FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Nov 10

Why Should Canada’s Small Air Force Help Bomb ISIS in Iraq?

by bcurry

In case you weren’t aware, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Stephen Harper has sent half a dozen CF-18s to help bomb targets in Iraq held by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISEL). As Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau noted, the government whipped out our CF-18s to show them how big they are. He rightfully asked why Canadians aren’t talking more about the kind of humanitarian aid that Canada can and must be engaged in. Besides thousands of civilian deaths, the previous Iraq war also created hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing that country’s on-going civil war. With the onset of ISIS, thousands more Iraqis have fled to neighbouring countries and safe havens within Iraq. They are desperate for food, shelter, clothing, medical supplies and other essentials to survive the coming winter conditions.

Let’s take a step back to clarify Canada’s historical position vis-a-vis the first American incursion into Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein. The Iraq War began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The government of Canada did not at any time formally declare war against Iraq. The then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said in 2002 that Canada would, in fact, be part of a military coalition to invade Iraq if it were sanctioned by the United Nations. However, when the United States and the United Kingdom subsequently withdrew their diplomatic efforts to gain that UN sanction, Jean Chrétien announced in March 2003 that Canada would not participate in the pending invasion. As it turned out, this was one of the best decisions that Prime Minister Chrétien ever made during his government’s term of office.

Recently, former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien defended Justin Trudeau’s controversial decision to oppose Canada’s air combat mission in Iraq. He believes that the fighter planes deployed by the Harper government are a “very marginal” response to the crisis caused by ISIS militants. He concluded that the best ‎contribution Canada can make is by engaging in massive, not token, humanitarian assistance. The leader of the official opposition, Thomas Mulcair of the New Democrats, has also stated that Canada’s first contribution should be to use every diplomatic, humanitarian, and financial resource at our disposal to respond to the overwhelming human tragedy unfolding on the ground. We should also help to strengthen political institutions in both Iraq and Syria.

Let’s face it, the U.S. has been in this conflict for well over 10 years and has been fighting ISIS under one name or another. While ISIS has renamed itself several times since 2004—al Qaeda in Iraq, the Mujahideen Shura Council and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham in Syria—it is literally the same insurgent group that U.S. forces have been battling for over a decade. The Americans propped up a corrupt Iraqi regime under Maliki, which favoured the Shiite population at the expense of the Kurds and Sunni. With the evident inability of the Iraqi security forces to fend off ISIS militants, the Americans once again have had to step in militarily to defend the Iraqi government through air strikes and provision of thousands of military advisors.

President Obama has already warned that American military and financial support will be needed for a long time in this new campaign. The Canadian contribution is but a mere token of some sort of support. The danger is always that such policies can go quickly from mission creep to mission leap. As in the case of Canada’s contribution to the Afghan mission which started out with only a few dozen soldiers and ended up with many casualties, when will this mission end? Canada’s international credibility as a country with an extensive history of humanitarian achievements is in jeopardy. Unfortunately, ISIS is not going away anytime soon. In a year’s time, there is little doubt that the Canadian government will have to seriously rethink its policies!

Iraq Iraq and ISIS Iraq Today

Leave a comment »
Nov 1

What Is It With CBC Radio and the Case of Jian Ghomeshi’s Firing?

by bcurry

If you haven’t heard by now, the CBC Radio, part of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), just fired Jian Ghomeshi the popular host of the national radio show “Q”. The reason apparently has to do with recent public disclosures by several women about sexual harassment, including accounts of his hitting and choking dates during sex without their consent. Mr. Ghomeshi has admitted publicly to liking “kinky” or “rough” sex. None of the women, claiming to have been victims, had pressed charges against Mr. Ghomeshi for sexual assault. Therefore, none of the allegations against Mr. Ghomeshi have been proven in court and he has not been charged as yet with any crime. The CBC publicly stated only that it had received information that made it impossible to continue employing him. In response to his firing (somewhere in his contract there must be some sort of “morality clause”), Mr. Ghomeshi launched a $55 Million lawsuit against the Corporation.

All of this is very disturbing of course. However, what is even more disturbing is a newly disclosed revelation by a female employee of CBC Radio. As a young producer of the “Q” show, she claims that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Ghomeshi. In 2010 she revealed to the show’s Executive Producer that she had been harassed by the show’s host. She was allegedly told by the Executive Producer that Mr. Ghomeshi was too big a celebrity, and she might as well adapt to the situation and not complain. Like many of the women who have come out with allegations of sexual misconduct by Mr. Ghomeshi, the now ex-CBC employee said she was not willing to have her name published for fear of retribution.

What bothers me about this scenario is that there are labour standards laws on the books dealing with workplace sexual harassment and the responsibilities of employers. The CBC is regulated under Canada’s federal legislation. Part III of the Canada Labour Code (Code) has specific provisions dealing with sexual harassment (see Section 247.1 of Division XV.1). Under these provisions, the CBC as the employer is obligated to have in place a policy dealing with sexual harassment and is responsible to make all employees aware of the policy. Under the Code, every employee is entitled to employment free of sexual harassment. In addition, the policy must state that the employer will take such disciplinary measures as the employer deems appropriate against persons under the employer’s direction who subject employees to sexual harassment. Since this was not done earlier in the above case, the CBC would have been found to have violated this particular labour law.

Unfortunately, as is the case in numerous such work situations, employees are very often not aware that they can bring a complaint against their employer to the responsible authorities for such violations. Too often, employees are reluctant to stir up any publicity for fear of some sort of retribution or potential damaging impacts on their future career. The reason that we have such laws is to help prevent such cases now and in the future. However, it is important that employees understand their legal rights and the responsibilities and policies of their employers. Hopefully, harassed employees would then be more aware of the various avenues available for resolving their situations without retribution. In turn, government authorities should do a better job of ensuring that employers are clearly aware of their legal responsibilities to tackle workplace “sexual harassment” issues. It goes without saying: “Contrary to its own policies, shame on the CBC for having waited so long to act!”

Uncategorized

Leave a comment »
Oct 23

Micro-terrorism Has Come To Canada, Much Like That Recently Occurring In The U.S.

by bcurry

In the week starting October 20th, two tragic incidents occurred in Canada whereby a Canadian soldier in uniform was targeted and died following attacks by a lone assailant. One attack even took place on the grounds of Canada’s Parliament. Suspects in both cases were young Canadian-born men who at some point had converted to Islam.  Unfortunately, both were very troubled individuals who turned to jihadist or radical causes.  They perceived such causes as providing answers to everything, moral certainty and ultimately a way of striking out at a society with which they seem to have been quite upset.  Such events are very similar to recent ones in the U.S., including that of the Boston marathon bombings by two individuals.

Some are now referring to such attacks as a form of “micro-terrorism”.  This is in contrast to larger terrorist plots involving one or more cells of terrorists with well-organized and financed plans to destroy big targets such as subways, airplanes, key installations, etc.  However, “macro-terrorism” in North America and Europe has become much more difficult to undertake following 9-11.  Governments have put into place sophisticated security measures, including the monitoring of communication among terrorist cells.  However, as exemplified by the Islamic State (also known as ISIS or ISIL), the era of social media Internet usage has made it easier to find like-minded people online and connect up with them.  Using social media, terrorists are able to reach out to Canadians and Americans who feel excluded for whatever reason from society.  Some may be going through personal stress, or may even have serious mental-health issues.  The process has come to be known as “radicalization”, similar to what happens to people who join cults.

The main problem with so-called micro-terrorism is that it is very difficult for security forces to detect and prevent, often involving random attacks by one or more “lone wolves”. With virtually hundreds of potential suspects in both countries, there are just not enough resources to realistically monitor their activities.  In addition, simply expressing radical views is frequently not enough to detain and charge such persons with terrorist-related activities.  Social media may help to put them on the authorities’ radar, but not much more.  Living in a democratic society with certain inalienable civil liberties, one has to be cognizant of respecting certain rights and the “due process” of laws.

Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims of such heinous acts of violence. No one can justify the use of terrorism, whether promoted by ISIS or not. Radicalization is real cause for concern.  Societies must take as many steps as possible to combat radicalization.  On-going initiatives can include intercultural dialogue and the remedial counseling of individuals who may feel excluded and marginalized.  Through constant dialogue and inclusion efforts, hopefully we can greatly reduce any support for extremist ideologies within our communities.

Anti-Terroism Canada

Leave a comment »
Oct 1

Iraq – America’s Biggest Blunder Could Become Canada’s

by bcurry

Well, why don’t they just bomb Iraq once again! The U.S. is flying armed missions across Iraq, only this time bombing sites occupied by the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). All under the pretext that somehow ISIS represents a direct threat to the West. However, as far as we know, ISIS has no weapons of mass destruction (like Saddam Hussein), but only tactics of mass terrorism. Once again, the U.S. has assembled a “coalition of the willing”, including Canada this time, to fight the perceived menace of some estimated 3,000 ISIS fighters in Iraq. A menace that the heavily armed Iraqi government security forces couldn’t stop, but instead fled from battle. Only the Kurds appear willing to stand up to this foe with appeals for heavier weapons from the West and further humanitarian aid.

President Obama has promised that no American boots will be on the ground in this latest struggle. A new Iraqi government has replaced Maliki’s corrupt Shiite-backed government which had carried out its own form of terrorism against the Sunni population. Otherwise, we continue to have one big political mess in Iraq, creating instability and insecurity. The Americans overestimated the capabilities of Iraqi security forces and underestimated the resolve of ISIS. Thus, conditions ripe for the effective entry of a terrorist bunch like ISIS.

All the so-called Middle Eastern experts forecast that defeating the likes of ISIS is no short-term deal, air strikes or no air strikes. The battles can only be won through winning the hearts and minds of all Iraqis, and by Iraqi successes on the ground. Otherwise, you just have another stalemate and one more human disaster, in terms of Iraqi refugees and civilian casualties.

So why is the Canadian government even contemplating providing fighter jets to participate in a decade-old war that it had never been involved with from the outset? Does this small bunch of fanatics represent a real threat to Canadians, or is the Government’s hype just a ploy to gain support for more military action? Just as the senior Bush had warned his son, there’s appears to be no clear cut exit plan for this Iraqi campaign.  Canada is not in a position to fight in another long-term war after a decade of fighting in Afghanistan at tremendous costs in both human and monetary terms.  ISIS is largely a result of disastrous long-standing U.S. involvement in the Middle East, Iraq being the worst case scenario. Needless-to-say, Prime Minister Harper will have to shoulder full accountability for any further Canadian military involvement in Iraq.

Foreign Policy Iraq Today

Leave a comment »
Sep 9

Something Went Very Wrong Happened in Iraq!

by bcurry

Over a year ago, I begged the question as to why the American media had almost completely abandoned its coverage of Iraq after the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Most coverage was focused on events in Syria and Afghanistan. At the time, fighting among insurgent groups had increased in Iraq and the Iraqi government and security forces appeared unable to contain their activities. As the army faltered, Shiite militias were playing a growing role in the conflict, nudged toward the fight by the corrupt government of Mr. Maliki. As the militiamen faced radical Sunni jihadists, the threat of a wider sectarian conflagration grew. Then entered the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Too radical even for Al Qaeda, ISIS proceeded to take over numerous key towns and infrastructure in Iraq as Iraqi security forces abandoned their positions and American-supplied equipment. 

All of a sudden, Iraq once again has become the main center of attention, notably in the fight against the brand of Islamic terrorism practiced by ISIS. Without the opposition of such groups as the Kurds and the use of American air power to target ISIS initiatives, Maliki’s government would probably have floundered even more. Even with a new more inclusive government in place, there is no assurance that Iraq’s situation will improve anytime soon. A longer-term internal political solution is definitely required. The West can’t provide this. 

In the meantime, the U.S. has invited its allies to provide military assistance to the Iraqi forces. Low and behold, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, has agreed to send a hundred or so “military advisors” to Iraq. Now, for a brief historical note. Canada did not join the original U.S.-led coalition of willing countries when Iraq was first invaded to oust then dictator Saddam Hussein — under the pretense of destroying his non-existent “weapons of mass destruction”. Subsequently, Canada had very little to do with the resulting Iraq governments and American military actions over the following ten-year period against the insurgents. So why now? What about finishing what we did to help the Afghans? What can military advisors do without becoming involved in actual military actions? Remember, Vietnam was never declared by Congress as a war, but was done through executive action by the U.S. President. Originally, Americans were only supposed to be military advisors to the South Vietnamese armed forces. Over 70,000 young Americans were killed in that tragic war, and for what? Yet, President Obama reiterated that there will be “no boots on the ground” in Iraq. 

I’m not saying that Iraq could turn out to be another Vietnam. Obviously the circumstances are different. Yet, history should have taught us something by now. External interventions into the internal affairs of other countries can lead not to political solutions and stability, but can have serious consequences for both the interveners and the affected countries. After all is said and done, something very wrong happened in Iraq. Let’s not pursue never-ending bandage solutions!

Iraq Today

Leave a comment »
Aug 26

Don’t Point Finger at U.S. for Poor Race Relations – Just Look in Your Own Backyard

by bcurry

The recent tragic shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri has once again raised the spectre of race relations in the U.S. However, there is little reason for Canadians to point holier-than-thou fingers at the Americans. If anything, it should encourage Canadians to really examine the state of our own race relations. 

Case in point, take the situation of our aboriginal populations and the fact that rates of violence are so much higher than in the rest of the population. Aboriginal women now make up more than 20 per cent of all female murder victims, twice the proportion of 30 years ago, and five times their share of the female population. The murder rate among aboriginal men is more than twice as high as it is for aboriginal women. Last year’s Idle No More movement provided a valuable lesson in why so many aboriginal Canadians remain so chronically destitute — why progress has been so frustratingly elusive, and why it is likely to remain so. Native children are the least likely of Canadian children to complete a high school education, and even less likely to go on to post secondary schooling. When aboriginal persons move to larger Canadian urban centres, they often find themselves unable to find affordable housing, good paying jobs and applicable community services. Instead, substance abuse and prostitution become the only means of escape and survival. As a result, our prisons have an inordinate number of incarcerated aboriginals compared to the population as a whole. 

Canada prides itself on being a diverse, tolerant and multicultural society. How tolerant white, middle-class Canadians really are is up for debate. More and more are sending their kids to private schools, sometimes to avoid the influx of new immigrant children into the public school systems. Listen to some local radio talk shows and one gets a pretty good idea of how older white Canadians view our current liberal immigration and refugee policies. Like the U.S., Canada opened its doors to welcome families and individuals for a whole slew of reasons, some being primarily economic in nature. All fine and dandy. However once here, are they being treated fairly and without bias? Many arrive with post-secondary degrees, but still find it difficult to obtain approval to work in their professions. These persons are often treated like second-class citizens. Many temporary workers are brought in to work in agriculture, retail and domestic services sectors due to a lack of interest on the part of Canadian workers. Temporary workers do not have the same benefits under our laws, including labour and health and safety laws, as do other workers. Don’t even address the longstanding English and French relationship in this country — or the “two solitudes” as Hugh MacLennan once wrote. 

When it comes to race — sorry Canada — poverty, unemployment and underemployment, violence, and lack of access to education and professional opportunities remain significant issues. Call it systemic discrimination or whatever, but it still exists. We can’t afford to be too smug!

Canada Race Relations US

Leave a comment »
Jul 31

Stephen Harper – the George W. Bush of the North!

by bcurry

OK. We have the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper, reiterating his government’s hard line on Hamas in Gaza, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine and Chinese cyberattacks on Canadian government computers. Now, no one would blame any Western leader for expressing his or her government’s position with respect to foreign policy. However, if one is going to continuously take such forceful stances in opposition, then you better have the force and accompanying strength to back up your tough words. Such is not the case for Canada.

Unlike some other countries directly affected by recent regional events, Canada has little to loose in taking such a hard line stance. Canada’s dealings with Russia and the Middle East are minimal when compared to the U.S. and the Europeans. Cyberattacks by China and other countries are not all that unusual and more common then we think. Just think of the American spying on many of its own allies, most notably Germany. Maybe Canadian authorities and security agencies aren’t all that innocent as well.

So what does Canada have to back up its harsh words? The military, while very professional and dedicated, is among the smallest in the West in absolute numbers. The military is also dealing with aging and inadequate equipment in all its services, and is totally reliant on NATO to service most missions abroad. The Canadian economy is very reliant on external trade, especially for markets of the country’s natural resources — with 70% of trade still being carried out with the U.S. All said and done, Canada can huff and puff all it wants, but it won’t blow anyone’s house down.

Unless Mr. Harper plans to do standup comedy at Yuk Yuks in Moscow, Beijing or Tel Aviv, he and Foreign Minister John Baird might want to tone down the rhetoric somewhat. Let’s not make Canada’s international reputation suffer any more than it already has. Once, Canada was viewed as a moderate voice on the world scene, ready and trusted to help bring conflicting parties to the table. Canada has lost its non-alignment status which served it so well during the Cold War and past world conflicts. Now it appears that Mr. Harper would like to become the George W. Bush of the North! Needless-to-say, this is no laughing matter.

Canada Foreign Policy Foreign Policy

Leave a comment »
Jul 28

Israel and the Palestinians – A No Win Situation

by bcurry

Well, here we go again! Israeli troops are inside Gaza and Hamas continues to fire its weapons of terror — its somewhat useless rockets — toward most of that country’s major cities. Palestinian militants fired rockets deep into Israel, prompting Israel to resume an offensive aimed at destroying rocket launchers and cross-border attack tunnels used by Hamas. Meanwhile, hundreds of Palestinians are caught in the Israeli onslaught in Gaza resulting in many fatalities and injuries, including women and children. All referred to a collateral damage!

Unfortunately, such outbreaks will not resolve the basic issues surrounding both parties’ positions and political agenda. Gaza remains prison-like whereby Israeli cross-border security controls everything from food, medical supplies, worker movements, etc. Fear of militant attacks on civilian targets remains the prominent theme in Israel. The prime weapon that Hamas has is its ability to target such populations. This represents the pure definition of a no win situation for both adversaries. Unless something drastic changes politically, this intermittent conflict will continue on for years to come. Quiet one year, loud the next.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world sits helplessly by. There is little that the U.S., Canada, the Arab League, United Nations or other interested bodies can do to resolve the conflict. Imposing outside temporary solutions like ceasefires may buy time, but will do nothing to deal with the underlying causes. Only the adversaries have that ability in their own hands. It doesn’t help that outside supporters of the two sides are parading around and fighting in the streets of North American and European cities. While the PR and politics plays out by each side, people are still being killed and injured in the region.

Peace is a nice and bold word which politicians like to use in such circumstances. Former Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson had exclaimed: “The grim fact is that we prepare for war like precocious giants, and for peace like retarded pygmies.” Remember, he had won the Nobel Peace Prize for helping to establish the use of UN Peacekeepers in regional conflicts. I suspect that he’s rolling over in his grave right about now.

Israel

Leave a comment »
Jul 7

Why Are We Acting To Refugees In Such A Belligerent Way?

by bcurry

In recent months, we have seen in both Canada and the U.S. belligerent reactions directed at refugees. In the U.S., some American politicians and citizens have lambasted the Obama administration over the influx of Central American illegal refugees, especially children, across their southern border. White House officials have insisted that extreme poverty and an epidemic of gang violence in certain Central American countries were the main causes of the unanticipated spike in illegal migration. Meanwhile, in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that recent federal policies to limit the kinds of medical care that refugees would be entitled to were overly cruel and unusual treatment. Indeed, such policies are contrary to Canada’s Charter of Rights. However, recent polls have shown that Canadians, like many Americans, appear to support the tightening up of rules governing the treatment and deportation of illegal refugees.

Whatever happened to the fundamental edict opening our borders up to those persecuted, the ill and the impoverished? Have our values as nations changed that much? Both countries were built on the sweat and hard work of immigrants, including refugees escaping all forms of persecution in other countries and seeking to better their lives and that of their children. Just as a nation is judged by how well it cares for those citizens requiring assistance and the less fortunate, it must also be judged on how it treats outsiders seeking refuge within its borders. The fact that the state may view their entry as legal or illegal does not matter. These refugees are desperate, often taking enormous personal risks to travel to our countries.

The very definition of a refugee is a person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster. Today, one can further add conditions attributed to poor economies, drug cartel violence, extreme poverty, lack of affordable medical care, etc. As two of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is only natural that persons would seek refuge in the U.S. and Canada. Until conditions improve in their native countries, the constant influx of refugees, legal or otherwise, will only continue. Simply deporting desperate people and their families is surely not the only answer. Instead of knee jerk reactions, both countries should look at new and more effective internal and external policies to accommodate the needs of these less fortunate.

I know that the majority of Canadians and Americans are much more humane and caring than any polling would show. As societies, we both share similar values when it comes to fairness, equality and openness. Hopefully, we can be more understanding and better demonstrate our humanity by opening our hearts and resources to those who are less fortunate. I know that I will.

Canada US

Leave a comment »
Jun 18

Why Government Whistleblowers Are So Fearful of Retaliation

by bcurry

A 2013 U.S. government survey, conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, reported that nearly 20 percent of federal employees fear retaliation for reporting agency wrongdoing. A 2010 survey from the Merit Systems Protection Board showed that nearly 30 percent of workers feared reprisals. This was more recently followed by charges that 37 Veterans Affairs employees, who blew the whistle on serious mistreatment of injured veterans by the agency, were being threatened or had experienced retaliation. The Office of Special Counsel, which protects federal whistleblowers against reprisals, is investigating alleged retaliation against the affected VA workers, though not all of it apparently related to the agency’s scheduling scandal.

President Obama appears to support protecting the rights of whistleblowers. Firstly, there was the recent passage of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act, which Obama supported. Next was his directive providing protection for national security whistleblowers. However, the President has also shown a willingness to allow the Justice Department to prosecute whistleblowers on somewhat tenuous grounds.

In Canada, at the federal level, there is no comprehensive whistleblower protection legislation or processes similar to those found in the U.S. The only mention of such protection exists within specific laws, such as those covering the environment or occupational safety and health. Even this protection is somewhat limited, and most agencies are still free to retaliate against whistleblower employees without any sanction. Government whistleblowers are then left with no option but litigation through the courts, which can be both an expensive and lengthy process. For this reason, Canadian whistleblowers are even more fearful of agency retaliation, including firings, demotions and continuous on-the-job harassment.

On the one hand, where fiscal or monetary abuses are uncovered, whistleblowers are most likely going to be rewarded. After all, uncovering funding misallocations can save the government money and possibly lead to individual criminal charges — making for good news stories. On the other hand, whistleblowers who openly reveal policies or government practices that are contrary to the public good will open themselves up to agency retaliation. Such revelations enter the realm of politics, senior mismanagement and the blatant misuse of policies and practices. God help those who uncover anything that may have implications for “national security”! In such cases, the first thing one experiences is the stripping of one’s security clearance, whithout which future government employment is virtually impossible in most agencies. Rightfully or wrongfully, there are more ways that governments can punish their whistleblowers than reward them. No wonder a good number of public sector whistleblowers are so fearful of retaliation in both countries.

Government Whistleblowers

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Newer Entries »
Blog at WordPress.com.