Editorial: Harper denies care to refugees, closes door to Roma

July 2012

What kind of country is Canada becoming under the Stephen Harper Conservatives? Under the stealth of omnibus legislation, and with the virtually unbridled power of its majority, we respectfully paraphrase Shelley to observe: “Look upon these mean-spirited works, and despair.”

A prime example: Under new rules, refugee claimants will be denied free medical care, except for those with such contagious conditions as active tuberculosis, chicken pox, HIV or acute psychosis. And in a not-unrelated development, in spite of strong evidence of blatant discrimination and abuse, Roma refugee claims are being rejected holus bolus and people sent back to Europe.

Both actions recall the mindset, not restricted to Canada, that led to the tragedy of the St. Louis, the steamship that set sail from Hamburg in May 1939 with 937 desperate German Jewish refugees aboard. They were looking for a home, anywhere. They were denied protection in the United States and Canada. Twenty-two gained entry to Cuba, but the rest ended up back in Europe, where about a quarter of the passengers perished in the Holocaust.

Granted, this is not a direct analogy. Still, under rules that came into effect June 30, impoverished and desperate people seeking protection after an often-hazardous journey will no longer have access to primary and preventive care and supplemental coverage available to many low-income Canadians. This restriction adds hurdles to the already perilous “voyage of the damned” many refugee claimants undertake. Many have been raped, beaten and persecuted for religious or political motives.

Removing access to health care to an already disadvantaged group is morally repugnant. It goes against the spirit of the Canada Health Act and should be rescinded. That is why pediatricians at Quebec’s four university teaching hospitals have protested to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney even as they have promised to continue caring for these children. Quebec Health Minister Yves Bolduc has also stepped in to offer care in a $5-million temporary program.

This cynical move pushed by Kenney, disguised as an attempt to discourage so-called “bogus refugees,” is doing nothing less than shifting responsibility for providing basic care in a refugee process that Ottawa controls onto provincial hands. Those seeking protection should have immediate access to at least the same benefits as provided by provinces and territories to social welfare recipients.

When it comes to the Roma, the recent trend amounts to a “none-is-too-many” attitude by the Immigration and Refugee Board in rejecting most claims, reversing the previous trend of acceptance. Kenney’s stance set that in motion. Lest we forget the background: the genocide of Roma populations during the Second World War.

In the words of Holocaust scholar Yehudah Bauer: “In sheer demonic cold blooded brutality the tragedy of the Romanies is one of the most terrible indictments of the Nazis…that the mutilated Romany nation continues to be vilified and persecuted to this day should put all their host nations to shame.”

We applaud the Toronto Board of Rabbis, which raised their plight in a letter to Stephen Harper protesting against his government’s designating some countries, such as Hungary, as safe and democratic and therefore non-producers of refugees.

We support their statement:

“We cannot stand silent as people’s health is put in danger, and their right to Canadian citizenship cast into question due to their country of origin or mode of arrival.”

Editorial: Student movement rejects limitations of democracy

June 2012

On June 7, 1960, the Quebec Liberal Party made this election promise in a Le Devoir newspaper ad: Free education, from kindergarten through university, along with subsidies for room, board, and clothing, for students with the required ability and desire.

The promise was part of the package of fundamental changes that were to catapult Quebec from the period known as the Great Darkness, the era of Union Nationale strongman Maurice Duplessis, into the heady 1960s of vast social, economic and political progress that was the Quiet Revolution.

The promise of free education was repeated by the Parent Commission in its 1964 report as a goal, and it was partially fulfilled with the virtual freezing of low tuition fees. The creation of
CEGEPs meant that what previously had been the first year of a four-year university course was now the second year of CEGEP, which is free.

This powerful legacy, and the demand that this promise be fulfilled at a time when a university degree is a pre-requisite for many jobs in the knowledge-based economy, is what kicked off the student boycotts of classes in March. It affected mainly French-language post-secondary institutions and has become the most striking political development in this province in some time.

It has mushroomed into something else, the exact impact of which remains to be seen. While some call for taking back the streets from protests that have affected traffic and some businesses, others are affirming that the streets belong to no one group. Seniors, professors, teachers, union activists, members of marginal political groups, and many middle-class adults with beefs against governments and authority have joined in to turn these protests into a multifaceted expression of dissent.

The fact that this has percolated from below is a sign of disaffection from the existing political parties and structures and is a form of participatory democracy that rejects the limitations of parliamentary democracy.

The Liberal government of Jean Charest was sluggish in its initial response, banking on the polls showing support for the tuition hikes first proposed over five years, then stretched out to seven years to bring fees here in line with the average in Canada. Part of the blame can be attributed to former education minister, Line Beauchamp, who under-estimated the resolve of the renascent student movement. The revelation in La Presse that one of the contributors to her campaign was a Mafia associate almost as much as her failure to resolve the student boycotts led to her decision to resign from politics. That episode did not enhance the government’s credibility.

Charest deserves credit, however, for finally entering the fray and using his strong rhetorical skills to argue that the government has made many changes in response to student demands to ensure that anybody from the middle and lower-income classes, whose family income is up to $100,000, will be eligible for bursaries and loans to cushion the tuition hikes.

He and his government have belatedly made some strong arguments in support of its policies, which have broad support. Under present conditions, the Liberals will be able to profit electorally from their attitude, the polls indicate.

Another problem is that the student movement is presenting some retrograde ideas that deserve to be rejected. They had asked to redirect certain funds so there is at least a freeze, if not a rollback of tuition fees. Several ideas make no sense, such as shifting funds from research grants to augment university income. Research in the physical and social sciences is at the heart of university culture and must be increased, not diminished. Ending the tax savings for parents would eliminate a fiscal instrument that helps make it easier for families that contribute to their children’s higher education.

Finally, the protests have evolved. The push to hike tuition fees comes at a time when industries are closing down in Quebec and moving to where labour is cheap. Cutbacks, which have begun in Ottawa, are in the offing provincially. Our per-capita provincial debt—almost $20,000 this year—is the highest in Canada.

As Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times this month, the push for austerity in America and Britain—and coming here—is ostensibly about debt and deficits. But in reality, it’s about using deficit panic as an excuse to dismantle social programs. The students and their allies are saying, “We believe in social democracy and we are taking to the streets to protect our social programs, including the tuition freeze.”

And in that respect, they deserve support and sympathy. 

Editorial: “Shadow MP” not ready for the big leagues

May 2012

After a mud-slinging campaign to dislodge the much-admired Irwin Cotler in last year’s federal election, the Conservatives thought they could pull a fast one by appointing the losing candidate in Mount Royal, Saulie Zajdel, to a patronage job.

Rather than take the usual route of so-called acceptable patronage, appointing a loser to sit on a government board or agency, Zajdel was hired by Heritage Minister James Moore. His appointment was only “announced” in a brief interview with a local weekly newspaper that supported Zajdel’s candidacy and the Conservative party.

Moore’s office refused to reveal his salary, or even spell out his mandate, though Zajdel later told a reporter he was disappointed his pay had not reached the six-figure range. The exact amount remains confidential. Zajdel’s mandate—in his words to the newspaper—was to promote and explain Canadian Heritage program available to multiethnic communities here. The implication was that he was paid to do the work that the MP and his staff normally do.

No wonder Cotler described Zajdel’s role as resembling a “shadow MP.”

Zajdel’s refusal to be transparent, the surreptitious way he was appointed and the nebulous nature of his job became a public issue. Not surprisingly, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper came here for some politicking, the media was more interested in Zajdel and his job. According to a report in The Gazette, he beat a hasty retreat from inquiring journalists rather than face nagging questions. He obviously could not stand the heat, so he got out of the kitchen.

Unable to stick-handle his way around his appointment and its apparent political nature,
Zajdel resigned, telling a Montreal radio station he was “tired of being this distraction.”

Zajdel says he felt insulted by being labeled the “shadow MP” for Mount Royal, but sometimes the truth hurts. Will someone else be named to replace him? We don’t know, but we doubt it.

Zajdel says he hopes to run again in Mount Royal, if the party wants him.

Given the way he has performed as a member of Moore’s staff and his lack of candour about all aspects of his job, both he and the party might want to think twice about whether he would be suitable. Riding residents, who are used to being represented by MPs of the calibre of Pierre Trudeau and Irwin Cotler, are entitled to vote for the candidate and party that best reflects their views.

Zajdel, who increased the Conservative vote in Mount Royal, has every right to run again.

But the public-relations miasma that followed his brief tenure as a member of Moore’s staff suggests this former municipal politician is not ready for the major leagues.

Editorial: NDP leader Thomas Mulcair is positioned to make history

April 2012

With the keys to Stornoway—official residence of the leader of the opposition—in his pocket, NDP leader Tom Mulcair has his work cut out for him. Can he adapt his attack style so he can be seen as a prime minister in waiting, a reasonable alternative to Stephen Harper?

Can he broaden NDP support and offer distinct policies while remaining faithful to the party’s social-democratic base?

Mulcair has shown in the way he ran his campaign and in the understated and thoughtful way he started his new role that he understands he needs to adjust his public persona. Though Brian Topp had the support of the party establishment, Mulcair succeeded in getting the leadership contest extended so he could build up membership in Quebec, his natural base of support. He did it quietly and respectfully and his request was granted.

Though the campaign lacked lustre and made few headlines, it became clear to NDP stalwarts that Mulcair had the experience, judgment and debating skills necessary in these media-focused times to “sell” the NDP product. Let us not forget that he made a name for himself as head of the Office des professions du Québec, where he made disciplinary hearings more transparent, with zero tolerance for sexual abuse of patients by medical professionals.

He then catapulted into the Quebec Liberal Party and got good marks from environmental critics for his handling of that portfolio. He quit against a background of disagreement over the proposed privatization of Mont Orford Park. His winning a by-election and subsequent re-election for the federal NDP in Outremont—once considered an unassailable Liberal bastion—says a lot about his ability to take on tough political challenges.

His main point, that the NDP has to appeal to progressive voters who support the Liberals, was well received. How he goes about it will be the key to his plan to make the traditional third party in Canadian politics into the first. The devil will be in the details, but NDP rank and filers obviously agree.

Critics from the left feared he would deal harshly with Libby Davies, the Vancouver East MP who supports boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel. Mulcair confounded those critics by naming Davies his deputy leader. Whether he will insist she modify her Israel opinions remains to be seen. Mulcair risks defeat in Outremont and the NDP would suffer if the party is perceived to be too one-sided in its Middle East policies.

The other unknown factor in the NDP’s fortunes under Mulcair is how the Liberals fill their leadership vacuum. Interim leader Bob Rae is formidable as a debater and is proving capable and attractive heading the Grits. (How ironic that a former Ontario NDP premier speaks for the Liberals and a former Quebec Liberal cabinet minister heads the NDP.)

The new face is the bearded Mulcair. He has a clear field to establish a prime ministerial persona, build a shadow cabinet, tailor and develop policies to make the case for an NDP government.

Robocall scandal shatters PM’s legitimacy

March 2012

At last count, Elections Canada had received about 31,000 complaints of fraudulent electoral activity prior to last year’s federal election, misdirecting voters as to the location of polling stations or impersonating Liberal canvassers with late-night calls.

Because of its reach to ridings across Canada and attempts to cover it up—witness the cellphone bought by a fictitious Pierre Poutine of Separatist St.—the robocalls scandal is becoming more grave as revelations of alleged transgressions emerge.

Voter suppression is among the dirty tricks developed in the U.S. to skew electoral outcomes, and a scheme the ruling Conservatives appear to have adopted here in some ridings. Prime Minister Stephen Harper denies it is part of a top-down strategy, but others disagree.

As the scope of alleged irregularities grows, there are grounds to question whether this government got its majority through legitimate means. Certainly, what we know now taints Canada’s reputation and its role in helping organize and supervise fair and free elections in countries that seek to replicate our democratic ways.

Independent observers are appalled. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Canada’s respected and discreet former chief electoral officer, says these allegations are unprecedented in the country’s electoral history, and appear to be a systematic attempt to deprive Canadians of the right to vote.

Elections Canada is reported to have broadened its probe beyond Guelph to include former Responsive Marketing Group (RMG) employees in Thunder Bay, who told the RCMP they were ordered to direct voters to the wrong polling stations. RMG is a company that handles the Conservatives Party’s computerized voter-identification system and fundraising.

The latest report suggests that some ridings in Quebec, where the Conservative candidate had almost no chance of winning, were given money from the party and told to use it to pay RMG.

Le Devoir reported that a riding spokesperson in Rimouski-Neigette-Témiscouta-Les Basques received no results after being given money by the party to pay RMG $15,000. It was a similar story in Chicoutimi-Le-Fjord, where the Conservative candidate said he only received polling results.

Said Kingsley: “We have never seen anything like this alleged case in terms of this potential organization and impact in terms of numbers.”

In Montreal, we have seen supporters of Conservative candidate Saulie Zajdel attempt to tar Liberal MP Irwin Cotler with the brush of anti-Semitism. We have seen Conservative supporters call people in Mount Royal riding to spread the false rumour that Cotler was planning to resign and that a by-election was imminent.

The rot in Conservative ranks appears more widespread than anyone thought and the stolid image of the Harper government is irrevocably shaken. Its legitimacy may well hinge on the results of Elections Canada investigations. May its agents leave no stone unturned.

Voters who received misleading information on polling station locations or harassing phone calls allegedly on behalf of a candidate should complain to Elections Canada, at 1-800-463-6868

Harper pushes slam-the-poor agenda

February 2012

Now that he’s got a majority in the House of Commons, the real Stephen Harper—he of the oft-mentioned “hidden agenda”—is emerging. His Conservative government is beginning to ram through policies that most urban Canadians, especially Montrealers, oppose.

We’re talking about the law-and-order agenda and the prospect of stiffer sentences instead of more resources for rehabilitation at a time when the rate of violent crime is steadily decreasing.

We’re talking about the debate Harper initiated to increase the eligibility age for the guaranteed income supplement to 67 from 65, which will hurt the most vulnerable and force many to work when they need and deserve to retire in basic dignity.

A recent survey by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons found almost two-thirds of respondents opposed the shift. This is understandable, given that universal old-age security itself is clawed back from higher-income individuals.

Harper’s argument, that the cost of old-age security will balloon to more than $100 billion in 2030 from less than $40 billion today, does not take inflation into account, argues economist Monica Townson of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Total annual expenditures on the old-age security programs are expected to increase to $110 billion by 2030, representing 3.1 per cent of gross domestic product, compared with 2.2 per cent in 2007. However, she wrote, “because benefits are indexed to inflation, which is assumed to be lower than the rate of growth in both the GDP and the income of new retirees, the amount of income-tested benefits will also be reduced.”

To Townson, and other economists, Harper’s so-called “sustainability” crisis really is one of declining benefits for seniors in “real” dollars, not one of paying to maintain the program.

There are demographic challenges: Canadians are living longer—average life expectancy for males is 79, compared with 68 in 1966. This means
increased health costs, and on paper fewer under-65 working Canadians to sustain social program.

However, as research prepared at Ottawa’s request has shown, Canada spends far less than the average Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country on public pensions; our relatively high level of immigration will partially offset the distortions of an aging population; a crisis is not as imminent here as among eurozone nations because Canadians tend to save more through RRSPs and workplace pension plans.

As Harperite storm clouds darken, it is refreshing to observe the federal Liberal Party rebuilding and renewing itself with such bold policies as one to decriminalize marijuana, passed at the recent Liberal Party policy conference in Ottawa. It signals a willingness to present ideas that contrast with Harper’s destructive omnibus crime bill.

Interim leader Bob Rae is performing well and the party could do a lot worse than choose him as the permanent head.

Once the New Democratic Party chooses a new leader next month, many of its most articulate spokespersons will be back in the House of Commons to promote alternatives to the unfortunate direction the Harperites are taking the country. Stay tuned.

Sleazy ploys to undermine Cotler and his valuable work are appalling

Forces working to install a Conservative in Mount Royal have issued another slap in the face to voters who, in May, re-elected popular MP Irwin Cotler.

A marketing firm with close ties to the Conservative Party made cold calls to people they believe to be residents of the riding spreading unfounded rumours of Cotler’s impending resignation and the imminence of a by-election. As several constituents have complained, there is no such by-election in the works. The so-called survey is known as “push polling,” an attempt to influence public opinion based on an invented premise. It is an obvious and underhanded attempt to line up potential support for the losing candidate, Saulie Zajdel, should he decide to run again. It undermines the credibility and energetic work of Cotler and his team. Zajdel has sloughed it off as “a party thing.” This brings us back to Sleaze Factor, Round 1.

Zajdel has been rewarded for increasing the Tory vote in the riding with what appears to be a patronage appointment, a job with the nebulous official mandate of advising Heritage Minister James Moore. In Zajdel’s words, he is being paid—Moore’s office won’t say how much—to ensure that “what the government is doing is understood” and explain how communities and municipalities can benefit from Canadian Heritage programs.

Meanwhile, walk by Cotler’s riding offices on Kent near Victoria and you will see scores of people, many of them new Canadians, lined up for help on matters ranging from immigration to unemployment. What kind of message are Tories sending—that constituents are knocking at the wrong door?

Cotler, 71, is busy as ever in the House.

He recently spearheaded a motion by a Commons committee for an impartial trial for Egyptian blogger Maikel Nabil Sanad and has become Sanad’s international legal counsel.

He was a prime mover in efforts to amend the Conservative’s omnibus crime bill, in spite of efforts to ram it through Parliament by using closure or limiting debate. This is legislation opposed by most Montrealers. It included scrapping the long-gun registry, destroying data and imposing longer jail sentences as violent crime is decreasing. Quebec Justice Minister Jean-Marc Fournier has protested that this will force cash-strapped provinces to build more jails with no compensating funds. The net effect, Cotler noted, “will be to give us more crime, less justice, at greater cost, with less rehabilitation for the offender and less protection for the victim.”

Cotler continues to fight the good fights. He has fought against discrimination and segregation, for the freedom of political prisoners and for the rule of law and due process.

Mount Royal has an active, energetic and effective member of Parliament. Conservative strategists should think twice before launching Sleaze Factor, Round 3.

Tory candidate’s government salary a secret

November 2011

Saulie Zajdel has a new job. No, he was not elected last May to the House of Commons as the MP for Mount Royal.

After a spirited campaign for the Conservative Party, the longtime Montreal city councilor and executive committee member failed to unseat incumbent Liberal Irwin Cotler. Several months later, though, Zajdel was hired by the Conservative government to do some of the things he said he would do if he were elected. How do we know he has a new job?

We read about it in a Montreal weekly that supported his bid to unseat Cotler. We tried to find out more about this reward to a losing candidate by contacting the office of Heritage Minister James Moore, Zajdel’s new boss.

Our questions were straightforward: What are his functions, salary and duration of his mandate? The answer, as supplied by Moore’s aide, Sébastien Gariepy: “We do not comment on internal staffing issues.”

So much for transparency.

The official also declined to supply an office phone number so Zajdel could be interviewed. Back to the weekly newspaper. Zajdel said he’ll be working as a regional adviser for “community outreach and relations—going out into the community, in Montreal, in the anglophone and allophone communities, ensuring that what the government is doing is understood.”

He also was going to determine how his government can “help the communities and municipalities” apply for programs under Canadian Heritage.

Sounds like Zajdel has been appointed to be a privileged channel, supplanting the role that the elected MP and his staff should be able to do. Surely, Cotler, a distinguished law professor, Stéphane Dion (St. Laurent), equally distinguished political science professor and former Liberal Party leader, and former astronaut Marc Garneau, who has a PhD in electrical engineering, and their staffs are capable of understanding which programs are available and communicating same to city councils and community groups.

This appointment has every appearance of setting Zajdel up as a parallel MP, minus the public mandate, a patronage appointment that is a slap in the face to voters who rejected Tory candidates as they exercised their democratic rights.

Of course, all governments reward their friends, but that does not diminish the fact that it undermines the will of voters in Mount Royal who chose someone else. The Zadjel appointment lays bare the Harper government’s moral deficit.

Essentially, Zajdel is being paid to make the kind of connections and obtain discretionary funding that can only help pave his path to Parliament if he decides to take another run at the riding.

Postscript: The Ottawa Citizen reported last month that a federal government program to help boost security at synagogues and mosques approved a far greater share of applications from ridings represented by Conservative MPs.

Nearly half of all applications to the pilot program coming from Conservative ridings were approved, but only 28 per cent of projects in opposition ridings got the green light, funding records show, the report said. The majority of the rejected applications came from synagogues and Jewish organizations in Mount Royal, represented by Liberal MP Irwin Cotler.

Print lives, thanks to you — our loyal, informed readers

October 2011

Many of us grew up with a favoured newspaper, radio station or TV network as our news and information sources, but that world has gone the way of the dinosaur.

With the Internet chock-full of news/commentary/satire, we are lost in a maze of information overload. In that respect, it’s not what we read, but what we don’t read that can determine how well informed we are. In the maze, many media outlets are dying; others are on life support or struggling to stay afloat as profitable enterprises. All are changing, but only some will survive.

As The Senior Times celebrates its 25th anniversary, loyal readers and a growing coterie of new ones may well ask how it is that publisher Barbara Moser was able to undertake this venture and keep it going and expanding it on several fronts through the ups and downs of recession and the gloom and doom of the 1995 referendum.

The answer is the same that is sustaining other media at a time of multiple choices at newsstands and on the Internet: Credibility and integrity; a variety of subjects and voices; strong, well-argued opinion; and a set of values that coincides with those of readers.

With The Senior Times, the big heart and caring outlook that went into the first publication remains at the core of its choices in stories, photos and personnel and extends to the advertisers, without whom there would be no Senior Times. The same holds true for our directories of much-needed social, community and health services, published in English and French, and presence on the Web, at theseniortimes.com.

The audience awaits the package: Feature articles and photos about some of this town’s personalities that are often overlooked by other media and columnists who cover a wide range of interests.

Neil McKenty’s commentaries reflect his lifelong commitment to social justice. Bonnie Sandler applies her vast experience and sensitivity to a range of seniors’ issues. FlavourGuy Barry Lazar’s unique take on food comes wrapped in an entertaining story. Word Nerd Howard Richler is unfailingly thought-provoking and funny as he examines the quirks of the English language.

Readers eagerly await more inside stories from the newest writers, veteran music critic Juan Rodriguez and Harry Rolnick with his the view from the East Village of life in New York City. The list is long, the subject matter necessary and useful, from legal issues with Joyce Blond Frank to investment ideas with Ivan Cons and Deborah Leahy, shopping hints from Sandra Phillips and novel getaway ideas from Roads Scholar Mark Medicoff.

When good people do good things for humanity, The Senior Times takes note. We cull the myriad of cultural events and highlight those we believe you will enjoy. Our writers review restaurants that offer value for our hard-earned cash. The paper supports politicians who have a progressive outlook when it comes to providing services for the sick, the elderly, veterans and the poor.

Members of The Senior Times family share their travels with readers, and welcome contributions from writers and friends who are making the most of their lives. Your stories matter and give the paper a family aesthetic.

The paper believes in human dignity and respect for all and tries to reflect these values in our pages. The staff is proud of its record and looks forward to the next-quarter century with optimism and energy.

Thank you, dear readers, advertisers, sales staff and writers, contributors all to The Senior Times family. — Irwin Block

Bon Jack was a true son of Quebec who elicited hope and energy

September 2011

The outpouring of love, admiration and respect for Jack Layton across the country is something we haven’t seen for a politician since the death of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It is remarkable, given the low esteem Canadians have for most politicians, and the fact that Layton only since the May election began to look like maybe, just maybe, he could hope to become the first New Democratic Party prime minister of Canada.

Jack, as everybody called him, was a different breed of cat. He was all politician all the time, for sure, but he was so much more. For one thing, he was a true son of Quebec, raised in Hudson, coming from a family distinguished by its commitment to politics and the community, not necessarily in that order. He studied at McGill University and was influenced by his teacher, the political philosopher Charles Taylor, who in the 1960s made several attempts to be elected under the NDP banner and served for a time as party president. It was Taylor who urged young Layton to continue post-graduate studies in Toronto, where he studied under political economist Jim Laxer, a leader in the Waffle group that tried unsuccessfully to push the NDP further left.

Laxer saw something unique in the then-20-something Layton. As he blogged after Layton’s death, “When Jack walked into my graduate course at York University in the early 1970s, it didn’t take me long to see that this was someone very special. The energy and the luminous intelligence were on full display, as well as his respect for others, and the joy he took in meeting people.”

Even then, Layton was a grass-roots guy and, reflecting that aspect of his character, started his political work at the municipal level in Toronto. He is remembered as playing a pioneering role in 18 years as a city councillor, focusing attention on homelessness, campaigning for affordable housing, advocating green energy before it became fashionable, supporting free choice for women, gay rights and the right of cyclists to ride the city’s roadways in safety. As president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, he put the plight of tax-starved cities on the national agenda, paving the way for the federal infrastructure program and getting them a share of the federal gas tax.

Over 18 years, Layton became a household word in Toronto, and after failing to win the mayor’s job, took over the federal NDP in 2003. After all those years in the trenches, Layton was armed with that common touch, a certain negotiating skill, a grass-roots feel and ability to communicate in English and French that none of his predecessors had. Tommy Douglas, a former Baptist minister, was an amazing orator, as was the brilliant David Lewis, a silver-tongued labour lawyer. When they spoke, you could hear the ideology that underlined their words. Ed Broadbent had been a professor, and with all his smarts and integrity, did not have the ease with people that Layton had.

Layton exuded hope and energy, a believer who was also a man who got things done. He was charming and open, a man of sure commitments, but also ready to make a deal to get half a loaf if the full loaf was not attainable.

He spoke a colloquial French that he picked up playing hockey in Hudson. He surely worked on it as well, and that helped cultivate the Bon Jack image that worked to his advantage in Quebec’s Orange Crush, when the NDP won 59 of its 103 seats.

What a contrast that loose and chummy persona made with the stiff, overly intellectual Michael Ignatieff. Even tieless and in a V-neck sweater, Prime Minister Stephen Harper fails to elicit warmth. And the Quebec electorate decided it had had enough of Gilles Duceppe’s divisiveness.

The great irony of Layton’s life is that, as he was to begin life in Stornoway, the official opposition leader’s residence, cancer took his life at 61.

It will be up to a new leader and the biggest NDP caucus ever to build on the base that Jack Layton, smiling and courageous in adversity, did so much to build. His legacy is there for all to see.

Editorial: Labels matter less than policies, as NDP will learn

July 2011

Flush with its unprecedented victory in the May federal election—103 seats in the 308-seat House of Commons—the New Democratic Party as official opposition is in position to challenge the Conservatives for power.

The temptation among some in the party is to move toward the centre to occupy the space the Liberals represented for so long in this province and across Canada as either the government or the alternative.

That is clearly what was behind the proposal at its convention in late June to drop its commitment to “democratic socialist principles” from the party constitution, a move that was put off, because it put off a good number of delegates.

This is a wise move because labels matter less than policies, and what many voters expect from the NDP is what could be called progressive policies from the party that brought medicare to Saskatchewan, setting the stage for the Canada Health Act.

Under the proud banner of social democracy, or democratic socialism, health care for all on an equal basis, irrespective of income or wealth is, in the words of Jim Laxer, “the greatest achievement of those who espoused equality of condition.” As Laxer noted in a recent blog post (jameslaxer.com ), equality of condition, not just the small-L liberal notion of equality of opportunity, is a basic thread of social democratic polity.

In Europe, it has meant in some cases free university tuition, strong job protection and termination benefits, higher minimum wages, better pensions, pharmacare, free full-day early childhood education and generous parental leave.

There were those at the convention who argued for changing the language of the party constitution, adopted when it was founded 50 years ago by linking the Canadian Labour Congress to the CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation). The preamble says the NDP believes “the social, economic and political progress of Canada can be assured only by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs.”

The revised wording would have removed references to socialism in favour of a more centrist declaration of belief in “social justice, equality and environmental sustainability.”

Yes, words matter, but as the NDP is at a takeoff stage of its development as a truly national party, with MPs elected in eight provinces, its policies will matter more. Many voters who switched to the NDP from the Liberals in Montreal and Quebec ridings did so because they see a complementarity in some of their policies, and wanted to give what some journalists call “the dippers” a chance.

Whatever the constitution says, as long as the NDP continues to advocate a progressive agenda, it has a chance of maintaining electoral support, and maybe building on it. This agenda would include maximum coverage under medicare, progressive taxation rates that enable the most vulnerable to live decently, increased foreign aid, more support for higher education and the arts, energy conservation and commitments to meet international greenhouse-gas emission standards.

Adopting a clear centre-left policy agenda is the challenge—the main task of the newly launched Broadbent Institute think tank, charged with generating new ideas to shape the party’s platform for the next election. These policies, and the performance of its youthful and mostly inexperienced caucus—not the democratic socialist moniker—will determine whether the NDP becomes a serious contender for power.

NDP’s Orange Crush storms Quebec’s body politic

June 2011

They are young and inexperienced, but they are idealistic and energetic. They believe they can make a difference and they have a lot to learn.

We are talking about the big surprise of the federal election: the New Democratic Party’s unprecedented sweep of Quebec, going from one, Thomas Mulcair’s Outremont seat, to a total of 58 of 75 Quebec MPs.

For example, in the west end, two 27-year-old teachers, Isabelle Morin and Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, won in N.D.G.-Lachine and Pierrefonds-Dollard respectively. They defeated solidly entrenched incumbents Marlene Jennings, first elected in 1997, and Bernard Patry, a family doctor elected in 1993 after serving as mayor of Île Bizard.

Clearly, Quebecers voted massively for something new, rejecting the two traditional parties as well as the Bloc Québécois and its promised one-horse gallop out of the Canadian federation.

Only their strong personal following allowed two incumbent Liberals to retain their seats. Irwin Cotler won in Mount Royal on the basis of his tremendously active lifelong commitment to human rights and social justice. In Westmount, Marc Garneau won by only 600 votes, based on near-universal admiration for the former astronaut and former head of the Canada Space Agency, who has a PhD in electrical engineering.

Many Quebecers were fed up with the continuing round of elections ending in minority situations where the balance of power was held in part by the Bloc Québécois. That option was seen as a dead end, and for those who voted Bloc, the federalist NDP with a similar social democratic culture seemed like an easy fit.

In local urban ridings, the Conservative message under Stephen Harper does not seem to gel with voters who have been comfortable for decades with the Liberals and their centre-left options. It was the Liberals in the 1960s who enacted medicare, developed a peacekeeping role for our military, defined a foreign policy that was distinct from the U.S., invested massively in funding infra-structure improvements across the country, and maintained progressive tax structures.

However, the Liberals’ sense of entitlement that came with being seen as Canada’s natural governing party contributed to loose ethics and the sponsorship scandal. The stink remains. Voters do not like to feel their support is taken for granted and that their trust is abused.

Now the challenge facing opposition leader Jack Layton and deputy leader Thomas Mulcair is to mould the NDP MPs into a positive and forward-looking caucus who carry out their watchdog role effectively without deteriorating into cockfighting. But more than that, the rookies have to offer strong alternatives to proposed legislation, prove themselves as strong constituency representatives and build confidence in the electorate.

As for the defeated Liberal candidates and the party, they have a lot of work ahead of them under interim leader Bob Rae. Challenge No. 1 is finding a new permanent leader. Obviously, Michael Ignatieff was not up to the job. In spite of a powerful mind, his highly educated, well-traveled and sophisticated background, apparent integrity and commitment, his somewhat professorial style was unable to spark voter enthusiasm. He got the message and resigned the day after the election.

Yet even more than a new leader, the Liberals are in need of a thorough rethinking of their policy book. Prime Minister Stephen Harper is a pragmatic politician. He has set out a policy package that is a balancing act. He has resisted support for legislation that would impede abortion rights, for example, and continues to support official bilingualism even as his government remains committed to building more jails with Criminal Code changes that will increase incarceration, though violent crime is dropping.

Is the new NDP strength and majority Conservative government a sign of an increasingly polarized electorate? Is this the start of a left-right divide that relegates the Liberals to rump status? Is there a potential leader out there who can reinvigorate the Liberals as Pierre Trudeau did in the late 1960s? The answer is not blowing in the wind, but the parliamentary session will provide some clues as to whether the Orange Wave is here to stay or merely a passing storm. We will be watching the Liberals rebuild.

Editorial: Entrusting our future to people we know

May, 2011

For many of our readers, the choice will have been fairly obvious as decision day neared for the May 2 federal election.

The ridings where The Senior Times is read have been well-served by Liberal MPs. The program adopted by the party promises substantial improvements in social policies, pensions, a broad package to boost aid for post-secondary education and more support for culture. The Conservatives are committed to spending that could reach $35 billion to purchase F-35 jets, to building more jails at a time when the crime rate is decreasing, and to further cutting corporate income taxes, already substantially lower than in the U.S. The direction is clear and it is not one we support.

In Mount Royal, the three leading candidates—incumbent Liberal Irwin Cotler, the NDP’s Jeff Itcush and Conservative Saulie Zajdel—are honourable and sincere in their desire to serve the community. None can compete with Cotler, the MP since 1999, for his lifelong and continuing commitment and action for human rights and social justice. Cotler towers above the others and will serve with distinction, whoever forms the government.

In Outremont, New Democrat Thomas Mulcair, first elected in a 2007 by-election, has proven to be a strong MP, having provided the beachhead for the party’s growth in Quebec as the first to be elected under its banner. He is smart, perfectly bilingual and committed to many of the values shared by liberal Montrealers.

His main opponent, Martin Cauchon, a minister under Jean Chrétien, is seeking a comeback, but a vote for Mulcair will help build the NDP so it can recuperate progressive voters who park their ballot with the Bloc Québécois.

In Notre Dame de Grâce, Marlene Jennings has proven herself an effective constituency advocate since being elected in 1997 and represents the Liberals well in Parliament and as a frequent guest on local media. Whenever issues of language rights or national unity emerge, Jennings speaks out.

In Saint Laurent-Cartierville, Stéphane Dion, the former Liberal leader, has been a tireless advocate for Canadian federalism in his previous incarnation as a university professor. His complex Green Shift environmental policy did not galvanize voters in 2008, but he is someone we need to press ahead on this issue and fight for Canada should the Parti Québécois win the next provincial election.

In Lachine-Lac St. Louis, Francis Scarpaleggia, first elected in 2004, is facing a challenge from Larry Smith, a lawyer, former Alouette football club president and onetime publisher of The Gazette. Scarpaleggia, Liberal water critic, has been effective as a constituency advocate and deserves re-election.

Though the start of Smith’s campaign was dogged by verbal gaffes, including bemoaning the “catastrophic” pay cut he took by accepting to be named senator, base pay $132,000, he has apologized. Smith has shown his commitment to a variety of worthy charitable causes, has strengthened the Alouettes brand and could make a good MP.

The right and duty to choose — wisely

April, 2011

Cynics might say, and sometimes do, that if voting could change the system, it would be illegal.

As we look at the continuing popular uprisings sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, though ill-defined in terms of goals, the unifying factor is opposition to autocracy and its kissing cousin, kleptocracy. If they had a one-person, one-vote system with a constitution, a state of laws with statutes for elections, the rascals would have been swept away long ago.

This brings us to the federal election to be held May 2. It is incredible that the media are focusing on this being the fourth election in seven years. If only the hundreds of millions of oppressed from China to Cuba, across the Arab world, Ivory Coast and Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa, had our electoral system, their hopes and dreams could be reality.

As Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Our readers need no reminder of the responsibility our system imposes on voters. While voter participation in federal elections continues to drop, seniors remain the demographic with the highest turnout. About 90 per cent of Canadians over 65 cast ballots in federal elections, so they are considered worth targeting. And each vote means big bucks for the major parties.

Under the law, a registered party that gets at least two per cent of all valid votes at a general election, or at least five per cent of the valid votes in the electoral district in which it ran a candidate, is eligible for a per-voter allowance. In the 2008 election, that amounted to a bit more than $2 per voter.

In 2009, that wielded $10.4 million to the Conservatives, $7.2 million to the Liberals, $5 million to the New Democrats, $2.7 million to the Bloc Québécois and $1.9 million to the Greens.

Then there is the issue of strategic voting: casting a ballot for Candidate A to block Candidate B. Given the history of minority governments, Canadians increasingly are voting for the party and/or candidate they feel deserves support. There are many who argue, with history as proof, that the compromises resulting from minority rule are often positive and progressive, especially when the NDP holds the balance of power.

This is the first general election where Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff can rise above the low public-opinion polls and show that a man of his intelligence and intellectual integrity is the kind of politician who can lead this country to where a good number of Canadians want it to go. If he fails, many are predicting yet another Conservative minority government, in spite of it being found in contempt of Parliament for failing to disclose the full financial details of its crime legislation, corporate tax cuts and plans to purchase stealth fighter jets.

Sitting on the sidelines can affect the results. Mount Royal MP Irwin Cotler, facing a challenge from former Montreal city councillor Saulie Zajdel, who is running for the Conservatives, has expressed concern that his campaign could suffer if too many people take it for granted that he’ll continue to be re-elected by substantial majorities.

It’s our duty to follow the campaign and weigh the promises, watch the TV debates and see how the leaders perform, then cast ballots after serious reflection.

More than ever, each vote counts, even in what are considered strongholds for one or another party.

Editorial: Getting away with murder in Iran

March, 2011

Iranian-born Saeed Malekpour, a permanent resident of Canada, has spent the last two years in an Iranian jail and there are persistent reports he is about to be executed.

He went back to Iran in the fall of 2008 to visit his father who was terminally ill, and was arrested on charges involving Internet pornography.

For months, he has languished in prison and he is not alone among those who face the wrath of a bloodthirsty regime that ignores international human-rights standards. According to the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an Iranian prisoner has been executed every eight hours in recent months. In mid-February, more than 40 exiled Iranian academics and intellectuals wrote an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon protesting against 47 executions since the new year, and expressing alarm that about 300 executions have been reported by various human rights organizations over the past year.

The Harper government, to its credit, has expressed outrage at what it called “disdain for the rights of Iranian and dual-national citizens” and the recent wave of executions, including the Malekpour condemnation for software he created that was considered offensive. Malekpour is among many facing “disproportionately harsh punishment for dubious offences, after a highly questionable legal process,” according to Foreign Affairs. And Iran has repeatedly turned down requests for visits and to provide consular assistance.

The recent and welcome series of popular uprisings in North Africa have succeeded in toppling autocratic and corrupt regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and sparked grass-roots revolts in Libya, Bahrein and stirrings in Jordan, Morocco and elsewhere. The Arab street is rumbling, oppressive walls are crumbling, the masses are crying out for many for the freedoms we take for granted and it is our duty to speak out in their support.

This brings us to the campaign by Palestinian and Jewish Unity, supported by other leftist activists, to boycott stores on St. Denis that sell Israeli-made shoes. Dr. Amir Khadir, the Iranian-born Québec Solidaire member of the national assembly, helped propel the campaign into the mass media by his well-publicized participation this fall in a demonstration in front of the Le Marcheur shoe store, which sells Israeli-made Beautifeel footwear. He called for a boycott of the store, then seemed to apologize when he told The Gazette he sometimes displays “excessive zeal. And sometimes my words get away from me.”

With a lot of public sympathy being extended to the family-run store, the campaign appears to have shifted its focus to the original intention of forcing all St. Denis merchants to stop selling Israeli-made shoes, part of the boycott, divestment and sanctions, or BDS, campaign to end the occupation by Israel of land it seized following the 1967 war. Meanwhile, Khadir was the only MNA to deny consent to a resolution condemning the boycott campaign.

While we oppose BDS as punishing people like the workers who produce the goods and families like the Archambaults who sell them, we question the relative scale of values when well-intentioned politicians like Khadir choose their campaigns. Yes, Khadir and his wife, Nima Machouf, have denounced Iranian human-rights abuses, but not lately in any public way that would be reflected in the mass media.

It hasn’t made much progress lately, but there is a continuing peace process that hopefully will lead to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, sooner than later. At this time, Saeed Malekpour and the dozens of others on death row in Iran are much more deserving of moral leadership from Amir Khadir and others who oppose tyrannical regimes.

Editorial: The Arab street calls out for freedom

February 2011

What started in Tunisia as the self-immolation of 26-year-old fruit seller Mohamed Bouazizi desperately seeking economic justice, appears to have ignited the Arab world—literally and figuratively.

While the future is difficult to predict, those of us who value democracy, the rule of law and respect for human-rights can rejoice. An arrest warrant has been issued for ousted president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who, with his wife, Leila Trabelsi, and other members of the formerly all-powerful family, have been accused of illegally acquiring assets and transferring funds abroad during his 23-year reign. Twenty-three years!

In Egypt, there is no end in sight to the populist rioting and demands that Hosni Mubarak quit after 32 years in office. The naming of his intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, as vice-president to stem popular rage, seems doomed to fail. Thirty-two years!

In Algeria, there were three self-immolation deaths of similarly young and desperate men. There was rioting in Yemen, where half the population is illiterate. The country has been ruled for 32 years by President Ali-Abudllah Saleh. Thirty-two years!

In Jordan, ruled by autocratic King Abdullah II, there have been the largest demonstrations in 20 years.

Libya, ruled with an iron fist by Muammar El- Qaddafi for more than 40 years, may well be next.

The U.S. ambassador in recently published Wikileaks documents wrote that two of the ruler’s sons had “provided enough dirt for a Libyan soap opera” and threaten his rule. The dirt included a New Year’s Eve party in St. Barts where Beyoncé reportedly was paid $1 million for her performance. Another Qaddafi son was accused in London of beating his wife, sending her to hospital with a broken nose. Forty years!

Morocco cannot be far behind. Last May, five protesters from the Association for Human Rights were sentenced to three years in jail for challenging slogans hostile to the monarch, another sign that Mohammed VI has not stopped his father’s habit of jailing and torturing opponents. Unemployment of the university-educated reached 20 per cent, similar to what it is in Tunisia and Syria.

Attempts to stifle dissent by closing access to the Internet and its social networks, as in Egypt, will not quell the demand of the oppressed and underemployed on the so-called Arab street. They demand responsible government that res­ponds to their needs rather than filling the pockets and feeding the corrupt desires of rulers who will not be replaced.

Though the short-term result might be chaotic conditions, a shift to liberal democracy in the Arab world can only be for the better.

What’s on your mind? Send your letters to : editor@theseniortimes.com 4077 Décarie Blvd.; Montreal QC H4A 3J8

Labour Code reform might boost Liberal support

December, 2010

He’s at the halfway mark of his third consecutive mandate as premier, and the heat is on Jean Charest. Of course, it comes with the territory, since the buck stops at his desk, but opinion surveys, which are dismal for the (relatively young) 58-year-old politician.

An Angus Reid online poll of 6,000 Canadians, released Dec. 2, gives Charest an approval rating of 14, making him the lowest-rated premier in the country, down 11 in one year. Charest’s refusal to appoint a public inquiry into construction industry corruption and largely unproven suggestions of influence-peddling in the naming of judges have contributed to his low standing.

Normally, it would be a good time to give the opposition a chance, but a Parti Québécois government will inevitably plunge this province into yet another painful and costly existential crisis. A leadership change is also a possibility, but Charest has not decided he must go, and there is time before the next election, expected in two years, for him to turn around his standing.

Brothers Édouard and Jérémie Dussault were among several thousand who demonstrated outside Journal de Montréal offices Dec. 4. Their father, Jérôme Dussault, is a locked-out news editor.

A good way for the Liberals to boost their public support is through reform and policy renewal. And the Parti Québécois has provided the opportunity with its proposal to amend the Quebec Labour Code so such employers as le Journal de Montréal can’t use electronic means to get around the restriction, in a strike or lockout, against using replacement workers.

Granted, this is not a sexy topic. It won’t make headlines in the popular press. But such a move will do a lot to avoid the pain that 253 locked out newsroom and office workers at le Journal de Montréal, pushed out more than 22 months ago by an employer that wanted to gut its operations with one fell swoop. What the Journal, under the ruthless direction of Quebecor boss Pierre Karl Péladeau, did to get around the law was set up a news agency called QMI that feeds stories and photos to managers electronically, without having to cross picket lines.

The courts ruled the restriction applies only to replacement workers at the newpaper’s offices. The replacement workers file stories and photos on the Internet. This loophole points to an urgent need to update the Labour Code so it takes into account the revolution in media since the so-called anti-scab law was passed in 1977 after the bitter strike at United Aircraft in Longueuil.

The Parti Québecois has proposed to amend the Quebec Labour Code so employees like these locked-out Journal workers can’t be replaced by electronic means. Photos: The Senior Times

If the Journal had been constrained from publishing, it would not have made such draconian proposals at the bargaining table that led to a statement. These include getting rid of 80 per cent of its unionized work force, cherry-picking those in editorial it wanted, rather than basing that decision on seniority, demanding the locked-out journalists close down its excellent Rue Frontenac website (ruefrontenac.com), and stopping those who lose their jobs from working for the competition for six months.

Meanwhile, Pierre Karl Péladeau and his brother Erik are listed together as 85th on Canadian Business magazine’s list of the 100 wealthiest Canadians. In Canada and the U.S., an increasingly large share of the national wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the richest one per cent, and the middle class, including the locked out Journal workers, are on the street, their future bleak. We urge the Charest Liberals to make a bold move to the left with an updated Labour Code that will even the playing field for unions and show it is prepared to defend Quebec workers.

Editorial on Education: Individual choice gives Quebec a migraine

November, 2010

In these rapidly changing times, education is the key to growth and prosperity. But two issues, one solved at least for now, the other bubbling to the surface, merit our evaluation.

The first concerns the Quebec government’s use of closure to ram through Bill 115, its response to the Supreme Court of Canada overturning part of Quebec’s language law. It replaced a loophole that had been tolerated for years, including under the Parti Québécois, where children could gain access to publicly financed English-language schooling after attending an unsubsidized private English school for a year or more.

In 2002, the PQ introduced Bill 104, which closed that loophole. It was challenged to the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional in October 2009. The court gave Quebec a year to fix it.

Under the law passed this month, days before that one-year deadline, children who attend unsubsidized English private schools for at least three years can accumulate points toward getting access. A committee of four civil servants would then evaluate each case to determine whether studies in that language are consistent with a “legitimate educational pathway.” The solution is far from perfect, gives leeway to civil servants and is certain to face challenges as soon as the first child is rejected. The PQ is quite right in saying this allows the wealthy to fork over up to $15,000 a year to “buy” the right to subsidized schooling in English.

It is a way around the law for those parents who would have to send their children to French- language schools and find that option unacceptable. The issue must be viewed in the context of Bill 101, the language law passed in 1977, which channelled immigrants into the French-language educational stream.

Freedom of choice, while sounding fair on paper, was and still is seen as the kiss of death to a French-speaking society. With its fertility rate lower than the replacement level, Quebec is increasingly dependent on immigration. Forcing immigrants into French schools has tempered one of the main fears that was fuelling separatist sentiment. It must be pointed out that thousands of English-speaking families who had the right to send their kids to English schools chose French schools as the best way for their children to become bilingual enough to compete with graduates from francophone families. But for Quebec’s nationalists, these numbers don’t compensate for the loophole used by a few thousand to avoid attending French schools.

It’s not a great law, not something to be proud of, but it will have to do until the next round of court battles that will almost certainly arise. At least there will be a calming period so Quebecers can focus their energy on such other pressing problems in education as high dropout rates, the failure of programs to integrate students with learning disabilities, the need to teach better quality French as a first language, and growing gender inequality in higher-education success rates.

A second education issue that is sure to grow into a major challenge is Quebec’s insistence that all private schools devote at least 18 hours a week to core education – including those that receive no government subsidies. This has been ignored by some Hasidic schools and the government is in court to order the closure of the Yeshiva Toras Moshe, run by and for the growing Satmar Hasidic community. It has been operating without a permit because it devotes 35 hours a week to religious studies, but only six to secular subjects like math. None of its six secular teachers are certified. In New York, where 100,000 Satmars live, the state is not interfering with schools that receive no subsidies. Quebec has rejected this hands-off approach.

A similar challenge is arising in Israel, where there is widespread concern about the growing ulra-Orthodox community and its failure to contribute to Israel’s knowledge-based economy.

Does a state that makes school attendance compulsory have the right to insist on the content of core education? Some libertarians would say no. We say it does. Numeracy, literacy, and basic knowledge of history, health and computers are tools every citizen needs to participate in our society. It is up to private schools to find ways of fitting in their religious or other specialized training into the parameters set by the state.

This battle has only just begun.

Editorial: Mideast peace process takes a turn

October, 2010

Israel and the Palestinians are once again making headlines — thankfully not because they are shooting at each other — over pre-conditions to the start of face-to-face peace talks.

The issue holding up talks between the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, is Israel’s refusal to renew a 60-day freeze on Jewish settlement building on West Bank land captured in 1967. Abbas has threatened to walk away unless the freeze is renewed.

On the surface, it appears disingenuous of an Israeli government that professes a commitment to a final settlement and two-state solution to this multi-generational 62-year conflict for Jewish settlements to expand on land that in principle will be part of the Palestinian Arab homeland.

The optics of Israeli building on land that in general will be part of a final settlement are at least counter-productive, at worst a signal of non-belief in a viable peace, at best a bargaining ploy. There are those who say that if there is room in Israel for Muslim and Christian Arabs, there should be a Jewish presence in this new state.

Complacency has set in among Israelis about the status quo, where military supremacy and the efficiency of its counter insurgency machine ensure lack of open conflict and few barriers to expansion. For many Israelis and supporters, there is little chance of peace unless Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world accept as fact a Jewish state in the heart of and Arab- and Muslim-dominated area stretching from Morocco to the Iranian border.

In addition, the rise of Hamas, and its rain of rockets from Gaza on civilian targets within Israel after the unilateral withdrawal of 8,000 Israelis from settlements there, has persuaded many Israelis that a similar development inevitably will follow the creation of a Palestinian state. The fear is not illegitimate, given the threatening probable border with that state and the barrier that lines much of it.

Revanchist impulses will not fade away among those who cannot accept history – Arab elites’ refusal of the 1947 partition of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean and the ensuing war in which Israeli forces ended up with a larger territory.

The U.S. administration is applying heavy pressure on Israel to extend the freeze. It has reportedly promised to supply new and advanced military equipment, unspecified measures to prevent the smuggling of weapons to a Palestinian state, and support for an Israeli military presence in the Jordan River valley to police such activities. The U.S. is also reported to have a backup plan should the talks collapse: It would declare support for the 1967 Green Line as a baseline for negotiations of the Palestinian state’s borders, with some land swaps.

The tradeoff is for Palestinians to abandon the right of return of refugees and their descendants displaced by the 1948 and 1967 wars to their former homes. In return, the Palestinians would insist on some sovereignty over east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, home of the Al Aqsa mosque. (Israelis have insisted on the right to explore the area underground, where remnants of the biblical temple of Solomon may be unearthed.)

Netanyahu’s position may be posturing or hard bargaining. However, it shines a light on the now seemingly intractable issue of the estimated 300,000 Israelis living in West Bank settlements – out of a population approaching 8 million – among 2.5 million Palestinians. Another 200,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem. The Israeli position is that there are competing claims based on historic settlements in parts of the West Bank and that their status should be part of the negotiations. However, in the eyes of much of the world, continued expansion as the talks are to go forward sends a hard-line message of intractability that can only discourage belief in the will to compromise.

Understanding Israeli security concerns, we believe the Netanyahu government is sending a significant negative message to the Palestinians and the world by refusing to extend the freeze on settlement construction. Support for settlement expansion is counter-productive, as it does not inspire confidence in Israel’s sincerity on painful concessions that will have to be made on both sides if the peace process is to have any chance of moving forward.

Editorial: Grappling with home-grown terrorism

September, 2010

Our languid summer ways were jolted last month when news broke about the arrest of three young men on terrorism-related charges. They were charged with taking part in a domestic plot and possessing schematics, electronics and created improvised explosive devices.

It bore striking similarities to the so-called Toronto 18, a group of young Muslim men arrested four years ago for conspiring to send Ottawa a deadly message over Canada’s military involvement in Afghanistan. Inspired by violent jihadi videos, they planned to strike Parliament Hill and roll out truck bombs in downtown Toronto to cause catastrophic damage and carnage.

In the latest arrest, a Montreal native and McGill Universi ty graduate living and working as a pathologist in London, Ontario is among three men charged with participating in a terrorist plot.

Once again, this is no sleeper cell planted years ago from some far-away land waiting for a call to action from a mountain redoubt. Khurram Sher, 28, one of those arrested, was a high-achieving Brossard native selected to proceed directly from CEGEP to the McGill medical faculty. He was a strong hockey player, he prayed at the local mosque, he even auditioned for Canadian Idol last year, singing, off key, Avril Lavigne’s hit Complicated while wearing a traditional Pakistani outfit. But this seemingly all-Canadian young man was also touched by world events.

The global village was a reality for Khurram Sher who went to Pakistan in 2006 as part of an aid group sent to an earthquake in Kashmir. In 2008 he spent three weeks interning at a hospital in East Jerusalem. These trips may have contributed to his perception of inequality or mistreatment for Muslims, and fuelled his move to radicalism. There is nothing new about young idealists deciding that radical means are needed to wake up the world to their vision of injustice, or simply to lash out.

Let’s recall the bombings by the Front de Libération du Québec terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s, the Weather Underground in the United States in the mid-1970s, and Direct Action, also known as the Squamish Five in 1982 set off a bomb that caused $5 million in damages and stalled a hydro project in B.C.

What is different in the case of Muslim extremists is that they are propelled by massive media coverage of Jihadist actions around the world and the perceived injustices affecting fellow believers. RCMP assistant commissioner Gilles Michaud, who runs the Mounties national security program, identified the threat of home-grown terrorism as the new challenge for security forces.

“It’s people who have been living here, who have been born here, who have grown up here, and they’re (a part of) society. It makes it harder to spot,” he told the Globe and Mail.

It reportedly took 100 officers a year working full-time to gather the evidence needed to make the arrests – an investment in personnel that is necessary, he explained, because “you cannot afford to miss any information, any threat that would set off an attack here.”

The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service carried out a parallel investigation, but its role is to inform governments on threats, while the RCMP gathers evidence. Most Canadians would agree that these efforts must continue. We also expect that basic freedoms, including the right to peaceful protest as part of free expression, are maintained.

Security forces need to be vigilant, as in the recent arrests, when those with strong Muslim views develop a belief that their co-religionists are under attack and develop a loathing for whichever group they determine to be the oppressor.