a high level of detail could also be a turnoff for the Grand Theft Auto generation of gamers. Admittedly, Prime Minister Forever does at times play like a spreadsheet. More bothersome to me was the fixed window size, effectively preventing players with a screen resolution of any consequence from filling the entire screen. The color scheme also looks a bit dated, though that hardly bothered this long-term Alpha Centauri addict.

Prime Minister Forever is ideal for hardcore political junkies who want to try their hand at guiding the 2006 Canadian Election to its “proper” conclusion. For $20, which also gets you bonus scenarios for previous elections and a discount on related games (Chancellor Forever, President Forever), one can hardly go wrong. At the very least, this game should be distributed in schools so I don’t have to hear another person gleefully muse about voting out Stephen Harper in 2008 [as though it were a fixed date].

http://www.80soft.com/pmforever/info/

Rating: 78/100

22
Feb

Vacation Time …

The site has been quiet lately, but for a good reason (for me, anyway). I am leaving the country for the first time in nearly a decade on a much-needed 1.5 week vacation. How needed, you ask? Work-wise it’s being taken entirely out of LAST year’s vacation days … and there will still be more days to use up afterward.

As for the blog … no fears. Some talented writers have agreed to post their work to Cynics Unlimited in my absence. Shortly these writers and myself will be collaborating on a new political blog site which will feature perspectives from all over Canada and the world. More info on this new site is forthcoming …

16
Feb

Better than Ezra?

What a week it’s been for Ezra Levant. The long-time Reform Party activist and publisher of The Western Standard has quickly elevated to near-celebrity status, giving interviews to CTV and talk radio to defend his “brave” decision to publish the controversial Danish cartoons that have caused numerous riots and deaths throughout the Muslim world. Citing the mainstream Canadian media’s refusal to run the cartoons, Levant has positioned his decision as a both a defiant act of free speech and a symbol of courage in resisting attempts by the Muslim world to culturally bully the west.

Alas, Mr Levant’s assertions seem to ring a little hollow. Firstly, the Muslim cartoon controversy has been raging for weeks and there has been no shortage of sources from which this cartoon can be viewed. If cyberspace news junkies failed to do the obvious image search on Google, they could have still viewed the images on numerous websites, including Michelle Malkin’s high-profile web log and the Canadian-based Jack’s News Watch. Furthermore, The Western Standard is breaking no new ground in the traditional news universe by printing these cartoons – they have already been published in a University of Prince Edward Island newspaper, The Jewish Free Press and the office door of philosophy professor Peter March among other places.

As for courage, there isn’t much risk in being a subsequent publisher of a cartoon that has earned no threats of violence to its previous publishers. The Canadian Islamic Congress responded to Levant’s decision by taking the decidedly Canadian route of deferring to the nation’s anti-discrimination ethics:

“We believe the Western Standard actually did transgress many limits. Although the Canadian Islamic Congress and the Canadian Jewish Congress did appeal to the magazine not to republish these offending cartoons they did go ahead and do it”
-Mohamed Elmasry, President of the Canadian Islamic Congress, CTV Interview (February 2006)

Scary words those are. Levant receives harsher treatment from neo-nazis on his own blogsite. The only likely danger as a result of this publication will be to Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as Lt.-Col. Tom Doucette warned recently.

So if the concepts of novelty and courage have been exhausted, what drives Mr. Levant’s sudden interest in promoting already-exercised freedom of speech?

How about some good old-fashioned controversy? There’s nothing like it to boost sales, which is definitely a must when your circulation is stagnating and consists largely of subscribers – hardly a model for financial growth. Moreover, the Western Standard’s politics of praising conservative ideals and attacking central Canada’s Liberal-dominated power structure is now mainstream commentary (not least because the Standard’s more prolific writers have day jobs at much larger publications). Levant himself writes for the Calgary Sun, where he quite liberally pimped his “controversial” decision. Why would people go out of their way to find nearly identical material from a more obscure weekly publication?

Hopefully, The Western Standard has better luck stirring up legitimate controversy by printing racial remarks made by unnamed Conservative politicians about Alberta Premier Ralph Klein’s wife (it is alleged that the sources claimed once Klein was out of office, his Metis wife would be “just another Indian”). Otherwise its publisher could be hereafter dismissed as the David Horowitz of Canadian politics.

13
Feb

Outrage Rife with Hypocrisy

See Also: Drawing Conclusions on the Danish Cartoon Debacle

First and foremost, it should be noted that many reasonable people both inside and outside the Islamic world found the Mohammed cartoons by Kurt Westergaard and others to be offensive in nature (this blog included). Devoutly religious people of all stripes were slightly jolted by what appeared to be yet another example of an increasingly secularized West openly mocking its religious citizens for both pleasure and profit. Christian commentator Michael Coren summarized this viewpoint in a recent column for the Toronto Sun:

“Modern Western liberalism despises religion, and Islam and Christianity are equally in its sights … In some ways it is shocking to see men, women and children outraged and taking to the streets to defend their religion against crude blasphemy. But in others ways it’s refreshing and delightful.”
-Michael Coren, “Protesters right to be outraged” (February 2006)

That said the loudest protests from the Muslim world (or at least the politically prolific Muslim world) had to do with:

  • Muhammad being depicted at all
  • The creation of a cartoon challenging (aka “defaming”) Islam

Regarding the depiction of Mohammed, the cartoons in question were posted in Jyllands-Posten once before, several months prior to the riots. The strongest response at the time was a written condemnation from a Danish Muslim group – so why is there such a strong response now? The answer may have more to do with politics than religion. The strongest rioting occurred in states where the government and/or opposition parties are most hostile to the West: Iran, Afghanistan and Syria. Iran in particular knows it risks imminent attack by the U.S. or Israel over its refusal to cease nuclear enhancement activities; however Islamic republic could slow down any hostile counter response by stoking the flames of worldwide Muslim anger against this “blasphemous” cartoon. Indeed, the strong wave of anger across the Muslim world will cause America to tread gingerly around the issue of attacking yet another Islamic nation. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently accused the Iranian Government of fanning violent protests in order to “wag the dog”, which the government quickly denied. Bottom line: if it takes two printings of a cartoon to cause outrage, it may not be solely responsible for the riots.

The defamation issue is more clear-cut. Middle-Eastern nations have shown the greatest anger towards the anti-Muslim cartoons … but what about anti-Jewish cartoons in the Middle East? Many of the editorials and cartoons in Arab newspapers are critical of Ariel Sharon and Israel, both of which have a complex and antagonistic relationship with longer-term inhabitants of the region; however, some cartoons simply denigrate the Jewish religion and its people. A recent editorial cartoon in the UAE-based Al-Ittihad depicted a hook-nosed Jewish man holding a gun to a humanized character representing the world. The Jewish man’s other hand was stretched out in expectation of payment, and the words “The Holocaust” were written over top of the gun. An even more recent (as in this month) cartoon in the Iranian newspaper Al-Wifaq depicts a devil wearing an Israeli armband and holding a Danish flag sitting at a desk, exclaiming “I don’t admit the limits of freedom of speech except the Holocaust”.

Al-Wifaq Editorial Cartoon

The former cartoon (pictured above) trivializes the holocaust as a Jewish attempt to extort money from Europe and the world. The latter cartoon subscribes to the predictable assertion among radical Muslims that Jews engineered this entire Danish Cartoon debacle. Without any conclusive proof of such a conspiracy, these Arab editorialists are just as guilty of religious slander and racism as any Westerners who draw or endorse cartoons that stereotype 1.2 billion Muslims. The fact that anti-Jewish cartoons are quite common in these newspapers suggests that restricting dissent may be more important to these rioters than the defamation of their religion (that and the protest placards with statements like “Freedom Go to Hell”).

Thus, moderate Muslims have to understand why so many people are somewhat wary of the “offense” being taken at these cartoons. It is very suspect to condemn offensive characterizations by another group when members of your own group commit the same offense regularly and to a greater degree.

To be fair, Western counter-outrage has also been less than sincere. Citing the need to preserve free speech, a “Buy Danish” campaign has emerged to counter Muslim boycotts of Danish goods. This well-intentioned protest went awry when several prominent bloggers and their even more rabid groupies used the conflict to promote anti-Muslim ideas and rewrite history to promote Christian and Western moral superiority (apparently the Spanish Inquisition and antiabortion terrorism cannot be attributed to Christian extremism). As usual, columnist Ann Coulter took this sentiment to the extreme by referring to Muslims as “ragheads” during the Conservative Political Action Conference last Friday. Among conservative pundits she is hopefully the exception, but the truth is that bigotry is playing a role in the voraciousness of the Western counter-attack.

Furthermore, some forms of free speech are apparently more valuable in the West than others: the odious anti-Semitism of Ernst Zundel earned him a deportation from Canada (which often does little about illegal immigrants) to Germany where he was promptly arrested for the crime of denying the Holocaust. There is more than enough historical evidence to defeat this erroneous viewpoint so it is not clear why denying the holocaust deserves any more punishment than, say, minimizing the effects of African slavery or justifying the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both of which are done regularly). These lapses in endorsement of free speech weaken the argument provided by those who would like to present this conflict as one based on liberty rather than cultural conquest.

The real problem with all of the “outrage” on display is that very little of it –on either side- seems to be born out of principle. With the developing revelation of civilian abuse by British soldiers in Iraq, this cultural flare-up may complicate further.

11
Feb

R.I.P Jay Dee

Not long after the Grammy Awards honored the influential Sly Stone, the music world lost another pioneer and a class act. Veteran beatmaker Jay Dee, known for his soloJay Dee, RIP production as well as his work with music collective The Ummah, passed away yesterday morning from liver complications at the age of 32. A founding father of legendary Detroit outfit Slum Village, “Jay Dilla” has also written music for Common, A Tribe Called Quest, Erykah Badu and Busta Rhymes.

Many of you may not have heard of Jay Dee and this is at least in part because the ultra-talented producer did not personify the typical image of a rap producer. Raised in a strict household, the Detroit native managed to avoid of the juvenile trouble that often landed his hip hop peers on the front page of the news. Instead, producing was a labor of love for Jay Dee and his work over the years earned the respect of both the hip hop underground and mainstream producers alike. His crowning achievement was arguably Slum Village’s Fantastic, Volume 2.

Released in 2000, to critical acclaim Fantastic broke from the bling-obsessed gangsterism generally associated with hip hop. Instead, the album featured a smooth, universally appealing neo-soul sound and beats that can only be described as delightfully chunky. The lyrics (provided by MC’s T3 and Baatin) were simplistic and of the party variety, but anyone who’s dabbled in music production can appreciate how Jay Slum Village - Fantastic, Volume 2Dee made a +90% synthetic kit sound more soulful than most sampled rap music. To give synthesized sounds the same organic expressiveness associated with traditional instrumentation is the mark of a truly skilled composer and engineer. Subsequent producers still try to emulate his “soul clap” sound.

Unfortunately, the producer’s unyielding work ethic may have ultimately been his downfall. Jay Dee mused about his workaholic tendencies during a recent interview with URB magazine:

“What happened was that the doctor told me that I’d ruptured my kidney from being too busy and being stressed out and not eating right … Sometimes that fixation can be a good thing and sometimes it can be bad. There’d be days when I wouldn’t eat at all because I’d be in the basement working all day … This is definitely my second chance, my wakeup call. I still love the music, but I wouldn’t put it first in my life. It’s family first, and then everything else”
-Jay Dee (Interview with URB Magazine, 2004)

Being a workaholic myself, I’m familiar with the dangers of not watching one’s own health and it is a very difficult habit to drop. By giving his life, Jay Dee has made the ultimate sacrifice to his art – just like so many before him. May he rest in peace.

Recommended listening:
Slum Village – Fantastic, Volume 2
Jay Dee – Donuts
A Tribe Called Quest – The Love Movement

09
Feb

The Curse of Belinda Stronach

“David Emerson is a fine individual. But I look at what Harper did and said when I left the party and I look at what he did to get David to come over and you have to conclude that’s a double standard and hypocritical,”
-Liberal MP Belinda Stronach (February 2006)

Ms. Stronach may have the right to be indignant. After months of enduring scorn and ridicule at the hands of former fellow Tories (as well as the media) for crossing the floor to join the Liberals, one of Stronach’s chief detractors courted his own “Belinda” less than a day after officially gaining power. In a surprise move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed card-carrying Liberal David Emerson as Minister of International Trade. Emerson, who stated on election night that he wanted to build a stronger and more vibrant Liberal Party, had no apparent qualms crossing the floor to become a Conservative in exchange for the cabinet position. Equally shocking was Harper’s appointment of Montreal lawyer Michael Fortier to the senate. Fortier, who was co-chairman of the Quebec CPC campaign, did not run in the election, and his appointment seems to contradict the Prime Minister’s stated support of provincially-elected senators (Harper’s home province of Alberta has been electing Senators-in-waiting for 17 years).

Naturally, these unexpected appointments have caused a firestorm of controversy across the political spectrum. Reactions to the appointments among Harper’s supporters seem to depend on whether one voted for the Conservatives strategically or evangelistically. Each group will be impacted quite differently by Harper’s apparent about-face.

Strategic Summary

The drafting of Fortier and Emerson is exactly the kind of shrewd dealing Harper must engage in order to propel himself to a majority. The Conservative Party of Canada’s otherwise encouraging minority government victory had two major holes:

  • The CPC did not win a single seat in any of Canada’s three largest cities: Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver). Far from rendering themselves irrelevant (as is often stated/feared), these urban centers now stand between the CPC and a majority government in the next federal election
  • Having not held office for over a decade, the Conservatives simply lack experience in a position of power

Snagging a former industry minister from Vancouver handily addresses both those problems. Fortier’s Montreal residence should appeal to many Quebec holdouts, as well as give the CPC a much-needed friend in the Senate. (Torontonians stood to gain little from these appointments, but were addressed indirectly by the appointment of several Ontario ministers previously elected under the Mike Harris provincial government. Whether this helps or hinders Harper’s relations with the GTA remains to be seen).

The geographically and ideologically balanced Conservative cabinet appears to be the final step in a well-choreographed post-election campaign to erase any and all doubts about Stephen Harper. This campaign began the day after Harper was declared winner of the 2006 election:

  • Stephen Harper is in the pocket of Albertan business interests? Not according to Alberta Premier Ralph Klein, who mysteriously showed up in Toronto the day after the election. After being uncharacteristically quiet throughout the election, Klein’s words for Harper concerning Alberta’s flirtations with two-tier healthcare were mildly hostile: “Leave us to our own devices … We’re responsible. We’ll try not to violate the Canada Health Act. We’ll try and do whatever we can.”
  • Stephen Harper is an American puppet? Nonsense. The PM-elect’s first news conference was used to counter US Ambassador David Wilkins’ assertion that the artic passage was “neutral water”. Harper’s response was bold: “The United States defends its sovereignty; the Canadian government will defend our sovereignty … It is the Canadian people that we get our mandate from, not the ambassador of the United States”
  • Stephen Harper will run a Western-centered government? Not with a cabinet that has representation from every region of Canada and a heavy concentration of Ontarians.

In short, these appointments have little to do with “revenge” and everything to do with good political maneuvering. Instead of wondering why Harper would make such non-representative appointments after running a campaign that stressed ethical representation, it might be better to ask why so many pundits didn’t anticipate the Prime Minister would pay special attention to heavily-populated areas where his party did poorly. To not do so would fatally impair his chances of gaining a majority during the next election, and these appointments are a good first step to winning over the 3 major urban centers. So far, Stephen Harper’s more pragmatic supporters have little to fear.

Ethical Summary

Stephen Harper dealt away a very important ethical advantage in appointing Emerson and Fortier. The man who vowed to clean up the Canadian Government managed, in less than a day, to adopt some of the more questionable tactics of his predecessor. The inclusion of Emerson seems to contradict the spirit of the Conservative Party’s plan for democratic reform:

“Elements in the Conservative plan of Democratic Reform include … Ending “parachute” candidates by requiring that a party’s local candidate has the approval of their constituency associations”
-Conservative Party of Canada website (originally posted December 14, 2005)

David Emerson is no Michael Ignatieff, but then again the 8700 people in the Vancouver-Kingsway riding who voted for CPC candidate Kanman Wong (to say nothing of party organizers) had no say in Emerson’s inclusion. Harper’s Senate appointment for a man who wasn’t elected to any office is an even more direct violation of stated platform:

“A senate chair should be occupied by someone with a democratic mandate, and Canadians should be able to mark their ballot for their Senator, as well as for their MP. We need a ballot with senators’ names, and seats with senators that have been elected. Under a Conservative government, Canadians will choose who sits in this chair. In the 21st century, those who want to sit in the parliament of a democratic state should have a mandate from the people. The Prime Minister currently holds a virtually free hand in the selection of Senators. As Prime Minister I will use that power to establish a federal process for electing senators. Alberta has already held provincial elections for individuals aspiring to the Senate.”
-Conservative Party of Canada website (originally posted December 14, 2005)

Does this only become a priority once the CPC has exhausted all of its own appointments? One would expect a party that differentiates itself on principle to lead by example.

Voters and pundits who backed the Conservative Party on ethical grounds –whether directly by championing Stephen Harper as the second coming of the messiah or indirectly by relentlessly assaulting [small-L] liberal philosophy in response to every Liberal misstep- now face a conundrum:

  • Should they stick to their principles of ethical government, free of patronage and Paul Martin style courting? If so, the only incorruptible response is to level the same criticism toward Stephen Harper that they were all too happy to attach to the Liberal Party
  • Should they overlook the appointments as part of the political process and focus on the growth of their chosen party? If so, they start with negative points in the ethics category and an uphill battle the next time they should choose to play the ethics card against those backing the disgraced Liberals

Choosing between the labels “fool” and “hypocrite” is a decision few would envy. It seems that even though Canadian liberals now find themselves in the underdog position, the conservative blogosphere will remain the most interesting to read.

03
Feb

Drawing Conclusions on the Danish Cartoon Debacle

As though the world did not have enough barriers to cross on its increasingly uncertain journey towards peace, another great chasm has been opened. This time we face another iteration of a familiar issue: the depiction of Islam in the media. In September 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a series of editorial cartoons largely critical of Islam and its figureheads. Most infamous of all the cartoons was a cartoon by Kurt Westergaard depicting the prophet Muhammad with a large bomb embedded in his turban. Another cartoon featured Muhammad at the gates of heaven warning suicide bombers that heaven was running out of virgins.

The initial response was predictably negative, but mostly limited to local Arab representatives. The Danish government was reminded that Islamic tradition regards artistic depiction of the prophet to be disrespectful, to which the government responded that European tradition (and law for that matter) was to respect freedom of the press. The issue seemed ready to fade away until a newspaper in Norway reprinted the cartoons in early January. The controversy erupted once again and this time spread throughout the entire Muslim world:

  • Muslims in the middle east called for a boycott of all Danish products
  • Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and has remained defiant against EU threats to go to the World Trade Organization for supporting a Danish boycott
  • Violent protests erupted worldwide. Many pictures in circulation show the Danish flag being burned or used as a doormat by angry Muslims.
  • Muslim moderates like Hamid Karzai and Hosni Mubarak joined Islamic hardliners in condemning the cartoons and Europe’s apparent acceptance of their propagation

Many observers drew an instant parallel to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s imposed death sentence against British author Salman Rushdie for his supposed blasphemy in “The Satanic Verses”. However, Muslim responses to media portrayal have become more extreme since Kohmenini’s unfulfilled edict.

  • Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel took issue with growing Muslim opposition to the 2002 Miss World pageant scheduled to to take place in the African nation. In her article she wrote “What would Mohammed think? He would probably have chosen a wife from one of them”. The result was massive riots in the Sharia-dominated northern half of Nigeria, the destruction of newspaper facilities and Daniel’s exile
  • In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was killed for producing a documentary about violence against women in the Muslim world

The negative Muslim reaction to the cartoons only encouraged more European newspapers (as well as some blogs) to post the cartoons in defiance. Meanwhile the Christian right took public exception to the refusal of US Media (CNN in particular) to show a cartoon deemed offensive to Muslims while freely offending devout Christians via TV shows (The Book of Daniel), magazine covers (Kanye West on Rolling Stone, depicted as Jesus) and other cartoons (editorials dealing with sexual abuse by Catholic priests).

With an open culture war of Huntington-esque proportions looming, millions of dollars in trade at stake, an increased danger to Western troops in the middle east and the growing threat of erasing what little progress has been made in liberalizing the Muslim world, it is time for all the key players to step back and take an objective look at the situation. A few important questions need to be addressed by angry Muslims and defiant Westerners alike:

Question #1: Are these Cartoons Offensive?
Answer: Yes.
To depict a bomb in the turban of Osama Bin Laden is making a political statement about a group that actually advocates violence. Placing that bomb in the turban of the prophet Muhammad suggests that all Muslims are Osamas waiting to pounce. The bomb cartoon is equivalent to creating a cartoon of Jesus molesting young boys in reference to the Boston sex abuse scandal, which would suggest that all Christians are potential child molesters. This situation is a bit more serious than having a pro-Christian rapper pose on the cover of Rolling Stone in a crown of thorns.

Question #2: Is the Muslim Response Justified?
Answer: No.
Protests have erupted worldwide in response to the cartoons and understandably some people are upset. This does not justify the open threats of terrorism from some angry Muslims, nor should it have encouraged the mass desecration of the Danish flag. Muslim immigrants to Western nations have even less breathing room: when someone migrates to a new nation (s)he has pledged to become a member of that society. Western society happens to favor freedom of the press, meaning that organized religion could be the target of open criticism. If you object to that criticism you are allowed to register a complaint … but death threats, harassment and violence are simply unacceptable. Addressing Muslim concerns about discrimination in Europe and Australia becomes difficult when a simple cartoon can spark such extreme intolerance among Muslims.

Question #3: Are Christians Victims of a Double-Standard?
Answer: No
Those trying to make the comparisons to Christianity’s portrayal in the media are simply throwing fuel on the fire. It was not long ago that Christian reaction to public criticism was no different from what we are seeing Muslims do today. However Christianity has adapted to current Western standards of freedom, meaning it too can be targeted when some adherents choose to misbehave. The fact that Islam has not yet adapted to being “just another institution” in the West does not in any way suggest that Christians are the victims of unfair treatment. Rather, it shows that Islam needs to evolve if it hopes to become a mainstream religion in societies that place high value on individualism and personal freedoms. This evolution will be complete once CNN can show such offensive cartoons like those posted in The Jyllands-Posten without fear of violent retribution.

Question #4: Will this Culture Clash Harm East-West Relations?
Answer: If we let it.
This situation has simply gotten out of hand. The West needs to understand that tarring 1.2 billion people for the extreme actions of those numbering in the thousands is simply irresponsible and should require an apology from those who published the paper. Those attempting to make this a freedom of speech issue are fighting the good war but have chosen the wrong article (Daniel’s column or Van Gogh’s film would have been better choices, as they exemplify honest Western criticism rather than borderline bigotry). Those dragging Christianity into the debate are being opportunistic. Those threatening and executing anti-Danish violence need to understand that the tight control of religious government they advocate or enjoy does not apply everywhere in the world. Everyone needs to take a deep breath and not let a few previously obscure drawings destroy years of progress in closing the gap between East and West.

01
Feb

Kaos in Kensington

Cyclists and motorists share a special relationship on the streets of most cities, and that relationship is one of mutual disdain. For every cyclist you hear complaining of inconsiderate motorists hogging the road, there is a disgruntled driver harping about reckless cyclists who don’t mind the rules of the road. Pedestrians provide a sense of balance by assailing both groups.

Conflict?  Just stomp...

So what happens what you combine a fiercely idealistic cyclist with a boorish motorist … in Toronto? Apparently a good media event. A Toronto motorist tossed food from his moving car on the pavement near Kensington market. Offended at the deliberate act of pollution, bike courier Leah grabbed the food and tossed it back in the car. The male motorist quickly got out of his car and physically assaulted Leah by throwing coffee on her, which was answered by the courier scratching the motorist’s car with her key. Several bystanders had to break up the melee. The police soon caught up with the motorist but so far no charges have been laid.

Photographer Adam Krawesky captured the altercation and posted it on CityNoise.org for the pleasure of 149,000 viewers (and counting). Opinions on the CityNoise site were harsh and sharply divided:

“i would love to kick the s**t out of that bully. he is the kind of guy who would go after a smaller person, not to even mention a girl. sob.”
-CityNoise comment in favor of the cyclist

“Yes, the motorist was wrong to litter, and I might have done the same as the courier. No, he shouldn’t have dumped his coffee on her. However, scraping his car with a key takes it to a level far and above anything else. That sort of damage costs several thousand dollars to repair. I can totally understand why he then flew into a rage and stomped her bike”
-CityNoise comment in sympathetic to the motorist

... and stomp ...

What to make of this? On one hand no one likes litter and it is nice to see a resident stand up to those many residents who simply don’t care about our city. In reality, however, Leah should have considered the possibility that a big, boorish male in a car who brazenly throws garbage on the street in the middle of a crowded market wouldn’t think twice about giving a defiant female a couple of shots (or at least damaging her bike). So, despite having moral advantage in this situation, Leah essentially brought this on herself.

Some people have criticized Krawesky for photographing the altercation instead of intervening, but this criticism is short-sighted. Drawing media attention to bad behavior or bad situations can be potentially more effective in rectifying the situation than any amount of physical intervention or histrionics. The videotape of the Rodney King beating did more to bring awareness to the plague of police brutality than 100 activist preachers or rap songs could ever accomplish. Nick Ut’s award-winning photograph of a young Kim Phuk running nude down a road, covered in napalm, horrified Americans enough to turn mainstream opinion against the Vietnamese War. Sometimes simply drawing attention to a situation is the most powerful way to alter its course.

... and grapple

To be sure, a fight between a motorist and a courier is nowhere close to the magnitude of a war crime or police brutality. However it did provide many of us with a guilty laugh, and hopefully with all the negative publicity, the Neanderthal in the car will think twice the next time he decides to express his temper on someone else’s property.

To view the entire photo set and user comments, please visit the CityNoise forum:
http://www.citynoise.org/article/2770/by/hool




Further Research

Twitter

Archives

Categories