Politics « A. Picazo – Midnight Politico

Who’s Influencing Policy Decisions In Stephen Harper’s Government?

May 17, 2010 Leave a comment

In the wake Marci McDonald’s newly released book The Armageddon Factor: The Rise Of Christian Nationalism In Canada, a political firestorm has erupted on Parliament Hill, igniting debate about just who’s influencing the policy decisions made by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

The release of McDonald’s book comes amid the brewing tension of apparent ideological moves made by the Harper government, including the ‘Mexico City Policy’ for the upcoming G8 maternal and child health initiative, the rescinding of funds of women’s organizations who promote a full range of family planning options, and the denial of federal tourism funds for Pride Toronto.

With public focus being drawn to the back rooms of the PMO, the Harper governmentlashed out following a CBC segment featuring an interview with McDonald and a glimpse at some of the people discussed in the book. The Conservatives accused the public broadcaster of “fomenting religious division” and waging a “faith war” in an “ongoing campaign against the Conservative Party.” (Take note, this is just the latest in a string of baseless allegations made by the Conservative Party and Right Wing pundits against the CBC.)

The desperation exhibited by Conservative strategists in a fervent attempt to discredit McDonald, gives proof to explosive information contained between the covers of The Armageddon Factor; connections the Harper government would rather Canadians not be aware of. Try as they might to downplay the influence of Right Wing religious figures on policy decisions made by Harper, Conservatives cannot deny the presence of one prominent Christian activist and senior advisor in the PMO, who recently moved from his position as director of policy to become Harper’s new deputy chief of staff.

The prominent Christian activist is none other than Darrel Reid, former president of Focus On The Family Canada; Canada’s own James Dobson.

Reid served as Director of Policy and Research for the Reform Party of Canada, and in 1996 became chief of staff to then leader of the Reform Party, Preston Manning. In 1997 Reid won the Reform nomination for the Ottawa riding of Lanark-Carleton, but was ultimately defeated by the Liberal Party’s Ian Murray. The following year Reid became president of Focus On The Family Canada, an evangelical Christian organization which views homosexuality as a ‘curable condition,’ seeks to repeal gay rights legislation, equates the pro-choice movement to ‘systemic genocide,’ and believes ‘activist judges’ on the Supreme Court of Canada are a threat to democracy.

As president of Focus On The Family Canada, Reid described his role as mobilizing Christians in Canada to infuse their religion with their political beliefs, stating in a 2002 op-ed ”it would be great to see social conservatives from all our parties and traditions begin to reinsert their most deeply-held convictions into our nation’s political discourse.” Reid later asserted that “every Christian is under an obligation to change law to reflect biblical values.”

Reid’s organization lobbied hard against same sex marriage legislation, later arguing Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for use of a ‘notwithstanding clause’ to overturn the right for gays to marry. He argued against the inclusion of sexual orientation to the list of minorities protected against hate crimes, and promoted ‘conversion therapy’ for those ‘afflicted’ by homosexuality. Conversion therapy, referred to by many as ‘Pray Away The Gay,’ stems from the belief that homosexuality is a choice and an inherent weakness. By praying for forgiveness and seeking divine guidance ,God will ultimately ‘relieve’ the ‘sufferer’ of their homosexual urges. It goes without saying that what Reid and Focus On The Family refer to as a ‘cure’ for homosexuality, is better known as living in denial.

During his time At Focus On The Family Canada, Reid worked closely with Dobson’s American organization, and between 2000 – 2003 Focus On The Family Canada received$1.6 Million from its U.S. counterpart to assist in the fight against same sex marriage legislation. Dobson’s influence through Focus on The Family Canada continues to this day, most recently through a misleading publication appearing in Today’s Family News – a publication of Focus On The Family Canada. The article, entitled Pediatricians Reject Teens Same Sex Attraction As ‘Normal’, states

“The American College of Pediatricians is cautioning ‘well-intentioned but misinformed’ high school teachers and staff across the US against being too quick to affirm students who say they are attracted to people of the same sex. ’Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences,’ the Florida-based ACP wrote in a letter to every school superintendent in the country. ‘Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25.’ Such ‘premature labelling,’ the doctors warn, could encourage some teens to engage in harmful behaviours ‘that they otherwise would not pursue.’ And while schools have a ‘legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students,’ it is not for them to ‘affirm’ a student’s perceived same-sex attraction.”

The letter referenced by Today’s Family News, and sent by The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) to the 14,800 American high school superintendents, reads in part:

“In dealing with adolescents experiencing same sex attraction, it’s essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born ‘gay’ or ‘transgender’ … it is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.”

The problem? The American College Of Pediatrics (ACP), though it sounds like an official organization, is actually an American Right Wing ‘cure the gays’ group. The the REAL medical association is the American Academy Of Pediatricians (AAP), who clearly state:

“You Are Normal. Homosexuality is not a mental disorder. All of the major medical organizations, including The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that homosexuality is not an illness or disorder, but a form of sexual expression. No one knows what causes a person to be gay, bisexual, or straight. There probably are a number of factors. Some may be biological. Others may be psychological. The reasons can vary from one person to another. The fact is, you do not choose to be gay, bisexual, or straight.”

In a 2001 interview with Dobson’s Focus On The Family Magazine, which noted ‘Focus Canada was active in the debate over a recent parliamentary bill, introduced by the government, that sought to rewrite 68 federal laws to give same-sex couples virtually all the same rights as heterosexual couples,’ Reid said he “called on Canadians to challenge the proposed law, demanding Parliament respect the distinct heterosexual nature of marriage, the benefits it brings and its biblical worldview.” He added that “Dr. Dobson … fears the United States could follow Canada’s lead in social radicalism. The rest of Canada, it appears, could be following Quebec’s lead. When it comes to marriage, sexual mores and abortion, that’s not reassuring.”

Commenting on the Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, Reid told the magazine that “since the Charter came in, we’ve seen a huge shift in influence from our legislatures and elected representatives to the courts … this represents a worryingly anti-democratic trend, especially when it comes to marriage, family and sanctity of life issues in Canada.”

Regarding the United Nations and Canada’s contributions, Reid asserted “left-wing activists have been using the United Nations for nearly 20 years to impose their kind of anti-life, anti-family agenda … Among the leading agitators in that process are Canadians. The problem is that we send delegates to the U.N. who represent small interest groups.”

Reid is mentioned in a number of American Conservative religious publications, including a2009 newsletter from The World Congress Of Families - a worldwide coalition of Right Wing religious groups – listing the “Top Ten Best And Worst Developments Impacting on the Family in 2008.”

Among the ‘Best’ developments:

Sarah Palin
“Pro-Life Woman Is Vice-Presidential Nominee – For only the second time in U.S. history, a woman was the vice-presidential nominee of a major party. For the first time, that woman was staunchly pro-life and pro-family. The mother of five children, including one with Down Syndrome, Sarah Palin exemplifies family values. She drew larger and more enthusiastic crowds than the head of the ticket.”

Rescinding gay rights in California
“Despite massive opposition by the governor, legislature, courts and media, in November, voters in the largest state in the U.S. passed an amendment to the California constitution limiting marriage to ‘a man and a woman’.”

Reid’s appointment to the PMO
“Family Advocate Becomes Senior Advisor To Canadian Prime Minister – In July, Darrell Reid became director of policy for Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Reid, who served as president of Focus On The Family, Canada (1998 to 2004), told World Congress of Families II (Geneva, 1999) ‘It is nothing less than a bald-faced lie to say it harms no one to bestow the privileges bestowed on legally married couples to other relationships’.”

Among the worst developments:

President Barack Obama
“The Election of Barack Obama – Along with Secretary of State Designate Hillary Clinton, expect a sea-change in U.S. policy regarding the family, both at home and internationally. The U.S. delegation to the United Nations, which has been resolutely pro- life and pro-family under Bush, is expected to turn 180 degrees under Obama and Clinton (both dogmatically pro-abortion and anti-traditional marriage). Obama’s judicial appointments are expected to mirror his anti-family mentality.”

Access to safe abortion
“UNFPA Nigeria Meeting Pushes Abortion In the Guise of Women’s Health – At a meeting in Sokoto, Nigeria (July 16-27) for 270 of the continent’s tribal and religious leaders, the United Nations Population Fund sought to enlist African leaders in its drive for universal abortion on demand. Under the deceptive slogan “No One Should Die Giving Life,” UNFPA equated pregnancy with a disease – in an effort to co-opt medical science for a political cause and foreclose a debate on the moral dimensions of abortion.”

Governor General Michaelle Jean
“Queen’s Representative In Canada Celebrates Androgyny – Canada’s Governor General Michaelle Jean has hung a 20-ft. mural in Rideau Hall (where Canada’s prime minister and cabinet members are sworn in) celebrating androgyny — the condition of having both male and female organs or characteristics. The mural supposedly represents the Okanagan tribe. According to the Governor General’s website, “In many native tribes, the order of life learning is that you are born without sex as a child; through learning, you move toward full capacity as either a male or female.” The Canadian gay lobbying group Eagle has pledged to fight “the discriminatory practice of labeling children male or female at birth.” Jean isn’t just another gender deconstructionist, but a gender deconstructionist who is the British monarch’s representative in Canada, as well as head of state and commander of the armed forces.”

As noted above by The World Congress Of Families, Reid was a keynote speaker at their 1999 convention in Geneva, Switzerland. In his lengthy address, Reid advocates to:

“Define Marriage in Legislation … A Definition of Marriage Act would signal that marriage is a foundational aspect of our society and should not be easily redefined. Such legislation has already been introduced throughout the U.S. and we at Focus on the Family Canada are calling for similar legislation to be introduced in our country … The key aspects of Definition of Marriage Act are:
Marriage is clearly defined as a relationship between one man and one woman.
Spouse is clearly defined as either a man or woman who are married to each other.
Marriage is established as a unique legal relationship deserving of special status before the law.”

“Promote Abstinence Education: Governments need abandon safe sex education and begin promoting abstinence education. Decades of sex education programs have done nothing to lower teen pregnancies … abstinence education works whereas “safer-sex” programs do not … Abstinence education leads to fewer teen pregnancies, fewer abortions and fewer children in single parent homes.”

“Reform Welfare and Other Social Programs: Social programs should not take the place of a spouse nor should they encourage irresponsible parenting. Yet this is exactly what many of our current welfare programs do. Single moms are rewarded not for getting married, but rather for having another child. Not only has welfare become more lucrative than getting a low-paying job, it is also more lucrative than marrying someone with a low paying job. These disincentives to marriage are one of the biggest contributors to the problem of fatherless families. Society should not encourage single parenting and more importantly it should not help fathers abandon their responsibilities to their children. Fortunately, many states in the U.S as well as provinces in Canada have begun to lower benefits to make working and marrying someone who works more attractive. Some jurisdictions are limiting the benefits available to those who have another child well on welfare.”

In my quest to unearth documents written by Reid during his time at Focus On The Family Canada, I obtained two audio recordings of a November 2003 Focus On The Family seminar held in Singapore, in which “Dr. Darrel Reid, a Political Historian and President of Focus on the Family Canada” presented “Deconstructing Marriage and Family: Canada’s Present, Singapore’s Future? —- Homosexuality: Myths & Truths.”

‘Dr. Darrel Reid’ began, ironically, by telling the audience “I’m not a doctor, my specialty has been in the area of public policy.” Among other things, Reid claims “the (Canadian) court redefined federal and provincial marriage laws by itself; It said those laws are discriminatory and ordered the governments to change, to comply with that ruling … that has caused a certain amount of upset in Canada … because the majority of Canadians believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman … but the federal government began a propaganda campaign to sell (same sex marriage rights) to the public.”

He rambled at length about the evils of “no fault divorce”, “co-habitation/living in sin” (common law marriage), spanking laws, and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, before returning to the issue of same sex marriage; specifically how ‘the gays’ managed to achieve equal rights in Canada.

“In the gay lifestyle, sexual identity is paramount. According to the homosexual arguments in Canada, gays are an oppressed minority … it’s very key to become an oppressed minority, because nobody wants to see that … The media has been very, very active in promoting and bringing these stories forward. The line is that ‘we’re just folks, we’re just like you but our lifestyle may be a little bit different’ … and that plays very well in the media; it does have an impact on our legislators and on our judges. Then (they) seek and receive special protection by governments.”

“… In canada we have federal human rights commission and provincial ones … these are not courts but they speak with the authority very much, or often times courts back them up. We have human rights tribunals in provinces which often champion and emphasize gay rights causes using words like ‘oppression’ and ‘discrimination’. The cases are inevitably highly publicized … on these issues we often refer to (the Human Rights Commission) as a kangaroo court.”

“If you’re concerned about your religious freedom … you need to know your rights will come secondary to same sex groups.”

By far the most incendiary remarks came when Reid spoke about the ‘myths & truths of homosexuality.’

“I am sorry to say tonight I will not be speaking about myths and truths,” Reid begins. “I will just be talking about truths, and that is what has happened in the Canadian experience … we as a culture have been taken over by an activist court; by radical lobby groups, that have changed the country beyond the wildest imagination … in a way I’m ashamed and sorry to be standing before you as a Canadian and telling you this, but my reason for doing so …is that perhaps our present will never be your future.”

“Marriage is no longer determined by how we’ve been created by God. You read in Genesis : 2, you read in Matthew : 16; It’s not good for man to be alone. We are created for community. We are created for that marriage bond. It is encoded in out genetic structure. In (Canada), that’s not what the courts say.”

“Same sex marriage is better understood as a co-habitational relationship. There hasn’t been much research on this. The only research that’s been published on this is a study that was done in the Netherlands on same sex marriage … what they found is that gay marriage was very different than heterosexual marriage. You see, the average same sex marriage in the Netherlands lasted 18 months and had an average of 8 different sexual partners involved in that relationship. So whatever you want to call it, don’t call it marriage because it’s not and it never will be. In every way it is inferior and socially disruptive.”

“In Canada today, children to not have the right to have a mother and a father.”

“What we’ve seen in Canada is that the gender distinction has been erased. The gay groups in Canada really believe there’s really functionally, ultimately, no difference between men and women; it’s just a matter of plumbing.”

“What about education? … What we’ve seen in Canada is that (homosexuality) is beginning to be promoted at the earliest education levels. That means kindergarten which is age five, grade one which is age six. Already same sex groups are being brought into the classroom to talk about how normal it is.”

“There’s a very narrow definition of religious rights (in Canada) … our legal people, our media, our academic elite don’t care what you believe (against same sex rights), they just don’t want you to talk about it to anybody or act upon it. Now I’m a historian … the best parallel that I can think of historically is in Germany in the 1930s, as the rise of the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler came to power. You see, Adolf Hitler and his friends didn’t care what you believed, you only became dangerous when you talked to somebody else about it, or you acted on it. I believe the same rational is taking place (in Canada.)”

“On freedom of expression, there’s been a chill on democratic discourse in our country, that is the strength of our democracy is that we can say what we believe … There’s a move afoot in Canada to clamp down on that. There’s a bill in our House of Commons that’s well on it’s way to being passed that would criminalize statements of hatred toward homosexuals. Now what do we mean by statements of hatred? That’s the problem, because nobody knows what that means. We do know that a judge one of our provinces has taken passages from the Bible … and has already ruled that those passages of scripture constitute hatred … we’re coming close to losing our religious liberties and religious freedoms in Canada.”

You may have noticed that Reid has an issue with so called ‘activist’ judges, whom he blames for Canadian gay rights legislation; This common cause of the religious right continues, most recently by president of Canada Christian College, Charles McVety.

Earlier this month, as noted by Macleans, McVety took to Parliament Hill, “on behalf of an alliance of evangelical Christian and family-values groups,” calling for Harper to ” ‘restore democracy’ by filling any vacancies that might open up on the country’s top court with judges who won’t insist on writing their own laws.”

A May 5 press release from the Institute For Canadian Values coincided with McVety’s march on Parliament Hill. It reads:

“The President of Canada Christian College, Dr. Charles McVety says ‘This is the most important issue of our time. Out-of-control lawmaking judges have legalized two types of child pornography, reduced the age of consent for anal sex to 14 and redefined marriage.’ As part of a campaign to inform Canadians the importance of Supreme Court appointments, we have produced the full feature documentary film ‘Besieged, Democracy Under Attack.’ Viewers can watch Canada’s Chief Justice articulate the current judicial lawmaking philosophy and judge for themselves.”

Indeed, you can watch the trailer (and buy the DVD!) at www.besieged.tv. The short video features dramatic music, ’1984′ visuals, and the requisite ‘shocking’ information:

“Democracy is under attack … Judges have made themselves lawmakers, usurping Parliament … Canadian activist judges have legalized fictitious child pornography, reduced the age of consent for anal sex to 14, legalized sex clubs for orgies, and redefined marriage and family … Get your copy while you still can. Warning! This film contains information the government does not want you to hear.”

Though I found the ‘Besieged’ video comical, it’s important to remember that Reid, who now works directly with Harper, is part of a group of Christian activists who hold beliefs such as this. During his tenure at Focus On The family Canada, Reid worked hand in hand with McVety an other extremist religious figures, and is now considered an ‘inside man’ by the various religious Conservative organizations.

One only has to look at decisions made by the Harper government over the last 12 months to see the effects the Right Wing religious organizations are having on Canadian policy:

-Defunding KAIROS
-Defunding Rights & Democracy
-Defunding multiple women’s NGOs
-Rescinding funds for Gay Pride events
-Implementing a ‘Mexico City Policy’ for the G8 maternal health initiative
-Initiating a ‘Don’t ask, Don’t tell’ policy for Abortion rights in Canada

While religion remains an integral part in the lives of many Canadians, it has no business in the halls of Parliament, and certainly does not belong in the process of crafting government legislation. The separation of Church and State serves an important purpose; the beliefs and desires of a given religion are not necessarily beneficial to society as a whole. Any religion or belief system that seeks to ostracize or blacklist a group of individuals for not adhering to a given set of rules, works against the message of the ‘loving God’ they purport to represent. If God has an issue with homosexuality or access to safe abortion, the use of contraception, or a whole host of other social issues, ultimately it’s between each individual and God. It’s troublesome enough to have religious figures spreading misinformation about lifestyle choices to suit their own religious agenda, but to have these religious figures directly influencing Government policy is a serious cause for concern.

———-
For further information of ties between Harper, Conservatives and the U.S. Religious Right visit THIS page and download the PDF.

Also, be sure get McDonald’s book The Armageddon Factor

———

UPDATE! – December 9, 2010 – Darrel Reid leaves the PMO to join the University of Calgary School of Neo-Conservatism.

Ex-Harper aide gets ethics exemption to take University of Calgary post

BY GLEN MCGREGOR, POSTMEDIA NEWS

OTTAWA — A former top aide to Prime Minister Stephen Harper was given an exemption from an ethics rule that restricts the jobs public officials can take after they leave government.

Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson waived a post-employment requirement for Darrel Reid, who served as Harper’s deputy chief of staff and director of policy until earlier this year, so he could take a fellowship at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy.

The Conflict of Ethics Act prohibits public-office holders from taking a job with an organization they had “direct and significant official dealings” with in the final year of their government employment.

Although Dawson’s ruling makes no mention of it, lobbyist registration records show Reid had contact with lobbyists from the University of Calgary on two occasions in 2009, with “education” and “Strengthening links with U of C” listed as the subjects discussed.

“In reviewing this request, the Commissioner has determined that because of Mr. Reid’s experience and expertise in the field of public policy, the public interest in granting this waiver outweighs the public interest in maintaining the prohibition,” the waiver notice on Dawson’s website says.

“Mr. Reid continues to be subject to all post-employment obligations that would otherwise apply.”

In an email, Reid wrote: “She has made her ruling and I will abide by it.” He did not comment further.

The lobbying records show that Reid is only the second public-office holder to receive the same kind of post-employment exemption from Dawson.

Earlier this year, she granted an exemption to Kenneth Watkin, the former judge advocate general in the Canadian Forces, so he could accept an appointment from the Israeli government to be a foreign observer in an inquiry into the Gaza flotilla affair.

Reid is a past-president of the evangelical organization, Focus on the Family. He left the Prime Minister’s Office this summer and became the executive director of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy, a conservative group founded by his old boss, former Reform party leader Preston Manning.

At the School of Public Policy, Reid will join another Harper alumnus, Ken Boessenkool, who served as Harper’s chief of staff in Opposition, then became a lobbyist with Hill and Knowlton before the Tories formed the government. Because he left before the Federal Accountability Act took effect, Boessenkool was allowed to lobby his former colleagues in the party.

Boessenkool is now listed as a fellow at the school.

**You can also view this entry at rabble.ca**

Filed under Canada, Politics, Religion Tagged with American Academy Of Pediatrics, American College of Pediatricians, Canada Christian College, Charles McVety, Darrel Reid, Focus on the Family, Focus on the family Canada, James Dobson, Marci McDonald, religion, same sex marriage, Stephen Harper, The Armageddon Factor, The World Congress Of Families

Refusing To Be Silenced On Women’s Rights At The G8

May 4, 2010 3 Comments

A Monday gathering of Canadian and international women’s rights experts on Parliament Hill was intended to discuss Canada’s role in the maternal and child health initiative at the upcoming G8 summit; To voice their concerns over the erosion of gender equality and women’s rights in foreign policy under Stephen Harper, and address the omission of abortion rights in the maternal health initiative.

But rather than taking into consideration the issues brought forward by those in attendance, Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth offered some raw advice in an effort to silence further debate on the abortion issue.

“We’ve got five weeks or whatever left until G-8 starts. Shut the fuck up on this issue. Let it roll out. I hope I’m not proven wrong, but I have every confidence that it will include family planning and so on … and I hope I’m right. It’s just, if you push it, there will be more backlash. This is now a political football. This is not about women’s health in this country.”

The threat of potential ‘backlash’ validates the suspicions already percolating throughout various Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs), that in criticizing the Harper government you run the risk of having your organization defunded. In fact, over the past two weeks alone, many women’s rights groups have already been stripped of their funding:

-Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)
-Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA)
-Conseil d’intervention pour l’accès des femmes au travail (CIAFT)
-New Brunswick Pay Equity Coalition,
-Réseau des Tables régionales de groupes de femmes du Québec
-Alberta Network of Immigrant Women,
-MATCH (30 year old organization fighting for equality for poor women),
-Centre de documentation sur l’éducation des adultes et la condition feminine
-Association féminine d’éducation et d’action sociale (AFEAS)
-Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses (OAITH)
-Womenspace Resource Centre (Lethbridge, AB)
-Feminists for Just and Equitable Public Policy (FemJEPP) in Nova Scotia

The rescinding of federal funds from these organizations strikes an eerie resemblance to George W Bush’s infamous Mexico City Policy, also known as the global gag rule, which prohibited all federally funded NGOs from performing, promoting, or advocating for abortions in other countries. This poorly conceived policy is supported and promoted by the religious right, where ideology always comes first and scientific fact is often ignored.

As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated during her appearance at the G8 foreign minister’s meeting, “if we’re talking about maternal health, you cannot have maternal health without reproductive health; and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning, and access to legal, safe abortion.”

In what it bills as ‘The Preventable Pandemic,’ the World Health Organization (WHO) compiled a sobering report on the “urgent public-health and human-rights imperative” of unsafe abortions. The report sheds light on the fact that “unsafe abortion remains one of the most neglected sexual and reproductive health problems in the world today,” providing stunning statistics to back up the assertion. The report estimates about 68 000 women die every year from unsafe abortions, 97% of which occur in developing countries. In Africa alone, over half of all maternal deaths come as a direct result of unsafe abortions.

Death isn’t the only consequence of so called ‘backstreet’ abortions; morbidity, or permanent injury, including haemorrhage, sepsis, infection, and trauma to the uterus and abdominal organs is a common occurrence. The report states that when access to safe abortion is made more difficult or illegal, women’s health rapidly deteriorates. By contrast, women’s health rapidly improves when abortion is made legal, safe, and easily accessible.

The WHO report also details the impact unsafe abortions have on the medical system, noting “treatment of abortion complications burdens public health systems in the developing world. Conversely, ensuring women’s access to safe abortion services lowers medical costs for health systems. In some low- income and middle-income countries, up to 50% of hospital budgets for obstetrics and gynaecology are spent treating complications of unsafe abortion.”

“The cost per woman to health systems for treatment of abortion complications in Tanzania is more than seven times the overall Ministry of Health budget per head of population. Estimates from Uganda comparing costs of treatment of abortion complications with costs of providing safe, elective abortion show the potential resource-savings to health systems. Post-abortion care offered in tertiary hospitals by physician providers was estimated to cost health systems ten times more than elective abortion services offered by mid- level practitioners in primary care.”

Perhaps the most compelling argument for the inclusion of access to safe abortion in the G8 maternal health initiative deals with the sensitive issue of rape. It’s undeniable that rape is used as a weapon of war, and women and young girls are targeted as a means to punish others. Some people in South Africa hold the belief that intercourse with a virgin will cure HIV, so children are preyed upon and victimized, many becoming pregnant as a result. Why should these victims, having already been traumatized, be forced to carry the child of the man who raped them? More importantly, why should children who are impregnated following a rape, be subjected to a full pregnancy at the tender age of 11?

In Canada we’re fortunate to have the freedom of choice; When a woman is faced with a dangerous or unwanted pregnancy, she has a full range of options available to her. The fundamental advantage of a pro-choice policy is safe access to abortion when necessary, but not necessarily an abortion. It means protecting and preserving life in the vast majority of pregnancies, while providing safe access to a service that, in various circumstances, is medically necessary.

The NGO’s and advocates speaking on behalf of women’s rights understand the importance of a woman’s right to chose. The foundation from which they craft their policy is based on sound research, verifiable data, and direct input from medical professionals. The push for the inclusion of access to safe abortions in the G8 initiative is not based on a political agenda or religious ideology; It’s based on the desire to craft a comprehensive foreign aid policy that will best enhance the lives of women and children in developing nations.

These tireless crusaders for women’s rights must continue to speak out, demanding to be heard. At a time when their voices are more important than ever, they mustn’t surrender to the threats and intimidation from the Prime Minister and his Conservative colleagues. If Harper is genuinely interested in improving the health and welfare of women and children abroad, he’d do himself a great deal of service by heeding the advice of those who’ve dedicated their lives to the very initiative he espouses.

——

Further reading updates:
-Congo Rape Victims Jailed For Seeking Abortions
-Top medical journal chides Harper on abortion funding: “hypocritical and unjust”
*You can view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca*

Filed under Canada, G8/G20, Politics, Women's Rights Tagged with Abortion, G8, Maternal health initiative, NGO, pro-choice, safe abortion, Stephen Harper, women's rights

Behind The Redactions

April 23, 2010 Leave a comment

The detainee document game of hide-and-seek the Conservatives are engaging in is an affront to members of Parliament and a subversion of the Military Police Complaints Commission. It cannot be allowed to continue, and this government must be held accountable for their willful complicity in the torture of Afghan detainees.

Although the Prime Minister would prefer to continue his autocratic reign, never having to answer for the actions of his government, Canadians will not stand for the continued assault on our access to information and our right to know.

The refusal by Harper to submit the requested unredacted documents to the MPCC, who have the highest level of security clearance, speaks volumes to the extent of the incriminating evidence being hidden behind layers of black ink.

The audacity of Defence minister Peter MacKay to accuse those asking questions of undermining our troops serves only to insult those very soldiers who adhere to the Geneva conventions and conduct themselves with courage and honour.

There is no doubt as to whether this Conservative government violated the rules of the battlefield; it most certainly did. But precisely who was aware of the prisoner abuse, and to what extent detainee torture took place remains unclear, because the answers lie in the files Harper is so desperate to suppress.

If the Prime Minister is found in contempt of parliament, and chooses not to produce the uncensored files being demanded by the opposition, Harper may well find himself and fellow Conservatives before the International Criminal Court (ICC) to face charges of war crimes.

The increasing sense of urgency exhibited by the government in the face of fresh requests for document disclosure suggests the ICC may just be the perfect venue for the Conservatives to answer for their crimes.

—

The video shows Peter MacKay in a media scrum following the testimony of the Generals in November 2009. The reporter wants to know how it is the Generals obtained the documents while the opposition MPs were still being refused access.

*you can view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca*

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, Politics Tagged with afghanistan, Military Police Complaints Commission, peter Mackay, redacted documents, Stephen Harper, torture

Denial And Deceit: The Harper Government And Torture In Afghanistan

April 20, 2010 Leave a comment

Canada has long been known as a peacekeeping nation; lauded for our humanitarian missions and respected for our international contributions. The unassuming nature of Canadian soldiers garners an admiration few other militaries can boast; A history of moral and honourable service.

But for the mission in Afghanistan, the ethics and standards that once guided military decisions have been all but abandoned by the military brass. Under the Harper government, the rules governing the battlefield are ignored; the Geneva conventions are flouted and war crimes are committed.

The Prime Minister has long been aware of the repercussions his policy on detainees was having, and the implications on his government if the warnings were not heeded. But it wasn’t until a diplomat, who’d been muzzled by Harper, broke his silence that most Canadians became aware of the misconduct being perpetrated by our government in Afghanistan.

Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin began working for the Department of Foreign Affairs in Kandahar, shifting later to Kabul where he was the second in command at the Canadian Embassy. His 2006 arrival in Afghanistan came one month after the U.S. State department issued a report concerning the “continued and routine” torture and abuse of Afghan detainees by local authorities, including “pulling out fingernails and toenails, burning with hot oil, beatings, sexual humiliation, and sodomy.”

In November 2009 during his first appearance before the Afghan Committee in the House of Commons in Ottawa, Colvin described what he encountered upon visiting detainees transferred by Canadian forces to the Afghan intelligence service, or NDS.

“As I learned more about our detainee practices, I came to a conclusion they were contrary to Canada’s values, contrary to Canada’s interests, contrary to Canada’s official policies and also contrary to international law. That is, they were un-Canadian, counterproductive and probably illegal,” Colvin testified. He also claimed many detainees were not “high-value targets,” but “according to a very authoritative source, many of the Afghans we detained had no connection to insurgency whatsoever … many were just local people: farmers; truck drivers; tailors, peasants – random human beings in the wrong place at the wrong time … From an intelligence point of view, they had little or no value.”

Colvin said he believed Canada’s “complicity in torture” undermined the efforts and goals of the strategy in Kandahar. “Instead of winning hearts and minds, we caused Kandaharis to fear the foreigners. Canada’s detainee practices alienated us from the population and strengthened the insurgency.”

The Canadian diplomat began alerting Ottawa to the “serious, imminent and alarming” circumstances surrounding detainees in 2006; sending a series of memos to both the senior ranks of the military and Department of National Defence.

“At first, we were mostly ignored,” Colvin recalled. “However by April 2007 we were receiving written messages from the senior Canadian government co-ordinator for Afghanistan to the effect that I should be quiet and do what I was told, and also phone messages from a DFAIT assistant deputy minister suggesting that, in future, we should not put things on paper, but instead use the telephone … Immediately, thereafter, the paper trail on detainees was reduced; Reports on detainees began sometimes to be censored with crucial information removed.”

Following his testimony, the Conservative government set their sights on Colvin; Intent to undermine his credibility and reputation. The relentless smearing of the well respected diplomat prompted twenty-three former Canadian ambassadors (joined later by an additional twelve) to release a letter to the media condemning the behaviour of the Conservative government.
One of the letters signatories, former ambassador Paul Durand, singled out Defence Minister Peter MacKay’s particularly reprehensible attacks.
“He savaged him in public, and ridiculed him,” said Durand. “And that’s not the way to treat a guy who’s doing his job. He is not a whistleblower. He was hauled before a parliamentary committee and had to state the truth.”

Though the government and military brass vehemently deny allegations it was aware of what was happening to detainees, a series of information leaks to the media reveal a pattern of deceit and denial from the Harper government and military brass.

Details emerged that military allies had lodged complaints over Canadian’s “secretive manner with which it handled detainees … stonewalling on providing basic information on the Afghans it was capturing.” Reports from The Globe and Mail note that “Mr. Colvin wasn’t the only foreign service officer relaying criticisms about detainee transfers to Ottawa. A Sept. 11, 2006, memo from a Canadian NATO staffer alerted the government to the fact that the ICRC had singled out Canada’s practice of handing over prisoners to the Afghans on the battlefield, a practice it feared could result in human-rights monitors losing track of detainees.”

It was also revealed that in 2007, Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan were ordered omit information regarding the treatment of detainees in reports sent to Ottawa. Sources told The Globe that the order, “issued soon after allegations of torture by Afghan authorities began appearing in public, was aimed at defusing the explosive human-rights controversy … There was a fear that graphic reports, even in censored form, could be uncovered by opposition parties and the media through access-to-information laws, leading to revelations that would further erode already-tenuous public support. The controversy was seen as ‘detracting from the narrative’ the Harper government was trying to weave around the mission, said one official. ‘It was meant to put on happy face’.”

In direct contrast to MacKay’s assertion “not a single Taliban prisoner turned over by Canadian Forces can be proven to have been abused,” uncensored documents and sworn testimony by senior officers detail an instance in 2006 where an detainee transferred to Afghan police was so severely beaten, Canadian troops had to intervene and ultimately took the man back. The Globe notes “the Canadian soldier’s account, handwritten in a field notebook in the hours after the June 19, 2006 incident, is corroborated by a medic’s examination of the detainee’s injuries and photographs, which the (Harper) government refuses to release.”

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has done everything in his power to deny opposition MP’s access to key documents, allowing them access only to heavily redacted files ‘in the interest of national security.’ However, upon close examination it’s clear the redactions have less to do with national security, and everything to do with concealing the government’s knowledge of torture.

In a delay tactic veiled as co-operation, Harper called upon former supreme court justice Frank Iacobucci to review the unredacted documents. It’s unclear how may documents Iacobucci will review, which documents he’ll be provided, how long it will take, or if the government will even take into consideration recommendations made. Meanwhile, opposition parties issued motions in the House of Commons calling for a vote that would hold the government in contempt of parliament, a ruling that would force Harper to provide opposition MP’s with the unredacted files they’ve repeatedly requested. The decision currently rests with speaker of the house Peter Milliken, who is expected to issue his decision this week.

But the opposition parties are hardly alone in condemning the government’s lack of transparency surrounding the treatment of detainees. The Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) are now directly accusing Harper of withholding information pertinent to the inquiry, warning that “the (Harper) government’s refusal to release key letters written by Canadian Forces commanders raises troubling concerns about Ottawa’s approach to divulging information in this matter.”

Back in 2007, the MPCC, and then chairman Peter Tinsley, ordered public hearings on the issue of detainees “to ensure a full investigation of the grave allegations.” The Harper government initially agreed to fully co-operate with the MPCC, Defence Minster MacKay promising “(the MPCC) will get the co-operation with respect both to information disclosures and the funding necessary to have a full-blown hearing.”

A Globe report from November 2008 outlined that “more than 20 months after it first promised full co-operation, the Harper government has moved to block public hearings into whether it ordered Canadian soldiers to transfer prisoners to Afghan security forces knowing the detainees would likely be tortured … The government is seeking a Federal Court order that the MPCC can neither investigate nor hold hearings into allegations that transferred prisoners were tortured and that senior government officials and military officers knew it would happen. Government censors have blacked out key passages of secret documents that showed that ministers knew that torture was rife in Afghan prisons.”

In essence, the Harper government has been working to avoid accountability for three long years, and counting.

In December 2009, a year after effectively shutting down the MPCC’s attempt at a public inquiry, Harper refused to extend the contract of Tinsley and opted against appointing someone to replace the outgoing MPCC chairman. Tinsley warned of a ‘chilling effect’ by the Harper government in their ongoing efforts to dodge accountability regarding the treatment of Afghan detainees, and Harper likely believed he’d have no further ‘intrusions’ from the MPCC. So it came as a surprise when, in February 2010, former Windsor police chief Glenn Stannard announced he’d take over the acting duties of former chairman Tinsley since the government hadn’t ‘gotten around’ to filling the vacancy. In other words, the MPCC would resume hearings on the transfer and treatment of detainees, despite the government’s best efforts to block further inquiries on the matter.

No sooner had the MPCC reconvened for hearings, than a series of explosive allegations came to light.

Colvin’s much anticipated return to Ottawa provided further evidence that the government was not only aware of torture, but that it deliberately looked the other way. Colvin testified that his warnings of torture were credible and substantiated, but the government and the military didn’t want to deal with the ‘hot potato’ issue of detainee abuse. He recounted a 2007 meeting in Ottawa with upwards of fifteen government officials, where he urged them to stop transferring detainees to the NDS.

“You know the NDS tortures people. That’s what they do,” Colvin told the officials in attendance. “And if we don’t want our detainees tortured we shouldn’t give them to the NDS.” Colvin said that the government note-taker at the meeting put her pen down and immediately stopped recording.
He also alleged the government actively prevented detainee monitoring by the International Committee of the Red Cross. “In practice we were blocking them from doing that. They were losing many, if not most, or possibly all, of our detainees.”

The Red Cross had raised concerns over the government’s refusal to take its calls regarding detainees; Waiting weeks, or months, before it bothered to notify the Red Cross about detainees transferred to Afghan authorities. The information delay made it impossible for the Red Cross to effectively locate or follow up on detainees sent by Canadians to the notorious NDS.

The MPCC also heard testimony from Lt.-Col. Gilles Sansterre, commander of the Canadian Forces National Investigation Service. Sansterre addressed a 2007 incident where an Afghan’s claim of abuse after being transferred to the NDS by Canadian soldiers was ignored. After the man, who was covered in welts and bruises, showed officials a hidden stash of electrical cables and a rubber hose used to beat him, his accusations were taken seriously. Though military investigators deemed the allegations credible enough to temporarily halt all detainee transfers, they failed to further investigate the matter. Sansterre conceded that the failure to probe the claim of abuse violated the Geneva conventions and ‘raises the possibility’ that war crimes were committed.

Perhaps the most damning allegations emerged from an April 14 special Commons committee where Ahmadshah Malgarai, or ‘Pasha’ as he was known by his colleagues in the Canadian Forces, submitted stunning allegations about the treatment of detainees. Malgarai, a Canadian citizen born in Afghanistan, served as an interpreter and cultural adviser for Canada’s Joint Task Force Afghanistan unit. He is well respected among his peers and provided MP’s with letters of commendation he’d received from both the military and Afghan government, reaffirming his credibility. In a day of dramatic testimony, Malgarai called out the Conservative government for misleading the public, saying the Canadian military intentionally ‘subcontracted’ torture to Afghan security.

“Canada’s government says detainees have never been transferred to NDS if there is a risk of abuse; but this is a lie,” Malgarai told the hearing. “I saw Canada’s military intelligence sending detainees to NDS, when the detainees did not tell them what they expect to hear. If the interrogators thought a detainee was lying, the military sent him to NDS for more questions, ‘Afghan style.’ Translation: abuse and torture …. the military used the NDS as subcontractors for abuse and torture.”

Malgarai insisted the routine occurrence of torture was well known throughout the military ranks, and all the way up to the Department of Defence. “I cannot believe that Mr. Defence Minister Peter Mackay says that he doesn’t know,” the former translator stated. “I want him to sit across from me look me in the eyes and say he doesn’t know.”

Meanwhile, a secret memo obtained by the CBC effectively debunks Harper’s claim he fixed the flawed detainee transfer agreement in 2007, and backs up testimony that the government was aware that torture was, and still is, taking place. The memo, “circulated at the highest levels of government” in mid 2009, reveals that while the government was telling the pubic the detainee problem was fixed, it was quietly sounding the alarm bells. The confidential memo warns “the notoriously brutal Afghan security service, the NDS, did not change its ways after the new agreement and is still was ‘organized according to a Soviet-KGB model’ with ‘considerable scope for improper methods’ which ‘entails a degree of risk to Canadian interests.’”

The problem, notes the CBC, is that “the Geneva convention, and Canadian law, forbid handing prisoners over to a known risk of torture. But Canada still transfers prisoners to the NDS which is known to use torture routinely.” The memo even “names the head of the NDS … as a man who wants to inspire fear. (He) has openly stated that merely interviewing suspects is not enough to get information out of them.” It acknowledges Canada may be an accomplice in torture, and ‘runs the risk of appearing to condone human rights abuses and acts, which would be illegal under canadian law.’

The CBC report included testimony from a Canadian general who said the NDS “were a very valuable partner … we acted on the intelligence we received from the NDS.” In other words, Canada did use intelligence from the NDS; intelligence which was obtained through torture, which the government was fully aware, making them complicit in war crimes.

A report just released by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) gives credence to Colvin’s 2009 testimony that Canadian forces were taking six times as many detainees as the British and 20 times as many as the Dutch. The statistics, compiled by the AIHRC, reveal of the 267 suspected insurgents transferred by NATO forces in the first 9 months of 2009, Canada nearly doubled it’s allies, transferring 163 prisoners to the NDS. By contrast, Britain’s transferred 93 detainees, while the Netherlands handed over 10, and Denmark just 1. This raises the possibility that the allegations Canadian forces captured mostly innocent people are accurate.

With evidence continuing to mount supporting the claim Afghans transferred by Canadian forces were being tortured by the NDS, the credibility of the Harper government continues to crumble under the weight of the lies it wrapped itself in. As they hide behind Canadian soldiers, accusing those searching for answers of not supporting the troops, the Conservatives demonstrate their cowardice by refusing to be accountable for their actions.

George Peterson, a veteran of the second world war, is also looking for answers. Once a soldier and a guard, he became prisoner number 38 and was systematically starved and abuse for nearly 4 years. He’s not naive to the realities of war, yet knows the importance of the Geneva conventions. Peterson is particularly bothered by the denials from the Canadian government. “I think the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Defence are trying to pass the buck. Blaming the opposition that they’re picking on the military. I don’t think they are. That’s not right.” Peterson hopes there is an inquiry, because without answers “our reputation will suffer.”

Indeed it will, Mr. Peterson. And you, your fellow veterans, and current members of the Canadian Forces certainly deserve better.

–

UPDATE May 7: Afghan authorities beat detainees ‘on a whim,’ military inquiry finds – Investigation into 2006 incident was launched after Chief of Defence Staff had to correct himself a day after Commons testimony

*You can view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca*

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, Politics Tagged with afghanistan, Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, Ahmadshah Malgarai, Conservative Party of Canada, detainee, International Committee of the Red Cross, kabul, kandahar, Military Police Complaints Commission, NATO, NDS, peter Mackay, richard colvin, Stephen Harper, torture

Afghanistan Beyond 2011 – It’s A Done Deal

April 11, 2010 Leave a comment

It’s official: Canada will remain in Afghanistan beyond the mission’s scheduled conclusion in 2011.

The confirmation came Saturday; Defence minister Peter MacKay acknowledging that Canada will play a ‘non-combat’ role in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 withdrawal of combat forces. MacKay stressed he’d work “within the parameters of the parliamentary motion which states very clearly that the ‘military’ mission will come to an end in 2011,” saying Canadian troops would “transition into some of the other important work that we’re doing, that includes a focus on police training.”

The proposed training role outlined by MacKay will surely be welcomed by our partners in NATO who recently requested that Canada remain in Afghanistan, in some capacity, beyond 2011. In fact, the mentoring role Canadian troops are set to undertake was specifically suggested by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. International pressure was likely a factor in the strategy shift detailed by MacKay, but the deepening rift between the Karzai government and the West calls into question the wisdom of such a decision; A decision which comes on the heels of increasingly erratic behaviour by Afghan president Hamid Karzai, who’s recent outlandish accusations drew international criticism and unilateral scorn.

Although many Canadians have been under the impression that Canada’s Afghan contribution would come to a complete conclusion in 2011, MacKay insists “the prime minister has been clear in saying that our commitment to Afghanistan is for the long term.”
You’re forgiven if you don’t recall the ‘clarity’ MacKay suggests came from the PMO; Harper has remained intentionally muted on the issue while others privy to the details offer identically scripted answers to questions pertaining to Afghanistan.

This is why we need a public discussion about Afghanistan; Canadians want clarity on the mission they’re being asked to support, and answers to fundamental questions surrounding the proposed new plan.

What is the ultimate goal of the mission? What will a continued ‘non-military’ presence achieve? How many troops will be involved? Will the renewed commitment be an open ended one, or will it have a scheduled termination? Most importantly, with Canada and our NATO allies questioning the sincerity of the Karzai government, how will continuing to support a corrupt, dishonest, opportunistic regime amount to anything but a frivolous attempt toward an unachievable ideal?

The soldiers who’ve already served in Afghanistan, and those who died in the battle, did so with honour and conviction; Their contributions were not in vain. However, over the course of eight years the circumstances have changed; The military is exhausted, NATO forces are worn out, and the battle has shifted beyond Afghanistan into Pakistan. It’s clearly become an endless crusade, and one that cannot be sustained.

Unless the Harper government is prepared to commit our troops to the indefinite struggle of creating, and maintaining a sense order in the Middle East, it’s difficult to imagine that the proposed extension of Canadian involvement will result in any substantive gain. Unless there is a comprehensive strategy and detailed plan to justify a continued presence in Afghanistan, it’s time to bring our troops home.

All of them.

———

UPDATE April 25: More questions than answers as RCMP plans training for Afghan police

*You can view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca*

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, Politics Tagged with 2011, afghanistan, peter Mackay, Stephen Harper

Debating Afghanistan: The Case For Withdrawal

April 6, 2010 Leave a comment

Yesterday, I discussed the need for an open discussion about Canada’s future in Afghanistan, focusing primarily on recent requests from our NATO partners to extend our commitment to the Afghan mission. I was careful to remain personally neutral on the issue, though the article largely supported the argument to prolong the Afghan presence. However, as is the case in every debate, there are key arguments supporting the opposing point of view. In regards to the future of the Canadian forces in Afghanistan, there are serious concerns that need to be addressed and troubling developments that can not be ignored.

Following Hillary Clinton’s interview on CTV, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff appeared with Tom Clark to debate the future of Canada’s presence in Afghanistan. Ignatieff directly responded to Clinton’s request for an extended role, telling Clark that “any renewal of a combat mission is just out of the question.” Ignatieff also addressed the possibility of ‘non-combat’ training roles.

“If it’s in Kandahar, we’re right in the line of fire. If it’s in Kabul it’s another question. Who are we training? what kind of training? There’s training that’s essentially indistinguishable from combat. Canadians require precise answers to precise questions…We can’t sit here playing around in the dark.“

When the discussion moved to his personal views on probability of the mission’s success, Ignatieff shared his concerns about the government of Afghanistan.

“I have expressed my skepticism about the core issue, which is the Karzai government. Who are we fighting for here? Are these people capable of cleaning up their act and giving Afghanistan the honest government that it so desperately needs?“

“We can’t sustain in Afghanistan unless we’ve got a partner we can trust, and Canadians can trust. I can’t as a responsible political leader, even in opposition, ask my fellow citizens to support further action in Afghanistan unless I can say ‘we’ve got some people out there you can stand with; that you can trust, that will deliver’, so the question you asked earlier about training; Training with whom? For what purpose? Is the Afghan Army the kind of instrument, serving the kind of government that Canadians can support? These are the kind of fundamental questions we have answers to, because this is about Canadian lives, this is not just an interesting political debate. If we get the wrong people might die in vain, and I as a responsible political leader don’t want that to happen“

The questions put forth by Ignatieff precisely address the current frustrations affecting NATO forces; The credibility of Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

Back in 2006, reports began to surface that Afghans were becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the Karzai government; They openly criticized him for “being too docile in his dealings with corrupt governors and police chiefs and for maintaining ties for the country’s former warlords.” Reports also discussed growing suspicions about Ahmed Wali Karzai, younger brother of president Karzai, and his role as the “head of a group involved in opium and heroin trafficking that smuggles drugs to the West.”

But it’s not Karzai’s past that has created a renewed tension between himself and the West, it’s his recent accusations that cast serious doubt on the true commitment of the Afghan government.

On April 1, Karzai lashed out at the the United States and United Nations, accusing them of perpetrating fraud in the 2009 Afghan presidential election.

“There is no doubt that the fraud was very widespread, but this fraud was not committed by Afghans, it was committed by foreigners,” Karzai asserted. “This fraud was committed by (deputy United Nations special representative) Galbraith; This fraud was committed by (chief election observer for the European Union) Morillon and this fraud was committed by (international) embassies.“

The New York Times notes that Karzai also accused the NATO coalition currently fighting against the Taliban “of being on the verge of becoming invaders – a term usually used by (Taliban) insurgents to refer to American, British and other NATO troops fighting in Afghanistan.”

Two days later, during a Parliamentary meeting on April 3, Karzai stepped up his anti-West rhetoric, warning those in attendance, “if you and the international community pressure me more, I swear that I am going to join the Taliban.”

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs spoke to the media following Karzai’s remarks, saying that such accusations are a “cause for real and genuine concern.”

After eight years of war and 141 Canadian soldiers lost on the battlefield, Karzai’s inflammatory remarks are not just a ’cause for concern;’ They are a cause for NATO to rethink its commitment to the Afghan government. Success in Afghanistan cannot be realized without honesty, co-operation and integrity from all parties involved. The West cannot create a democracy in a Country who’s government has no interest in adopting such a system. No amount of time and effort spent working with the Afghan military will completely curtail the rampant corruption within the ranks.

The United States may feel Karzai’s statements are a ’cause for concern,’ but for the Canadian forces, it just may be the cause for a total withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

But isn’t that already the plan? Upon closer examination, the answer seems to be no.

The 2011 withdrawal from Afghanistan, as it currently stands, will not be a complete withdrawal. Prime minister Stephen Harper has been artfully disingenuous when commenting about the details and scope of the 2011 pullout date. Harper’s doublespeak was evident following his remarks that his government is “very much planning to have the ‘military mission’ end in 2011.” This carefully worded sound byte was later undercut by Ben Rowswell, Canada’s representative in Kandahar. Rowswell revealed that the Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team, which includes hundreds of soldiers, will in fact remain in Afghanistan beyond the 2011 deadline.

Canadians are being mislead by Harper in regards to our post 2011 role in Afghanistan, which is precisely why Parliament needs to have a frank discussion on the matter. Has the Harper government already assigned troops to ‘non-combat’ roles post 2011, as detailed by Rowswell and recently requested by Clinton? If so, why hasn’t Harper been honest about it with Canadians? If no commitments have been made, is Harper planning on opening the door to a new role for Canadian soldiers after the 2011 withdrawal date?

If Harper is committed to a ‘complete’ troop withdrawal, he needs to publicly, and definitively say so. Our soldiers deserve better than to have their future secretly decided by a Conservative government with an aversion to accountability, and Canadians deserve to know the details pertaining to the upcoming troop withdrawal. After eight long years in Afghanistan, and facing allegations of complicity in torture, the Harper government owes Canadians an honest explanation.

UPDATE April 8: A new poll released by the CBC shows Canadians are overwhelmingly opposed to extending the Afghan mission.

UPDATE April 11: Canada will remain in Afghanistan beyond 2011

UPDATE April 12: Afghan president Hamid Karzai threatens to block NATO offensive

UPDATE April 25: Afghan mission needs credible partner: Former envoy

**You can also view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca**

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, Politics Tagged with afghanistan, hamid karzai, Hillary Clinton, NATO

It’s Time For An Open, Honest Debate On Afghanistan

April 4, 2010 Leave a comment

As the date for withdrawal from Afghanistan by the Canadian forces approaches, pressure to remain in the battle mounts amid two high profile requests for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to reconsider his decision to abandon the Afghan mission.

On March 29, in an interview with CTV’s Tom Clark, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton praised the contribution of the Canadian forces, explaining why the Americans feel it’s important that we continue our NATO commitment:

“We are very grateful for the Canadian Forces, the Canadian government, and most of all the Canadian people, with the support and solidarity they’ve shown with us in this mission in Afghanistan. We would obviously like to see some form of support to continue, because the Canadian forces have a great reputation. They work really well with the American troops and the other members of the coalition…There’s a really close working relationship, and I think our militaries have become even closer because of this deployment…We believe, in the United States, with the new strategy that president Obama has set forth, we’re making progress. It’s been a long slog, trying to learn how to take on these insurgents, to have great militaries like our Countries do, but to have to go back to basically guerilla warfare, asymmetric warfare to take on the enemy…we’ve made a lot of progress and we would very much look forward to having Canada involved in any way you think appropriate.“

“…The (Canadian) military could switch more into a training role, instead of a combat role; A logistics support role instead of the front line combat. Certainly the non military functions of working to encourage development, better governance, the rule of law, all the pieces of the strategy that have to be married with the military and Canada has a particular commitment to, and experience with, that kind of development work that would be very useful.“

Just 24 hours after Clinton’s remarks, U.K foreign secretary David Millband appeared on CTV, expressing the British position regarding Canada’s proposed troop withdrawal:

“Of course we want you to be there. We went in together and the best thing would be if we stay together, and only go out together. I’ve seen for myself the remarkable bravery of Canadian officers and troops in the south of Afghanistan. I’ve talked to your soldiers and your officers, they made a remarkable contribution, they’re making a real difference in that country, and they’re making a real difference to the coalition effort…From my point of view it’s absolutely clear; We’re a 43 nation coalition, and we’re strongly united.
Canadians are very, very good at diplomacy, at aid, at development, and also at the military effect, and so wherever in that spectrum you can make a contribution, it will be welcome. But your military contribution, both in a combat role and in a training role, mentoring role, is very very important indeed.“

“…we’ve all got a job to do, there’s a new commander, General McChrystal, is doing an outstanding job in developing a strategy that protects the Afghan population, he’s giving the space for the civilian effort to take effect.“

Although Harper is holding firm to the 2011 pullout date, at least one senior Conservative caucus member has come forward in support of extending the mission. Conservative Senator Hugh Segal feels “we have lost too many people and we have made too much of a contribution and we’ve made some considerable progress that we do not, to quote the Prime Minister, ‘cut and run’.”

It does seem a little more than ironic that Harper, who in 2003 gave an impassioned speech* to the House of Commons imploring Canada to join George W. Bush in the United States’ invasion of Iraq, has completely lost interest in Afghanistan. His lack of commitment happens to come as the United States finally has a president who possesses both a strategy, and firm commitment to, the Afghan war.

The desire for Canada to continue its presence in Afghanistan is not limited to our NATO coalition partners; Family members of soldiers killed in Afghanistan are also questioning Harper’s arbitrary withdrawal date, fearing that not seeing the mission through to the end will mean their loved ones died in vain.

Myles Kennedy, the father of Pte. Kevin Kennedy who was killed in a roadside blast on Easter Sunday in 2007, believes “we came in to do a job, and our job will not be complete if (Harper) pulls out the whole group.” Kennedy’s faith in the success of the mission is strong, a CTV report noting “(Kennedy) was amazed at the scale of NATO’s buildup for this spring’s planned offensive in Kandahar, and for the first time since his son’s death…he’s optimistic that war can be turned around.”

Canadians need an open, honest debate about the possibility of remaining in Afghanistan post 2011, and Parliament should revisit the 2008 motion for troop withdrawal to discuss the merits and drawbacks of either extending, or ending, the Afghan mission. It’s clear that the expertise, tenacity, and effectiveness of the Canadian Forces has had a positive impact on our NATO allies; Their request for our continuance in Afghanistan demonstrates their belief in Canada’s importance to the ultimate success of the mission.

Canadian men and women who have volunteered for combat on behalf of an entire nation deserve to have their future roles in Afghanistan mapped out through careful consultation between Parliament and leaders of the Canadian military; Not by a Prime Minister who’d sooner ignore the entire situation than definitively answer the urgent requests being levelled at his government.

*It’s unclear as to whether Harper plagiarized the speech given by Australian Prime Minister John Howard two days prior to his own address to Parliament, or whether both men had received a pre-written argument straight from the Bush administration.

UPDATE April 8: Conservative Senator Hugh Segal in the Toronto Star – There’s so much more to be done in Afghanistan

**You can also view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca**

Filed under Afghanistan, Canada, Politics Tagged with afghanistan, David Millband, Hillary Clinton, NATO, Stephen Harper

Stephen Harper’s Maternal Health Disaster

March 29, 2010 1 Comment

In what is arguably an effort to win over fundamentalist Christian voters, Stephen Harper’s G8 maternal and child health initiative, as it currently stands, will result in far more preventable deaths than the overall number of lives saved.

In what Huffington Post contributor Jodi Jacobson called an “absurd move,” Harper initially excluded family planning from his G8 initiative. A brief explanation was given by International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, telling the House of commons “when we know what we can do by providing clean water, vaccinations, better nutrition, as well as the most effective way is the training of health care workers and improving access for those women, that is what we are going to do.”

Oda’s remarks came a day after Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told a Commons committee that the Conservative government’s maternal health initiative “does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning.”

Facing both opposition and international backlash, Harper back-pedalled on the remarks made by his cabinet ministers, telling the House of Commons “[the Conservatives] are “not closing doors against any options including contraception. But we do not want a debate here or elsewhere on abortion.”

Any hope of an open debate on the issue was crushed when a motion demanding a “full range of reproductive health services” in the government’s G8 initiative was put forward, and ultimately defeated by the Liberals.

Last week, Jennifer Dicthburn of the Canadian Press outlined the “startling statistics about the impact of expanded access to contraception” contained in a report released by Guttmacher Institute and United Nations Population Fund. The report concluded, among other things, that “meeting the world’s needs for modern birth control would reduce maternal deaths by 70 per cent, family planning would eliminate two-thirds of unintended pregnancies and three-quarters of unsafe abortions…and spending on contraception would ultimately reduce other health costs for women and their babies – an estimated $5.1 billion annually if wealthy nations were aggressively contributing to the cause already.”

On the issue of abortion, CNN shed light on a study revealing the barbaric methods women in Kenya are forced to turn to in the face of that country’s restrictive abortion laws. The so-called ‘backstreet abortions’ are crude, makeshift medical procedures using foreign objects such as metal wire and knitting needles to put an end to tens of thousands of unwanted pregnancies. ‘Backstreet abortions’, which carry a high risk of infection, injury, and death, are often the only option Kenyan women have due to the lack of access to safe abortions. When it comes to maternal mortality rates in Kenya, it’s no surprise that one-third of all maternal deaths come as a direct result of unsafe abortions.

Harper’s actual record on the well being of women and children is questionable at best, and in a scathing piece from The Globe And Mail’s Gerald Caplain details precisely why “evidence counts for nothing in faith-based Tory policy.”

Harper’s lack of credibility on the plight of women and children, combined with his willful ignorance of the scientific evidence backing the importance of contraception and abortion to maternal health, sets the stage for another Bush era ‘no condoms for Africa‘ foreign policy disaster; Conservative political posturing resulting in millions of easily preventable deaths.

This is ‘collateral damage’ in its cruellest form.

————————————–

UPDATE March 30: From the G8 Foreign Ministers conference, Hillary Clinton: Contraception must be part of maternal health plan

UPDATE April 27: Stephen Harper refuses to include abortion in G8 plan

“There will be no debate, Tories say, putting Canada’s signature maternal-health initiative at odds with policies of U.S. and Britain.”

*You can view this entry on my blog at www.rabble.ca*