February 28, 2007 at 3:08 pm · Filed under General
On September 11, 2001, at the time terrorists were flying two planes into the World Trade Center at New York City, I was working for a client on the 51st floor of a Toronto high-rise. The events of that day had an illusory feeling about them, which still lingers with me whenever I think about the attacks.
At the time I was building business continuity and related disaster recovery plans so the tragedies riveted my interest on a number of levels. And, because of my work, several co-workers asked me what I thought would happen if something similar occurred in Toronto.
As I answered their questions I couldn’t help feeling that whatever I said was probably irrelevant since I could not really imagine such a thing ever happening in Toronto. Oh, I knew it was possible, but thought it highly unlikely. And I remember that, at the time, any scenarios that I formulated involved foreigners – never did it occur to me that the perpetrators could be Canadians. Such a notion would have been absurd – unthinkable.
Nearly five and a half years have passed and the unthinkable begins to gnaw at me.
Last summer, I was chilled by a media report following proceedings at the Brampton, Ontario courthouse that read:
“Prosecutors here assert that some of the men charged in a terror plot last week planned a series of violent attacks that included seizing Parliament and beheading Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other lawmakers if Canadian troops were not withdrawn from Afghanistan, a defense lawyer said in court Tuesday.”
How does one process such information? Were these men merely indulging their egos with empty threats that were intercepted by the authorities? Perhaps. And yet, these alleged terrorists are not so different from those, who in the summer of 2005 turned their rage on their fellow countrymen in London, England.
Add this report to statements made by Ali Hindy from Scarborough’s Salaheddin Islamic Centre. He participated on a panel for TVO’s Studio 2 TV program last June and claimed to know nine of the alleged terrorists. He said words to the effect that the affair was mainly a set-up by Canadian authorities. He allowed that there might have been some wrongdoing, but for the most part the charges were trumped up. Another of the panelists seemed to hold similar beliefs. This I found extraordinary. There were other disturbing comments about Islam not making the distinction between church and state that Canadians do. And that Muslims are taught to put religious law ahead of secular law.
I have read and heard such sentiments expressed several times before, of course, but it was the timing of these statements that took me by surprise. I felt immediately that there had to be something very odd going on, for here we have our police charging 17 Muslim men (five who are minors) with vile, violent crimes, and a religious leader from within their community makes claims that I found to be irresponsible.
He has the right to say whatever he wants to, of course, for this is Canada where we treasure free speech and individual rights. But the level of disconnect between his view of the recent events and that of mainstream Ontario is startling, to say the least. On the other hand, if views like his are shared, even by a minority, within the Muslim community, perhaps when they reach receptive ears, they provide some sort of license to those that have sick souls and look to turn their fury and hatred towards their our countrymen.
I shudder to think it, but I suspect there is more than a grain of truth to this speculation. And if I’m right, a lot can be explained. It helps me to understand why, when our service men and women are giving their lives for the benefit of Muslims in a far off land, some Muslims here at home hold such malice towards their own Canadian people.
The unthinkable has become thinkable; how long will it be before it becomes a reality?
February 28, 2007 at 2:37 pm · Filed under General
Americans love to blame. I suppose that if you consider yourself perfect, then others must be at fault whenever something goes wrong. When American-based terrorists fly airplanes into American buildings, Canada has to share the blame — even though none of the terrorists entered the U.S. from Canada. When there’s a major power blackout in the north-east, New York City’s mayor and the state’s governor initially place the blame on Canada — later it’s discovered the problem had “Made in the U.S.A.” stamped on it.
Last summer, a cell of alleged terrorists is broken up in Canada and again we heard form our American friends about how Canada’s policies are to blame and that the border must be secured from infiltration from the north. Never mind that the cell’s objectives seem to have been entirely within Canada. The only U.S. connection seems to come from the cell’s attempt to smuggle guns in from south of our border. Hmm, American guns to kill Canadians — sounds familiar.
One terrorist out of dozens arrested on U.S. soil tried to enter their country from Canada, and for that American legislators must forever label Canada a “safe haven for terrorists.” There even seems to be support for those nut-bar American civilians patrolling the border out West.
For goodness sake, grow up America! Put your own house in order before looking elsewhere for someone to blame.
February 28, 2007 at 2:08 pm · Filed under General
Coulter comes across to me as someone very much in love with herself and with little else. Apparently she’s on a crusade to make money, and it seems she’ll write or say anything that she thinks will speed her on her way.
Does she really believe half of what she says? Who knows, but knowing that people who share her value system are in positions of power in the most powerful nation on earth is going to keep me awake at night. She does have nice hair though.
February 28, 2007 at 1:10 pm · Filed under General
Attend most public meetings these days and you are assaulted with shouts of anger and other aggressive behavior, which often is described by participants as “peaceful protest.”
When surfing the Web, it takes much effort to ferret out balanced argument from the millions of words expressing anger at and intolerance of other people’s points of view. Polarization of views is the norm. If you are a socialist, everything conservative must be disparaged. Conservatives must deride all socialist/liberal views. And on it goes – independent thinking trampled in the rush to the extreme left or right.
Fortunately, most of time, this behavior can be ignored as boorish or simple bullying, but ever so often it crosses the line and manifests itself as terrorism. Unfortunately, we all too often see examples of those who have crossed the line.
The way I see it, intolerance, when left unchecked, breeds extremism. Our opponents quickly become our enemies. And intolerance tends to breed more vigorously in closed, tight-knit communities, where views too easily become hardened and unchallenged.
In Canada, I am afraid that we have too many closed, tight-knit communities with divided loyalties and values that are inconsistent with the general norm. And these communities escape challenge because of blind adherence to political correctness. Such communities contain self-interested parties who quickly close ranks and claim racism or some other form of bigotry in defense of those interests, regardless of whether or not they are in Canada’s best interests.
I hear a lot about peace, tolerance and goodwill, but find precious little of it practiced. Anyway, that’s the way I see it.
February 27, 2007 at 11:34 pm · Filed under General
I propose we make hypocrisy the eighth deadly sin. Yes, let’s put it right up there with pride, envy, anger, sloth, greed, gluttony and lust. And while we’re at it, let’s reserve an especially hot corner in hell for those of our world leaders who are persistent and unrepentant hypocrites. (This will be a crowded corner, eh?)I’ve about had it with the sanctimonious homilies of the reigning leader of the free world. Here’s a man who almost always ends speeches with the words, “God bless America,” and misses few opportunities to let all at hand know he’s a Christian. Pretty much what the Oxford dictionary had in mind when it defined hypocrisy as “the practice of claiming to have higher standards or beliefs than is the case,” as I see it anyway.How does one reconcile all that moral superiority from a man who breaks Christianity’s Ten Commandments whenever it suits his purpose? One does not. One can only marvel at the audacity of the man who calls for God’s blessing one minute but preaches war the next.
What about the Commandment that Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor? Doesn’t this pretty well rule out lying — if one’s a Christian? Apparently not for some Christians. President Bush seems to have been less than truthful when giving his reasons for going to war in Iraq. One also wonders what the truth really is about his service in the National Guard. And then we have Thou shalt not kill. Note that this does not say “…except in time of war.” And if you order someone else to kill, don’t you have to share the guilt? And here’s my favourite, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods. Hmm, does oil fit the definition of thy neighbour’s goods? You bet it does!
February 27, 2007 at 3:32 pm · Filed under General
I have never been in favour of government-encouraged multiculturalism. I believe we can achieve cultural enrichment and diversity without diluting our identity as a people. I do not agree that a nation should aspire to be an extension of everybody else’s cultural identity. Rather, we should strive to develop a unique identity that embodies the core values that we cherish, most of which are spelled out in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And beyond our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are those characteristics that have traditionally defined us as Canadian: belief in democracy, the rule of law, tolerance, pluralism and peaceful coexistence with our neighbours to name a few.
And, the way I see it, this can be achieved with a sensible set of immigration policies, which would encourage like-minded individuals from around the world to come and help use fulfill our dreams. Newcomers to our country need not belong to any specific religion, or be of any particular colour, race, national or ethnic origin or gender. They should, however, be like-minded. In other words, they need to share our dreams and values. And, so that they can understand us and participate fully in our society, they should be fluent in one of our two official languages within three years of coming to live with us.
Immigrants should be officially encouraged to maintain their traditional cultures so long as doing so does not interfere with them being able to integrate themselves into our society. They should be officially encouraged not to form distinct cultural groups that do not interact with the mainstream. This takes us back to a concept that prevailed up to about the 1970s. Integration not separation should be our model. Living side-by-side – not in ghettos apart from the mainstream – should be our goal.
To be “Canadian” should mean something beyond not being like the Americans. There should be a set of shared values and beliefs that define us. And those who wish to become Canadian should be informed of what these shared values and beliefs are so that they know ahead of time what they can expect here and what other Canadians will expect of them.
For many, a major element of culture is religion. And, although in Canada we believe in freedom of religion, we also believe in separation of religion and state. This is not easily understood (or accepted) by those who live in societies where religion and state are inexorably bound together.
Some think of Canada as a “Christian” society and sometimes generalize by referring to us as Christians. Canada undoubtedly was founded on Judaic-Christian moral values and principles. But, although many individual Canadians are adherents of those faiths, it is incorrect to assume that collectively we are either Judaic or Christian. But why does this even matter?
Separation of religion and state matters profoundly. Canadian law is secular law and is made by representatives elected democratically under the principles of universal suffrage. Our law applies equally to all who live in our country. In Canada, when there is a difference between the law and anyone’s religious law, it is the law that takes precedence.
This brings me full circle, for here is my 1,000 pound gorilla in the room, i.e., how this might affect our Muslim community.
I question whether some followers of Islam can ever reconcile themselves to the concept of an integrated Canadian society, where Sharia law must be subordinate to Canadian secular law, where being a “non-believer” is acceptable and where intolerance and militancy are unacceptable. For most Muslims I doubt this will ever be an issue, but for some there could be tragic consequences.
For the record, I am an immigrant who chose Canada and who believes all Canadians and landed immigrants should focus our loyalty on Canada first and foremost and only secondarily on our country of birth. When I ask myself the question: If Canada went to war with my birthplace, where would I stand? I know my answer is: I stand for Canada first last and always.
February 27, 2007 at 12:12 pm · Filed under General
My blog has become more active in the past month as I try to take it to a new level. I host the blog at my own website using WordPress to manage the technical aspects of writing and publishing posts.
Recently, I changed the look and feel and am still tinkering a bit; however, in an overall sense, I’m satisfied with the form and presentation. Content remains somewhat uneven, though, to my taste, pretty much OK.
I’ve reached the point now of adding some not-in-your-face advertisig. For this I plan to use Google. Their ad service tries to match adds to the content of the web page. There is also the issue of syndication to increase readership or, at least, to encourage it. We’ll see how this works out.
I’m also at the point of wanting to share what I’m doing. To that end, I plan to register with two directories: Blogs Canadaand Blogarama.
February 27, 2007 at 8:26 am · Filed under General
A piece in today’s National Post made me think of a post I made to my old blog. I’ve decided to re-post it here.
Much has been made of the fact that Iraq is oil-rich—the second largest reserves in the world. This is supposed to virtually ensure Iraq’s transition to a free democratic society. Oil will attract bags of international investment to finance the rebuilding of the country’s ruined infrastructure, we’re told. All true, I’m sure, at least in the short term. But what of the longer term?Paradoxically, history seems to suggest that not only does a wealth of natural resources not lead to long-term wealth and development, but it may actually inhibit real progress. Consider, for instance, Spain versus England and Holland in the sixteenth through eighteenth centuries.
Tons of gold, silver and precious gems poured into Spain from her American colonies—instant, easy wealth on which to build her empire. Whereas England and Holland, without access to such huge reservoirs of natural wealth, built their empires through manufacturing and trade. And, by the end of the eightteenth century, Spain was a spent force, while England and Holland remained powerful, vibrant states.
There are other more contemporary examples. Kuwait versus Singapore and Hong Kong. Who’d you bet on for long-term sustained prosperity and development? Kuwait with its huge, but non-renewable, oil reserves, or Singapore and Hong Kong with their sophisticated economies built on trade and commerce.Moreover, name a single country in the Middle East that has invested the proceeds from its oil wealth to build the institutions and social structures that will be necessary to sustain its standard of living once the oil is gone?
Some will point to examples such as the U.S.A., Canada and Australia, all of which have abundant natural resources. Didn’t they develop sustained prosperity despite their wealth of natural resources? Of course they did, but there’s a big difference. The Americans built their country and its vital infrastructure with trade, commerce and agriculture and only later did it exploit its minerals and other natural resources. Canada and Australia benefited enormously from being extensions of the British Empire—and inherited a solid foundation on which to build.
My fear is that Iraq will fall into the same tender trap as sixteenth-century Spain did and discover that oil really was a curse.
February 15, 2007 at 12:09 pm · Filed under General
“God is Canadian” – I think it was Bruce Kidd who said that following Canada’s narrow victory over Russia in the historical 1972 series. Well, God is Canadian and he is a hockey player. And when he made the first Canadian in his image and likeness he made the definitive hockey player. (For aboriginal people this was, of course, a latent talent not to be fully developed until the last century.)God also infused the rivers, streams and lakes with a divine hockey elixir. Now it’s in the water.
Canadian boys and girls inherit His special gift as the hockey elixir enters our food chain, into mothers’ milk, our fruit and vegetables and the meat and milk of our livestock. Our older boys, of course, receive their daily topping-up from our Canadian beer.
Other countries discovered our secret several years ago, accounting for the large number of foreign players participating in our youth leagues. It’s not the coaching; it’s the water — they could have merely imported our coaches and played in leagues in their own countries. The Yanks were the first to cotton on to our secret, and they have been coming north in huge numbers for years.
In 1972, while touring in Canada – and drinking our beer – the Russian team played brilliantly until Phil Esposito and Alan Eagleson twigged to what was going on and banned all Canadian-sourced liquids from the Russian players’ dressing room and hotel rooms. Many other national teams have seen this temporary surge in their play while touring in Canada.
February 6, 2007 at 12:03 pm · Filed under Technology
I’ve been thinking about security quite a bit recently. It’s becoming a real challenge to keep my PCs safe/uninfected after receiving e-mail or surfing the Web for awhile, what with computer viruses, worms, Trojan horses, spyware, malicious bots and spam.
Over the past several years, I’ve employed several security products, the most recent of which are:
Hardware firewall (router) – any of the brand names will probably do;
Software firewall built into Windows XP with SP2 and recently I’ve been using F-Secure as my firewall and anti-virus – seems as good as any I’ve used over the years;
Firefox Web browser to block “popups” and avoid Internet Explorer’s (IE) security vulnerabilities;
PestPetrol to keep creepy digital critters at bay;
SpyBot-S&D, Windows Defender and Registry Mechanic to clean out spyware and other malicious digital trickery at least once a week.
Despite my precautions, I have the feeling I’m fighting a losing cause. The way I see it, there are two major factors contributing to my problem: use of Microsoft products and those PC users who, through benign neglect, allow their systems to become infected and subsequently pass on viruses or whatever to those with whom they come in contact through e-mail. Now, I know that I’m never going to totally avoid the latter, but I sure can do something about the former.
So after a dozen or so years of being a Microsoft booster, I’m now on the lookout for alternative products that are under the radar screens of the hackers, crackers, phishers, script kiddies and plain vicious nut cases who inhabit cyberspace. And after some searching and researching, I’ve settled on my first Microsoft alternative – “open source,” which includes a Web browser (Firefox), and e-mail client (Thunderbird). In time, I’ll check out Ubuntu Linux and OpenOffice as alternatives to MS Windows and Office Suite.
February 2, 2007 at 11:27 am · Filed under General
Back in 2004, in the New York Times, Clifford Krauss summarized the pessimism of many Canadian commentators with this:
“…Canada is adrift at home and wilting as a player on the world stage. It is dogged by not only uninspired leaders but also by a lack of national purpose, stunted imagination and befuddled priorities even as its economy prospers.”
These words still resonate with this writer. I may not have said it quite so eloquently, but these words convey much of what I have felt about our country. Although, I must add that since the Conservative government took office early last year I have felt more hopeful that this might change.
February 1, 2007 at 11:05 am · Filed under General
From time to time, I do tire of the need America seems to have to use euphemisms to cover her status and her actions. Recently, I read of the sharp reaction American officials had to the suggestion that U.S. troops in Iraq were “an army of occupation.” America reacts with righteous indignation to any hint that she may be anything but a benevolent, altruistic superpower that rushes in to liberate the oppressed and spread democracy.
Like it or not, believe it or not, admit it or not, America is an empire, and as empires do, she has imperialist aspirations and ambitions. Since the Monroe Doctrine of the early nineteenth century, America has been an empire in waiting. Now her time has arrived and she had better acknowledge the reality and get on with the responsibilities inherent in that status.
Ancient Romans hated the term, king, but nevertheless endowed their dictators with kingly powers and hereditary rights—they called them, emperors. America hates the term, empire, but walks and quacks like one. America’s interference in other countries’ internal affairs throughout the twentieth century are legion—Cuba, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Columbia/Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Grenada—and are persuasive evidence of her imperialism.
The important question is no longer whether she’s an empire, but how well will she handle such awesome responsibility. Will absolute power corrupt America as it has so many others down through the ages?
For information about the use of this Web site, please read the Terms of Use.
Comments: Opinions expressed in comments are not necessarily mine. Comments are open to all, but are moderated and I will delete racist or offensive material, including use of foul language, hateful words and sexual content.
While I accept anonymous comments, I dislike the practice and seldom respond to them.
External Links: External links are provided for information purposes only. I do not endorse and am not responsible for the content of external sites—use them at your own risk.
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our Web site. These companies may use information (not including your name, address email address or telephone number) about your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here.
