Entitlements, Islamist and Otherwise

The Dutch politician, Geert Wilders has the well-deserved reputation of bluntly speaking his mind. And his mind has been lingering over the transformation that has taken place in his country, in tandem with the rest of Europe, as a result of immigrants from Muslim countries continuing to practise religious and cultural customs that often run counter to the values, religious, social, secular and lawful of their adopted country.

The solution of this disparity in values and priorities has not been to have the immigrant population shed their deep-seated and socially-, culturally-engrained traditions, but rather to witness as they insist that the laws and customs of their adopted country should be altered to reflect their needs. This is not the manner in which people have traditionally integrated into receiving societies in a world of migrating groups through the millennia.

But this is the manner in which immigrants from Muslim-majority countries have been treating the societies of their adopted countries. Despite that they have fled often enough from repressive societies and exploitative governments to find greater opportunities to fit their aspirations for the future, they still cling to the traditional ways of life that give them comfort in their new homes, choosing to eschew those of their new home.

Making a clean break from all that is familiar is not possible overnight. And accommodating one's ethnic and heritage traditions to a new social contract, a new system of justice in a pluralist society is difficult, but it can be accomplished. It can be accomplished with a sense of goodwill and a realization that some things must be sacrificed for the greater good. Entitlements must be earned, and not demanded.

Instead a general thought process appears to have evolved, where imposing a foreign and alien way of life onto an entirely different kind of society with its own traditions and values upsetting the natural order of social life, has evolved. Where countries which absorb immigrants with the expectation that the newcomers are willing to adapt to their values, find instead that immigrants insist the welcoming societies turn their values inside out and upside down to accommodate them.

It is precisely because Islam, the religion, also carefully instructs its faithful to live Islamic principles and values in every aspect of their lives, transforming the religious/spiritual, to a social, judicial, political, all-consuming and overwhelming surrender to an implacable template impervious to inviting any changes for accommodation purposes, that a conflict has arisen.

Geert Wilders states unequivocally, based on the record of what has occurred throughout Europe, his unassailable argument that Islam is rigidly indisposed to being transported to Western-value countries because of its demands. He claims also that the Islamic holy book encourages violence, and as a result moderate Islam is a figment of the imagination of the deluded. Spiritual jihad has succumbed to violent jihad fairly generally.

The logic is there in the various displays of Muslim and Islamist behaviours as fanatics impress the West with their lack of reason and utterances of impassioned belligerence to any and all questioning of Islam. From chaotic, violent displays of incendiary anger resulting in mob-murders, to well-conceived and carried-out jihadist attacks against Western targets and populations.

Supported by a silent, simmering, resentful Muslim ummah, which has never invested itself in making any effort to restrain the fanatics among them; deny that their mission of upheaval reflects their own vision; never wholesale condemned the atrocities committed on behalf of Islam; never admitted that Muslims commit unspeakable acts of violence against other Muslims, let alone infidels and Jews.

So the argument that a Netherlands politician who points out simply what is occurring on the international scene proves in and of itself what he claims, represents a goad and a spur to violence for his confrontational style in a last desperate act to counteract the effects of Islam fully infiltrating the culture and society that he holds dear, holds no water.

It is not a matter of isolating or marginalizing, or threatening or attacking minority group rights. This is a matter of clearly and resolutely pointing out that the receiving society and culture has its inalienable rights, and those rights, to honour and retain their origins and values - trump those of an alien ethnic, cultural, religious group determined to impose theirs on the indigenous society.

It's as simple as that. The need to stop radicalization in its tracks; that of an Islamist belligerent group insistent on its entitlements, and that of a beleaguered indigenous society which has no wish to see its laws, values and culture undermined in favour of honouring one that cannot give due honour to those who have generously opted to share their future.

One group of beings cannot exercise freedom and entitlements at the intolerable expense of despising and refusing to tolerate the identity and values of another. But it is not Western society that claims its superior religion and values must be paramount to all; it is fanatic Islamists quietly watched and supported by a majority insisting that all that is non-Muslim be subordinate to Islam.

The violence that emanates from Islam, both verbal and physical, has its carefully laid-out agenda in the Koran and the history of Islamist conquests.

Doing Jihad

That was some street party. It made a lot of people very happy. Almost five hundred, in fact. Who were most dissatisfied with the lodgings they were placed in that kept them too tied up to attend to the kind of dedicated and comprehensive activities they far preferred to be involved with. Little did they know that a little conspiracy was afoot, courtesy of government auspices and their happy-club, to free them from the inconvenience of bars and release them back to the activities they love best.

"The most astonishing thing" ,trumpeted the Taliban was that their carefully planned and executed route to the outside world for the politically-motivated inhabitants of Sarpoza prison in Kandahar City went serenely undetected for the many hours it took to void the cells of their prisoners. Astonishing too that the prison break-out might not have concluded so successfully had its planners-and-executors not been in possession of keys to the prison cells.

"They were just sleeping. They are always intoxicated, smoking heroin, smoking hashish, or sleeping", one of the escapees said dismissively of the prison guards who had no inkling, not the merest suspicion over the course of the night that anything amiss was occurring. The soundless and hushed exercise where Taliban members went about the political wing of the prison to awaken and hustle prisoners down into the escape tunnel escaped their notice.

These are the very guards who received careful and detailed training by experienced Canadian correctional services agents, to teach them the fine points of prisoners' rights, and the lawful and effective manner in which their profession should be practised. Correctional Services Canada had a number of officials regularly travel to Afghanistan to monitor the process.

Canada invested several millions in physical upgrades to the building.

And additional funding to the overhauling of the insecure and previously incompetent professionalism of Sarpoza's staff guards. This was seen as a huge improvement over the situation that prevailed a few years earlier when an earlier prison break-out occurred. Like everything else in Afghanistan, considering the corruption of the government, the national police and the armed forces, outside sources cannot compensate for a cultural lack of commitment.

The Taliban, determined to recover what they consider rightfully theirs by conquest, have not been idle in the face of NATO's recent successes. They planned well, but could not possibly have conducted the operation as successfully as they did without inside help. And despite the declarations of the Afghan government spokesman after the fact, there were obviously those in high places who were complicit.

How is it possible that over a period of five months' excavation work, the resulting tons of soil carted off in trucks and even on donkeys went unnoticed? A tunnel 320 metres long - a full kilometer - that went under a major highway and the outer prison wall, directly into the prison itself would result in an awful lot of excavated soil to be disposed of. And considering that the tunnel was 2 meters wide by 2.5 tall, even more so.

The start of the tunnel was inside a metal-making shop that came in handy to produce metal bars to bulwark the tunnel under the highway. That's a lot of heavy labour for a team of 18 men; and no one noticed...? The tunnel was ventilated with fans, electrified for light, and nothing irregular was noted? The tumult of almost five hundred men being suddenly notified that freedom was at hand, just fellow me - not heard, not seen, not spoken of.

And the deputy intelligence chief in Kandahar, who obviously has the title, but no inkling of what intelligence might actually consist of in its gathering potential and vital importance, moans that "this will have a negative effect on Kandahar's security situation." Yes, it most definitely will, given that some one hundred and more of the escapees represented high-value Taliban chiefs.

Abdul Wahab Salihi, the deputy intelligence chief in Kandahar may claim to be upset about the misfortune that has befallen the prison, but the escapees clearly are elated: "I have been doing jihad for 10 years. I will fight again, I will fight again."

The Last Word

There's a lamentable paucity of women in Canadian politics. Politics is, admittedly, a rough-and-tumble game of one-upsmanship, of agitating and finagling, demonstrating and cajoling, advantage-seeking and provocations. It has always been a man's game, evoking a spirit of competitive action, akin to participatory team sport and intellectual warfare. Women have got to be tough to compete, to be treated like 'one of the boys'.

And tough women don't weep and wail and defend themselves by invoking pity and compassion as a wronged and helpless woman, one who has in her arms a gurgling new baby, isn't he cute? So none of this is fair, this characterization as politics as primarily a man's occupation and not a woman's. Too much hinges on participation by both genders to truly represent the interests of an entire society.

Just as men have to tough it out when the game gets rough, so too do women. It is hugely unfortunate that the Prime Minister chose not to courteously set time aside in his busy schedule to permit a brief interview with Helena Guergis either before or after he decided to remove her from her portfolio and from the Conservative caucus. One might suppose decency and civility required at least that on behalf of a former colleague.

On the other hand, it could also be assumed that Ms. Guergis, when she was still being defended for her many gaffes by Stephen Harper, had enjoyed previous little chats where it may have been established that her deportment and attention to her job might be improved, be less exasperatingly irritating to her political coevals and Cabinet colleagues.

Patience is not extended forever, not on anyone's behalf. When questionable new irregularities arose, compounded by unsubstantiated allegations, it may have become evident to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet that patience sometimes runs thin when the rewards are not forthcoming, and there comes a time to pull the plug. Ms. Guergis went down with the bathwater.

Tales told out of class may be rumours, but the rumours that attached themselves to her through her husband's finagling and misuse of his former position with the Conservatives and her current insider position of trust and entitlement within that same party simply ran afoul of expectations and adherence to rules and regulations.

She had her opportunity to exact a bit of revenge, but the simple facts of inattentiveness to party discipline and expectations due from a Cabinet minister however modest in nature, and her unfortunate pairing with an unprincipled, entitled former politician led the way to her dismissal. She still had her elected position, and she is now re-contesting it.

Her constituents will have the last word.

The Ethnic Vote

Little wonder at the rate that immigration continues into Canada - a half-million temporary and permanent residents yearly - that new immigrants and visible minorities now comprise almost a quarter of the electorate. In areas around Toronto that figure rises as high as 40%. and it will only rise increasingly as time goes on, even if there is a reduction in immigration.

So it follows that politicians take careful note of ethnic groups and their presumed voting blocs. Which can sometimes lead to fairly controversial situations. Immigrants are necessary for the lifeblood of the country, and an increasingly visible phenomenon everywhere in the West, as a result of greater numbers of refugees fleeing their countries of origin, and even greater numbers of people wishing to relocate to advance themselves.

Europe and North America are often equated with aspirational advances in opportunities for better educations and earnings, more relaxed and less repressive political and social/religious situations, attracting the attention of people living in countries where societal advances are constrained by the types of government they live under, and where employment is scarcer, and populations denser.

There are also groups of people fleeing persecution due to ideology, religion or ethnicity. And people invariably bring with them their recollections of misery, their resentments, their biases and their searing memories, along with their customs and expectations for the future. Canada is sometimes used as a base from which to launch opposition abroad in various countries of origin, as an unfortunate result.

So Sikh and Tamil separatists, and Muslim sects with their antipathies to one another and to their perceived enemies bring along their historical and still-simmering problems. Infecting and affecting the larger population within Canada to some degree. In some instances causing problems of internal security as well as causing problems through funding militias and terror groups abroad.

Seeking political advantage by attempting to impress ethnic groups that one party or another is more sympathetic or enabling to their aspirations can be a minefield. When Liberal politicians were supportive of Tamil groups themselves supporting the Tamil Tigers, or Sikh separatist groups who fomented problems abroad and terror at home, and Arab groups seeking to divide Canadian opinion on foreign matters, morals and ethics were soiled.

It was traditionally the Liberal party and to a lesser degree the NDP who were seen as champions of the immigrant population. Increasingly that traditional mutual affinity has begun to dissolve, and the Conservatives are now picking up ethnic votes in various communities. Leading to situations where each political party is now carefully picking apart the scenarios presented when incautious politicians leave themselves open to damning scrutiny.

Which is a shame, actually. Because in fact, in an egalitarian, pluralist society, most particularly one that prides itself on its heritage of immigration, all Canadians should be viewed as equal, none needing special attention to persuade them that a particular political party is more in tune with their needs, since no groups should have 'special' needs to begin with.

Is that too much to hope for?

Judgemental Errors

What's this? Prime Minister Stephen Harper responding to an enquiry about the hiring of a former senior aide, confessing that he had not previously known the full extent of Bruce Carson's work history, criminal history and mental-health record? How could he not have been advised?

When hiring is done in the Prime Minister's Office aren't the usual security checks performed? They are, after all, for ordinary workers taking employment anywhere in the civil service, inclusive of contract workers employed in the Parliamentary Precinct and elsewhere in the National Capital.

Would not the Prime Minister himself, much less his senior administrators insist that such background checks be routinely undertaken? To ensure that they are not saddled with someone whose background could prove controversial at some future date?

All these questions and so few palatable answers. For a background check of some dimension was surely undertaken.

"I'm learning these things as well. Let me be very clear about the situation: I knew that Mr. Carson had had difficulties with the law many, many years ago. Some 25 years ago. After that, he had had a good employment record." Sounds feasible. Other than representing as a mild reproach that his own integrity has been questioned. But does this represent due diligence?

The man was convicted of no fewer than five counts of fraud. All of this and more is claimed by Mr. Carson's lawyer to have been revealed during a government security check. Presumably the very one that got this man hired into responsible government positions before he was brought into the Prime Minister's official inner sanctorum as a trusted adviser.

The fraud charges that led to convictions occurred in 1990. Not all that long ago, actually. Two banks had been defrauded as well as a car rental company. Mr. Carson was ordered to seek psychiatric treatment. He was placed on two years' probation. He had a responsible position as a researcher with the Parliamentary Library, a very nice place to work, well-remunerated with ample additional benefits.

It was only with the later revelations through a news expose from an aboriginal news source that Mr. Carson had some unsavoury connections and a suspicion of illicit lobbying that the PMO asked the RCMP to investigate. The Prime Minister did better to issue a mea culpa rather than an excuse for lack of due diligence as in:

"The fact is, I did not know about these revelations that we're finding out today. I don't know why I did not know. Obviously, we're going to have to go back and look at our system ... had I known these things, obviously, I would not have hired him."

The situation demonstrates several things; that no one is exempt from errors in judgement, and that such errors in judgement lead to questions about one's judgemental capabilities.

Distancing

Does it take a genius to ensure that a character check is produced for due consideration before bringing an individual into the office of the Prime Minister of Canada on a mission to advise and take responsibilities that will reflect on the wisdom and governing capabilities of the Prime Minister? Isn't that called due diligence?

Is that kind of thing not routinely carried out, to ensure that only people of good character, useful experience and dependable judgement are hired?

Is it remotely possible that good will is extended in such a manner as to take no care to do background checks in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada? Can just anyone walk in and offer their expert assistance on the basis of their bold self-assurance?

How is it possible that a disbarred lawyer who actually spent time as a prison inmate for fraud decades earlier was able to access the Prime Minister's office, and the Prime Minister's trust?

Brought in, we are informed, as a legislative assistant. Which does not reflect a high-value position, one must assume. How was it possible then that he slid over into a far more vital role in advising the Prime Minister on important matters relating to the operation of the country?

A man with an ethics and principles deficit, somehow defaulting to a position of reliability and trust in the highest political office of the land.

A man who has been shown to have behaved unethically, immorally, reflecting dreadfully on the Prime Minister's judgement.

Is it enough now to say that "we have no further comment at this time", because "...we have referred the matter to the RCMP commissioner, the ethics commissioner and the lobbying commissioner"?

Most Trusted, Most Votes

Well my, that is an interesting revelation. And under the circumstances, a welcome one. That there are enough Canadian voters who are singularly unimpressed by the hot air being vented continually by Michael Ignatieff and his cohorts in the Liberal Party, along with the NDP, the Green Party, and the rather pathetically-self-obsessed Bloc Quebec to haul the Conservatives from power in Parliament.

Insufficient voters are impressed with the presentation of Michael Ignatieff as a potential future Prime Minister of Canada. They appear to be rather satisfied with the performance of the current prime minister, the Right Honourable Stephen Harper. Perhaps they believe that Prime Minister Harper is honourable in intent and practise and Mr. Ignatieff is not, measurably.

Whatever the reason, Prime Minister Harper's ongoing performance has the support of a significant portion of the electorate. Voters, in a recent poll conducted for Global National and Postmedia News by Ipsos Reid, indicate unequivocally that they believe the Conservatives are in the best position to continue leading the country. And that the incumbent prime minister is their choice for that office.

The poll offered Canadians two choices to determine what they believe is the most important election issue. Fully 63% claimed that "electing a party and leader that will provide honest, open and trustworthy government" trumps "electing a party and leader that will make sure that our economic recovery continues", which was chosen by 37% of those polled. But on both counts Stephen Harper and the Conservatives had the upper hand.

The irony here of course is that the Liberals, the NDP, the Greens and the Bloc all contend that the current Conservative-led government is untrustworthy and dishonest. Obviously a contention not shared by the electorate who have witnessed the quality of performance of this government and found it greatly to their liking.

As for the country's economic situation, 37% believe the Conservatives are more capable of performing well at "making sure our economic recovery continues". There is a track record, after all, where Canadians have observed this government at work. And when it comes to keeping taxation tolerable, 36% believe that the Conservatives can be trusted to "keep taxes under control".

How utterly inconvenient for the opposition.

Problematic But Admissible

Dreadfully, no doubt bitterly disappointed . But the extradition defence team working for justice on behalf of former (part-time) university lecturer Hassan Diab, will not let matters rest there. There will be appeals. And plans to take the matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Which august body, given the nature of the appeal; an extradition hearing, a rather routine matter, will likely refuse to entertain.

It does strike one as odd that France, confident in issuing to signatory countries extradition requests, will not herself accede to such requests from external sources. On the other hand, in this instance an exceptional case of sinister outside sources intent on conducting an assault on France's security of its citizens with a view to committing mass murder has impinged on the country's honour and respect of its citizens' rights to liberty, equality and above all, life.

The case against Mr. Diab may seem to his defenders to be a tenuous one. In which case the prosecutor has his work cut out for him. No one could honestly argue that a country like France which takes justice seriously and its reputation for meting out justice far more seriously, will not conduct a fair trial. If there exists, when the prosecution has completed his evidential work, a hint of doubt, one trusts there will be an acquittal.

It is horribly inconvenient and dauntingly disturbing for anyone to have their life upended to such a degree. Honest and innocent people are often enough accused of crimes whose commission they had no part in. In Canada, just as in other countries, justice has on occasion gone astray. Which is one very good reason why the death penalty is no longer used in most civilized countries.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger did perceive the French handwriting evidence as "very problematic" and "very confusing", after having been subjected to the arguments of the defence and the opinions of their three hand-writing experts, despite a claim of prior collusion by government prosecutors.

However, as a judge he has very little option but to honour and respect Canadian law. To do otherwise in this case would have been tantamount to violating the Extradition Act. If Mr. Diab is, as he claims, innocent of all charges brought against him by the French justice authorities, he will have ample opportunity to express that innocence in a French court of law.

Exchanging Geography

"You'll never get an offer that is more fair or more just. don't hesitate. this is hard for me too, but we don't have an option of not resolving [the conflict]." Ehud Olmert

Negotiations between reasonable individuals will bear fruit when there are no assumptions, but there are earnest attempts to bridge the gap of expectations. Some give, some take. At the top of the agenda must be the determination to be as thoughtful and as open to recommendations from each side as possible, to balance the needs of each and arrive at workable solutions.

Good will is an overused term, but it cannot be overstressed. Coming into a negotiating session with the pretense of co-operation but the intention of balking at potential solutions spells failure. Just as much as arrogance and entitlement.

When, after prolonged periods of negotiation between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority and the helpful interventions of the United States and other stake-holders in the Middle East, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas met with then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert for what was to be a final negotiating meeting between the two principals, there were high hopes for success.

Despite which, there was no agreement to be finalized into a workable peace plan. And in the final analysis, that was the case for the very same reason that Yasser Arafat, a far more malicious and corrupt figure than his successor, cited when he finally turned down the offer that President Bill Clinton brokered between Ehud Barak and Arafat; that were he to accept that agreement as preferential as it was to the Palestinians, he would be signing his own death warrant.

As with the Middle East Peace Summit at Camp David in 2000 to negotiate and conclude successfully a "final status settlement" to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so likewise with the
U.S.- and Egypt-brokered plan on the verge of a peace deal eight years later. Long gone from office, former prime minister Ehud Olmert had hinted years ago how puzzled he had been by failure, when he felt success was close enough to touch.

"I began by presenting the principles of the arrangement that I was proposing", Mr. Olmert later wrote in his soon-to-be-published memoirs, excerpted in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth. "After I finished, Abu Mazen [Mr. Abbas] sighed deeply, and asked to see the map that I had prepared. I spread it out. He looked at it, and I looked at him. He was silent."

What the map made clear to Mr. Abbas was a possible way out of the dilemma posed to each side by the presence of the problematical and long-standing West Bank settlements housing tens of thousands of Israelis. Major settlement blocs in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, according to the proposal, would be left in Israel's hands. In exchange the Palestinians would receive land upon which majority Palestinians lived.

It represented an equal exchange of land, but with each side logically receiving land that their own lived upon. For the Palestinians it was land incorporated into the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with a narrow corridor of approach from one to the other. Jerusalem would be partitioned between its Jewish and its Arab neighbourhoods, and this would allow for each nation to install their capitals within their portions of the city.

The contested holy site location - where the holiest site in Judaism exists, with the third-holiest site in Islam sitting directly over it, would be administered by an international, special-purpose committee comprised of representatives from both parties, including as well the United States, Jordan and Saudi Arabia; a fully-inclusive governing body.

"Never before had any Israeli prime minister presented such a crystallized and detailed position about resolving the conflict as was presented to him on that day", wrote Mr. Olmert. "For the first time since the negotiations began, I was very tense. For the first time since I had become prime minister, I truly felt the weight of Jewish history on my shoulders, and despite the fact that I was confident that I was doing the right thing, the negotiations were very heavy."

So "heavy", in fact, that they collapsed. In intense negotiations that had preceded this meeting that been ongoing for eight months, none of the offers proved acceptable to Israel by the Palestinians who had themselves offered major concessions. The Palestinians had offered to surrender claims to large parts of East Jerusalem, gave up demands for refugee return, agreed they would share Jerusalem and its holy sites.

And it was the Israelis who adamantly pressed for more concessions. At this meeting Mr. Olmert had the indelible impression that the sides had finally moved together, that each was meaningfully responding to the other, affirmatively. "Take the pen and sign now", he urged Mr. Abbas. "Give me a few days", Mr. Abbas responded. "I don't know my way around maps. I propose that tomorrow we meet with two map experts, one from your side and one from our side. If they tell me that everything is all right, we can sign."

The following day Palestinian negotiators called to say Mr. Abbas had forgotten he had a previous appointment in Jordan. The Palestinian Authority/Israeli meeting would have to be postponed. And that was the day, as it happened, that Mr. Olmert was replaced as leader of his governing party.

"I haven't met with Abu Mazen since then", wrote Mr. Olmert.

Quebec's Ongoing Entitlements

The Bloc Quebecois remains resolutely hostile to national unity. Hardly surprising, since they have reiterated their stance continually, and it is beyond obvious they have no interest whatever in the welfare and the future of Canada. Their interest lies only in what they can squeeze out of Canada in the way of concessions relating to sovereignty and their provincial empowerment, including of course, the financial wherewithal to comport themselves as an exceptional governing body.

They cannot recognize when they add insult to injury, for they are completely inured to the concept of modest gratitude and loyalty other than as it relates to their vision of themselves as a "national" body representing an extraordinary nation. One with hereditary ties to France, but exempt from any manner of recognition that it is indebted also to the rest of Canada, taking into account our long historical connection that is overdue recognition.

Instead, the Bloc with the arrogantly hypocritical and bloodless Gilles Duceppe blandly informs the federal government that Quebec awaits further munificent gifts from the national treasury to make it feel appreciated. Which state of affairs is simply a reflection of what they are owed. And which will not, upon the acceptance of the demands, result in a mellowed Quebec content to acknowledge its historical place within Confederation, stretching into the future.

They will deign to give their 47-seat support to the federal minority Conservatives' new budget as long as $5-billion is forked out to engage Quebec's interest in compliant acceptance. The breakdown logical enough in their estimation; $2.2-billion to be earmarked as compensation in recognition of the province's agreeing to harmonize provincial sales tax with the federal GST.

Oh, and while we're at it, remember that disastrous ice storm back in 1998 and its costs? They'd like reimbursement for their provincial emergency outlay - about $421-million, thanks a whole bunch. Now let's see, how about pumping up equalization another $1.5-billion? This is a recommendation, not a question, please note. A recommendation posing as a request posing as a requisite for going along to get along.

Too steep a price for the federal government in cognizance that this represents taxes absorbed from all the other provinces who themselves would favour a more balanced and representative deal? There's the offer, messieurs, take it or leave it No one wants an election at this time, isn't that correct? Mr. Duceppe, estimable Bloc leader, insists the government is practising a double standard, favouring, for example, Ontario over Quebec.

Rich, isn't it? Mr. Duceppe fulminates that the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't take Quebec's needs sufficiently fully into consideration, nor does he take the province's requests seriously enough. As, for example, Quebec City's polite request for federal funding for a proposed new hockey arena, the better to entice the return of the NHL to the city.

The Liberals would listen, they would be open to these recommendations/suggestions/requests - demands? Their leader, Michael Ignatieff, is musing about just that, in fact. His party, he suggested, would indeed give serious consideration to federal funding in support of the planned 18,000-seat arena. For it is clear the installation would have a "cultural" component, and the Liberals are all in favour of Canadian culture.

Whereas the Conservatives are not. The prime minister revealed a low regard for cultural events on several noted occasions and that is not readily forgotten. The arts community is very sensitive to neglect, and who can blame them? Mind, most taxpayers would resist strenuously, tax dollars going in support of an NHL franchise that pays its players exorbitantly, and is a magnet for big corporate bucks; some culture that is.

This is a vexing issue that should be allowed to die a quick death; why is it being resurrected?

Wait, we're not finished, not quite. Quebec envisions that with an $800-million additional advance on its post-secondary and health future to be embellished further beyond what pertains in any other province, they can talk a done deal.

Acts of Sickening Barbarity

Fascinating, completely irrational, but fascinating. That the source of a problem cannot see the kernel of reality involved in escalating that problem into one of global significance. Claiming instead to have been victimized. this is not what one normally thinks of when believing that maturity and intelligence equate with responsibility. Particularly when that maturity and presumed intelligence reside in the personage of a British Cabinet minister.

House of Lords-ensconced Lady Sayeeda Warsi, formerly co-chair of Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party and currently minister without portfolio in his government, took it upon herself to lecture Britain for its purported hatred of Muslims. How extraordinary; on the evidence of institutionalized coddling of fanatical Muslims the world outside Britain had the indelible impression that British Muslims were well done by.

Not to hear Baroness Warsi, however. From her privileged heights as a devout Muslim, far from the experience of the squalid, teeming ghettoes and their fiery, eloquent clerics in mosques which are breeding ignorance and hatred resulting in the kind of unrest and belligerence that makes for easy recruits by Islamist jihadists, she sees only the unfair labelling of Muslims between the camps of the 'moderate' and the 'extremist'.

To well-balanced people, making that distinction between those who are 'moderate', which is to say reasonable, non-threatening, and those who are decidedly 'extremist', translated as fodder for violent jihad in nature, would appear in and of itself moderate and reasonable. In other words, an attempt made to distinguish good citizens from potential terrorists; at the very least those whose discontent and grievances pose as a threat to the country.

That threat has raised its head sufficiently frequently through the successful commission of viciously bloody attacks on British public transit users, and other vulnerable venues, and the just-in-time arrests of others planning carnage and destruction to convince authorities that the problem is real, attention to it justified. Yet even so, Britain uses kid gloves in response to iron-fisted threats, bending over backward toward political-social 'correctness'.

There is also the reported perceptions and feelings of mainstream Muslim society in Britain, including those whose only experience has been that of growing up British, albeit Muslim, second-generation Brits who worship Islam, yet are hugely in support of the theories that abound in Islamist propaganda. Among which is the outstanding charge of international Islamophobia.

Suicide bombings are quite obviously not unknown in Britain. And the threats of more, including the secret service and police successes thus far in apprehending additional threats-in-motion. So why would there not be a public back-lash of some dimensions growing inevitably on the back of the real fears that terrorists gloat they are able to foist on civil society?

Baroness Warsi would do far better by her religious community and her loyalty to Britain expressed in fewer accusations of discriminatory talk, and the implementation of more sincere and frequent attempts at educating the Muslim community toward the truth and the reality of the threats emanating from Islam into the wider community.

Like it or not, if the Muslim community feels hard pressed through perceived accusations and suspicion coming from the non-Muslim community, they must acknowledge its cause. They must also spare no efforts to disown, reject, condemn the violence and the threats that erupt from those from within the Muslim community to threaten and antagonize and terrorize non-Muslims.

She could begin by using her own academic and professional education and her political and social status to address the question her own prime minister posed earlier: "how we are allowing the radicalization and poisoning of the minds of some young British Muslims who then contemplate and sometimes carry out acts of sickening barbarity."

Keeping WikiLeaks Afloat

Dang! It can be so irritatingly inconvenient when you're famous. On the other hand, it can also be useful. A new cross-Canada poll taken at year-end seems to put Julian Assange top of mind when it comes to breaking news. That's certainly the opinion of those in the news business; reporters who, musing over Mr. Assange's runaway success in alerting the world to the secret lives of diplomats and politicians speaking what they really think, deem him their newshound hero.

Julian Assange finds himself in elevated company, with the likes of Justin Bieber and our own Prime Minister Stephen Harper for example, all three of whom have elevated the discourse, or demeaned it, depending on whose ox is being gored and your personal aesthetics. Discounting the amount of news and noise politicians are capable of mounting, consider those like Mr. Assange and Master Bieber whose bigger-than-life egos place them on a stage of their very own making.

Justin Bieber was relieved of personal responsibility in a dust-up between boys-will-be-boys, with the decision that he was not really the aggressor, simply the unfortunate recipient of a bit of jealousy-riven aggression - er - something of that nature. Julian Assange, on the other hand, has elevated muck-raking to the nth degree, in the honoured tradition of those who insist the truth must be told. And he's the one to do it, ta-dum!

Truth is also that it most certainly appears as though Sweden is distorting the reality of a few sexual encounters Mr. Assange enjoyed with several willing participants who had second thoughts and whom the authorities encouraged to have third thoughts about. Bedding down with a member of the opposite sex for the purpose of having sex can be a complicated matter in Sweden.

Celebrities enjoy their celebrity. They feel they have worked hard to attain that status. They also, notionally, feel they should be able to manage their celebrity. Sometimes that status takes on a life of its own and become unmanageable, but however the news media confounds what public relations dictates, all news is good news, even the perturbing kind.

Except when it reveals details that appear to the celebrity to be inconvenient at the time of their revelation. As, for example, really embarrassing tidbits one would far prefer to keep to oneself? But no mind, the revelatory details of purloined documentation that have titillated the world while revealing very little of real substance that hadn't been in the public realm previously are still viewed as enough of a threat to have Mr. Assange labelled a threat.

And, as a threat to confidentiality and private assurances in a world that has increasingly eschewed the private and the confidential, he may yet pay the price should push come to shove. On the other hand, the United States of America is not yet Russia which can and does with impunity arrange for assassinations of irritating newsmongers, and judiciary-supported jail terms for those who oppose the current political system.

Mr. Assange and his lawyers may be livid with indignation that details have emerged over his legal woes, but they are doubtless more than a trifle satisfied with the rather munificent $1.7-M book deal which Mr. Assange won "under duress", according to the Guardian. "I don't want to write this book, but I have to", moaned Mr. Assange.

In support of his brainchild, WikiLeaks, and of course his own recourse to self-defence in a politically hostile world that has officially held him to account by the outraged governments whose egg he has smeared all over the news media of the international community. Besides, it gives this painfully shy man the opportunity to write his autobiography, at an admittedly tender age, and get paid handsomely for it besides.

Luton's Open Recruiting

Does Britain know whether it's coming or going? Even as the country is alerted to the fact that another group of 12 jihadists planning Christmas Day attacks in central London have been apprehended, the phenomenon of recruiting ever more dissatisfied Muslim youth goes on unabated. Four homes were raided across the UK, with links to an extremist group.

London Police and MI5 undercover officers concluded their long-standing investigation by a timely intervention. The arrests were characterized as "timely" by the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and he should know, shouldn't he, given that there is less than a week left to the public Christmas festivities. Which represent the featured sites for attack in busily populous London.

Timeliness is a highly rated construct in such apprehensions. One needs to strike to avert catastrophe. Which makes the average non-intelligence-engaged mind wonder why so little attention appears to be given to the supposedly outlawed terror groups operating in Luton, where the suicide bomber who shocked Stockholm learned his stock-in-trade. It took ten years for Taimour Abdulwahab to become fully indoctrinated in Luton.

The Islamist group al-Muhajiroun operating out of Luton appears determined to shorten that indoctrination period with eager new recruits. And they're operating fairly brazenly. So much so that moderate Muslims in Luton complain that they've been violently targeted by the Islamists for their lack of support, while the authorities appear to be completely disinterested in their presence.

Led by a former inland revenue accountant, Ishtiaq Alamgir, who was behind the organization of an Islamist 'protest' against British troops hailing from Luton, after their Afghanistan tour, which erupted in violence and arrests, the man is comfortable enough in a sense of his own security to operate freely in town by actively recruiting and handing out jihadist screeds and directing young Muslim men to terror web sites.

Celebrating the wonderful achievements of the September 11 hijackers, jihadist supporters set up street stalls in open sight of the curious and the adventurous to distribute their literature and entice recruits, citing "the terrorist activities of Britain", in their efforts to turn young Muslims toward violent jihad.

Well infiltrated within British society, working for the public service, as legal counsels, and alongside progressive leftists who anxiously agree that the Islamists have a legitimate grievance and an open invitation to air their opinions, extending those opportunities to include recruitment to jihad, a lot more will have to be done to extinguish the fires of raging jihad in the country, beyond arresting the occasional careless group planning carnage.

Much certainly depends on it. Yet the British government seems to be having a difficult time getting truly serious about extinguishing those opportunists among its Muslim population who feel free to viciously disparage the government, its politics and its armed forces abroad in defence of Western values.

The holding pattern of attempting to remain abreast of the most pressing alerts to impending attacks may suffice only so long as the police and MI5 can assemble enough time and personnel. As soon as the number of jihadists and planned attacks accelerate beyond the point of no return, what then?

Reserve Compensation

"When the money doesn't come from the pockets of people on the reserve, when it instead comes from other taxpayers via Ottawa, there's really no reason to rein in salaries." Mike Milke, director, Fraser Institute's Alberta office, author of Incomplete, Iliberal and Expensive: 15 Years of Treaty Negotiations in B.C.

People on the reserve don't pay taxes to begin with. And the people of Canada who do pay taxes are generally in agreement that their tax dollars should go to reserves as the preferred traditional places of abode for First Nations who insist that reserve life is the only one they will consider, unlike their peers who take their opportunities for advancement in education and the professions living in urban areas, and who do pay taxes.

And the Canadian taxpayer foots the almost-$8-billion annual hand-over in support of the operation of the country's reserves. Canadian taxpayers feel themselves morally obligated to do this without question. On the other hand, they reserve the right to feel that this funding be spent wisely and allocated to benefit the infrastructure and social needs of Canada's aboriginal populations.

Psst! Those assurances have been lacking.

A politician is a politician is a politician. Regardless of their constituency. And traditions must be upheld; above all the traditions that insist the Assembly of First Nations has a distinct and deliberate purpose beyond which no one should question their utility. Chief of the Assembly, Shawn Atleo, presents himself no differently than his predecessors. Brooking no interference in the work of the Assembly, and certainly no criticism of the traditions of First Nations reserves.

Access to information requests have lately informed the Canadian public through the research done by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation that far too much of those yearly allocations are being applied to cross-purposes; benefiting the few at the expense of the many. The ordinary reserve aboriginal is getting short shrift; the services they anticipate due them are not forthcoming.

There is nothing particularly new about this. It has always been assumed that reserve chiefs and their band councils generously apportion to themselves the lions' share of funding meant to improve the lives of their bands. Perhaps it's the extent to which the band councils and the chiefs have improved their lives and those of their immediate families at the expense of those whose interests they are presumed to represent that is so hard to fathom.

The Assembly of First Nations is invested in keeping the reserves intact. They persuade their members, the country's aboriginal populations, that this is the best way to honour their ancestors, by living as they did, on the land in the traditional time-honoured way. This is a monumental hoax, but a profitable one for band councils.

The reserves may be squalid, life boring, unemployment rife, education and health poor, but it is traditional.

And in the meanwhile, there are First Nations chiefs whose tax-free salaries exceed the after-tax income paid to the country's provincial premiers. The records released at the request of the Canadian Taxpayer Federation, while not naming names, show individual salaries can be sky-high. Sixty of the 577 chiefs across the country were remunerated at an annual $90,000 tax-free.

More than 700 reserve politicians earned over $100,000. On one reserve of 304 souls the chief 'earned' a total tax-free salary of $243,000; the councillors on that same reserve each took home a handsome $200,000 in salaries, travel per diems and honoraria. One council member really stood out, hauling home $322,103 in "other" remunerations.

This is not particularly pleasing to band members themselves who don't particularly dote on their band councils, and find much fault with them. Principally their princely remunerations. While reserve infrastructure crumbles into decay and services are too costly to maintain adequately. They are, understandably, resentful, and feel they deserve better. And they do.

As for National Chief Shawn Atleo? He is incensed with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, characterizing its campaign to release data "an insult that paints First Nations leadership as overpaid, unaccountable local bosses, uninterested in the challenges faced by First Nations citizens."

And aren't they?

Are You Gay? Transgendered? Lesbian? Confused?

The Ottawa-Carleton District School Board's director of education, Barrie Hammond claims "We don't want to offend people", but it would appear there will be quite a few people who may indeed be offended. On behalf of their children, on their own part; being asked presumptuous, fairly intimate questions so that the Board, ostensibly, can be sensitized to the range of young people represented within its jurisdiction, and act on that knowledge.

The purpose of which is not clearly defined. Is this motivated by recent news coverage of the discomfiting situation that young people whose gender orientation or presumed orientation has caused them problems with their peers in various jurisdictions? Problems that have arisen that have been the result of insensitivity and boorish behaviour on the part of their peers, causing anguish to young men and women whose unconventional gender attraction is sneered at by those in the mainstream?

It is amazing in a sense, that even while society in general has come around to accepting that there are some people for whom what is considered normal opposite-gender attractions holds no allure. Society which once shunned, held in contempt and threatened those whose orientation was toward others of the same gender, is now comfortable in accepting that differences exist and they are legitimate, and natural for some.

Yet children, who are so often thought of as being less condemnatory in nature, and more open-minded, are often the cruelest in labelling people as inferior or strange or 'weird' because of their orientation. Part and parcel of the bullying phenomenon that exists wherever people tend to congregate, and school, at every level, is where that occurs most commonly.

Yet, even if, as is being planned by the School Board, intrusive questionnaires relating to home life, religious affiliation and sexual orientation will become routine, and it is anticipated that most people will agree to filling out the questions - although there will be no compulsion placed upon people to do so - what can the compiled results render?

Greater sensitivity to the obvious needs of those emotionally affected by being isolated through perceived differences? It does seem, in this multifarious society that we live in, with so many variations in family structures, values and priorities, that these matters are private and most people would prefer they be kept that way.

It's hard not to anticipate a lot of resistance to this initiative. It might be well-meaning, but the very nature of its intrusiveness and busy-bodying interference may spell its death-knell as a useful tool.

There Are Mad Things Done

Under the midnight sun, and also "under the cover of darkness". Which is one lawyer's way of claiming that Canada is in the business of subverting justice. Of engaging in underhanded, subversive activities that claim helpless victims. In this country, which prides itself on its even-handed justice system, on its liberal democratic values and freedoms, there exists a dark and evil underbelly that citizens would never believe exists.

That situation exists purportedly because Canada, like all other democracies in the international community of nations with shared values, priorities and views of justice, has extradition agreements with other countries. That would be, for example, most countries in the European Union, and of course, our great neighbour to our south, the United States.

Because, during a time of crisis, post 9-11, some errors in judgement appear to have been made (not only on the part of both governments, but also on the part of the principal involved), principally in the rendition by the United States of a Canadian-Syrian citizen, Maher Arar, the lawyer for Hassan Diab, a Lebanese-Canadian, feels justified in slandering the justice system of both France and Canada.

Famously, criminal lawyers will stoop to any device available to them, in defence of their clients. The government of France, through its criminal justice system, feels it has more than adequate evidence to pursue a case against Hassan Diab, to have requested his extradition from Canada to face charges of an act of Palestinian terrorism conducted in that country in 1980.

Had that information been available to the Government of Canada, Mr. Diab would never have been admitted to Canada, and he would never have received citizenship. Should he be found guilty, if he stands trial in France for his alleged crimes, his Canadian citizenship would certainly be revoked. In the meantime, France awaits Canada's final decision on the extradition request.

Four people were murdered outside a Paris synagogue in October 1980, by a terrorist bomb attack. Crown layers claim the evidence they are prepared to present to Superior Court Justice Robert Maranger is in clear, legal conformation with Canadian legal standards, and validates France's request for extradition.

Mr. Diab's lawyer claims that France has no reliable evidence that would implicate his client in the bombing-murder. And that to entertain thoughts of rendering Mr. Diab to France to stand trial would represent a travesty of justice, counter to the "Canadian community's sense of fair play and decency". Now that's a stretch.

If Mr. Diab is indeed innocent of all charges being brought against him as he and his lawyer claim, then he should have no fears about returning to France to stand trial. If the legal justice system in France cannot be regarded as fair and just, where then does a fair and just system exist? If he is innocent, he has nothing to fear.

His desperate battle to avoid extradition and his lawyer's lapse in scruples all point to guilty as charged. A fair and just trial would clear things up acceptably.

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.

Incivility, Is It?

Canadians are frustrated that Parliament appears to have lost its civil tongue. With lawmakers casting aspersions on one another, getting fairly personal about it from time to time, and the opposition parties going flat out to confront, deny and parry, thrust and lunge at Conservative government initiatives at every turn, little wonder we've approached once again what looks fairly like a barely functional government.

Despite which, the current Conservative government and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have managed to accomplish much, to their credit and the country's advantage. From handling the economic downturn, to managing international relations, not the least of which is Canada's involvement in the war in Afghanistan, and internal affairs as needed, Canada is is fairly good shape.

We discuss and debate among ourselves the issues that most concern us, from a problematical unemployment rate, the leakage of manufacturing jobs, our costly health care system, energy needs and initiatives in alternatives, crime statistics and the justice system, and Canada's leadership potential in the G8 and G20. And the long-gun registry, the long-form census, and minority government continue to create ferment.

So, are we alone in this bewailing of the lapse of decorum in the House of Commons? That Question Period has turned into a show of juvenile posturings and raucous and rude debate? Do we see finer behaviour and demonstrations of respect taking place in Britain, where so many Parliamentarians have so recently been found to irresponsibly and hugely pad their expense accounts in a manner unseen in Canada?

In the United States Barack Obama assured voters that he was prepared to usher in a new era of non-partisan governance. Under his presidency the country would be administered in a manner to best reflect a united and responsible government, that he would see to it that Republicans and Democrats worked respectfully and usefully together for the people they served.

In his two years of administration a wider gulf of adversity, rancor and blame has resulted than ever before. The country has been beggared by a drain on its treasury, health care reforms created an aura of bitterness that will not soon be lived down, the war in Afghanistan has seen a greater commitment of troops paired with a commitment of detachment. A mere 11% of Americans feel politics in their country has become "more civil" than previously.

Throughout Europe there are public works strikes and unions have declared war on the governments that strive to bring a balance of economic viability back into play. Many of those same countries are battling their own version of self-awareness and self-protection against the incursion of a militant form of immigrant-fed Islamism while being forewarned to anticipate violent jihadist strikes. And North America is not immune from this terror.

In short, what Canadians are experiencing, from Parliamentary dysfunction among political parties, to concerns about national security and the country's finances is being reflected throughout the Western world. Yet, if comparisons are to be made, Canada is in exemplary shape in every conceivable way. And it's past time we recognized that, and allowed our government to do its work on our behalf.

Clear Solutions

Duplicitous Israel, at it again. The ten months of holding in abeyance construction projects on Jewish settlements in the West Bank have come to an end. No amount of pleading on the part of the Obama administration has moved Prime Minister Netanyahu to declare an extension of the building freeze. And since Mahmoud Abbas warned time and again that the talks would not proceed should the freeze not be extended, there go the peace talks.

Of course the peace talks could proceed with no pre-conditions. With each side finding grounds to negotiate and to surrender in some part the demands of the other in something approximating an equal and just determination to find common ground. To collaborate in good faith on a search for meaningful compromises that would promise each side security and a sound basis for a social, economic and political future.

A departure from the past, when the Palestinian Authority, in its previous incarnation as Fatah under Chairman Yasser Arafat authorized the first Intifada to demonstrate precisely what he and his militants thought of Oslo and peace negotiations, resulting in countless deaths. Not quite a entire departure from the present where Mahmoud Abbas is still quietly encouraging 'resistance', while speaking peace-potential.

The PA negotiators are leaning on the Obama administration, expecting it to lift a heavy hand of condemnation against Israeli obduracy again. "We need a practical position from the United States against settlements. I am surprised that America is unable to stop them." Time to meet with the Arab League again.

Well, there do exist practical and obvious solutions to that problem of 300,000 Israeli settlers in the West Bank. An equal number of Israeli-Palestinians within Israel. Negotiations to carve out borders that would include/exclude the offending Jews/Arabs, leaving them where they belong, each with their respective countries within common-sense, newly-drawn borders sounds like a potential.

Israel's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has long advocated just such a solution, and it's not a far-fetched one. Former U.S. president Clinton may consider the million Russian Jews now Israeli citizens a hindrance to a peaceful solution, but their leader is not shy of expressing common hard-headed sense. Jewish settlers would be delighted to be incorporated into greater Israel.

Israeli-Arabs, with the prospect of losing Israeli citizenship and becoming citizens of a new Palestinian state, perhaps not quite so delighted, but they could become accustomed to the idea. And the Palestinian Members of the Knesset who find such dreadful fault with the State which has given them freedom and equality and opportunities could then criticize Israel from the other side of the border.

And given the reality that Palestinians continue to violently attack Jews whenever and wherever opportunities arise, separation is never a bad thing. At least until both sides learn to become more civil and discontinue the use of violence. Toward which end Mr. Lieberman's recommendation of a "two-staged" solution to take a "few decades" to complete, makes eminent good sense.

Within those few decades the Palestinian Authority could change its school curricula to portray Jews as neighbours, not rapacious enemies to be engaged in bloody battle. And it could undertake to do its duty as a civilized society by encouraging all of its citizens to respect the human rights of others to live in peace and security without constant threats and bombardments.

France, Germany, the European Union in fact, the United States and the United Nations could become accustomed to the realization that Israel has a right to exist and their obligation to support its existence a trifle less critically than has been done, and an equal obligation to anticipate and demand from the Palestinians behaviour more becoming a civil, nascent-nation.

And all of them, the United States in particular, would do well to view a trifle more clearly that the urgency to deflect Iran from its nuclear pursuits has little-to-nothing to do with settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and far, far more to do with overweening religious fanaticism and political-ideological ambitions to control the Middle East and eventually the world of the West.

Canada's Sex Trade Workers

Prostitution is a squalid, seamy, miserable occupation. It is demeaning to women, certainly to the women who sell the use of their bodies to men eager to take advantage of the opportunity. Women in the sex-trade profession labour under difficult conditions, to say the least. Not the least of which is public censure and the odium relating to the very thought of surrendering one's most intimate orifice to a stranger's fleeting possession.

No one could argue for prostitution as a polite social convention. It makes a mockery of the social and emotional bond that exists between men and women.

The casual trade of sex-for-hire represents a breeding ground for the transmission of disease, beyond that it is a degrading act. For the women-for-hire, in any event. For the men, not so much, as it happens, since a certain classification of men have always assumed that women's bodies are useful conveniences, and those men who prefer such casual encounters over more emotionally meaningful ones feel comfortable with the process of sexual barter.

The clients of prostitutes are represented by men from the entire spectrum of society. Young, footloose men, and men of social and political influence, as well as men engaged in the rough and physical trades. Lawyers and engineers, health professionals and high school kids; fathers of young families, and grandfathers for whom the remotest thought that one of their granddaughters might end up in the profession would represent an intolerable outrage.

So if someone were doing a feasibility study to determine whether the profession was a worthwhile one as a business venture they would have to conclude that there would never be a shortage of clients. There never has been, throughout recorded history. And then there are the women, most of whom must struggle with their own opinion of themselves as lacking self-respect at the very least, living a life of bleak horror at the worst.

Not all, of course, since there are women for whom social standing as a professional whore is meaningless; they do what they do because this is what they choose to do; mostly for the remuneration involved, and because for them their body is a convenient and useful tool of the trade.

The public can stand in judgement of these women, but this is who and what they are, and what they do; some through personal preference, many more because they have somehow become trapped into the lifestyle as a byproduct of drug dependency or some similar life misadventure.

But it is there, and there is little that polite society can do to stop it; condemn it certainly, but stop it, never.

And because prostitutes are considered to be the lowest of the demi monde, whose outrageously overt activities conjure up imagines of furtive, night-time grapplings, and cash tossed carelessly aside to be scooped up by the humiliated woman of tarnished reputation, society doesn't much care what happens to these women, young and not-so-young.

If we cared for these people as human beings we would be concerned even at a low level of awareness for their safety. Because we cannot find it in ourselves to have any sympathy for the trade and for the purveyors of the trade other than the contempt we feel they deserve, law enforcement agencies and society at large accept that they live dangerous lives by choice and if they fall victim to violence that too was their choice.

When women are murdered, as happens not infrequently, and it becomes known that they were sex-trade workers, the violence that was inflicted upon them seems explicable. Women can disappear and no one is alarmed because they don't live normal lives and what occurs to them does not reflect what could occur to women who do live normal lives.

Wrong - on every count - but this is how society sloughs off its responsibilities in such uncomfortable situations.

No one has to really like the fact that prostitution occurs. It is a shameful thing, in fact, but it is a transaction between consenting adults, for the most part, one where money changes hands for sex to the satisfaction of each partner.

When a woman in the trade becomes a statistic, a victim of violent crime because there have been no protections extended toward her under the law, society itself suffers in the quality of its values and certitudes that we are equal under the law.

The ruling that three federal prostitution laws are unconstitutional is a good one, under these circumstances.

Sex-trade workers, like any other workers in society, must have assurances of certain protections and security under the law. We don't have to admire the profession they have chosen, but we do have to admit they are human beings, just like us.