We come from the land of the ice and snow,
From the midnight sun where the hot springs blow.
The hammer of the gods will drive our ships to new lands,
To fight the horde, singing and crying: Valhalla, I am coming!

Canadian Forces Operation Nanook 09. Soldier on.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Getting back to Pakistan’s new law for the moment, violations can get you a 14-year stint in the clink. Since I don’t live in Pakistan and have no plans to visit, I figure it’s safe for me to at least repeat my favorite zinger first reported in the Digital Journal:

“Robber: “Give me all your money!” Zardari: “Don’t you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari.” Robber: “OK. Give me all my money!”

Seriously, a country that six weeks ago looked to be on the verge of being hijacked by the Taliban and remains a hotbed of terrorism and violence doesn’t have better priorities for police resources?

But Canadians can’t get smug over this. Fact is, we’ve got our own gag laws already in place when it comes to poking fun at our political leaders. Canadian defamation legislation hasn’t changed that much since, well, before Confederation. That’s why there are no Canadian versions of John Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Rebecca Addelman explained in the Walrus in The Last Laugh:

When This Hour Has 22 Minutes comedian Mary Walsh told Preston Manning that his speech was “more edifying in the original German,” the Reform Party threatened to sue. Had they followed through, it would have been up to Walsh and her producers to prove what they implied was true—that Preston Manning was a fascist. Of course, we all know it was a joke and not all jokes are true. But when a joke damages someone’s reputation, then it’s no longer funny—it’s libellous.

Since TV producers are generally working with smaller budgets than their American counterparts, even the hint of a lawsuit is to be avoided at all costs. So the script writers for Canadian comedies take the easy road: self-censorship.

Pakistan’s new law would be beyond the pale here, so we can laugh at it. But as is often the case, the joke just isn’t as funny in Canada.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

An Islamic history and culture course at Toronto’s Ryerson University launches this week, July 24-27. This is the chosen vehicle for the Al-Fauz Institute for Islamic Thought’s endeavors to educate Muslim youth about Islamic values and provide context for the “issues experienced in the daily lives of Muslims in the pluralistic Canadian society”. But intrepid investigative journalist Terry Glavin has the scoop in the National Post on why the person delivering these lectures, Azzam Tamimi, seems particularly ill-suited to this organization’s stated mission:

Tamimi has loudly renounced democracy, explicitly praises suicide bombers, and he’s said he’d even be happy to blow himself up in Israel: “It’s the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.” Tamimi distinguishes good Muslims from their adversaries this way: “We love death. They love life.”

Tamimi recently proclaimed: “I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” and it was at an anti-Israel rally in Dublin only three months ago that Tamimi declared: “With regard to their attitudes to liberation, I say ‘Long Live the Taliban’.”

And we’re just getting started. An excerpt from MEMRI’s report on Tamimi in regard to September 11 and the Taliban Regime:

In an interview with the Spanish daily La Vanguardia titled ‘I Admire the Taliban, They Are Courageous’ in late 2001, Al-Tamimi claimed that the September 11 attacks brought joy to the Arab world. He begins by assuring the interviewer that “everyone” in the Arab world cheered upon seeing the Twin Towers fall. “Excuse me,” says the interviewer, “did you understand my question?” Al-Tamimi: “In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy. That’s what you asked me, isn’t it?”

Not interested in international relations? Here are Tamimi’s ideas on attaining domestic bliss, spoken at a Cambridge University event, as captured in the MEMRI report:

Dr. Al-Tamimi firstly said that beating was the last in a series of three steps that husbands could use to ‘discipline’ errant wives (a ripple of concern swept the audience at this point), so to concentrate on beating alone was to miss that. But Dr. Al-Tamimi also said that he was regularly surprised why this verse was such a concern to Westerners since he knew of many Arab women who regularly asked their husbands to beat them…

This is the guy that Al-Fauz want to help them to “prepare Muslim advisors and scholars to serve the needs of their communities and generations to come” — here in Canada?

Surely there are more suitable candidates out there somewhere. Perhaps someone who isn’t pulling for the Taliban while our troops are going toe-to-toe with these thugs on the battlefield? Could be a good start.

But that’s the thing: The Al-Fauz Institute knew who Tamimi was when they hired him for this gig. This gives us some pretty clear insight into the kind of values they hold and would like to instill in Canadian society.

I’m guessing the history course at Ryerson won’t actually teach anything all that contentious. The curriculum covers topics like Islamic history, language studies and “personal development”. They’re not going to teach how to make a bomb and blow yourself up in Tel Aviv (or Toronto, for that matter). But that doesn’t matter.

This is just a first point of contact. Many students in this course may be incorporated in Tamimi and the Al-Fauz Institute’s network for a long time after these first lectures. What other lessons do they have in store? Who’s their next guest lecturer: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Look for more of this from the “leaders of the future”:

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

July 20, 1969, ought to be a date burnt into the memory of every living human being, right up there with your birthday or national celebrations like Independence Day. Yet, if not for the fair amount of media coverage this month, this July 20 would have come and gone without any notice from myself and a good number of my fellow citizens.

Why? Is it because the moon landing is seen as an American achievement, rather than a global one? Does the rest of the world’s latent and growing anti-Americanism feed into this? Is it the result of (easily debunked) Internet conspiracy theories that the moon landings were actually filmed in a secret Hollywood studio? Is it because human beings naturally have a “been there, done that” mentality that automatically downgrades all events down to an interesting but relatively unremarkable blip on the continuum of human history?

There are those who suggest the moon landing was a mistake. Some would say it was a terrible allocation of resources we might have put towards, say, topping up our social security pension funds. Comedian Jerry Seinfeld joked that the mission’s main benefit was to annoying whiners and complainers:

We never should have landed a man on the moon. It’s a mistake. Now everything is compared to that one accomplishment. I can’t believe they could land a man on the moon . . . and taste my coffee!… They can’t make a prescription bottle top that’s easy to open?… Neil Armstrong should have said, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for every complaining SOB on the face of the Earth. “

We can joke about it, but the mission to the moon really hints at the kind of accomplishments human beings can accomplish in our own societies.

Putting aside the technological advances required to send a spacecraft to an alien world 384,392 kilometers away, the countless dangers the astronauts overcame in the moon mission were literally unprecedented:

You and your brave colleagues are put into a giant tin can that might just blow up on liftoff. If it doesn’t blow up on the launching pad, it might just break up somewhere further up, spreading your ashes across the ocean. If you get that far, now you have to get through the vast and utterly lethal expanse of freezing space where unknown cosmic radiation emanates from countless stars.

You survive the flight over, and now you have to land on the moon without crashing. You know that if there’s a problem, you’re stuck. There will be no rescue mission. A quick science fiction-inspired death from alien monsters scratching at your hull might actually be preferable to succumbing slowly and hopelessly as your supplies dwindle and the oxygen runs out.

The landing works like a charm, and you want to go outside and explore, keeping in mind that a small tear in your space suit could spell certain doom. You manage that trick OK. All of humanity is celebrating your success. But now you have to complete your voyage in reverse, hoping not to burn up as your ship goes through Earth’s atmosphere.

All the while, you’re thinking, “nobody who has ever lived has ever done this before. Those NASA guys think they’ve nailed down every variable you could think of, but what if they missed just one trick?” There are a million unknowns and just one problem can ruin this mission.

A million dangers, and yet the mission was a success. Humans had achieved a feat that no previous generation had the capability to carry out (and which no subsequent generation has repeated).

When you think about what was achieve with the Apollo mission, one can’t help but wonder whether the global problems that seem so unmanageable to resolve right now are really as scary as we think. Conflict in the Middle East? Climate change and energy shocks? Terrorism and religious fanaticism? Slavery? Piracy? Corruption?

Pick a problem. Humans can solve it, if they have the will. That’s the lesson we should all take home Apollo 11.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The USA’s President Obama has rightly backed targets to cut emissions by 17% by 2020 and 83% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels (Of course, in the USA, not everything a President wants gets done – we’ll see if the Senate approves). So now the world’s worst polluter per capita (except us carbon-spewing Canucks) are off eco-defenders’ hate-mail lists, at least for the moment. But developing nations, where fast population growth and gradually-rising living standards are quickly boosting carbon footprints, still aren’t buying in.

India’s rep says reaching climate change targets should not be borne on the backs of the developing world’s poor. This is shorthand for saying that since the developed world got to enjoy the benefits of high living standards from rampant resource exploitation, pretty much guilt-free before the recent green revolution, then India, China, Indonesia and all the rest of the developing world – most of the planet’s population – should be able to exploit resources and emit carbon to their heart’s content, at least for the next 100 years or so.

Bad idea. We’re already seeing evidence of climate change, and guess where the worst of it is happening? Drought in Africa, murderous heat in India, mass flooding in Bangladesh, crop failures in Asia… while developed nations have the resources to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, developing nations don’t. They’ve got huge incentives to cut back on their carbon output right now. These nations want their people’s living standards to continue to rise. But doing nothing about climate change means sitting back and watching their land turn into deserts or their cities to be reclaimed by the sea.

The excuse from developing nations previously has been that they couldn’t be expected to lower their carbon footprint when even the rich nations couldn’t afford to do so.

Now that the wealthy nations have stepped up, the rest of the world will need to do their part.

This doesn’t necessarily mean curtailing the developing world’s economies. Carbon can be reduced through better efficiency. Smarter uses of resources, better public transportation, recycling programs, better enforcement of regulations protecting nature preserves, moving away from the disastrous suburbian model we’ve largely adopted in the West… all of these will help. All that’s required is the will.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Robert McNamara was a walking legacy of the Cold War during and after the USA’s involvement in Vietnam. The documentary Fog of War was an extremely compelling story of a tragic and remorseful soul who nonetheless seemed to have come to terms with his involvement and his place in history. While the 11 lessons from the film are a bit vague out of context, the 11 lessons from the Vietnam War he provides in his memoir seem very relevant for today’s world when we talk of war and relations with adversarial nations. The lessons (as listed in his Wikipedia entry):

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine.
6. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8. After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgement of what is in another people’s or country’s best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

While the conflict in Iraq would seem to repeat many of the errors identified above, I’m heartened that the Afghanistan mission where Canadians have sacrificed much seems to have avoided some of the worst mistakes. I believe we went in with a fair understanding of the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries. The mission has been pursued with eyes wide open as to the cultural aspects; the gulf is wide, but not unbridgeable, and universal principles of human rights and the desire for freedom are genuine objectives of both the soldiers in the field and the people we are trying to protect. And it has broad support in the international community as well as a UN mandate.

We may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world. But that doesn’t mean we have to remain on the sidelines when we have the power to intervene in a just cause.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

According to Mr. Shaban’s blog from “Occupied Canada”:

My facebook status did read “F*** Canada Day”, and it was followed by a few other comments in response to some of the questions that people posted. Some consider that taking this position is disgraceful and shameful but I tend to disagree.

Canadian citizens may not be given to showy displays of patriotism (well, except maybe on Canada Day), but cursing the land where you were born, where your parents came to give you a better life (at least until they decided to go back to Lebanon and raise him in the Nahr El-Barid refugee camp) – is certainly disgraceful. No doubt, Mr. Shaban relishes the infamy that has come unto his reputation. He breathes in the contempt of his fellow citizens. He feels no shame. Perhaps he even feels a sense of moral superiority. In any case, as he says, he tends to disagree with the prevailing view that he’s a vile and irredeemable embarrassment.

Moving on, Mr. Shaban claims that:

First of all, my statement clearly did not reflect CAF’s position; it was my own personal opinion.

Clearly? How does this statement “clearly” not reflect CAF’s position? CAF has been describes as making decidedly un-Canadian statements including “the promotion of hatred, anti-Semitism and support for the banned terrorist organizations” (NP). Why should Canadians expect that the rest of the executive of the CAF has done anything more with their tepid and uninformative press release (CAF Disassociates Itself from Recent Comments) than stop the bleeding after one of their own said what they were all thinking?

But now we get to Omar’s rationalization for his actions:

Secondly, I said “F*** Canada Day” and I regret the dark history that this country has. On our silent government’s behalf, I apologize to the indigenous people for this, and sincerely wish it had not happened to you. I apologize to the indigenous people of Canada because their feelings are not taken into consideration at “Canada Day” celebrations.

Of course! Mr. Shaban isn’t a tactless slimeball! He’s practically a hero. Oh, wait a second…

Omar never bothered to actually see what First Nations people might have to say about Canada Day before he decided to speak for them. For instance, here we have Mike Pinay, an elder from the Peepeekisis First Nation, talking about how Canada Day is a time for everyone to celebrate being a Canadian:

“We acknowledge what our forefathers have said, that we agreed to share the land with all the newcomers,” Pinay explained. “So we acknowledge that today on Canada Day. I look at it as a commemoration of all the good things that have happened.”

And then we have the words of Phil Fontaine, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, following Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s apology for the terrible abuse of Natives at the residential schools (Edmonton Journal):

But it signifies something even more important: a respectful and, therefore, liberating relationship between us and the rest of Canada. Together we can achieve the greatness our country deserves.

The apology today is founded upon, more than anything else, the recognition that we all own our own lives and destinies, the only true foundation for a society where peoples can flourish.

First Nations people have not forgotten their history. And both aboriginals and non-First Nations Canadians are also well aware that the state of Canada’s aboriginals is a national disgrace. The clear message here is that Canadians of all backgrounds want to see positive change come to aboriginal communities. Remember the past. Build a future – together.

Yet on the day when Omar took his “stand”, his supposed allies failed to show. There were no mass protests against the “occupier”. The Native artists and musicians in the Aboriginal Village at Major’s Hill Park and elsewhere were not forcibly conscripted into performing at Canada Day celebrations. Funny, that.

Omar’s statement that he would not celebrate Canada Day “until it is accepted as legitimate by the indigenous people” is a red herring that might be seen as akin to Brad Pitt’s forgotten declaration that he would not get married until all Americans – gay, straight, whatever – could get married.

But there may be a more nefarious motive at work in Mr. Shaban’s latest meandering yet defiant declaration; his explanation of his actions – which attempts to weave in Gaza and Afghanistan with the issues on Canadian reserves into a confusing diatribe – could make more sense if we see them as part of the standard tactic of Islamist fundamentalist propagandists, what Ed Hussain describes in the Islamist as the linking of a myriad of issues in the hopes of radicalizing an anti-imperialist, anti-democratic mass of permanent radicals. Burning his bridges, perhaps Mr. Shaban has decided exactly where he wants his “career” to go.

One can only hope that one day this poor deluded soul will understand what he has done and ask forgiveness. Canadians may not want to give it. But that’s not the point.

A little humility here, Mr. Shaban. A little shame.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

From Terry Glavin in his Tyee column, “Iran: Whose Side Are We Really On?”:

The uprising changes everything, and not just inside Iran. No matter what happens next, the uprising will cause convulsions in contested fields of struggle from Afghanistan to Palestine.

Already, the spectacle of angry masses thronging the streets of Iranians cities is holding out the promise of a great awakening in “progressive” politics from Berlin to Seattle. In Canada, what was once unspeakable is now unavoidably central to any serious discussion of the Iranian cause and what it demands of us.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

And many more.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

So far, official Iranian government websites and propaganda outlets including Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Official Blog, Office of the Supreme Leader, Sayyid Ali Khamenei, the vile scab-ridden Iranian Press TV and a long list of others are either under attack, unresponsive, or providing only “Service Unavailable” messages (Zero Day). The hacktivists’ tactics are simple: use Twitter to organize and enable large groups of instant hackers through use of automated tools that overload websites with repeated web-page refresh requests.

It’s far from clear whether the cyber-offensive, supposedly launched by the Iranian opposition and supported by hackers outside Iran, will cause enough disruption to give the regime real cause for concern. The leadership and government bigwigs that have already shown willingness to shoot, jail and torture protesters who are demonstrating against a perceived electoral miscarriage (NP), may not feel overly inconvenienced by the online disruption.

Hijacking online communications as a means to spread the opposition message is a tactical victory. The question is whether they’ll be able to do far more. If hackers are able to shut down critical infrastructure, and if it turns out that there’s a mass movement of protesters across the country, not just in Tehran, just waiting for the chance to beat down the leadership, then this initial hacktivism could turn out to be a historic victory of Web 2.0 tools over tyranny.

By way of comparison, those who know a bit about the increasing capabilities of cyber-warriors point to attacks on critical infrastructure and government sites in Georgia last year, leading up to Georgians going toe-to-toe with the Russians (AFP). But the reality is that Georgia was not deterred from sending forces into South Ossetia after the cyber attacks started. And Georgia didn’t ultimately give up because the hackers killed the electricity. It was an overwhelming mass of Russian army soldiers, airpower and tanks that brought the tiny Eastern European country to its knees. The cyber-attacks were a sideshow while the real blood-and-guts war was happening.

The point is that even if the hacktivists in and outside Iran can step up the pace and severity of attacks to do things like disable police and military infrastructure, these tactics won’t have lasting effect without a mass movement willing to face down attacks with their own brand of violence.

Riot cops with clubs and guns don’t need much technology to do the dirty work of the regime. It’s not at all clear that the Iranian opposition will have the stomach for the kind of knock-down, drag-out fight required to oust a thuggish government.

Mind you, the regime is doing an excellent job of creating a resistance movement willing to spill blood through its harsh crackdown, and undoubtedly social media tools are helping incite the masses with live reporting of atrocities against protesters. The question is whether Iranians in the rest of the country, particularly the countryside, will also be seeing these images.

The mullahs won’t be brought down by a ragged band of hackers, bloggers and Tweeps. But there is a chance that Web 2.0 will make this protest against the government go viral in a way that the leadership – and quite possibly, the opposition – never expected.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.