History Is History

During the night of Febuary 13^th 1945, the allies led by the Royal Air Force Bomber Command and Marshal Arthur “Bomber” Harris, destroyed the historic city of Dresden, taking between 35 and 60 thousand lives. Among the participants in the bombing raid were Canadian airmen who, acting upon the orders of their British superior, dropped thousands of tons of incendiary bombs onto innocent civilians and refugees. These are historical facts.

The bombing of Dresden first made it into RAF military plans in early 1944 because of nearby railway yards and an intelligence report pointing to the city as a point of passage for Axis troops. In fall of that year, American flying fortresses from the 8^th USAAF eight air force targeted and razed the yards, so the initial RAF plan to bomb the city heart was dropped. It was only reactivated in 1945 on the advice of Winston Churchill who wanted to give Stalin a demonstration of Allied strength. RAF briefing notes justified the bombing as a way of showing "the Russians, when they arrive, what Bomber Command can do." These are also historical facts.

Last Wednesday, the Canadian War Museum succumbed to pressure from Veterans of the Canadian Bombing Command who wanted the 67-word description of the bombing of Dresden changed. The text had been written by a group of historians, but the veterans objected to it saying that "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested," and contrasting the 600,000 German civilian deaths with the statement that "the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production”. The Museum has agreed to adjust the wording in the panel to reflect the veterans’ demands, and has promised to have the new panel installed by October.

The Veterans of the Canadian Forces who risked their lives as part of the British led Bomber Command are heroes. They obeyed the orders of their superiors faithfully and acted in the name of their country and in the name of freedom and human rights. That they participated in the bombing of Dresden, or of other European cities, takes nothing away from this immense courage and heroism. Canadians must never forget the incredible sacrifice made by these veterans who, in the name of their country and of human rights, risked their lives on every sortie.

In their name, Canadians have erected a number of war memorials across the country for new generations of Canadians to acknowledge and remember the sacrifice of our Second World War heroes. But the Canadian War Museum is not one of those places. In the words of great Canadian historian Margaret MacMillan “a museum is not a war memorial. It should allow the public to make up their own minds."

The mandate of the Canadian War Museum is “Educate, Preserve, Remember”. When the museum gives in to pressure from angry veterans and manipulates history to suit their view, it does not educate –it misleads-, it does not preserve -it manipulates- and does not remember –it forgets-.

La Clarté Libérale

En retraite de deux jours à St John’s, les Libéraux ont passé du temps à paufiner leur stratégie pour l’automne en compagnie de leur sondeur Michael Marzolini. Dans une allocution prononcée pour le caucus, celui-ci a declaré que le Parti courait d’excellentes chances de remporter la prochaine élection à condition qu’il puisse mettre sur la table des politiques claires et novatrices. Et bien que M. Marzolini ait peut-être choisi de diffuser un message trompeur en compagnie des médias, je crois que vous serez d’accords avec moi pour affirmer qu’il sonne vrai.

Depuis l’élection de Stéphane Dion comme chef de parti, les Libéraux ont éprouvé une peine visisble à se demarquer des autres partis de l’opposition. En début d’année, ceci n’était peut-être dû qu’à l’inexpérience de leur chef, mais il faudrait maintenant se demander si le problème ne serait pas plutôt au niveau du message.

Les Libéraux nous montrent tous les jours qu’ils savent critiquer; qu’ils ne sont pas d’accords avec les positions du Gouvernement Conservateur. Mais que proposent-ils, eux? Quelle est leur vision?

Le problème des Libéraux, c’est qu’ils ont trop critiqué, et trop peu proposé. Pendant la course à la direction, les candidats ont souvent participé à des debats où ils avaient l’occasion d’échanger des idées; Stéphane Dion a gagné la campagne sur sa grande idée : le système aux trois pilliers. Les Canadiens ont visiblement appreciés car les Libéraux ont mené dans les sondages pendant la course.

D’après les plus récents sondages, la plupart des Canadiens n’aiment pas Harper. Ils n’aiment pas sa vision, et n’aiment pas son style de leadership. Stéphane Dion à proposé aux membres du Parti Libéral une solution alternative claire et simple : qu’il la propose aux Canadiens.

The Hollowing Out

With a 6 percent unemployment rate and the highest GDP growth in the G7, it would be difficult to make the Canadian economy look any stronger. And while it remains unclear to whom the credit is due, a CTV/Globemedia poll released today showed that, as expected, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are cashing in!

This is definitely bad news for Dion and the Liberals, as sound economic management has traditionally been perceived as their biggest strength. With that asset now lost to Harper, one of Dion’s main focuses for the coming year will be to snatch it back by demonstrating to Canadians that the strong economy is not due to Mr. Harper’s good management, but to a combination of Alberta Oil Sands growth and ten years of Liberal rule.

All I can say is that he faces a steep climb. Let’s face it, it’s difficult to convince Canadians that the economy is being badly handled when the unemployment rate is at a 33 year low, but the one area that may hold the solution to his problem is the “hollowing out” of head offices.

In the past two years of Conservative rule, we’ve seen an unprecedented number of Canadian firms get taken over by foreign giants. First it was Inco, then Falconbridge, then the 350 year old HBC, then Fairmont Hotels, then Alcan, and yesterday, the country’s last steel producer: Stelco. Though Canadians might not be known for their strong sense of patriotism, it’s only natural to feel a certain anxiety when so many head offices start moving abroad. This was further demonstrated by yesterday’s same CTV poll, which also showed a large majority of Canadians concerned by the recent trend.

Sound economic management has been central to the Liberal brand ever since the Chrétien/Martin team slayed the deficit. Dion ran his leadership campaign on “the three pillar approach”: a sound economy, a just society, and sustainability. According to the poll, he’s sold himself to Canadians on the last two issues; time to regain the first.

Stuff

The Globe just published a fantastic editorial that you should all read. People often say that you should think twice before altering your lifestyle to meet the recommendations of the latest studies, I guess this is why!

There also another Globe article which is really worth reading called Adolescence is Obsolete. Written by Tralee Pierce, a well known Globe Life journalists, it reviews the work of Dr. Robert Epstein, former editor of Psychology Today, who argued in a recent book that the concept of adolescence serves little purpose other than creating “Frankensteins of our own making”. Most of Dr. Epstein’s suggestions are pure and total nonsense (giving teens the right to vote if they can pass a test…), but he really does succeed in bringing home the point that today’s teens have fallen victim to a nasty stereotype which prevents them from being handed responsibility.

Finally, I’d like to point you to the websites of the four main national parties: Conservative, Liberal, NDP and Green. I’d just like you to take a look at the front pages. On the Liberal, NDP and Green party websites, you’ll see positive front pages detailing the party’s successes, and bottom bars of constructive criticism of the government. The pictures of the leader also appear, but they are small and on the sidebars. On the CPC page, the first thing you see is a big picture of the great Stephen Harper. Beside that, there is a scrollbar with the latest Not a Leader negative ads, and right under, three columns of text each called: MORE CONSPIRACY THEORIES FROM THE RED-GREEN COALITION, Stéphane Dion: Conspiracy Theorist, and Where Does Stéphane Dion Actually Stand on Afghanistan?

Doesn’t that say something about the values of each party!

Provocateurs

Thank god for YouTube.

Earlier this week, a video of the Montebello Summit protests was posted on YouTube, where it was noticed that a trio of particularly violent rock-throwing protesters who seemed to be egging on violence were wearing Sureté du Québec boots. The police force originally denied all involvement in the incident, but has now been forced by YouTube evidence into admitting the existence of “undercover agents but not provocateurs”. The only thing left to explain is why those “agents” were throwing rocks.

The Ministry of Public Safety, led by Minister Stockwell Day, has also chosen to downplay the incident, and has repeatedly refused calls for a public inquiry. Day is also claiming that "The thing that was interesting in this particular incident, three people in question were spotted by protesters because were not engaging in violence,". I guess that neither he nor his department have much of a choice, but they’ve both demonstrated that they haven’t quite gotten that new media thing.

They can deny involvement, they can manipulate facts, but regardless of what they do, the truth is only one click away.

Separate School Funding

Ontario PC leader John Tory has recently promised to extend public funding to Jewish, Muslim and Christian schools that agree to follow the provincial curriculum, calling it a matter of fairness. His announcement followed an Ontario Green Party pledge to end public funding of Roman Catholic Schools.

The Liberal Party of Premier Dalton McGuinty remains firmly in favour of a status-quo, and the Premier was quoted earlier today as stating that “he didn’t think that Ontarians believed that improvement or progress was defined as inviting children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and go to their own schools,” and “That's the system that we have inherited,”.

It certainly looks as if the funding of separate schools in Ontario is emerged once again as a hot-button issue, and the stakes this time are as high as they ever were: a PC victory would most probably mark the beginning of a new era in the Ontario education system, while a second Liberal triumph would confirm the status-quo as the preferred option and keep the issue buried for another twenty years.

The separation of church and state has long been a requirement for a country to achieve true legitimacy and righteousness. In 1966, the right to a secular state was enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Canada adhered, and in 1982, we Canadians made it a fundamental part of their identity by including it section 2 of our newly repatriated constitution.

The present funding system in place in Ontario clearly violates this principal, and was ruled discriminatory by both the Supreme Court and the United-Nations. Yet Ontarians chose to do nothing, our leaders preferring the status-quo to a political minefield which would necessarily pass through an amendment of the BNA Act and a battle with the powerful Catholic Lobby.

But now, two new party leaders are proposing a change. The first one, towards full funding for all religious schools, and the second, towards a final end to state funded separate schools. Both changes would bring back full secularity for the Ontario government, so the choice left to voters is namely the choice of secularities.

The European vision of a secular state is of one which repudiates all demonstrations of religious faith and actively seeks to restrict them to the confines of private life. This explains legislation such as the infamous French law 2004-228 that banned “the carrying of symbols or garb which are religious in nature or appearance in public primary and secondary schools.”

At the opposite end of the spectrum, we have John Tory’s vision: a state that seeks to satisfy all religious groups by segregating them into separate systems specifically tailored to fit their religious values and beliefs. This vision is an inefficient as it is divisive, and quickly becomes, as Ontario Green Party leader Frank de Jong put it: “a can of worms”.

A successful secular state is neither of the above. It does not seek to take religion out of the public eye, but neither does it aim to satisfy everyone by funding independent religious communities. Rather, it simply accepts the beauty of all religious beliefs that don’t go against fundamental rights of citizens, and avoids using them as a basis for discrimination.

The current funding pattern goes against a UN convention and the Charter; it is simply wrong. The PC vision will create conflict, division, and will see students placed in artificial religious communities resembling in nothing the real world for which school is supposed to be preparing them. Only the Green Party proposal corresponds to the definition of a thriving and successful secular state, as it promotes sharing, understanding, tolerance and non-discrimination.

Xénophobie?

Le chef de l’opposition officielle du Québec, Mario Dumont, a soulevé cette semaine toute une polémique dans la Belle-Province en affirmant que le Québec avait atteint son seuil maximal d’absobtion d’immigrants. Dans une entrevue avec Patrick Lagacé de La Presse, il a en effet soutenu que « [le Quebec] est pas mal sur [sa] capacité d'accueil » et que « À court terme, peut-être que tu règles des problèmes de marché du travail. T'auras des entreprises où toute la main-d'oeuvre va parler une autre langue, va vivre autrement dans un ghetto. ». Ses propos ont immédiatement été condamnés par le Premier-Ministre Jean Charest ainsi que par la chef du PQ Pauline Marois, qui ont tous deux affirmé que la province devait au contraire augmenter son seuil actuel de 45 000 par annee à 60 000, mais malgré la position des deux autres partis principaux, il semble indéniable que la vision de M. Dumont gagne rapidement de nouveaux appuis et pourrait vraisemblablement prendre le dessus dans un futur pas si lointain.

Cette plus récente sortie du chef de l’ADQ n’est en fait qu’un nouvel épisode du débat sur « les accomodements raisonables » qui se tient au Québec depuis l’affaire d’Hérouxville et qui semble indiquer de profonds chamboulements dans la société de la province. Il faudrait en effet quasiment remonter au référendum de 95 pour revoir un tel niveau d’effervescence intellectuelle et de passion. Rares sont les hommes politiques et chroniqueurs à ne pas s’être prononcés sur la question, et les titres d’éditoriaux des grands quotidiens semblent contenir le mot « immigration » une fois sur deux.

Malheureusement, comme je l’ai indiqué plus haut c’est la vision de M. Dumont, fermée et xénophobe, qui a le vent dans les voiles, ce qui soulève de nombreuses questions sur l’état de la société Québécoise actuelle.

Plusieurs chroniqueurs, dont André Pratte de La Presse, affirment que la montée du sentiment anti-immigrant n’est en fait qu’un symptome d’une phobie croissante chez les Québécois de souche de tout ce qui n’est pas Francophone et athée. De même, Le Devoir a publié aujourd’hui une lettre d’un certain Jimmy St-Gelais de Saint-Jérôme titrée : Reflexe de conquis, où celui-ci soutient que cette montée xénophobe est une « riposte réactionnaire » de la part de la nation Québécoise Francophone contre la baisse démographique qu’elle est en train de connaître.

Ce sont là des propos troublants, et je me permets d’espérer qu’ils s’avèreront être sans bon fondement, cependant, après avoir réécouté l’entrevue de M. Dumont avec Patrick Lagagé, je redoute le pire.