New Media

If we remain true to our tradition as Canadians and responsible members of the international community, we’re going to help finish the fight in Afghanistan — notwithstanding those commentators who seem to think that we ought to put down our weapons at the behest of the IOC or VANOC at the same time that Taliban snipers are shooting at ISAF soldiers from behind human shields.

The scary thing is that I can’t detect the slightest trace of satire in the Georgia Straight’s latest hit-and-run propaganda attack on Canada’s mission in Afghanistan. I think editor Charlie Smith might actually be serious:

I think it’s time for the IOC to include some penalties for those who violate the truce, including NATO leaders.

If Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Chief of the Defence Staff Walt Natynczyk, and U.S. vice president Joe Biden were refused entry into Vancouver Olympic venues for being warmongers during a truce period, perhaps this world would suddenly get a little more peaceful.

Smith seems to suggest that UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon actually wants Canadians to throw down their weapons and bug out of Afghanistan ASAP.

That’s a distortion of the truth. The UN bigwig couldn’t have been more clear about the importance of Canada’s boots on the ground. Remember this?

Once again, the opportunists are on the rise, seeking anew to make Afghanistan a lawless place — a locus of instability, terrorism and drug trafficking. Their means are desperate: suicide bombs, kidnappings, the killing of government officials and hijacking of aid convoys. Almost more dismaying is the response of some outside Afghanistan, who react by calling for a disengagement or the full withdrawal of international forces. This would be a misjudgment of historic proportions, the repetition of a mistake that has already had terrible consequences…

The United Nations, alongside national and international counterparts, non-governmental organizations and Afghan civil society, will continue to provide the Afghan government whatever assistance it needs to build on these achievements. Our collective success depends on the continuing presence of the International Security Assistance Force [emphasis added], commanded by NATO and helping local governments in nearly every province to maintain security and carry out reconstruction projects.

In any case, there can be no truce with these fanatics. Their idea of a ceasefire is an off-season to recruit child suicide bombers and make some point about the unifying spirit of religion by spraying acid in the faces of girls who want to learn to read.

Let’s be clear. The UN wants us in Afghanistan. Our NATO allies want us in Afghanistan. The long-suffering Afghan people want us in their country. The only true warmongers are those who would have us abandon the field to let the Taliban conquer an entire nation.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is accused of acting like a dictator. The real issue is why an experienced editorialist can’t act like a professional.

It is a well-understood principle in most editorial and blogging circles that when you compare your opponent to Hitler, you’ve automatically lost the argument. Reductio ad Hitlerum arguments say far more about the one making the accusation than the target of the attack.

This rule also applies to an only slightly lesser extent when one compares their opponent to a dictator, particularly in a country like Canada. Let’s face it, when you use the word “dictator”, the face that most often comes to mind is Austria’s most notorious firebrand. Unless you’re talking about Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, labeling someone a dictator, or more cautiously using the phrase “acting like a dictator”, is not just wrong — it’s stupid.

So it’s disappointing when I see this sort of accusation leveled against our Prime Minister in a publication like the Toronto Star. Haroon Siddiqui’s clownish piece, Harper acting like an elected dictator, is a perfect example of the genre.

Not to delve too deeply into this muck, but one would at least expect such an outlandish assertion to be backed up by some sort of, well, evidence. An excerpt of Siddiqui’s piece:

Stephen Harper is centralizing power in the PMO on an unprecedented scale; defying Parliament (by refusing to comply with a Commons vote demanding the files on Afghan prisoner abuse); derailing public inquiries (by a parliamentary committee and the Military Police Complaints Commission); muzzling/firing civil servants; demonizing critics; and dragging the military into the line of partisan political fire.

Let’s see. Harper has “centralized” power within the PMO. So what? The PMO doesn’t make laws. The House of Commons does. The Conservatives are still hamstrung by their minority status. It makes little difference whether Harper keeps a firm leash on his closest cronies, so long as their leader and party must answer to the people in parliament.

Harper has not defied parliament on the Afghan file. He has defied a select number of MPs who are doing all they can to sap the morale of our citizenry and military for short-term partisan gain. There’s no question which political parties have actually tried to bring our soldiers into disrepute; apparently for the high crime of turning over our captured common enemy combatants to our Afghan allies to deal with before they’ve reached a civilized enough state where terrorists’ rights take precedence over those of their victims.

As for muzzling civil servants, Harper has done no such thing. Bureaucrats have always been subject to privacy rules and confidentiality considerations determined by their elected masters. This is hardly something unique to the Conservatives. And civil servants certainly don’t have any right to lifetime job security.

Extreme language and partisan rhetoric have ruined public discourse. I expect more from an editorialist in one of our nation’s most well-read newspapers.

Is this really how Canadian PM Stephen Harper starts his day?

A Canadian political party wants to win a majority of seats in parliament. Call the cops!

Hidden agenda? Huh?

Kelly McParland has more comprehensive analysis of this latest case of mass hysteria here.

At least the opposition isn’t still suggesting the Tories would post armed soldiers on the streets of Canadian cities.

In other breaking news, it was revealed today that cows eat ducks. Now there’s a real hidden agenda.

Cow Eating A Duck

Meanwhile, in a dingy meeting room at Parliament Hill in Ottawa:

JACK LAYTON
We don’t have to be adversaries, Stephen. We both want to avoid an election.

STEPHEN HARPER (thinking)
Why is Mr. Layton being so nice to me?

JACK LAYTON
And if you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours.

STEPHEN HARPER (thinking)
Wait a minute. Is he coming onto me?

JACK LAYTON
I mean, if I should slip some political advice into your pocket, what’s the harm?

STEPHEN HARPER (thinking)
My God! He is coming onto me!

JACK LAYTON
After all, negotiations make strange bedfellows.

STEPHEN HARPER
Sorry, Mr. Layton, but I don’t go in for these backdoor shenanigans. Sure, I’m flattered, maybe even a little curious, but the answer is no!

(Adapted from Last Exit to Springfield)