Um, Peter...?

All right, a busy governor of an immense state with a population itself equalling that of the country next door, unaware of the little details that make up the difference between a credible statement and a stupid error. Cut him a little slack, we don't mind.

He was a body builder, a grade B actor, not a politician. Except that, as a politician he didn't do too badly at all. Particularly for a Republican married to a Democrat, and marrying the values of both as an accommodating non-partisan.

He appears to be an amiable chap, and all he wanted to do was to offer a little thanks and flattery. And what do we do?

Wince, when the guy says he has the greatest admiration and regard for the brave Canadian soldiers who proved their allegiance to their neighbours by joining them in the U.S. "coalition of the willing", in attacking Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.

All right, we didn't.

We chose not to join that coalition led by our American neighbours. Mostly because the United Nations did not give its imprimatur to that initiative to remove yet another Middle East monster from power, and the United States and its coalition went in unauthorized, as it were.

We did, though, join the United States and NATO in a UN-authorized and supported mission to remove the Taliban and al-Qaeda from Afghanistan.

So, that's that. No hard feelings, old chap. We do like you, after all, lest there be any residual doubt. We all make mistakes.

But we cannot find it in our hearts and in our hard little heads to be quite so generous when one of our own makes a whopper. Because, frankly, it is rather unforgivable. Surprising in the simplicity of the oversight, in fact.

And it's not the first time that someone in government has made such an amazing blooper of a geographic error.

Come on, Defence Minister Peter MacKay...! How could you have? Here we thought you were so bright...? Got lots on your mind, is that the problem? Spoke before you thought? Don't we all? But this was such a geographically-ignorant, really stupid thing to say.

From the East Coast of Canada but don't have any inkling about the West Coast? Peter, please...!

Now, repeat after us...Washington State is next to Canada, not California. California, young man, borders Mexico.

Repeat, California does not border Canada. Got it?

Fitting The Profile

Well, bloody hell, those human rights tribunals again. Putting right all the dreadfully upsetting errors in judgement that prey upon innocent people, restraining their freedoms and overlooking their human rights entitlements. Which sees Bombardier ordered to pay over $300,000 in penalties for having refused to train a Canadian pilot who had been labelled a threat to aviation and national security by U.S. transport safety officials.

Bombardier, of course, can afford to pay the fine. It's not a money thing, after all, but a matter of ethical and moral treatment of an aspiring pilot who feels it his right to have the training he feels is owing him as a Canadian. The tribunal ordered Bombardier to ignore "standards and decisions" arrived at by American authorities in the company's determination of who they may train in Canada. This is Canada, after all, not the United States.

Oops, yes, there is that border thing and that sovereignty issue, and the separateness of two distinct countries with not necessarily matched values. On the other hand, there is the very close partnership of those neighbouring countries in trade, security, rules and regulations, issues of lawfulness and safety. And Canadian pilots do land Canadian planes in the United States. And they won't, if those planes are flown by pilots who have been placed on a proscribed list.

That was back in 2004, when Pakistani-born Canadian Javed Latif was refused pilot training by Bombardier on the basis of his already having been denied instructions in the U.S., on national security grounds. He had, at that time, attempted to secure training on the Challenger 604 jet. Given the Americans' experience a few years earlier with training men of Muslim background, they have since been somewhat wary, and Mr. Latif was caught in that wariness-net.

Completely understandable, under those very particular circumstances. But the tribunal was unequivocal in their censure, outlining that Mr. Latif was "a victim of discrimination based on his ethnic and national origin and that his right to the safeguard of his dignity was compromised." His compromised dignity is now being mollified to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.

But this is a current ruling, and Mr. Latif, in 2008, when the U.S. authorities lifted him off the proscribed list, enjoyed the benefit of three subsequent training sessions at Bombardier. So the company is considering a review of the ruling, to decide whether to appeal. But the tribunal president, Gaetan Cousineau is triumphant, claiming the ruling to be "without precedent".

The first of its kind to address the impact of post-9/11 security measures in Canada. And Mr. Latif feels a whole lot better about the humiliation and financial problems he claims to have suffered at the time. The baseless suspicions levelled against Arabs and Muslims after the 9/11 attacks, geared on stereotypes and racial profiling to identify them as potential national security threats, were clearly untenable.

Let's hear it for reason and debate and clearing the air on the matter of undue suspicion targeting men who clearly fit a profile that isn't supposed to exist.

Retain Him, Our Compliments

Trouble is, they have no wish to detain him any longer. Without the admission of guilt, which many claim was coerced, he might have stood trial, refusing to acknowledge his guilty status, so that if the prosecution was successful in finding him guilty on all counts brought against him, principally that of murder as an enemy combatant, he might have been sentenced to life in prison.  Life in prison within the United States means just what it states.  Quite unlike Canada, where a defined period of time is allotted, and the lifer still has the right to seek clemency through early parole.

It simply made far more sense for Omar Khadr, whom many describe as "intelligent", to take the other route available to him.  To rejoin his extended family in Canada, citizens all, although they are also more familiarly acknowledged to be Canada's "al-Qaeda family".  The father an avowedly high-placed member of al-Qaeda, and a major financier through the raising of 'charitable' funds to advance their cause, and the mother unreservedly supportive of al-Qaeda's mission to overturn the degraded West, and institute a global Caliphate.

Of course, under the global Caliphate it's doubtful whether they would still be able to collect social charity through welfare, assisted housing, universal medical care and education.  Which is why they are avidly engaged, though they claim to despise this society, in grasping as much of these citizenship entitlements as they can, while they yet may.  As for youngest son, Omar, he will be in more direct geographic contact with his family.  And they can be proud of him, that he has not forsworn his dedication to jihad.

Young Mr. Khadr has a reputation to uphold, one he is very proud and conscious of; not only the legacy of his father's dedication to Osama bin Laden and his pathology of hatred for the despised West, but his star standing as a prize specimen of Islamism's finest; a youth well doctrinated into violent jihad and its twisted relation to Islam and the Koran - a high-value standard-bearer of the ascendancy of the inevitable.

The conscience of a Western society has been moved by the seeming misfortune of a youth whose values were sternly drawn by the example and the instruction of his father.  As though none of us is born with free will, and the capacity to look beyond the obvious into our inner hearts and instinctive values.  Omar Khadr passed the test of Islamist indoctrination, making his parents proud, and elevating his status as an example to other Muslim youth.

Israel, the singular state that has always, since its birth, been the recipient of Muslim hatred and revenge-wishing that would have it disappear off the face of the Earth, must also grapple with the issue of home-grown terrorists.  Those with Israeli citizenship, reaping all the benefits that come with that citizenship, yet conspiring to destroy the state, and the lives of other citizens who happen to be Jews, not Arabs.

There are some within Israel, some lawmakers who have been musing within the Knesset that the time may have arrived when citizenship should be revoked from those who actively conspire to destroy the state.  To many within Israel, and not only Arab MKs and Palestinian-Israelis, but Jewish Israelis who value the concept of equality and the sanctity of state sovereignty and allegiance to the state, and democratic ideals, this appears an unspeakable travesty.

But is it?  Or is it a potentially practical solution to those citizens who conspire to destroy the very social and political conditions that allow them to aspire for their enlightened and socially advanced futures?

Instead of, for example, gently admonishing in a court of law and committing to short prison sentences, young Muslim men who have been nurtured within Canada, and who choose to turn their plans toward destroying Canadian society, perhaps they should discover they run the risk of becoming stateless, their citizenship revoked in exchange for planning terrorism against the country that represents their best interests.

It's a thought.  Most Canadians have no wish to welcome Omar Khadr back into Canada.  Nor are we particularly pleased to host his extended family whose values are clearly so different than our own.  We generally do not make common cause, in any event, with those who literally spit in our faces.  And this family has done that, and much, much more to demonstrate their contempt for Canada.

They should be cordially invited to leave, to return to Pakistan where they would be feted.

Tip Of The Hat

Imagine, the Wall Street Journal recognizing Canada. Rarely does one see Canada mentioned for any reason whatever in an American newspaper. Next-door neighbours we may be, each other's largest trading partners, sharing many traditions and social mores, reliant on one another for safe borders, but Canada and thoughts of Canada are remote to the consciousness of most Americans, although Canadians are hugely welcomed as tourists and vacationers.

Here is The Wall Street Journal waxing in great admiration for Canada's principled stand within the United Nations. Vying for one of those rare, entitled albeit temporary two-year sets in the Security Council on the basis of having been enormously supportive of the United Nations in the past, paying (more than) our share of operating costs of the UN, and generally and reliably playing the Good Scout to developing countries.

All those African countries, the Asian and South and Central American countries which Canada has benefited in the past through tax-funded largess? Acknowledged by those heads of state whom we were privileged to assist? Who earnestly promised their votes when push came to shove against tiny impoverished Portugal? Ah, well, it is a secret vote, after all, and allegiances are always fluid within the confines of the United Nations.

Waddya expect, anyway, giving the finger to the United Arab Emirates? Don't you know who you're dealing with, aren't you aware of the potential consequences, don't you care that this kind of umbrage leads invariably to swaying like-minded others to work against your best interests? Yes. Yes. No. Sign that free trade deal with Israel and broadcast it widely. Commiserate with Israel over the injustices done it continually within the United Nations.

And deny Dubai its request to honour blue skies because they're a lot bluer in the Middle East than they are in North America, and who cares about the lousy service Air Canada offers anyway? Deny Dubai at your peril. Remember that long-term lease on a secret plot of desert where supplies and personnel are transited to Afghanistan? Cringing is sometimes the better part of valour...

Oops, don't think so? You'll pay for it. It's this Conservative government in Canada, that's what it is. It's that devil of a politician, Stephen Harper, the one who claims to govern the country on behalf of all Canadians. Not all Canadians agree, but a whole lot do. What's next? Trade retaliation, check. Slander, check; they're on it, sounding the alarm of Canada keeping mum on the alleged arrest of an Israeli wanted in the Dubai-Hamas/assassination debacle.

Calgary and Vancouver are agitating to allow the Emirates airlines more landing and take-off time? They would. Think of the industry, all that fossil fuel stuff and the huge numbers of Canadians employed over there. And what's this about Canada feeling they have the right to snub the UAE ambassador? Just because the UAE refused landing on their sacrosanct territory to Canada's Chief of Defence Staff and Minister of Defence? Tch, tch.

Bravo, Canada!

"We, The Wall Street Journal say: Way to go. Canada seems to have annoyed a sufficient number of Third World dictators and liberally pious Westerners to come up short in a secret General Assembly Ballot. The sins committed by Stephen Harper's Conservative government include staunch support for Israel, skepticism about cap-and-trade global warming schemes and long-standing commitment to the Afghan war. Americans would be so lucky to get a leader as steadfast on those issues as the Canadian Prime Minister.

"The U.S. role here is also embarrassing - to the U.S. Richard Grenell, a former senior official at the U.S. Mission to the U.N., reported last week that America's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, refused to campaign on Canada's behalf. Mr. Harper's politics are not hers, and Liberal opposition leader and Obama political soulmate, Michael Ignatieff, declared last month that Canada under Mr. Harper didn't deserve to get one of the 10 temporary seats."

Ah, yes, the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, a staunch opponent of Canada, evidenced by his statement of non-deserve status within the United Nations. A shining example of partisan bitterness and failed political demagoguery. Dunce hat for you, and off to sit in the corner, Chappie.

Pulling Daisy Petals

We love him, we love him not. There is nothing particularly cuddly about a man whose father groomed him and his siblings to violent jihad, while taking refuge in a country whose armed forces would be directly involved in battling those jihadists. Canada's first-and-foremost home-grown jihadist family, including the mother who views Canada's society as degraded, but who has no scruples in accepting all the social benefits the country has to offer.

The father, Ahmed Saeed Khadr, arrested in Pakistan as a clearly identified enemy of peace and stability for whom then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien went to bat, convincing then-Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto that the man was unjustly accused. "Khadr is not a saint", explained Mohamed Fadil, an Iraqi-Canadian businessman, chairman of the Canadian Relief Foundation, a genuine and registered charity.

Validating the distrustful terror-identifying opinion of Canada's security agencies, in considering Khadr pere, an enemy of the Western world, closely allied with Osama bin Laden. Hauling his family from Canada to Pakistan where his sons would become beneficiaries of the jihadist training camps, he indoctrinated them with the radical ideology of wholesale bloody combat in the name of Islam.

And Mr. Khadr's accuser, quite willing to speak ill of the dead, claims him to have been influential with al-Qaeda's principals, entirely subscribing to the terror group's principles. Mr. Khadr was a dedicated violent jihadist, enthusiastically raised funds for jihad, and, according to Mr. Fadil, conspired to have him killed, viewing him as a threat to his Canadian fundraising schemes for the Islamist cause.

Long dead, Mr. Khadr's son's exploits as a "child" combatant for Islamist ideals have consumed an inordinate amount of news-space in Canada. Held in custody to stand trial for the accusations that have been levelled against him of having participated in jihad against American troops in Afghanistan, news of his treatment in incarceration and empathy for his plight among left-leaning sympathizers goes against the grain of most Canadians.

The Government of Canada's position was that Omar Khadr, no longer a child, who back when he was a teen-ager on the cusp of adulthood, tossed a hand grenade in Khost, Afhanistan, at a U.S. army medic who died of his wounds. And that he should stand trial in the United States and face the judgement due his actions. A video shot by al-Qaeda showing Omar Khadr assembling bombs attested to his training under the aegis of the world's premier terror group.

Other American medics worked tirelessly to save the life of the young combatant, who had two bullet wounds in his back, a broken leg, and a serious eye wound. And then, as Omar Khadr testified at his hearing, a mere two weeks later, he was being savagely interrogated. Sometimes less brutally, but always an excruciating experience for him. Sad, that.

But not sad enough to turn the hard hearts of most Canadians in the direction of exerting the country's resources on his behalf, to 'bring him home'. And, as far as the current Conservative government is concerned, placatory appeals to the United States to allow for gentler treatment, and a return to Canada is simply not on. Whew!

However, it seems that he will be brought home to join his siblings and his mother. He appears to have agreed to a guilty plea in a kind of uneasy bargain that might see an eight-year prison term on top of the eight he has already spent in custody. One year to be spent in the United States, the remainder in Canada.

How pleasant for us.

Friends and Neighbours

"We love Canada. We support Canada. We have the opportunity to work with Canada in many contexts, bilaterally, multilaterally." P.J. Crowley, U.S. spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In a hostile world, whatever would we do, how could we cope, without help from our friends? Little wonder we rely on the goodwill of friends to offer sympathy and encouragement, and when it's possible, practical assistance to gain a goal.

Canada's official leader of the opposition and the leaders of the other opposition parties in Parliament, love to accuse the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper of following too closely in the footsteps of the United States.

Brazil's ambassador to the United Nations covertly helped Canada by whispering to other nation's delegations that Psst! a vote for Canada to secure a revolving Security Council seat is analogous to a vote for the United States; Canada being a U.S. proxy. Brazil forgot that Canada has allocated great sums of international aid to its Latin American cousins, doubtless.

And Portugal, that sadly bankrupt country; add moral bankruptcy to its reputation by gifting delegates to a trip to the Azores. Wealthy, cheapskate Canada? Well, it only gave out small bottles of made-in-Canada - from Canada-symbolic maple trees - maple syrup. A gesture.

Canada being the naif within this luminous gathering of worldly nations, not quite intuiting that grander gestures are anticipated to gain votes.

United Arab Emirates, irate that blackmail did not work in turning around Transport Canada's decision, ratified by the government of Canada, to disallow daily flights in and out of Canada for its two airlines, added the insult of refusing landing rights to Canada's top General and its Minister of Defence, to the injury of persuading its Arab/Muslim allies in the Organization of the Islamic Conference to blackball Canada.

Not that they needed bother, in fact.

Since, for the record, Canada has time and again supported Israel in its contentious disagreements with its neighbours, most of whom wager its disappearance, sooner rather than later, from the geography of the Middle East. Commiserating with the Prime Minister of Israel over the unjust treatment within UN bodies relating to the Turkish Gaza-aid ship. Permitting the Canadian Minister of Trade to crow about enhanced trade agreements with Israel.

Making no secret, none whatever, and in the most blatant way possible, that official Canada stands foursquare in support of Israel's right to exist as a sovereign, Jewish state. In a manner geared to be offensive to the Arab voting bloc. And then there's the European Union with its vastly disproportionate representation on the Security Council, both permanent and two-years' worth.

Voting overwhelmingly for Portugal, leaving Canada out in the cold.

But wait, there's more, quite a bit more. Canada's neighbour, upon whom she can always depend to be usefully and quietly behind-the-scenes-supportive - to the extent that Canada more or less takes it for granted that it is in the best interests of the United States to support Canada - kind of took a different tack this time around.

Who might have imagined? That U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice would advise her diplomatic cadres to sit on their hands, play mum.

It wasn't just that Canada - through stringent and dedicated lobbying felt it had secured voting agreement from no fewer than 135 UN member-states, verbally and in writing, feeling fairly confident that a seat would be won - thought it had subscribed to due diligence in lobbying. Figuring that its ongoing assistance to the United Nations in 'peacekeeping', and its huge treasury pledges to the developing world would all pay off handsomely in a revolving seat at the horseshoe table.

A rude surprise was yet in store, when a former UN-delegated U.S. diplomatic official blew the whistle on the Obama administration. Richard Grenell, formerly spokesman at the UN for the United States, revealed that Susan Rice not only did not become involved, as might be deemed normal, in assisting Canada in its pursuit of a Security Council seat, but went so far as to instruct American diplomats "to not get involved."

Mr. Grenell asserted that one of the reasons Canada was unsuccessful in its bid for a seat was because the Harper government "had no American support". Now, why might that be? Partisan politics? Where the Democrats and the Republicans are at strident odds with each other, and their varying agendas? Does Barack Obama not understand that Canada's Conservative Party is closer to his Democrats than it is to the Republicans?

No matter, there is a grudge somewhere in there, and it has surfaced in the most unbecoming of ways. With one neighbour who professes to be inordinately fond of its junior partner, and upon whom it depends hugely for its energy supplies and mutual trade to keep Americans fully employed, suddenly deciding to withdraw its friendliness in a temporary hiatus.

Nice that Canada has a prime minister who faces adversity such as this with complete equanimity, emphasizing freedom, justice, equality and principle trump popularity contests.

The unspoken covenant between the two countries momentarily shattered. And Canada emerges in triumph, leaving the corrupt machinations of the United Nations to delegate-countries whose tarnished human-rights records reflect that of the august body's.

What Pharmaceutical Debate?

Beware the pharmaceutical industrial complex. And its stranglehold on the fond attention of government. That is one hugely powerful lobby. And a too-too clever manipulator of physicians and their hapless patients. Foxily manoeuvring public relations and pricey advertising to convince the public that they are ill, ill, ill, and only especially designed pharmaceutical products are capable of lending them a few more years of life.

But people being people, there is an never-ending search for bargains. Who wants to pay the full prevailing price when they can procure the very same product at a highly reduced price? The U.S. believes in the free enterprise system, untrammelled by government interference, while in Canada the government takes a more price-regulatory role. Which means that on-line pharmacies can offer Canadian prices to price-sensitive Americans.

The on-line pharmacies mop up business, scrambling to fill the need for American consumers of drug products, and the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. screams bloody murder. So along comes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to most convincingly assert that foreign-produced products have not been approved - by their rigid standards, and therefore there is little guarantee of their efficacy.

Now the issue has turned from pharmaceuticals to birth control devices issuing from Canadian manufacturers. Which, like their drug counterparts, cost a whole lot less procured from a Canadian source than an American manufacturer. Take IUDs; the charge is $700 for product and um, installation, in the U.S. But perform the procedure with a Canadian-made IUD and the price plunges to $224.

But, says the American FDA, they're not guaranteed by us to be reliable! Ah, respond those who would prefer the bargain, private corporate interests have brought government in to pound home their preference, limiting the consumer to the purchase of the inordinately costly product on the pretext that the alternative is inferior.

Oddly enough, the Canadian product happens to be manufactured in the same overseas factory as the American product; in other words, same product, different brand name. But, just think: if the foreign-produced-and-sold birth control devices truly were that unreliable, the end product would be a much-needed increase in the American birth rate.

So what's this debate about, anyway?

All the American nativists who decry the incursion of immigrants bringing with them values not commensurate with American ones, and who dilute the culture of the United States intolerably, could be influenced perhaps to procreate more generously, if they were given to understand the reality that the country must increase its population base to compete internationally as a growing workforce, and collect the appropriate taxes connected thereto for the purpose of providing vitally needed social services.

Like health care, like veterans' services, like old age pensions, like employment insurance - ad nauseum.

Irremediably Tainted

"I am here in prison, but there are millions of people outside. What's happening to you is not for nothing. God will take ... revenge" on the United States.

There is nothing to rescue in the character of Omar Khadr. What makes him a citizen of Canada? A piece of paper that his family disdains as the symbol of a corrupt society. Not too corrupt, however, as a useful resource for social services; universal medicare, and social welfare. They, like so many others, certainly not all Muslim nor Arab, have discovered themselves to have an abiding need for Canada to protect their mortal carapaces just as Islam does their sanctified souls.

Omar Khadr's protectively loving mother aided and abetted her husband, her children's father, to carefully and deliberately prepare their children for Islamic jihad, and not of the soulful variety. The family's sons were exposed to that very dark side of Islam's war with the non-Muslim world, and specifically that of the West, and symbolically the United States of America. Supposedly, Canada was only marginally exempt.

It was to Pakistan they decamped when their sons were deemed old enough to be directly involved in jihad, each of them having been more than adequately pre-groomed to the task. It was the technical, mechanical end of things, acquiring prowess as Soldiers of Allah, tutelage in bomb-making, instruction in marksmanship, that was to follow. There was no proscription due to age; the teen years deemed quite sufficient unto the task at hand.

Omar Khadr, now at last facing a military court of justice, still refers to himself as a "child combatant", and he does so judiciously, with the full knowledge of the western-conscience baggage that weights that phrase down so neatly in his favour. Mind, al-Shabab is the violent Islamist Somali militia comprised of young men, some very young, engaged in spreading terror and horror in Somalia and exporting it abroad.

Charged in the United States with five war crimes the sitting military judge has ruled a damning personal admission of guilt admissible at his trial, deeming it not a product of torture. Mr. Khadr claims himself to have been physically and mentally abused, citing as just such an instance an episode where guards attempt to persuade a physically reluctant Mr. Khadr to quietly submit to standing on a weigh scale for his medical records.

He has become a skilled manipulator while awaiting justice, knows just how to prick the conscience of those who find fault in prosecuting a 'child soldier'. That child soldier was fully capable of proceeding as he was taught to do; among other things manufacturing and planting land mines. In the 2002 firefight in Afghanistan against U.S. soldiers he is accused of having thrown a grenade that killed an American medic.

Omar Khadr has his many supporters, decrying the horribly errant decision of the government of Canada not to make an effort to return this son of Canada to his home country. He may very well be found guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Even newspapers in this country which are generally held to be conservative in nature call for him to be returned to Canada, to live out his sentence here.

Close to the comfortable presence of his loving family. That same mother and sister who hold that al-Qaeda is a meritorious freedom movement, that violent Islamist jihad is simply returning to the West what it deserves. That until Sharia is imposed within Western democratic countries they will never be anything but socially, politically, religiously degraded places of contemptible existence..

Fundamentalist Islam is the way to freedom, enlightenment and the path of righteousness and justice.

A Disappearing Way of Life

When a city is hugely dependent on a single industry and has been for almost a century, it is a hard blow when that industry decamps. Even though symptoms have been widely available and acknowledged of that very withdrawal. The Detroit-Windsor joint reliance on vehicle manufacturing by the Big Three of the North American automotive industry had a good, long run. It made for reliable employment on both sides of the Canada-U.S. divide.

When the automotive monopoly of North-American built vehicles came to a shuddering halt after the introduction of foreign imports whose quality was far superior to that of the North American models and the purchasing public lost its loyalty to the North American brand, and the foreign-owned competitors began opening manufacturing plants and employing North American workers, the writing was on the wall.

Add to that sorry little tale the complication of an industry hit with the double-whammy of consumer disinterest and a failing economy worldwide, and the recipe for disaster ensued. And then, both the United States and Canada stepped up to the plate to rescue companies whose importance to the economy was too great to allow them to flounder. Investing billions of tax dollars to keep General Motors and Chrysler afloat.

What an immense relief; valuable jobs in a still-viable, albeit friable industry, saved. And then, a year later, the rescue package gone slightly stale, even while the company is on the road to recovery, General Motors closes down its Canadian branch operations. Windsor now has another shuttered factory, this one laying off 500 dedicated workers at its transmission factory. Sad faces; some early retirements, far more unemployed.

A day later a beaming Barack Obama announces his administration's pleasure, from Detroit, at General Motors' commitment to re-building its traditional presence in the city. Bringing back employment to a depressed sector of the economy. All those billions that the U.S. Treasury committed to rescuing General Motors paying off quite handsomely.

How utterly irksome.

Carbon-Spewing Alberta Oil Sands

Suddenly the superior attitude of the U.S. administration and its enthusiastic environmental supporters, in decrying the 'dirty oil' that Canada has aplenty in Alberta's oil sands looks rather curiously limp in the face of the stupendous size of the environmental calamity that that very same U.S. administration has brought down upon itself.

This is, of course, the same administration that so recently shocked its home-grown environmental supporters by launching an a 'all-clear' for further off-shore drilling along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the coast of Alaska. Suddenly it has due cause to do a severe re-think of the situation.

The seemingly insoluble - in the short run at any event; a longer-range potential solution looks three to four months down the road - solution to the current state of runaway oil shooting out of British Petroleum's site off the Gulf of Mexico with the collapse of their rented drilling platform translates to an environmental spill that should have been foreseen.

But there was no impetus to do that. If that Deepwater Horizon oil well had been drilled within Canada's territory, any oil drilling and refining company would have had to drill more than one well to ensure that in the event of a rupture, a relief well would be in existence to alleviate the effects of a spill. In U.S. coastal waters that was not required.

The U.S. government, while celebrating its green credentials as a forward-looking, responsibly environmental administration, actively sought bids from oil firms to drill in their Outer Continental Shelf. They did not, however, hamper the potential for mutually beneficial bidding by insisting on first enacting protective legislation.

To ensure that companies drilling on the ocean floor would first practise due diligence in conducting a thorough initial survey, in planning to drill supplemental wells, in being aware that their activities, should they result in an avoidable disaster, would make them liable for the results of accidents that would threaten fishing or tourism through ecological damage.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act 1990, actually limiting the liability of offshore oil firms to a truly inadequate $75-million on top of clean up costs, must seem like a green light to any company wishing to avoid unnecessary expenses relating to costly backup systems. If the U.S. doesn't care enough about the kind of damage a runway well could wreak on its coastline and its economy, why should the oil companies?

Yet this is the very same administration - seeking to do things on the cheap-and-ready, determined to make themselves independent in energy needs from sources abroad - that decries the carbon emissions from oil sands extraction in Alberta. Where the Alberta government, concerned for its environmental reputation, is working with oil companies to ensure cleaner extraction and refinement methods are created.

Just look at the potentials, one exemplifying the real potential for danger, drilling on offshore rigs at huge oceanic depths, ensuring remediation using untried, theoretical measures to halt a disastrous spill has a real element of risk - as opposed to another, drilling on land, where risks are more readily manageable. And where overland pipelines to the U.S. guarantee an element of safe delivery.

Now, the long Atlantic coastline of the U.S. is awash with tarry oil, imperiling wildlife conservation areas, fisheries and tourism from Louisiana to Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, possibly Texas. Sensitive ecological areas stand directly in harm's way of the oil being slowly wafted ashore, while BP desperately attempts untried, unproven measures to staunch the flow.

Nature's balance is easily disrupted, not so readily mended.

Speaker Privilege

How about that, Canada is being invaded again, by yet another American whose reputation as a brilliant speaker goes before her. Sarah Palin to speak in Hamilton, Ontario? Wow, that's some distance from Alaska, en't it? She is touring North America. Speaking volubly about her politics, no doubt, and voluminously about the ruination of the United States under the lamented auspices of the Democratic Party.

The first black president of the United States. Who has accomplished what no other president has (t)heretofore been able to, through the power of his persuasive personality, and a whole lot of arm-twisting. Congratulations, America! Finally dragged yourself away from Third-World status to join the rest of the civilized wealthy democracies of the world whose first duty to their citizenry is to protect them with universal health coverage.

Sure, it's just a start, and it's universality American-style, but that's somethin', truly. And about time. The pain is intense, obviously. And the backlash makes quite the spectacle, with all those sign-toting enraged citizens of the U.S.A. slamming their president as a "socialist", a "Marxist", and a "Nazi". Yes, it is expensive, and painfully so, particularly at this unfortunate juncture in the country's sagging economy - but necessary.

So get over it, eh?

Is it not ironic that a portion of the proceeds from Sarah Palin's speaking event in Hamilton, originally meant to benefit two Hamilton hospitals withdrew themselves as beneficiaries? "There was a bit of a push back from donors due to Gov. Palin's opinion on Canadian health care", according to a spokesman for CARSTAR Automotive Canada, one of the event's sponsors. "We knew those views going in and thought, 'It's always good to hear from the other side', but some people weren't as open-minded."

Right. This is, of course, the same Governor Sarah Palin who, on a previous visit to Canada's western provinces casually mentioned in her cute little offhand way, her familiarity with the Canadian health care system, first-hand. Of the times that she and members of her family had slipped over the border to take advantage of the 'free' health care? Remember that? A sweet little revelation that.

Speaking of revelations, how about the ones about her insistence on first-class air travel or private jets, hotel suites and other little comforts. That she has earned about $12-million - presumably through speaking engagements, as a hot commodity, since leaving office as governor of Alaska. And her insistence that all questions be pre-vetted and audiences screened in advance of her appearance as that aw shucks, spontaneous hockey mom.

A speaking contract, apparently hauled out of California State University's trash bin where Governor Palin is set to give a June speech, stipulates: "For Q&A the questions are to be collected from the audience in advance, pre-screened and a designated representative shall ask questions directly of the speaker." There's that off-the-cuff, simple and direct speaker fer ya.

Oh, yes, and that she be provided with a hotel suite along with two single rooms in a "deluxe" hotel complete with "laptop computer and printer (fully stocked with paper) and high-speed Internet" and "all meals and incidentals". Well, that simply represents what is due, does it not?

Who's to quibble?

In the Spirit of Fun!

You might think so, but you might be awfully wrong. No one messes with the American flag, no one. It might seem like a friendly caper, but the dunderheads who thought so, obviously didn't think deeply enough. The American flag to most Americans is a sacred symbol of the country itself. As a symbol so highly regarded and universally flaunted, it is no trifling matter to make light of it. Even where Canadians are accustomed to feeling very comfortably ensconced as frequent visitors and ex-pats.

Have some respect, you Canajun idgits!

Mind, this is not something that happened on April 1st, which might even make it a trifle more explicable, although to most Americans no less unforgivable. Nope, this happened on February 28, the very day indelibly etched in the memory of sports- and Olympic-games fans worldwide, when the Canadian Olympic hockey team trounced the U.S. Olympic hockey team in the men's hockey final. Truly a memorable occasion, one taken in good stead by those on both sides of the friendly border.

It's just that several Canadian men who happened to be in La Quinta, California thought they'd have a post-game celebration. One that was comprised of hiking up a steep, craggy mountain called Point Happy where a nearby resident had hoisted the American Flag after the 9-11 attacks, in memory of the victims of that attack - which, of course, included Canadians among the thousands of Americans. Mayte Sterling, committed to replacing the flag whenever it became weather-ragged, was furious.

The two Canadians, residents of California, nearby the Beer Hunter Sports Pub and Grill where they had watched the game play-offs, had decided to clamber up that little old mountain and replace the American flag with its Canadian counterpart. This mischief must surely have been well thought out beforehand. Where on Earth would they have suddenly, spontaneously, found such an appropriate exchange, after all?

Well, for their juvenile antics, the two Canadians are facing the possibility of being charged with misdemeanour vandalism, because in their zeal to replace the flags, the American flag was damaged. And they've stirred up a hornet's nest of criticism, as well, with many area residents weighing in on the prank, and they're not laughing about it. "If they find the pranksters deport them to Canada immediately!"

"I didn't like Canucks before this incident due to their refusal to drive the speed limit, and now I'm really, really mad", according to one resident. The speed limit? That's it, the extent of the reason for disliking them Canajuns? "We should just invade Canada and annex the whole slow-moving country. It should be easy since they don't have any guns", opined another.

Now that is more like it! Now are you happy? Get the point?

The Morosely Sanctimonious Scold

She could've been President, she was a contender. And she has been busy boxing ears ever since. Getting good practise in Israel, actually. And a few good shots too, while in Canada. The G8 meeting on the Arctic preliminary to the G20 summit which would include also indigenous peoples with observer status, got Canada a harangue for excluding non-coastal players and aboriginals.

The United States is far more honourable, recognizing the diplomacy required in establishing good relations between all stakeholders. Which is why President Obama suddenly, unilaterally, decided to open up Arctic exploration, among other Atlantic-coast sites. No consultations necessary, since who would object to anything the U.S. determines to forge ahead with?

She was just getting started. From lambasting Canada over the lack of an aboriginal presence at the G8 Arctic confab, she went on to ingratiate herself with Canada by taking up the issue of abortion availability being an integral part of family planning counselling, and it was time Canada faced up to it.

She's right, of course, but hasn't her administration just backed down on providing access to abortion procedures through the recently-passed health care bill, stalled by the Republicans, effectively encouraging the Democrats to abandon their high-flown accessibility rhetoric? It's called political expedience, isn't it?

Political expedience does not make for a finely-tuned morality play. This executive envoy of the United States, an esteemed and carefully-handled-lest-she-bite guest in Canada, kind of overlooked the place of diplomacy by speaking directly to CTV of her decided discontent at Canada's decision to pull our troops out of Afghanistan. Oh. Dear.

Canada has learned to be a passive resister when it comes to American demands. We tend to overlook the presumptuousness of self-entitled, ill-mannered guests when they're American politicians. Opinions can and should be sought and freely given between associates, friends and neighbours, but those opinions should retain some civil circumspection.

Where President Obama's wide and brilliant smile disarmed Canadians, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's brusquely unsettling authoritarianism brought a wide and brilliant smile from us on her departure. Whew!

Oil Rules!

"When oil is at stake, the United States always plays for keeps. Our task is much easier if no one knows just how much oil there is." Rob Huebert, University of Calgary.

The Arctic boundary dispute between Canada and the United States is not yet settled, although recent discussions have gone some way to satisfying both countries, without yet reaching a firm conclusion. The five Arctic coastal nations are all salivating at the thought of the presumed vast stores of petroleum fuels to be extracted from huge resources within the Arctic. If Russia had presumed to announce it was prepared to begin drilling for oil, there would be an enraged outcry heard world-wide.

The new American administration under President Barack Obama, which has been very cozy with environmentalists and which is preparing its own federal environmental program, has now announced its intention to open the country's offshore areas - including the Beaufort Sea, which both Canada and the U.S. claim, to intensive development. The exploitation of undersea deposits north of Alaska is also in the picture.

Environmentalists were caught off guard, for this is, after all, the very man whom they supported in his drive for the White House, allowing sanctimonious glimpses of his environmental credentials and commitments every step of the way. This was the "yes we can" president who vowed to show Americans a new direction, a new way to step forward into the future. The reality of economic imperatives and the collapse of the economy evidently conspired to sober his thought processes.

"This is not a decision that I've made lightly. But the bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth, produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we're going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." From Delaware to central Florida, the Gulf of Mexico to Alaska, the hunt is on.

Hey, you there, remember us? We've got huge deposits in Alberta, remember that? Dirty stuff, it sure is, but Alberta's cleaning it up. Expensive, yes it is. But it's a vast reservoir, and it's already being exploited. Not, obviously, to the benefit of the environment. Listen, before you go along to get going, how about settling this Canada-U.S. Arctic sovereignty dispute, so we can remain friendly neighbours.

And while we're at it, good neighbour, let's talk about the Northwest Passage as well. There, Canada rules. It's history, it's fact, it's ours.

Watch Your Uncultured Step

It's one thing to be invited as a notoriously right-wing commentator on contemporary affairs of political correctness, to address a curious and semi like-minded audience wanting to see up close and personal the physically engaging personality whose un-politically correct tongue lashings have made so many sit up and take notice. Quite another when one of the universities to which you have been invited to speak has its university administrator caution, in the most ungenerous of terms, against speaking rashly, insensitively, to a Canadian audience.

Stifling freedom of expression in a university setting, one that accepts as quite necessary in the spirit of open dialogue and discussion, the hate-fuelled event labelled "Israeli Apartheid Week" which stands out as the single most egregious display of precisely what Ann Coulter is being warned against? Oops, and my goodness, we are so suddenly sensitive to the implications of having someone appear who minces no words in her opinion of social backwardness masquerading as ultra-liberal enlightenment.

Imagine, the effrontery of enthusing over the potential to invade Muslim countries to convert the population from Islam to Christianity. Novel in its implications that erasing Islam from the mindsets of jihadist morons would effectively emasculate their religious fervour. There's a lead balloon for you at the Israel-bashing party.

But not to worry, this woman is an equal-opportunity-basher, considering she feels the same about Judaism needing to complete its journey toward Christianity.

Ann Coulter is urged to use "restraint, respect and consideration", when addressing her conservative audience at University of Ottawa. The very same venue where the student federation welcomed the opportunity to distinguish themselves by refusing to use "restraint, respect and consideration" when addressing their conjoined article of faith that Israel represents murderous racist apartheid.

"Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges", according to Francois Houle, vice-president academic and provost of U. of Ottawa. Forewarned is forearmed. Mr. Houle has kindly given Ms. Coulter ample examples for her address on freedom of expression, on a silver salver. She should give him credit.

His prissily contemptible admonition to a social-political commentator who obviously relishes the spotlight of notoriety will surely earn him a special mention in her speech? In her round of speeches, since she is scheduled to speak at a number of venues; University of Western Ontario, and University of Calgary, as well. She will no doubt be accorded a more cordial welcome at those two institutes of higher expression.

"I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind." Unexpressed, but inherent in the totality of the experience is that the admonition can be readily lifted if her target is Israel, and its intransigence, its dreadful record of oppression, its intent to murder and maim Arabs, its wish to conquer the world.

But we would like to effusively welcome this personage to Canada, and to hope she will enjoy this experience. It will provide ample fuel for further discussions back in the United States, on those poor simpletons in Canada. Which her country so kindly permits to exist on the same continent.

Unfair Play, Game Over!

The Parliament of Canada unanimously agreed to the passage of a new Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act. Which would have the effect of prohibiting flavour additions to tobacco products which are designed to market cigarettes and cigarillos to young people. And children, as well, since they are so eminently marketable. The bill's effect will prohibit candy- and fruit-flavoured tobacco products.

Now isn't that a truly dastardly ploy? No, not the Government of Canada's decision to act responsibly to protects its vulnerable youth from the enticement of smoking tobacco masquerading as a fun-product tasting like fruit and candy. The action of a friendly government to imperil the livelihood of God-fearing, lucre-worshipping producers that help make America great. The morality of marketing such products seems not to bother tobacco manufacturers one whit.

And while it's all right to uncover through internal investigations the reality that tobacco manufacturers engage in withholding scientific data inimical to their longevity, even when they know that their products are inimical to the longevity of human beings as a result of their addiction to a fatality-inducing product, that's for the protection of the folks at home. These addictive products find a large audience elsewhere in the world.

But uh-uh, not in Canada, any longer, folks. Recognizing that this is a dangerous product, that those who insist on using it should be adults, consenting with full knowledge of the personal dangers involved - and not kids who tend to ignore any kind of warnings of danger ahead, and to respond to such warnings with an accelerated leap at forbidden products - isn't it amazing that U.S. lawmakers would go out of their way to lobby Canada?

Well, perhaps not if those seven members of Congress are from areas in Kentucky, Virginia and Indiana. Tobacco-producing states of that union of unreconstructed free-marketeers. So now a group of Republicans and Democrats representing their states' free-market interests are chiding Canada for its insistence on saving its own. And resenting what they see as Canadian officials appearing to be "key facilitators" for a group proposing that nations "prohibit or restrict the use of flavouring substances".

Health Canada explains that Canada's purpose is to bar cigarettes with flavours like vanilla, licorice and chocolate. Additions that would hardly appeal to the adult palate, but most definitely would to the sugar-discriminating tastes of children. Entrap Canadian children into a life-time of abusive health practises? Well, why not, in the interests of the bottom line and an expanded network of victims?

But Canada is being charged with "duplicity" and the belief of these American lawmakers that there exists a Canadian-based "rogue" bureaucrats' agenda to eradicate American-style cigarettes from the global market that has them enraged. The larger issue being that Canada's initiative in this area is being considered as a template for the World Health organization's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

"We believe Canada's approach has gone too far. If your government pushes these provisions through the FCTC process, the result could devastate the burley farmers in our state." Marlboro, Camel and Winston brand cigarettes are blended with burley, a harsh-tasting tobacco, to which 'mild' flavourings are added for greater acceptance. Message: change the losing formula; don't blame those who reject the product.

A product imperilled? Um, tough. Canadian manufacturers of goods must abide by American laws, and the reverse, particularly in this critical health-related-product issue is a fine case in point of what's good for the goose ...

Frankly Diminished Authenticity

Well, the bad boy of the Rock has done it again. Rocked everyone's sensibilities. Did he spare thought to the repercussions of proceeding as he did? Well known and loved within Newfoundland for his rashness, even Newfoundlanders must be taking second thought about the depth of their Premier's commitment to his province. It is, after all, a newly-wealthy province, so what reason is there that their medical-hospital capabilities appear to be sub-prime?

Newfoundland and Labrador's deputy premier, temporarily assuming the mantle of premier fumbled with a news conference, uncomfortably confirming that her boss had taken himself off yonder, left for beyond to have his medical problem ably taken care of ... in the U.S. "I would have my cardiac surgery done in Canada, no matter what resources I had at my disposal", stated a cardiac surgeon at Toronto's University Health Network.

Amiably pointing out that heart patients from the United States as well as from other countries take their treatment at the UHN's Peter Munk Cardiac Centre for valve repairs, a procedure that Toronto surgeons developed. Ontario's Cardiac Care Network points out another lovely little detail; after-bypass death-rate in Ontario presents among the lowest in North America.

Cardiac specialists throughout Canada are in full agreement: Newfoundland's premier could have had cardiac surgery to treat any heart condition within Canada which has top-notch experts. "Virtually all forms of cardiac surgery are looked after in Canada, and I would say extremely well."

Mind, according to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, Newfoundland appears to have the longest cardiac-care wait-lists in the country where the majority of bypass operations take place within a whopping 182 days of the decision to operate, while Alberta's in comparison is a 7-day average wait-list. Why not, then, travel to Alberta? Or Ontario? Why not use some of that oil money to accelerate wait times in Newfoundland?

For the irritably pugnacious Danny Williams, no other province is good enough in any respect to shove Newfoundland out of the picture. "We have the most advanced electrophysiology labs in North America" according to the Ottawa Heart Institute's spokesman. "We have the most advanced catherization lab in the country and probably North America. I can say the Heart Institute is certainly second to none in North America. We're here if he [D. Williams] needs us."

Well he doesn't, and you can shove that down your platitudinous, self-effacing throat. He don't need no favours. American surgeons and hospitals get his custom, and stick that in your craw. Danny Williams craves attention and attention he'll get; in spades. No, not the puzzled maundering of Canadian medical-patriots, but the welcome jubilance of American Republicans.

The Tea Party and the Republicans will be overjoyed to have Danny Williams as their credible, numero uno spokesperson who can, with full authority of one who knows, slag the capability, efficiency and professionalism of the Canadian medicare system, while lauding the exceptional treatment he preferred to receive at American facilities.

Well, wadjagonnado?

Crime and Punishment

Legally sound, morally repugnant, according to the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled in an unanimous, 9-0 decision that the Government of Canada is in full legal compliance in its insistence on having the final word on matters relating to foreign affairs. Justice Minister Rob Nicholson took the opportunity to reiterate the government's stance of non-interference with a friendly government's handling of an enemy combatant accused of serious war crimes.

The Supreme Court justices went out of their way to ensure that government and the country at large understands that this is a legal decision. Which does not impair their apparently collective condemnation of unjustness on the part of government by withholding from Omar Khadr other legal obligations, as they see it, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Despite the five charges levelled against accused terrorist Omar Khadr: murder, attempted murder, conspiracy, material support for terrorism and spying, the learned justices hold that his human rights as a Canadian have been neglected through the government's refusal to request his repatriation to Canada from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Claiming that his charter rights were violated when Canadian government officials undertook to interrogate him at Guantanamo Bay with a view to sharing the results of that interrogation with U.S. officials. Is that not precisely what collaborating, co-operating countries do to assist one another?

Is there any question that this man represents a violent challenge to law and order, security and public safety in North America?

Sleep deprivation is cited as the torture to which Mr. Khadr was exposed, rendering him more malleable under questioning due to extreme fatigue. A maltreatment which, according to the collective wisdom of the justices constitutes a situation which "offends the most basic Canadian standards about the treatment of detained youth suspects." Yes, well it would, and it does. Under most circumstances.

This is a man who as an impressionable boy was taught by his Islamist-deranged parents to hate the very democratic institutions within Canada that gave them the freedom to live as they preferred, even while they deplored the odious rot they saw within its society and its government. The Khadrs, Islamist jihadists involved with the most extreme threats to Western stability taught their children hatred and trained them to murder those whom they hated.

The Elder Khadr, father to Omar, had no compunction about sending his teen-age son to terrorist training camps; he saw that as his children's religious obligations toward a warped version of Islam. The Western social consciousness that deplores the very idea of holding adolescents accountable for violent actions moves in sympathy with Omar Khadr.

We do, on the other hand, judge and try and impose penalties on young people who commit violent social atrocities, holding them accountable for their dreadful actions against others, while still nominally protecting them from public display and too-onerous sentences seen as an offence against their youth.

In all such instances the judgement and the sentence should fit the crime. In Mr. Khadr's instance that seems to be the case, up until now, although the final sentence is still unknown. Even "time off for good behaviour" is a possibility. And then, heaven forfend, his presence will become Canada's problem once again.

Fatwas and Global Responsibilities

Finally, a breath of sanity from Islamic leaders in Canada. After the attempted Christmas Day bombing, some 19 Canadian (and one U.S.) Islamic leader got their heads together and decided to release a religious edict, a fatwa, to express their anger, annoyance and disgust at attacks taking place on North American soil by um, disaffected young Muslims. Stating, unequivocally that in their enlightened collective opinion any attack by extremists within Canada and the United States would clearly constitute an attack upon the ten million Muslims resident in those countries.

Interesting, welcome, and somewhat limited. What about Islamist attacks say in Spain, in the Middle East, in Britain, in Indonesia? Don't they count? Don't law-abiding, faithful Muslims live there too, along with Christians, Jews, Sikhs and Hindus, and perhaps members of other religions. Isn't an attack by fanatical Islamists anywhere at all in the world an attack against freedom, liberty and human rights? Don't all people have the basic right to live as they will, without being terrorized by fundamentalists who consider them human scum?

Perhaps the 20 Islamic leaders would have done well to consult an expert on anti-jihadist activities, another Muslim, for example, whom these attacks pains for many reasons, not the least of which the fact that they are enacted by those who express their devotion to Islam. One cannot doubt that someone of the ilk of Tarek Fatah or Irshad Manji would have been helpful in formulating the declaration, and making it eminently more geographically inclusive.

The intellectual and moral spearhead of the fatwa which honourably states: "In our view, these attacks are evil and Islam requires Muslims to stand up against this evil", was none other than Calgary-based Imam, Syed Soharwardy, founder of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada. Who has said, "We are part of this society. This is my home, and if anybody attacks on Canada, in fact, attacks on my home."

Nice, very nice, Very much appreciated the declaration that it is a duty incumbent upon every Muslim in Canada and the U.S. to safeguard the two countries. Hey, what about all those other countries of the world, don't they need protection from demented, overheated Islamist jihadis? How about extending that fatwa to China, India, the Middle East, Europe, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Yemen, for starters? Isn't a jihadist-missionizing entity a blot on humanity?

And isn't Mr. Soharwardy the very individual who sponsored a Calgary Human Rights tangle with Ezra Levant for his temerity in posting the world-of-Islam-offending Danish Mohammad cartoon and pointing out his personal opinion of Muslim hypocrisy? And what about the postings in the past on his ISCC website equating Israeli-Palestinian relations with a Holocaust perpetrated by Jews upon Arabs?

And his slandering of Christians who had undertaken humanitarian relief in the wake of the Indonesian tsunami disaster, claiming that Christian missionariers were interested only in absconding with Muslim children, and using humanitarian work to rescue the tsunami-afflicted as a ruse for their true purpose? A slander that was responsible in part, for the murder of three Christian schoolchildren by an enraged Muslim in Indonesia?

Imam Sowarhardy was also an enthusiastic proponent of Sharia to become part of the Canadian legal system, a move that would have led to Muslim women becoming victim to sharia law, unprotected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Gee whiz, is this the best we can do? Really?

Isn't That Typical?

Some entities are so powerful that they have no need to pause for introspection before accusing others of wrongs, lapses, lack of due diligence or malfeasance leading to potential harm toward others that they themselves are guilty of. In the case of the United States with all the cutting edge technologies and intelligence opportunities at their beck and call, one failure after another to apprehend attacks against themselves has led to greater emphasis on fail-safe security measures, all of which are meaningless because of a lack of scrupulous implementation.

Rather than empowering their intelligence agencies to commit to working with one another in a tandem of responsive and responsible intelligence sharing, rather than monitoring their homeland security measures on their home turf to ensure that all the measures committed to, to ensuring that terrorists cannot identify the weakest links and exploit them are consolidated and the parameters met, American authorities and the country's administration looks outward, toward its defence partners to find fault there.

Not for them the recognition that they have themselves failed to implement meaningful and useful measures to foil the plans of malevolently determined terrorists to exact as much blood and damage to the structure of the country as they possibly can, in the process sowing the threads of terror in the minds of the population. The executive body and its homeland security offices and intelligence-related arms prefer instead to look outward to assign blame.

And that blame generally goes out to the country nearest it geographically with a contiguous border, a shared language and partially shared culture, an integrated communications and energy and production network. To the timidly-assertive country next door which traditionally has gone out of its way to bow before the demands of its big neighbour. Despite all proof to the contrary, American legislators continue to believe and to express the opinion that the weakest link in its interior security is its proximity to Canada.

Canada with the leaky border, with the lax rules on issuing visas; the country that welcomes immigrants from all over the world. Despite the irrefutable fact that none of the 9/11 terrorists leaked into the U.S. from Canada, but were actually issued American permission to enter the country, the fiction still resonates that they entered from Canada. And now we learn too that in the weeks leading up to the inauguration of the first biracial American president the RCMP was advised that a Canadian of Somali extraction would attempt to assassinate the president-elect.

American intelligence received what they felt was a credible 'tip' that such an extreme event was on the cusp of being carried out. While an RCMP investigation had no trouble coming to the conclusion that the tip was a false one, attributing it to a 'poison pen' operation, a hoax, where some questionable individuals attempted to frame others whom they viewed as enemies. And this was too difficult for the CIA to ascertain, given the presumed gravity of the event?

The United States has its own expatriate Somali immigrant community. Some of the male youth of whom, like those in Canada, have been identified as potentially radicalized by absorbing and passionately grasping al-Qaeda's ideology, who have travelled to Somalia and to Yemen to be taught jihadi-effective techniques in terror and exploitation of their favoured position as citizens as launching pads for exacting Islamist revenge against the hated United States.

Through the periscope of its crooked vision, U.S. authorities are able to visualize danger erupting through the auspices of al-Qaeda agents emanating from Canada, but rarely from within their own borders. Finding it incredible, doubtless - and who can blame them? - that U.S.-born offspring of immigrants might choose to follow the road less travelled and become a threat to the very country that nurtured them and gave succour to their families.