Congratulations, Canada. This afternoon we took home the gold for the fourth consecutive year at the World Junior Hockey Championship.
Take that Sweden! We have conquered you on the ice and our welfare state is appreciably less moribund than yours!
Mmm. Political burn.
I was recently linked a Newsweek article by Graham Allison that raises questions about the safety of Pakistan's nukes. The article suggests that the barriers between terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and Pakistan's nuclear technology have been weakening steadily in recent years - and particularly in the wake of former Prime Minister Bhutto's assassination - and that the nightmare scenario of 'The World's Biggest Suicide Bomber' is becoming increasingly possible. This is an issue I've been pushing for some time and Allison does a good job of summarizing the principal concerns.
"As recently as November, Musharraf told reporters that Pakistan's custodial arrangements for nuclear weapons and material are 'the best in the world' and that so long as he is in power 'Pakistan's nuclear weapons will be safe.'"
As I posted earlier, Musharraf is holding on to power by a thread and US politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson and endeavouring to undermine what little control he has left.
Allison points to the real threat of corruption in the Pakistani government as a source of concern:
"The design of Pakistan's nuclear control system creates risks of insider theft. This system addresses first and foremost Pakistan's fear that if India, its archenemy, knew the location of the country's weapons it could launch a pre-emptive attack that eliminated them. The notion that there are sophisticated electronic locks on all Pakistani weapons and that only Musharraf has the codes just isn't credible. Were that the case, an attack that killed Musharraf could eliminate Pakistan's ability to retaliate. Instead, Pakistan has dispersed its weapons and distributed oversight to multiple strategic and security authorities. But these arrangements by necessity increase the likelihood that corrupt officials could successfully divert weapons or materials."
It is no secret that the Pakistani government is riddled with corruption and, even worse, Islamic radical sympathizers. The risk is nothing to scoff at as it stands today. Now remove Musharraf from the situation and you understand just how vulnerable the country is right now. There is exactly one - that's right, one - man standing between al-Qaeda and Pakistani nukes and that is General Musharraf. Hillary's characteristically parochial approach to foreign policy would be absolutely disastrous to the health of Musharraf's regime and, as a result of the instability his failure to retain power or legitimacy in Pakistan would cause, could more than feasibly lead to terrorists packing dirty bombs.
Of greatest concern, of course, is the threat that Pakistan poses to North America. Musharraf's decidedly pro-Western policies have been a crucial element in the US government's avoidance of major conflict with the Islamic state. Without the General at the helm of the country, Pakistan would quickly descend into anarchy and warlordism and it would then become impossible for the West to ignore the threat such a state would pose. Calls for revamped democracy from the leftists in North America are supremely unhelpful, with all this is mind, since democracy in Pakistan would be a death-blow to Musharraf's rule by providing power and legitimacy to socialist and jihadist political parties. The biggest advantage of Musharraf's rule is that his policies do not reflect in any real way the spirit of the people of his country.
As the article explains:
"The larger society [of Pakistan] has a decidedly negative view of the United States. In a 2007 Pew poll, two out of three Pakistanis named the United States as the greatest threat to their country."
Anti-Americanism (and don't think that gets us off the hook, Canada!) has never been stronger in Pakistan and with Bhutto's assassination, anti-Musharraf sentiment is becoming dangerously popular as well. A worrisome combination by any measure.
Those are just the highlights of the article. Read it in its entirety if the subject interests you.
I've been soul searching all afternoon, desperately trying to explain why Iowa would vote for Huckabee above Fred Thompson. Or Mitt Romney. Or even John McCain. Huckabee's an economic populist, he's soft on foreign policy, and he pardoned an unfathomable number of convicts during his stint as governor of Arkansas. And yet the race wasn't even close last night.
And then the answer hit me:
I know, I know. I've hear it a thousand times. Iowa means next to nothing. But it's still a lot of fun, isn't it?
Clearly, the story of the night was Barack Obama who trounced "Billary" Clinton and John "Silky" Edwards in the quirky Democratic caucus. Clinton's definitely hurting right now and it looks pretty damn good on her. At the end of the day, though, I'd still rather she won the nomination since it seems impossible to me that she could win the presidency.
On the Republican side, Huckabee's win was painful to watch but not all that surprising. According to CNN, 60% of Iowa voters at the caucus were Evangelical and, evidently, they voted like Evangelicals. The big stories on the GOP side were Romney and Thompson. Mitt Romney pumped millions of dollars into Iowa and fell way short. I think he's got some good policies and he campaigned harder than any other Republican in the state so I was a little surprised at just how short he fell of Huckabee. He's still far from out of the race but it's all going to come down to New Hampshire for him. And that contest won't be made any easier by McCain's strong showing tonight. Fred Thompson was the real variable in this race and, as some of you may know, he's my favourite of the candidates so I'm pleased that he's contending like he is. For now, it seems like he's going to finish 3rd although it's still really tight with McCain as the last votes roll in. Regardless, his performance can only be considered a victory for Fred. This should help him gain some momentum going into New Hampshire and, if all goes well, he'll make it to South Carolina where a win would mean a real chance at the Republican nomination.
I think, though, that the most interesting aspect of the Iowa caucuses was the turnout; 212,000. That's up from 125,000 last time around.
All in all, a good start to what promises to be a great race.
This is the latest attack ad out of the Romney camp. It's clever enough. It should be reasonably effective.
Firstly, I'd like to wish everyone a very Happy New Year. Unfortunately, I only had time for perfunctory one-off greeting messages over the Christmas holidays this year but things are calming down now. Launching right into it, I'd like to discuss the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
A lot has been made of the evident stupidity of Bhutto's return to Pakistan. She had a lot of enemies and no number of government-appointed body guards is enough to guarantee your health with suicide bombers and assassins around every corner. Benazir Bhutto, for all her faults, was indeed one of the few major obstacles between the Islamic extremists and the 60 to 90 nuclear warheads in Pakistan and so, of course, she will be missed. With her death, the pressure, both international and domestic, to maintain the ostensible democratic framework of the country has refocused and all eyes have turned to General Musharraf. Leading the charge, Hillary Clinton stumbled all over herself to beat her co-nominees to the punch and respond to the assassination with zeal and - well, just zeal actually. Unfortunately for Hillary, she didn't even bother to read the "Pakistan" page on Wikipedia before she started making grand statements about how the country should be run. Her response to the event was to pile pressure on Musharraf to reinvest in the democratic process and hold elections as soon as possible. Unfortunately, she didn't seem to have any idea who Musharraf was, what position he held within the Pakistani government, or what was at stake in the January election in Pakistan.
Hillary expounds on her views in the following interview:
What an embarrassing display of ignorance. If you want to be the president of a country - or just an adult, really - try gathering your facts before making public statements.
Here's why she's an idiot:
(1) Firstly, the elections that were scheduled for January 8th were for the post of Prime Minister and Pervez Musharraf is the President. He was elected last year and has several years left on his mandate. He was not "on the ballot" for the January election at any point.
(2) Also, Bhutto's party, the Pakistani People's Party, does not have to choose a new leader; leadership is hereditary. The reigns have been passed to Benazir's 19 year-old son.
(3) Finally, Nawaz Sharif couldn't compete in the next election if he wanted to; he's an unpardoned convicted felon and, as such, is barred from running for public office in Pakistan.
Clinton's line here is a quintessential example of the shortsighted policy-making that the '08 Democrats have become so famous for. With Bhutto's passing, Musharraf has become the final line of defense against the jihadists in Pakistan. We need to reconsider this kind of knee-jerk reactionary policy-making if we wish to avoid pulling the rug right out from under Musharraf and plunging his country into a devastating civil war - one that would almost inevitably result in a radical Islamist government replacing him when the dust settled. Is anyone hearing echoes of 1979 Iran here? Is Hillary Clinton our next Jimmy Carter?
Even more shortsighted was Democratic Governor Bill Richardson: “President Bush should press Musharraf to step aside, and a broad-based coalition government, consisting of all the democratic parties, should be formed immediately ... It is in the interests of the U.S. that there be a democratic Pakistan that relentlessly hunts down terrorists.”
Simply put, at this particular moment in time, a truly democratic Pakistan would not hunt down terrorists; it would be run by them. For a person seeking the Democratic nomination to be so grossly ignorant of the demographic realities of Pakistan would be amusing if it weren't so terrifying. Consider the shape Richardson's coalition of "democratic" parties would take, taking consideration of the current political landscape; radical Islamists, socialists, and corrupt militarists, to name just a few. And this government would "relentlessly hunts down terrorists"? Such a "broad-based coalition government" wouldn't be capable of pouring horse piss from a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel. If nothing else, this tragic event has done us all the favour of highlighting major weaknesses of character in US Democrats on foreign policy, particularly those involved in the current nomination process.
Presently, Musharraf's hold over his own army, and consequently the country, is tenuous at best. Jihad sympathizers have infiltrated the country's framework like termites and even the army, perhaps the only quasi-respectable institution left in Pakistan (with the possible exception of the ISI), is becoming increasingly solicitous of the interests of Islamic extremism. Despite Pakistan's slow transformation into Greater Waziristan, General Musharraf has somehow found the time to support the United States in the War on Terror and fiercely denounce the Taliban. All of this while much of his country chants "Death To The Great Satan" in the streets. Awfully sweet of him, no?
Bill Richardson wants to talk about U.S. interests in Pakistan? First and foremost, the U.S. has an interest in keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of terrorists, for the safety of the American people and for the safety of every other free state in the world. Secondly, it is in our interests to preserve the fragile equilibrium which has kept the country from imploding since 1999. As it stands, the realization of these interests depend entirely on Musharraf's survival as leader into the near future.
We must endeavour to remember that democracy is not a virtue in itself. Democracy serves a moral purpose only when it is united with a liberal adherence to fundamental human liberties and a commitment and capability on the part of the government to protect these basic rights. Forcing a democratic election on a Pakistan that is not ready for it is inimical to the long-term goal of democracy. The West's interests in Pakistan oblige Musharraf's retention of power. For now. The sooner politicians in North America recognize this, the sooner we can begin the difficult process of bringing stability to the cesspool of terrorist activity and Wahhabist expansion that is Pakistan. If we fail in this regard, Pakistan will collapse in upon itself and we will find ourselves with another Iran. But this time they'll have nukes.
UPDATE: Excuse me, Mr. Richardson. You would negotiate with ... the Soviet Union? Didn't they collapse or something? I thought I heard that somewhere...
We've finally got ourselves a truly white Christmas here in Toronto, which, for me, is certainly a fact worth celebrating. I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and, heck, I think I'll throw in a "Happy New Year" while I'm at it.
A quick Christmas-themed laugh below. A comedian explains Christmas in the Netherlands to the lay-North American. Certainly worth a watch if you have a few minutes to kill.
H/t AOSHQ
A constitutional republic is a state in which the power of government is limited to the protection of the individual rights of its citizens. A just constitution sets strict limits on governmental action and recognizes only those rights that can be logically inferred from the four basic rights of the individual: life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. This discounts the phony rights of the left (e.g. the right to a job, the right to a house, or the right not to be insulted) as well as those of the right (e.g. the “right to life” of an embryo, the right to keep homosexuals from marrying, or the right to incorporate religious doctrine into the running of a government).
The republican social structure stands in stark contrast to the "rule by consensus" standard that has come to define politics in modern Western democracies. The true spirit of republicanism leaves no room for large-scale collectivist notions like those of the socialist states of Europe or the despotisms of Iran or China. Nor does it permit the thousand tiny tyrannies of the welfare state to endure under the auspices of the public good. All forms of statism are anathema to the true republican.
It is in this context that I chose the title of this blog.
The title is not meant to suggest a burning desire on my part to eliminate the last vestiges of monarchism that exist in our Dominion. Rather, it is meant to point towards republicanism’s spirit of independence and moral fortitude. Nor should the title be considered as advocacy for the “Americanization” of the Canadian state. Although I greatly admire many facets of the Unites States and its history, the innumerable virtues of their Constitution have been overpowered over the past century by its unfortunate abundance of inconsistencies. Those inconsistencies have been allowed to flourish to the point that the country that once enjoyed more freedom than any other nation on earth now lies at the precipice of becoming the largest welfare state in the history of Western civilization.
Rather than emulate the American experience, I wish to learn from it. The Canadian constitution must be brought in line with the fundamental rights of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to an extent that has never been achieved before. Not by Britain and not by America.
This is the Canadian Republic to which the title of this blog refers.
At the age of 63, I feared I would find some trace of defeat, or at the very least fatigue, in Conrad Black after the drawn-out process of his trial. And so I was pleased to see the continued health of his pomposity in his December 14th column in The National Post. The article, along with Black's public statements since the verdict was read, has convinced me once and for all of the supreme resilience of his character. As a result of my resurgent confidence in his prospects for survival in the slammer, I was left in a relatively good mood leading up to the holiday season. And as December 25th drew nearer, I even dared to hope, fool that I am, that my Christmas would go untroubled by abuses of the legal system for reasons of shadenfreude or revenge. And then I was linked this article by Terry Glavin.
Yes, it has finally happened. Let us all feign surprise that the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) has decided it would be a dandy idea to drag Maclean's Magazine and columnist Mark Steyn before three human rights tribunals for - you guessed it - "hatred and Islamophobia." Predictably, we've seen the mobilization of a number of conservative media outlets for Steyn's defense, most notably The National Review. Less predictably, we've also seen several moderate and leftist outlets in Britain, America, and Canada showing him support as well. Although the response is far from a united front in defense of our basic human liberty of free speech, Mark Steyn must still be pretty happy with the support he has attracted.
The Glavin article, which summarizes and contextualizes the case beautifully, isolates precisely why we should feel so uncomfortable about this case:
"The Criminal Code prohibits any incitement of hatred against any identifiable group that is likely to result in a crime. It also prohibits the willful public promotion of hatred against any identifiable group. Break this law and you could find yourself in prison for up to two years.
But the Canadian Islamic Congress isn't using the Criminal Code to go after Maclean's and Steyn. Any reasonable person who reads the 70-page brief that forms the basis of its complaint will see why the case is being taken to human rights tribunals instead. It's because there's absolutely no way a criminal charge would hold up.
The Criminal Code's hate-speech provisions make plain that you can't be busted for statements that are true or for the expression of an honest opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a religious text. Statements relevant to the public interest and for the benefit of the public, and reasonably believed to be true, are free and clear of the hate-crime law.
But at the mercy of the human rights tribunals where the Canadian Islamic Congress wants them summoned, Maclean's and Steyn are not assured of any recourse to the defences the Criminal Code's hate-speech provisions provide.
The Canadian Islamic Congress isn't engaging in an entirely groundbreaking strategy -- tribunals have been used in hate-speech and incitement cases before, to useful effect, against Nazis, white-power lunatics, holocaust deniers and gay-bashers. But filing these sorts of complaints with human rights tribunals is a growing trend, and it's pushing the tribunals into terrain they weren't built to traverse."
Emphasis mine.
In a law class I once took, my professor remarked that Canadian courts have historically resented being used by the state or by organizations as a medium for revenge. Certainly a number of cases can be cited to substantiate this claim (R. v. Lalonde [1995], for example). What's so troublesome about this case, though, is the CIC’s transparent effort to circumvent the Criminal Code of Canada to revenge themselves on a writer who has clearly operated well within the bounds of Canadian hate speech laws. And also the impotence of the courts to address this obvious problem. If an appeal is eventually brought before the Supreme Court, which, judging by the CIC's historical tenacity is far from unlikely, their ruling will be confined to the facts of the case and the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Code, with no recourse to the Criminal Code whatever.
Andrew Coyne, a favourite of mine from the National Post, explains, "The [human rights] commissions have been allowed to stray, far from their original purpose of preventing discrimination in employment and housing, into the nebulous world of expression." The Canadian Islamic Congress seeks vengeance against Steyn. Rather than recognize that living in a liberal democracy requires allowing your enemies to speak freely, providing that their actions comply with the law of the land, the CIC has decided to drag a century-old magazine and an eminent conservative pundit before tribunals on blatantly illiberal charges. And, worst of all, I wouldn’t even be surprised if the charges stick.
Again, Glavin puts the threat this case poses well:
"This entire escapade is not just a threat to Maclean's and Steyn specifically but to journalists generally, and also to pamphleteers, bloggers and just about anyone who might occasionally express a public opinion on a subject of public interest. It also threatens to invite the wrath of the Supreme Court of Canada, which should be expected if Maclean's and Steyn find themselves forced to fight this all the way up. The result could cause great harm to the credibility and the legal clout of human rights tribunals across the country."
Coyne adds context to the uproar quickly surrounding this suit:
"The case is not without precedent. Two years ago, the president of yet another Muslim group, the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, brought a similar complaint against the Western Standard before the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission (AHRCC), after the magazine published the famous "Danish cartoons," a collection of mild satires on Islamic extremism that offended some, but by no means all, Muslims. The commission begins hearings next month. Nor are Muslim groups the only complainants to seek the human rights commissions’ aid in suppressing speech they find offensive. Just last week, the AHRCC ruled a pastor from Red Deer, Stephen Boisson, was—is guilty the word?—of writing a letter to the editor of the local paper that said rude things about homosexuals. The chairwoman of the commission said she found “a circumstantial connection” between the letter and the beating of a gay teenager two weeks later."
Is anyone else beginning to feel indignation, so familiar after the Black case, boiling up again?
We can break it down this way. I know the charges are beyond weak. You know the charges are beyond weak. The Canadian Criminal Code damn well knows the whole situation is ludicrous. But what it worrisome is that the CIC clearly isn't concerned that this will affect the results under the Canadian Human Rights Code.
In the end, Mark's response says it all:
"I can defend myself if I have to. But I shouldn’t have to."
"If the Canadian Islamic Congress wants to disagree with my book, fine. Join the club. But, if they want to criminalize it, nuts. That way lies madness. America Alone was a bestseller in Canada, made all the literary Top Ten hit parades, Number One at Amazon Canada, Number One on The National Post’s national bestseller list, Number One on various local sales charts from statist Quebec to cowboy Alberta, etc. I find it difficult to imagine that a Canadian “human rights” tribunal would rule that all those Canadians who bought the book were wrong and that it is beyond the bounds of acceptable (and legal) discourse in Canada.
"The "progressive" left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too."
I encourage anyone who opposes the current Canadian trend towards curtailment of our right to free speech to add the "I Support Mark Steyn" button to their blog, website, or facebook page (available from The Conservative Hipster’s blog) and to go out and buy Steyn’s controversial book “America Alone,” if you haven’t already.
In his article about the Steyn case, Coyne observes the complete absense of criminal culpability in Steyn’s writing and remarks incisively, "To deny, even in passing, that Muslims are being oppressed is, apparently, to ‘endanger their well-being.’” This is the basis of the charges against Steyn. Let's remind the CIC that this is not how a liberal democracy operates. As this spectacle unfolds, we must ask ourselves a crucial question: "How serious are we about defending our right to free speech?" If our basic liberties are to survive into the future, it is imperative that we respond with conviction: "We are very serious." Let's not let this be another "Danish cartoons" incident.
It's time for a lesson in conflict management. What do we do when an insurgent sniper takes three shots at our company? Let 'em eat a 500 pound air burst, of course.
H/t AOSHQ
An Ontario court judge has dismissed Karl Schreiber's lawsuit citing no jurisdiction over the dispute . This is a moderately interesting development, though not particularly surprising.
Regardless of any wrongdoing, accepting envelopes of $1,000 bills is difficult to pass off as anything besides bad judgment.
Can we get back to Liberal scandals now? That was much more fun.
That's right. This video shows a Southern Pacific train plow and its glorious defeat at the hands of a snow bank the size of Texas.
But the science is settled™ so I wouldn't worry about it.
H/t Small Dead Animals
UPDATE: Christopher Monckton recounts his time spent at the Bali conference on climate change. Definitely worth a read. Follow the link here .
Posts
All Comments
