Werner Patels

Restore common sense to human rights

by Werner Patels

Most Western countries today have multicultural societies, with millions and millions of people of various races, beliefs and other "quirks" interacting, and sometimes clashing, with each other. To ensure a more or less smooth functioning of society, many countries have in place special laws and tribunals to deal with acts of racism, discrimination and reasonable accommodation.

Without any doubt, life would be much easier if everyone were absolutely the same, in almost clone-like fashion, but it would also be a lot duller. But diversity of colour, race and religion is now a fact of life, with all the good and bad this engenders.

Canada is one of these countries that have gone the furthest in looking after minority groups and interests, but in some areas, it has also gone way too far, resulting in ever more friction, conflict and even reduced security for society at large.

The whole world has been following the troubles of Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn, both of whom have had the "fortuity" of running afoul of Muslim individuals and organizations over what they publish, write or say. In either case, there is no denying the fact that Muslims had a right to feel offended by what these two gentlemen wrote. Everyone has something they feel very strongly about, and any criticism or attack on it, whether real or perceived, can trigger bitter feelings. Conversely, Steyn, for example, is entitled to feeling offended by certain things he has observed in the world and written about in order to vent his frustration.

But should such hurt sensibilities give rise to lawsuits or complaints? Unless it involves defamation, which can result in either civil or criminal charges, or an outright criminal act, such as issuing a public call for an individual or groups of individuals to be physically harmed or even killed, the answer must invariably be a resounding "No". Whereas it is still possible, pending ongoing investigations, that Levant may have defamed one of his opponents personally, an imam in Calgary, Steyn has done no such thing. He says and writes outrageous things and exaggerates his narrative frequently, but none of that is actionable under civil or criminal law – offensive, yes, but not a crime.

It is cases like Levant's and Steyn's that highlight the urgent need for reform of the Canadian Human Rights Act, particularly section 13. Hate crimes, such as the promulgation of White Supremacist messages, are covered under the section, but unnecessarily so, because such acts would almost always result in criminal charges anyway.

The way it stands right now, "[t]o engage in free and wide-ranging discussion on issues of politics, race, religion, terrorism, fanaticism, foreign policy, or domestic policy is to court being stigmatized as a bigot. That risk will chill discussion of the war in Iraq, the push to introduce sharia law in Ontario, Canada's anti-terrorism act, or Québec's reasonable accommodation hearings, to name just a few examples" (Maclean's). As a result, issues and problems are swept under the rug, because certain topics are too hot to handle, and even the highest-ranking politicians refuse to touch them even with a ten-foot pole. The issue of immigration and how it has failed Canadians is probably the prime example: Canada would not sink into a deeper hole every year if it did not have to waste $18 billion a year on those 77% of immigrants who never work or pay taxes and who are nothing but deadweight. If Canadians and their politicians were not muzzled by the Political Correctness Thought Police, this problem, and a score of others, could have been addressed and solved a long time ago.

Liberal MP Keith Martin (a former conservative who has now rediscovered his real roots and therefore does not represent Liberal lore on the subject at all – a move that may have serious repercussions for his future with the Liberal Party) has tabled a motion to have section 13 eliminated. While this is a noble project on his part, it fails to address the real problem in this context. Instead of repealing a section in the Act, Parliament should set down very clear and restrictive rules as to the types of cases that can be brought before a human rights commission. That would do away with all those bogus claims (or attempts at blackmail, as was the case with the law students who went after Steyn).

Cases brought before these commissions ought to be limited to grievances arising from within a business, labour or employment-related context. In one fell swoop, the opportunity for persecuting publishers and writers would be taken off the menu. Under a scenario such as this one, human rights commissions could deal with a landlord who refuses to rent to a black person, or an employer who fired someone simply because he or she happened to be a practising Muslim. Similarly, the law students who complained about Steyn and Maclean's, the magazine that published Steyn's "offending essay", could bring a complaint against the magazine if, say, Maclean's refused to sell them a subscription on the grounds that it was against the publication's established policy to sell subscriptions to Muslims – but they would never have another chance to blackmail the magazine into handing over editorial control over a privately-owned publication.

To be sure, both Levant and Steyn have made some rather major mistakes in the way they handled those complaints and conducted themselves. Levant, in particular, has attracted a following of the racist, White Supremacist and goose-stepping kind – one only needs to look around the blogosphere to see the types of supporters he has recruited among his acolytes. But whether one agrees or disagrees with Levant's and Steyn's actions and words, it must be stated in no uncertain terms that, unless and until being offensive, rude and loud-mouthed is declared to be against the law, neither one is guilty of any crime or even misdemeanour. Nor has any one of the two engaged in hate crimes – some of their supporters have (e.g., by calling for all Muslims to be killed), but not Levant or Steyn.

While both Levant and Steyn have been absolutely the worst possible choices to spearhead the freedom-of-speech movement, as, through their various tactics, they have probably put more people off than they gained for the cause, it still needs to be acknowledged that people are now talking about these issues, and that is a good thing.

The only one who should be brought before a judge – a real judge, not a human rights commissioner – is human rights commissioner Barbara Hall. Even after dismissing the case against Steyn and Maclean's, she gave a press conference in the course of which she slandered and defamed the magazine – without evidence or a hearing whatsoever. Thus, she also violated the code of conduct to which she is subject and which obliges her to be neutral and fair to all parties. Not only should she be removed from her post, but the magazine should consider suing her for malicious defamation. Maybe that would get Parliament's attention and make MPs realize that political correctness has become a terrible disease that is threatening to destroy Canada.

Discrimination against the disabled?

by Werner Patels

The moment that everyone had been waiting for: The big showdown between Mark Steyn and his "accusers". Steve Paikin, host of The Agenda on TVO in Ontario, had the author of America Alone on his show, giving Steyn an opportunity to defend his position on Canadian television. As Steyn himself explained, it was one of those rare moments that he actually found himself in Toronto, and, boy, did he ever make use of his time.

The interview started with Paikin asking Steyn a number of pointed questions about some of the facts set out in America Alone. Steyn, not surprisingly, stood his ground and explained, or tried to explain, why he wrote the book – according to him, it is a story that simply must be told. Viewers who had not read the book yet were probably left wondering why anyone would even bother to file complaints about the book or its author: Most of it deals with Europe, and America, with Canada warranting only a few notes in passing. For what it is worth, Steyn's account of Muslims in Europe is absolutely accurate, but pointlessly exaggerated by Steyn's typical flourish of style and language.

Paikin, however, deserves a lot of plaudit – and sympathy. He found himself in a most difficult position as the host of the program, with Steyn trying to take control of the agenda barely ten or fifteen minutes into the show. Later, when he introduced the three Muslim law students who had filed a human rights complaint against Steyn and Maclean's, the magazine that had printed an excerpt from Steyn's book, he was forced to admonish the "ring leader" that insults would not be tolerated on his show after the latter had begun to use less-than-professional language in reference to Steyn, who, at the time, was sitting in a corner off-screen. It was almost as if Paikin had said, "Look, buddy, if that's the way you want to play this, fine, then go start a blog if that's the kind of language and tone you want to use. But you certainly won't do this on my show."

Steyn, however, was not a gentleman either: From out of view, he would make some condescending remarks about his accusers, indicating that he, too, was not willing to play by the rules.

But the one impression that most viewers probably came away with from the program was that the three young law students' complaint was complete and utter rubbish. When prompted by Paikin to quote from Steyn's text the passages that they found offensive, the students would at first "quote" from memory, then, with more prodding from Paikin, fumble around with their papers and, still unable to find the source of their allegations, finally quote a sentence or passage from it that did not back up their claims at all. In fact, Paikin had to give them a quick remedial course in text analysis and interpretation, somehow intimating to viewers that he was not really convinced of their complaint either. He seemed almost tempted to lash into them and say, "Apparently, your reading comprehension of English is not yet fully developed. None of what you have just read out to me comes even close to being interpreted in the way you claim it should."

In another masterful exchange, the students had to admit, grudgingly, that Steyn's facts, that a fair number of Muslims in Europe support jihad and other violent means, were not wrong, but they quickly added that they feared that all Muslims might be eyed suspiciously as a result.

It is highly doubtful that Steyn garnered much sympathy or gained new support with his "performance" on The Agenda. He came across as a loud-mouthed bully who did not hide the fact that he thought he was smarter than anyone else in this country, including Paikin. At the same time, the three complainants were exposed as nothing more than three young people in search of their proverbial fifteen minutes of fame. Paikin himself kept forcing the point: You cannot force a privately owned publication to print your articles or editorials – and this was really the core of their complaint, that is, that they had been dissed by the magazine.

Steyn may well be an Islamophobe – he referred to himself as one on a few occasions during the broadcast. But Islamophobia, like any phobia, is a disability and, therefore, protected from discrimination. As a matter of fact, if he is actually afflicted with this condition, as psychologists would agree, he should be encouraged to air his feelings and thoughts for therapeutic reasons.

Poor Steyn may suffer terrible pangs of anxiety whenever he sees a Muslim somewhere. Depending on the severity of his condition, just seeing one three blocks away could send him into a foetal position. The same thing happens to people suffering from coulrophobia, for example, the fear of clowns, and Jerry Springer had a woman on his show who was terrified of chickens in any shape or form. A man in a chicken costume sent her running backstage, where she fell to the floor and curled up into a sobbing and frightened, barely human ball in a futile attempt to shut out the cruelty of this world.

If Steyn does, indeed, have this condition, he should come clean and let the world know – and then file a human rights complaint against these three students for discrimination against the disabled.

Healthcare, pig-farming style

by Werner Patels

It is at moments like these that Albertans, even those who were short-sighted enough to vote for him last March, are beginning to think that premier Ed Stelmach should have stuck to his knitting and remained the pig farmer that he is, because a politician, or premier, he sure isn't.

The Calgary Health Region (CHR), the administrative body and unit that is responsible for running the public healthcare services in and around Calgary, has warned of a deficit that could easily exceed $100 million. In fact, year after year, the CHR has incurred massive deficits.

As it turns out, the problem is not only due to mismanagement inside the CHR, but also to a flawed formula used by the provincial government for distributing public funds to the various health regions across Alberta.

The health region in Edmonton, even though the city's population is smaller than Calgary's, receives over a $100 million more in funding a year than the CHR. The premier and his Tories say that hospitals in Edmonton have to deal with more complex conditions and treatments than those in Calgary, which is why, they claim, this unbalanced formula and approach are absolutely justifiable. Among the more "complex conditions" they cite are patients from outside the Edmonton region (or, possibly, even from outside the province) that receive treatment there.

That part does not make any sense at all. Why do Albertans and/or Edmontonians have to pay for out-of-region or out-of-province patients? And even if Edmonton insists on accepting these cases, why should Calgarians die in the hallways (or broom closets) of their hospitals as a result?

No one begrudges Edmonton its healthcare funding, but cutting Calgary short is simply not fair or in the spirit of public healthcare because this situation has effectively created a two-tiered healthcare system – one for Edmonton, the platinum plan, and another for Calgary, the tin plan. Canadians are trapped inside their universal healthcare system and are not allowed to bypass it even if they have the money to do so. It therefore falls to the government to ensure that all those services are available whenever, wherever and however they are required by those in need of medical attention.

Apart from the flawed formula, there is something much more sinister afoot: Stelmach's hatred of Calgary. The former pig farmer is from the rural north, and right after taking over as leader of the Tory party, his actions made it very clear that Calgary could fall off the face of the earth for all he cared. It was only because of the looming provincial election and highly negative polling numbers in Calgary and across southern Alberta that Stelmach paid some perfunctory lip service to the demands from Calgarians – most notably, from Calgary's mayor, Dave Bronconnier.

But after "winning" the election (with only 22% of all voters casting ballots for Stelmach's Tories), Stelmach is slowly but surely dropping his campaign mask and showing his true and real self again. He is playing a very dangerous game. Canada is already one of the most dysfunctional countries in the world, with every province and territory pulling in different directions and always threatening to break apart the country, so the last thing anyone needs is a premier creating a feud and fissures between the two halves of Alberta.

The saddest aspect of it all is that this will be remembered as one of the several daggers that killed universal health care. The writing has been on every single hospital and doctor's office wall. With ballooning costs, an ever widening shortage of doctors and nurses, an aging population that will require even more medical care than ever before, and the usual cases of mismanagement and political games played by the powers that be, it is just a matter of time before public health care implodes in Canada.

Calgarians, in particular, the closest thing to red-blooded and strong-willed Americans we have in Canada, will not tolerate this kind of treatment and disrespect for too long – especially if their health and lives are at stake. Unless Stelmach is sent back to his pig farm in northern Alberta and unless the healthcare mess is finally ironed out, people will start circumventing the public sector, regardless of whether the law allows it or not. Once this happens, Canadians can kiss their beloved universal healthcare system bye-bye.

Six of one

by Werner Patels

Canadian voters must be tearing out their hair. Most people want to do the right thing on election day (whenever that is), but figuring things out and making a decision has become torture for most.

Polls are no big help either. One week, the Conservatives are up, and the next, the Liberals are up a bit again. Yet, underlying any poll is the lingering suspicion that they are all bogus anyway – one only needs to remember the polling disaster leading up to the general elections in Britain in 1997 when every single poll failed to predict New Labour's triumphant victory under Tony Blair.

It is therefore only logical, not to mention human, to look for other indicators that can assist with the decision-making in preparation of the next election. Since polls are nothing more than glorified tea leaves or extremely murky crystal balls, the next step is to look at what various parties actually stand for.

However, this throws up yet another obstacle: how different are the main parties really? A comparison of the Conservative and Liberal parties in their current incarnations reveals that there are some differences but that, overall, they are really six of one and half a dozen another.

Voters can draw up lists of pros and cons: If party A wins, the country (and I, of course) will benefit in the following ways, whereas if party B wins, a number of things will happen that I cannot tolerate. One might think that a pros-cons list could help the poor voter along in his or her decision, but, alas, it is not that simple – at least in Canada. For every benefit voters derive from a Conservative government, they would suffer a disadvantage under a Liberal government, and vice-versa. This may be stating the obvious in somewhat oversimplified terms, but essentially, this would be the result of any accounting of the Conservative and Liberal pros and cons.

What this means is that every voter will find something he or she likes, no matter whether the government is Conservative or Liberal. The only question that remains is whether the downsides are still bearable or so unacceptable that it would cancel out any of the benefits. There is no general answer to this question; finding the right answer is up to each and every voter.

No list of pros and cons will yield a perfect balance. For some voters, the bottom line of such a list will favour, by an infinitesimally small margin, the Conservative option, while others will have a result pointing to a Liberal preference. So, after looking at the parties' platforms and ideas, another decision-making tool will be needed.

This is found in the very people that represent the parties, that is, the candidates themselves, as well as party leaders. This one, though, gives every conflicted voter good reason to rejoice, because this is the one area of absolute clarity. For the past two years, every single poll has confirmed that Stephen Harper is considered the best leader, with Stéphane Dion always hanging on by his fingernails in third or, most of the time, fourth place (behind the NDP's Jack Layton).

If your list of pros and cons pointed you in the direction of voting Conservative, this additional aspect will most likely seal the deal for you. If your list suggested you should vote Liberal, you are back to square one and will need further input before you can make up your mind.

No doubt, at this point, you may just want to toss a coin and get it over with, but there is no reason to toss coins (or the towel) just yet. What is the one thing that makes the world – and, thus, politics – go round? Right, money.

Polls as a barometer of voting preferences for the different parties are unreliable. Every poll uses sample sizes (900, 1,000, 2,000) that are way too small and never produce predictions of any representative value. To approximate even a remotely accurate forecast, pollsters should use samples of no fewer than at least 10,000 to 15,000 people.

But money is different – it talks, and can tell quite the story. According to the most recent figures, 44,345 donors contributed $4.95 million to the Conservative Party in the first quarter of 2008. The NDP raised $1.1 million from 13,329 contributors, while the Liberals received only $846,129 from 10,169 donors. This puts the Liberals into third place.

In fact, these numbers are more indicative of things to come than any of the polls combined. When people part with their hard-earned cash and invest it in a political party, it is a testament to their commitment. That is to say, come election day, they will not waver and stay home or vote for anyone else.

It seems that the Conservatives know how to pull at the heart and purse strings of people. Even if turnout should be low in the next election, which it most certainly will, based on these numbers, Conservatives and conservative-minded voters will be more likely to go to the polls and vote for the party of their choice. Liberals, by contrast, do not appear to be overly motivated and will probably stay home in droves.

This should not surprise anyone. Many Liberals are not thrilled with Dion's leadership, and even they concede that they would rather see someone else in the Prime Minister's Office. They have resigned themselves to letting the "other guy" win by default, while keeping their fingers crossed that the next leadership contest will produce a strong and iconic leader for the Liberal Party – and, no, they do not plump for Michael Ignatieff either, who is a Liberal's Liberal who would be shunned by the vast majority of fence-sitting swing voters.

If these numbers are anything to go by, the NDP could very well be expected to form the next official opposition. Their numbers have been going up in Québec ever since the by-election victory of Thomas Mulcair last fall. They have been drawing voters away from the Bloc Québécois, and whenever Harper and Dion got right into things, Layton often ended up being the lone voice of reason. Accordingly, in poll after poll, Canadians say that Layton would be their second choice for prime minister, after Harper and ahead of Dion. Now that the NDP has also bested the Liberals in terms of donations – not just this year, but also throughout 2007 – it is not surprising at all that Layton has been acting more and more like the leader of the official opposition, rather than the top guy in charge of the "third wheel".

In all fairness, however, the donations numbers could also be interpreted differently. People tend to hand over money, so that others can do the dirty work for them. When contributions to political parties are involved, some donors may consider their civic duty done and therefore stay away from the polls on election day. Liberals may not want to hand over their money now, because they are resolved to let actions speak louder than words by stampeding to the polls to send a clear message to Harper and the Conservatives. They may also want to save their money for the actual election campaign and then donate generously to the various candidates.

So, on second thought, perhaps the coin toss may not be such a bad idea after all. Does anyone have a quarter?

Patience is a virtue

by Werner Patels

Television actors are really nice people. Every day, they come to my home, shrink themselves down to doll size, and perform their mini-theatre plays right in my living room. They are even kind enough to bring their own sets, props and costumes. I hear they do the same thing for millions of other people; nevertheless, I feel no less special and privileged.

For a lot of people, TV is a form of cheap entertainment and a good excuse to put their feet up in a recliner, while munching on chips and swilling beer. To me, though, it is a form of art – or mini-theatre. Instead of going to an actual theatre, decked out in my Sunday's best, or recreating the crammed-sardine feeling of an airplane in a movie theatre, but with much stickier floors and seats, I like to enjoy this particular art form from home – in full affirmation of what was once known as cocooning.

The "plays" performed inside my little box are often no less captivating and literarily challenging than those on Broadway, and they come in digestible portions of 30, 60 and sometimes 120 minutes. But the best part of it is that, thanks to DVRs and similar newfangled technology, I can assume the role of director and call "Cut" any time I feel like it. And if I really want to live it up, I can make those actors go faster or speed up the time set aside for the intermissions.

Unfortunately, the very gadget that allows me to do all these things is what has prompted TV networks and executives to predict the imminent death of television – at least of television as we know it. You see, when millions of viewers use their DVRs, TiVos, etc., to avoid commercials, the networks lose out on the valuable eyeballs that are supposed to be riveted to their advertisers' and sponsors' product promotions. Not a sustainable model, many TV insiders wail.

Adding to the problem of declining advertising revenue and ratings, most TV shows can be bought on DVD just before the next season starts. Those who have not figured out how to work a DVR or TiVo, therefore, exercise patience and figure they will simply wait for the DVD to come out. Then, they watch an entire season's worth of their favourite show in single weekend.

The TV networks curse the day DVRs and DVDs were invented, and hold them directly responsible for their problems. That so many TV addicts have flocked to recording-made-simple gadgets or DVDs, however, is merely a symptom, but not the actual cause of conventional TV's decline. Clearly, there is something that keeps pushing more and more people away and straight to broadband downloads, DVDs, TiVos or video-on-demand and cable channels.

In the golden age of television, networks would produce about 39 weeks of original episodes, instead of today's 22. Back then, viewers actually got their money's worth, because they were not forced to sit through too many reruns, and, more importantly, their shows were not constantly shuffled around the schedule the way they are today.

In fact, not too long ago, television was "by appointment". People knew where and when to find their favourite shows, and they would all "meet" in front of their TVs, collectively, and then discuss whatever show they were watching around the water cooler the next day. Dallas was such "by-appointment television" (Fridays at 10pm). If Dallas were still on the air today, though, viewers would have a hard time finding it on the dial: one week, it would be on at 10pm on a Friday, then be shifted to, say, 8pm, only to end up on Tuesdays at 9pm for several weeks. This would be followed by an unexpected hiatus of three, maybe four, weeks, and then the show would reappear in its brand new timeslot of Mondays at 10pm.

This, essentially, is what is being done to almost all shows on all networks today. Viewers start watching a new show, but then "lose" it, because the network keeps playing peek-a-boo with them.

Also, during the golden years of television, network executives had a lot more patience. Even if a show did not quite perform as well as had been expected, they stuck it out and, if things really got too bad, cancelled it at the end of the season. Today, however, new shows can be axed as early as a few minutes after its debut broadcast. Before long, viewers will tune in to a new show and, following the first commercial break, see a screen that says, "Unfortunately, viewer response during the first segment of this show has been unsatisfactory, which is why we have had to cancel it effective immediately. We will now fill the remaining 23 minutes of this broadcast with the national anthem on a loop."

Here is a newsflash for TV execs: When a show does not do well in a certain timeslot, it will do equally badly at a different time. Moving the show around the schedule and trying it out on various days and times, hammocking it between so-called hit shows, will only make audiences dwindle even faster.

Patience is a virtue, so the saying goes, and in TV land, ignorance of this time-honoured rule is the real cause of the incipient demise of traditional TV. If a show does not meet its target, either remove it immediately or give it time to grow – networks might be surprised to find out what a bit of TLC can do. But by all means, stop aggravating viewers by sending them on a wild-goose chase in search of their shows. If viewers are sufficiently angered by such incomprehensible castling, they will take it out on other shows on the same network, and suddenly the network may find itself in last place in the ratings.

Some shows are instant hits, but they are as rare as top-winning scratch cards that claim that all and sundry can be an instant winner. Most of what we see on TV is an acquired taste. At first, a new show may look like a real dud, but then, often several weeks into a new season, something clicks and a connection has been established. Unfortunately, by then, the network usually has already sent in its "contract killers", and the hapless viewer is left with nothing more than the chalk outline where the show used to be. This may not drive the viewer to drink, but it will certainly make it easier for him or her to switch to cable, the Internet or DVDs.

First published in BC Magazine

Obama and Clinton: Nasty politics

by Werner Patels

At this stage in the race for the White House, no one has any doubts anymore that moving back into her "home" of eight years is Hillary Clinton's overriding motivation. She spends more time denigrating and "misspeaking" about her opponent, Barack Obama, than about issues, or the Republican candidate John McCain, for that matter.

Americans are becoming fed up with the nasty tone of the battle between the two Democratic candidates. According to a new poll, 50% of Americans (as well as 50% of Democrats) now believe that the campaign has become too nasty – so nasty, in fact, that 20% of those polled say that they will not vote for Clinton in November if she is nominated.

Obama, meanwhile, finds himself in a tricky situation. After promising a new style of politics, he can hardly engage in mudslinging the way Clinton does. If he turns too negative, voters will accuse him of flip-flopping on his promise, and Clinton will doubtless let people know that Obama's new way of politics eerily looks like the old, that is, her approach to political campaigning.

But how many more punches and low blows must he take before he is willing to speak up for himself? Following Clinton's win in Pennsylvania, political pundits and observers have begun to urge Obama to take the gloves off and go after Clinton at full blast. Both he and his campaign are resisting these calls for getting tough.

While the two candidates battle it out, the Democratic party is slowly falling apart. Some high-level Democrats have called on Clinton to drop out of the race for the sake of the party, and more recently, one Slate.com blogger has suggested that Obama should be the one withdrawing from the race, so that he can run and win in 2012.

This is very bad advice. Obama's moment is now – not only for himself, but also, more crucially, for America. America needs a president like Obama now, not in 2012 when McCain would have had four years to drive the country even deeper into the hole.

Yes, McCain, because the only way to prevent McCain from becoming president is to pair him off against Obama, for Clinton does not stand a chance against the war veteran.

The nastiness, however, is not limited to the Democratic side. McCain has intimated that Obama is a candidate "favoured by Hamas" and that Obama would be a president serving Hamas and terrorist interests, rather than American ones. McCain, who is a respected "senior citizen" and liked, or at least tolerated, by both Republicans and Democrats, has certainly hit a low point in the campaign with his remarks, which have tinfoil written all over them. In the far-fetched department, his comments are about as logical or reasonable as if he had claimed that Obama had arrived on earth 47 years ago in a space ship and had been raised by a family on a farm in Kansas.

Among Republicans, this will not harm him much, even though many, and a growing number of, Republicans have been slipping over into the Obama camp. Nor will this open up a gaping rift in the Republican party, because their candidate has been nominated, and now they are all determined to close ranks.

Democrats who are disgusted with the hostilities exchanged between Clinton and Obama, some of whom have indicated to pollsters that they might vote Republican if their favourite candidate does not make it, may now have second thoughts about the Arizona senator. If nothing else, McCain has lived up again to his reputation of being a hothead.

And this is exactly one of several factors that would allow Obama to take the White House in a campaign against McCain: when given a choice between Obama and McCain, Americans will most definitely opt for Obama, who thinks things through first (he is probably the slowest-talking politician in the country right now), whereas McCain has a tendency to fly off the handle – not a good thing when you are the commander-in-chief in charge of the "red button".

Democrats must be scared stiff right now. Since Clinton has a tendency to attack Obama as if she were running for the Republicans, she might be tempted to pick up on McCain's comment and start accusing Obama of being "a terrorist's favourite president". With the party on the verge of breaking into two camps, this would provide the absolutely final blow to the Democratic party. Alternatively, there will be a price to pay if Clinton fails to defend her fellow Democrat against such preposterous accusations.

American politics is a business of underhanded tactics, which is why it fascinates so many people around the world. It is, therefore, quite conceivable that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was dropped back into the game by either Clinton or McCain in order to cause further damage to the Obama campaign. It is true, of course that the original Wright controversy was simply too good to be true, and anyone who is opposed to Obama would do his or her best to make sure voters not forget about the good old reverend and his politically incorrect remarks.

As if this were not enough, Obama is also still being beaten over the head with the "William Ayers" stick and the "Weather Underground connection". If more or less passing acquaintances of questionable character were a real obstacle to running for public office, the entire US Congress and the White House would be empty. Everyone knows someone they should not know, but those paths that so often cross in people's lives are inevitable and beyond anyone's control. I once ran into Jörg Haider, even talked to him, but I certainly do not belong to any of his political parties and groups, and I cannot be held personally responsible for anything that man says or does – it would be utterly ridiculous if anyone tried. Unfortunately, Obama's opponents are not afraid of looking downright bizarre.

One thing is for certain, though. The longer Obama and Clinton clash with each other, the more likely it is that the Democratic party will cease to be a single party, and the more likely it is that Americans may have to face another four years of a Republican administration with Bush and Bush-lite policies. Looking at America's current problems, and the challenges it will face down the road, every American should wish, pray and chant any possible spells that this particular scenario never comes to pass.

First published in BC Magazine

Political cesspool

by Werner Patels

The Conservative Party of Canada has egg on its face. The party that campaigned and won the last election on lofty promises of integrity and accountability is now caught in its own maelstrom of illicit behaviour. In what is now known as the "in-and-out scandal", the Conservatives spent more on the last election than they were allowed under existing election laws. When they failed to cooperate with the investigation of Elections Canada, the agency obtained a search warrant and sent in the RCMP to raid the governing party's offices.

The Conservatives have claimed that other parties have done the same thing and that Elections Canada has singled out the Tories because its officials are pursuing a personal vendetta against the government. Those "excuses" for breaking the law are the usual statements of denial of anyone getting caught red-handed. They do not change the fact, though, that the law has been broken.

The law may be wrong and may have to be changed. But if a law is unpopular, it must be changed through due process and not by breaking it.

Caps on donations to political parties make sense. No one wants corporate or labour-union interests to interfere with or distort the ordinary business of politics. Banning companies and unions from donating to parties, therefore, was the right thing to do, as was the decision to limit the amount any voter can give to a political party. It is, however, absolutely illiberal to tell parties how to spend their money. It is their money, after all, and they should be allowed to spend as much of it as they want. So, the law ought to be changed so as to make it fit in with a liberal democracy.

Still, even though the Tories played fast and loose with the rules, theirs is a minor digression compared to Adscam and similar schemes between 1993 and 2006. What should raise the ire of voters and taxpayers, however, is the most recent allegation against finance minister Jim Flaherty, who is said to have awarded an untendered contract to a Conservative crony worth $122,000. Flaherty is now being investigated by the federal ethics commissioner. The in-and-out scheme involved the Tories' own money; Flaherty, however, is handing taxpayers' money to political allies and buddies.

The latest economic data should also make people think about the ways of the Conservative government. Thanks to the most profligate spending of any federal government in recent history, Canada may slip back into deficit territory now that growth turns out to be much more feeble than originally forecast.

But this latest spate of political scandals does a whole lot more than smear one political party. It tarnishes the entire political culture. Politicians are already held in low esteem, and the more the public hears about unethical or even criminal behaviour in Ottawa, the less inclined people will be to vote, thus allowing voter turnout in Canada to explore ever greater depths.

Political pundit and columnist Chantal Hébert has argued that the in-and-out scheme will end up hurting Elections Canada more than the Conservatives. She may have a point, but then again, Elections Canada will not be running any candidates in the next federal election. In other words, Elections Canada does not have to answer to the voting public in the same manner as the government and the opposition parties.

It did not do much for optics either when Liberals flocked to the Tory office during the RCMP raid to take pictures and frolic at the sight like little children going na-na-na at the Tories' (homemade) misfortune. It marked them out as infantile brats who should not be entrusted with the business of the country. Doubtless this sorry episode will prompt both Tory and Liberal voters to stay away from the polls at the next federal election.

Voters will probably think that they should vote NDP or Green next time, as these two parties are the only ones left with clean hands. But people also expected the Conservatives to be squeaky-clean – a hope that has now been dashed forever. So, people will probably resign themselves to the idea that all politicians are the same and not worth the trouble or time it takes to go to the polls on election day.

A lesson in how to lose voters

by Werner Patels

Political parties always try to come up with the next big idea, the one idea that will either propel them to power or secure their hold on power. This is nowhere near as prominent a motive as in Canadian politics these days. The Conservatives have been at the helm of government for a bit over two years, but theirs is only a minority government. Despite his best efforts, prime minister Stephen Harper has been unable to boost his polling numbers or put a considerable distance between his party and the Liberal Party.

Considering that the opposition is led by an ineffectual, clumsy, non-English-speaking nerdish professor, Stéphane Dion, Harper's inability to make any headway is no credit to Dion, but, instead, speaks of the inherent weakness of the conservative movement and the Conservative Party. Voters, even when faced with an outright caricature and joke on the Liberal side, are still reluctant to give Harper and his Tories a majority.

Canadians are afraid of extreme right-wing ideas. Even most of those who vote Conservative in Canada would never dream of voting Republican in the United States, for example. A recent survey on Anglo-Saxon attitudes and values done by The Economist also revealed that British Tory voters would vote for Barack Obama, a Democrat, rather than John McCain, a Republican.

Harper is not an extremist by any definition. In fact, based on his budgets alone, he appears to be more of a free-spending liberal than any Liberal government in recent history. He also skilfully sabotaged his own party's renewed attack on same-sex marriage by throwing some carrots to the social conservatives in his party at first to calm them down, but then pulling out the stick and beating them, softly, into submission.

He has also discovered his greener side. Of course, he is still several light years away from deserving the label of environmentalist or Kyoto supporter, but he has learned and come around, slowly but surely, on some fronts. Environmentalists still scowl at his approach to CO2 emissions, but his targets are much tougher than, say, Alberta's, and from the looks of it, Harper could well be headed for a major showdown with the Albertan government, whose environmental standards are a joke. Without any undue exaggeration, this simmering conflict has all the makings of turning the federal Conservatives, in the minds of Albertans, into pariahs no less reviled than the Liberals.

Therefore, when the Liberals accuse Harper of a "hidden agenda" – i.e., of extreme right-wing ideological provenance – the rest of Canada cannot help but laugh, as happened during the recent debate on Harper's reasonable and common-sensical immigration-reform measures, which made Dion huff and puff, despite the fact that even the Globe and Mail, a Liberal newspaper, supported these measures wholeheartedly.

So, one would think that Harper was a safe choice for Canadian voters. He would be, too, if it were not for those in and around his party that gave voters every reason to be scared of a Conservative majority – after all, show me the company you keep, and I will tell you the kind of person you are.

The recent debate on freedom of speech, triggered by such conservative "luminaries" as Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn, has shown Canadians the ugly face of the Canadian conservative movement. In the wake of the debate, Canadians were treated to Holocaust denials, belittlement of the 9/11 events and a plethora of racist commentary. It has also demonstrated, yet again, the groupthink that dominates and permeates the conservative movement.

In the political blogosphere, it is an open secret that the conservative blogging group Blogging Tories is nothing but an echo chamber where groupthink is enforced swiftly and vehemently – criticize any aspect of conservative ideas or individuals, and you, an upstanding and progressive conservative yourself, will be branded a communist before the average Canadian conservative can figure out whether communist takes one or two m's. Or try writing a critical piece about Mark Steyn – including one that affirms and agrees with his message but not his style – and conservatives will call you a left-winger and suggest you see a shrink.

This is not only childish, but also bespeaks an intellectual backwardness and lack of mental agility on the part of conservatives. Surely, David Frum, a conservative, must have been ostracized after he revealed in his latest book that he was – the "nerve" of that man – in favour of a carbon tax.

Canadians, who are extremely computer and blog-savvy, see what is going on, and they are becoming increasingly disgusted with the hatred, racism, bigotry and myopia exhibited by bloggers and other members of the conservative movement. When pseudo-conservative Gerry Nicholls, for example, announced recently that he would turn on every light in his house during Earth Hour, he made a light bulb go on over many people's heads: Instead of doing something nice for the environment, which did not even require that much of a sacrifice, he tried to "prove" his point by powering up his electricity bill and volunteering to pay even more money to his utility company. No doubt, most people now consider Nicholls a synonym of dunce.

As a result of such conservative "enlightenment", a growing number of readers agree that, while they have confidence in Harper to varying degrees, they are put off by conservative bloggers and others in the conservative movement (for example, the National Post, particularly after one of its editors recently praised a Neo-Nazi as a role model for the freedom-of-speech movement). While Liberal bloggers only achieve positive feedback with other Liberals, without actually producing any converts for their side, the conservatives are doing their best to alienate and lose voters.

This alienation is not only affecting undecided voters or those who normally vote for other parties. Even conservatives are growing impatient with the infantile antics of their co-ideologues, to the point where even some of them may not vote Conservative anymore.

Steyn Alone

by Werner Patels

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has dropped the complaint against author Mark Steyn and Maclean's magazine. The complaint was baloney from the start anyway.

For those who have been under a rock for the last few months, a human-rights complaint was filed against Maclean's after the magazine had published excerpts from Steyn's bestseller America Alone, which contained a number of passages deemed offensive to and by Muslims. But the offensive nature of Steyn's explanations was not what gave rise to the complaint. What really happened was that a bunch of Muslim law-school students felt aggrieved because the magazine refused to print one of their editorials, and so they filed a complaint for being "dissed".

As the Ontario Human Rights Commission has now finally realized, after months and months of dragging this thing out, magazines and newspapers are private property, and no one has a right to be published in them. Of course, it would have been a writer's dream come true if a precedent had been established here that would have given every writer an automatic right to publication in any newspaper or magazine across the country. Logically, the same could have been extended to any publishing house: simply send your manuscript to Random House and they have to publish your book, or else.

But even the Commission had to admit that this is the real world, rather than one populated by fairies and other magical creatures. It did not stop one commissioner, however, from going after Maclean's in her obiter dictum. According to Barbara Hall, the magazine is still guilty of spreading Islamophobic ideas and being generally offensive to the Muslim community.

Some things need to be clarified here. First of all, Steyn's book is factually absolutely correct. The situation and demographics he describes are accurate, and anyone who has lived or spent some time in Europe knows that Steyn was not making things up as he wrote the book. His choice of language, however, leaves much to be desired, because the way he expresses those facts is, indeed, offensive and hyperbolic. He also made the mistake of lumping all Muslims together in the same category, instead of carefully distinguishing between Muslims on the one hand, and radical or extremist elements on the other.

His style of getting the message across is counterproductive to his intentions – it does not take offensive commentary to aptly describe what has been going on Europe. Two or three years ago, one of Germany's public broadcasters aired a piece showing a young Turkish boy in a major German city who was asked by a reporter what he would like to be when he grew up. His answer: "I want to kill infidels." Beautiful words out of the sweet mouth of a four or five-year-old boy with cherubic cheeks. Things like that do not need to be commented or exaggerated; they are what they are. Just air the piece and let the impact of it sink in with the audience. Add the kind of language Steyn uses, and you, and your message, will lose three-quarters of your potential audience.

Second, Steyn did not do himself any favours by associating with right-wing extremists, bigots, racists and even Neo-Nazis in an attempt to build his "coalition of the willing" for his battle with the human rights commission. Again, just as had happened with his book, his message got lost in the ether and was written off as the rants of a racist and his goose-stepping acolytes. The whole matter of defending people's right of free speech, not to mention the private property rights of publishers, was overshadowed and drowned out by his and his followers' silly and infantile antics.

Third, Ms. Hall is sadly mistaken when she labels Maclean's an Islamophobic publication – in fact, it is not at all impossible for the magazine to sue her for defamation over this, one would think. The magazine regularly prints a wide variety of opinions and views, and unless the excerpt from Steyn's book was accompanied by a special tag line at the top that read, "This magazine fully and wholeheartedly shares and endorses the views expressed by Mark Steyn in his book America Alone," there is no way that reproducing an excerpt from a book could possibly result in guilt by association.

Similarly, it is utter nonsense to suggest that a website, such as a blog, is guilty of libel if it links (even without quoting) to another site that contains libellous statements. It gets even worse when someone files notices of legal action for defamation if such statements have not been adjudicated as being libellous. Last year, a failed Liberal candidate was not happy with some of the press about his past and present criminal record. Instead of suing the paper, such as the Globe and Mail, he decided to send his lawyer after bloggers who had linked to the newspaper articles. Even his own lawyer had doubts about his client's approach.

What is amazing today, though, is the fact that all those "free-speechers" who have gathered around the likes of Steyn, Ezra Levant and even one high-profile Neo-Nazi/anti-Semite never raised a stink about that case – and that one was an actual attack on freedom of speech. But since it involved a Liberal, and a non-white person to boot, those "free-speechers" did not much care about the case.

You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Steyn, to his detriment, regularly seasons his word salads with pungent vinegar and similarly foul-smelling condiments, which is why the facts with which he hopes to educate the masses will be taken in only by a (lunatic) fringe, while the rest of us continue to laugh him off as that crazy cave-dweller with the grizzly beard.

America, who stands on guard for thee?

by Werner Patels

Throughout the 20th century, America was the superpower that the world turned to in times of need. During the last century, America was also the one country that the rest of the world tried to imitate in most ways. After the demise of the Soviet Union, the United States became the sole superpower left in the world. People from around the world were drawn to the land of endless opportunities – either as immigrants in search of a better life or as tourists, who wanted to earn some bragging rights back home by telling their friends and family that they had been to the "promised land."

Powerful people and entities, however, do not only have admirers but also enemies. Among the chattering classes of the West, it became fashionable to criticize, ridicule and generally belittle America. To those in the East, Americans were capitalist pigs, infidels or even Satan's Little Helpers.

The United States, like any other country, has always had its share of flaws. The lone superpower was well known for violent crime, its army of homeless people or its constant battle with illiteracy before any of those problems started occurring in and affecting other Western countries as well. Some of those flaws have been ironed out, while others have gotten worse and new ones been added.

On and in the days following September 11, 2001, the world came together as one and expressed its solidarity with the United States. But it did not take long for the president at the time, George Bush, a shoot-from-the-hip-kind-of cowboy, to squander the unique chance to build a more united world. No sooner had Bush expounded on his concept of the "axis of evil", while putting the world on notice that "you were either with us, or against us," than the world, including America's long-time friends and allies, started turning away from the United States.

When Bush sent American troops into Afghanistan, both Americans and others were still able to find some sort of logic in the mission, as Osama bin Laden was using the country as a hideout at the time, but when he ordered the invasion of Iraq, America entered a new phase of political and diplomatic loneliness.

To this day, Bush defends his war in Iraq by repeating the same old pretext: the people of Iraq had to be liberated from Hussein and were entitled to experience real democracy. Whatever his actual motives for involving America in such an operation might have been, there is no denying that they had very little to do with fighting terrorism.

True, Iraq was not a democracy, and governed by a tyrant. But it did not serve as a hotspot of terrorist activity against the United States – the real problem areas were, and still are, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt. Hussein may have been a crazy dictator, but a terrorist he was not. He preferred direct confrontation with his enemies, rather than the cowardly acts of terrorists and suicide bombers.

Any of the credit of goodwill America had is gone now. Bush has become a living and breathing caricature of himself, and it stands to reason that America has been spared any major terror attacks since 9/11 because even terrorists cannot take him seriously anymore and feel that any ammunition (of the ordnance or human kind) would be wasted as long as Bush was in power – hence their decision to blow things up elsewhere.

This year, Americans will finally have a chance to break with a past that does not serve them well at all. Next January, there will be no member of the Bush family left in the White House. Voters, at this point, have three choices before them: John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, although one of the latter two will be eliminated in weeks or months to come.

The smart American has already made his or her choice. It is really not a hard contest considering the alternatives: Under McCain, America would continue to be mired deep in the Iraq mess, and even though he is said to have one leg in the Democratic party, McCain would most likely accomplish very little in the way of restoring America's image and reputation abroad and, probably, would end up being a watered-down version of Bush.

Hillary Clinton seems to be in the race not to serve the American people but to prove something to herself, which is never a good reason to seek public office. Apart from the ridiculous idea of hers, that she is qualified to be commander-in-chief simply because she happens to be married to a former holder of that powerful office, she will soon have trouble walking around without tripping over her nose, which keeps getting longer and longer every time she "misspeaks".

Obama, by contrast, is the candidate that holds the key to America's future, one that will probably be more inclusive and much less partisan. It may also be an America that finally starts to focus its resources on real issues, such as education or health care, rather than a war on terrorism, which has depleted the country's treasury.

No doubt, terrorism will continue to be a problem, and those who engage in terror acts must be brought to justice, but when the war on terrorism becomes an obsession to the exclusion of most everything else, the terrorists will have won.

You have nothing to fear but fear itself

Since 2001, Bush has seen dark and menacing figures lurking behind every tree. They do exist, but their numbers and threat have been morbidly exaggerated by the Bush administration – to the point where the whole administration sees anyone who enters the United States, particularly from Canada, as a potential terrorist – so much, in fact, that it is hard to find any conservative pundit or commentator in the US who does not slag off Canada on a regular basis. This obsessive view of the outside, non-American, world, has also been reflected in the raising of more and more barriers to trade and business. Eventually, this will hurt America more than anyone else.

Osama bin Laden did say that it was his goal to ruin the United States financially, and so far his campaign has been quite successful. In a way, it has been a psychological war, masterfully executed by bin Laden and his group. As anyone knows, fear can consume a person to the extent that he or she commits suicide. Countries are no different. Despite its show of power and might, America has become a scared little child that is being consumed by its fears – real or perceived. The way America has been closing off its border to trade and immigration from Canada is similar to locking yourself into the basement to prevent the bogeyman from coming after you. The only trouble is that, by locking yourself in like that, you are also shutting yourself off from the rest of the world, and your supplies will only last for so long. Stay down there long enough, and you will go crazy and probably kill yourself.

In most cases, the shut-in will not even have to commit suicide. Just lock someone who suffers from arachnophobia into a dark basement and tell him that he is surrounded by spiders. Leave him in there overnight and chances are that, by morning, he will have died from his fear.

The United States has not suffered an actual heart attack induced by fear, but a financial one. Because of his Osamaphobia, Bush has bled the federal coffers dry, leaving the next few generations of Americans saddled with a major debt. What is more, it could get even worse if Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney prevail and somehow manage to start yet another war – this time, in Iran.

Obama offers the best chance of taking America out of the "basement" and back into the world. Unlike Clinton and McCain, who both supported Bush's war on Iraq, at least initially, Obama opposed it from the start. He would not be soft on terrorism, but he would not allow America to live in fear either.

Americans must begin to feel good about themselves again. This cannot be achieved so much in the arena of foreign policy as right at home. Strength can only come from within, which means that domestic problems must be addressed first and foremost, like health care or the mess that America's education system has become.

Race and race issues have never been the main driver behind Obama's campaign – they only moved to the foreground once he was forced to take a public position on his pastor's controversial comments. Nor is Obama strictly to be seen as a candidate for African Americans, but if he wins the race for the White House, improved race relations in the States, a time-worn and festering problem, will certainly be one of the benefits to be enjoyed by all Americans.

As for America's international reputation, there is no doubt that an Obama presidency would go a long way to restoring what the country lost so many years ago. In order to heal old friendships, as well as to make new ones, America needs Obama, for neither Clinton nor McCain would be the right person to pull that off.

America needs a complete do-over and a fresh start, and Obama is the only candidate who has it in his power to make that happen.