Britain: The Mighty Have Fallen

Britain came from humble beginnings as the home of Celtic and Norse tribes inhabiting the islands off the north west coast of Gaul. It was invaded by the Romans, then then Normans, then united under a single kingdom. It became the largest and most powerful empire the world has ever known controlling territories from Canada to India, to Hong Kong, and many points in between. It was the victor in the first world war against mighty central European powers. In the Second World War it fended off the mighty German Luftwaffe single-handedly and outnumbered three to one. The British revolutionized trade, ushered in the age of steam, changed the way ships navigate, built the most powerful navy in the world. They invented television, the type writer, the world wide web, the MRI, the hot blast furnace, cloning, and the jet engine, football (soccer) among other things. Alas how the mighty have fallen. One could argue that Britain ever did fully recover from the ravages of World War Two. That's what brought many Brits to the colonies during the 1950s; including my own family. While the nation recovered economically, it has suffered serious social and political decay during the recent decades.

London's Sunday Times reported this week that convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi was set free due to a secret oil deal made between the UK and Libyan governments as part of a prisoner transfer program. An exchange of letters between UK justice secretary Jack Straw and his Scottish counterpart Kenny MacAskill detailed the plan. The government had originally opposed including Megrahi as part of the prisoner transfer in 2007 but later that year turned their position to include any Libyans the government was currently holding. Allegedly, the decision was made after negotiations between the Libyan government and British Petroleum, for a multi-million pound oil exploration deal, stalled. This contradicts the governments claims that it had no involvement in Megrahi's release. It also contradicts Scottish claims that he was released purely on compassionate grounds.

This is just the latest in a string of scandals that have plagued Gordon Brown's embattled Labour government. The corruption allegations involving the UK Parliament makes Canadian Parliament look comatose, and turns Obama's health care debate into the cure for insomnia! MPs from all parties have been accused of stealing money from government coffers. Labour's environmental plans have arguable run Britain's economy into the ground. Social problems have also exploded. Banning handguns did nothing to solve the country's high rates of violent crime. It is said that any given night, young adults can be seen passed out in the street from binge drinking. Many feel that the country is now controlled entirely by Muslim-Arab interests. The government has further adopted an increasingly nanny-statist view on the public, and keeps watchful eye on them through thousands of CCTV cameras. Orwell must be turning in his grave. So far the reaction to this has been blasé. Brits have reacted angrily to the scandals and social problems but looking from the outside in, there seems to be a lack of political will for change. The difference with the Lockerbie scandal is that it attracted international scorn. However, even if the Conservatives or another party gets in, will they really go through the effort of making the drastic changes needed to get the nation back on it's feet? They face insurmountable odds and risk political suicide doing so. If there's one problem with democracy, it's finding someone who will throw caution to the wind and do what needs to be done. Churchills and Thatchers are a rare breed though.

The UK parliament is running a vary real risk of evoking a crisis of legitimacy. Far more serious than when Stephane Dion wanted to circumvent democracy here. No, rather due to the corruption across the political spectrum, people will simply believe that no party represents them. This of course breeds radicalism. Note the increasingly worrying militant nature of Britain's young, middle and upper class Muslim males. The Underground bombings of 2005 were a home grown attack. Perhaps if this were a one-off, we could dismiss it but many more such attacks have been foiled recently. Simply put, social problems and government corruption can merge together to create a ticking time bomb. This means more race riots as in Bradford in the late 90s, and a possible return of violence not seen since the end of The Troubles in Northern Ireland. That is if things aren't brought under control soon. Brown's government has to fall as even die hard social democrats will agree that the party, and by proxy the country, has taken a huge wrong turn since at least Tony Blair's resignation. Britain is falling. The question is whether the empire will choose to die with a whimper or come out fighting with that classic stiff upper lip.

read more...

Paying For Others to Have Kids?

There's a bit of a debate raging right now over whether the Ontario Government should fund in-vitro fertilization. Honestly, I really haven't been following this story too much but I do have some comments on it. According to the Toronto Sun, a panel of experts has suggested that the provincial government should pay for the fertility treatments of women under the age of 42 including gays, single parents, and those who are HIV positive. People obviously do have a right to bare children should they choose to. However, the last two have me bothered. Heterosexual and gay couples obviously have fertility issues not by choice. One due to health concerns, the other due to a supposedly hardwired sexual orientation. It is also more likely that the children will be raised in a stable home. Studies have shown that children with two active parents tend to fare better than those with single parents at pretty much every aspect of life. Ann Coulter in her book "Guilty" argues that willing single moms, those who deliberately choose to raise a baby without a father or any other second parent, should not be entitled to government support. I tend to agree with her on this subject. I've heard all to many stories of single women getting in vitro from sperm banks just because they want someone to give them unconditional love or they believe they are unlovable. Not exactly the best mental state to raise a child in involuntary conditions, such as divorce. Choosing to do so intentionally is just plain selfish.

Then there's the suggestion that HIV positive people are entitled to such treatment. I must admit I'm confused by this isn't explained vary well. Is it the mother who has HIV that's getting the treatment, or is it the father with the disease? In the case of the former, would the baby not be in serious risk of contracting HIV? Is some sort of surrogate involved? Do we have to pay them for their services if so? Also, even though AIDS fatalities have dropped significantly over the years, the parent is still at high risk of premature death from, lets face facts, a 100% preventable disease, leaving the child at an equally high risk of becoming orphaned. I get the feeling that this panel really hasn't examined the social aspects of this issue beyond whether it's a parents right to have a child.

Of course this begs the question. With all the children in this country up for adoption, why are we encouraging people who may not be able to take care of their kids to have their own biological children? Furthermore, why are people so obsessed with having biological children to begin with? Many parents who have adopted have expressed that they love that child as much as any biological child. There are thousands of kids out there that need a good home. Simply put, if you cannot have your own children, why would you not pursue this avenue? You will have far greater impact on an adopted child's life than you probable would your own. I know I would certainly consider it if I were in this situation. Rather than pay for in vitro, the government should instead be streamlining the adoption process to make it faster for fit parents to bring their child home, as well as open the ability to adopt any available child they want. (of course I'm speaking of the rubbish which often requires adoptive parent and child to be the same race or cultural background) This would be money well spent and would make a huge difference in some child's life.

read more...

Lockerbie Bomber's Release Pouring Salt in Old Wounds

I've been covering politics for what, four years now at least. I had long held onto the belief that nothing surprised me. This week's story of the Scottish government's decision to release Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on compassionate grounds I must admit had me a little taken back. For those who don't know, al-Megrahi, an ex-Libyan intelligence agent, was convicted in 1999 for being one of the conspirators in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 back in 1988. The plane exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie taking 270 lives including several on the ground. al-Megrahi was sentenced to life in prison but was released on the grounds of him having terminal prostate cancer. Upon his arrival in Libya, he was given a hero's welcome. US President Barack Obama and the UK government condemned, all be it mildly, the Scottish government for al-Megrahi's release. Most of the bombing victims were Americans. The release of the perpetrator of one of the most deadly terror attacks prior to 9/11 is to the victims' families like pouring salt into old woulds.

At first it puzzled me as to why the Scottish government would do such a thing. However, reading some of the comments posted on the BBC article provided some insight into the decision. One particular comment from a Marianne from Lichester UK caught my eye. She writes "All morons wanting this man to apologise..for what? He is innocent, the US knows it. They were afraid to go after Iran, knowing full well they did it, since they needed the oil, and remember Iraq was a friend at the time. The USA navy blew down an Iranian jetliiner [sic] with almost as many passengers by accident, and this was their payback, they basically had said so much, but no direct evidence was ever found even to this man!! Leave him be, he will be meeting his maker soon enough either way." This woman is obviously the typical "US committed 9/11 conspirator nutjob.

Scotty from Sydney, Australia provides some more "insight". "A tough, but ultimately right, decision.It takes a special type of character to rise above the political morass and cliche that is moral high ground. This shows Scottish character at its best - light where there is darkness, hope where there is none. A momentous act of national courage. Sure, this mass murder will never be forgotten or forgiven, but we did the right thing for humanity.
P.S. Nobody from the US even has the right to comment - your foreign policy is the cause of all of this."


I think I'm beginning to see a trend here. Before I make a final conclusion, I want to hear what a Mr. Dazzlingpuddock has to say. "I have never been prouder to be a Scot than I am today!! Vengeance has no place in a civilised society!! Well done Kenny for not bowing to pressure from the US!! The US will complain which means MacAskill has done the decent and just thing!! What good is keeping a dying man in prison going to do apart from cost taxpayers money!! The fact that Megrahi was probably innocent will now never be aired and the US and UK intelligence services are now breathing a huge sigh of relief!"

So I think I can draw some conclusions from these three comments. First of all, al-Megrahi's fans seem to have either atrocious spelling skills or a fetish for the exclamation point. While most people in the comments have expressed outrage at the decision to release this man, the ones who support him tell us why this decision to release him was made. Many people blame the United States for the bombing. American foreign policy is far from spotless and most certainly many deaths have resulted. What puzzles me is how can people express outrage at say the Mai Lai massacrer but not Lockerbie. Both involved the mass murder of innocent civilians. Yet because the bomber in this case is Muslim and the US has supposedly oppressed Muslims, that makes the latter ok in the eyes of many? This belief sets a bad precedent morally as any group can claim oppression to excuse itself from murdering civilians, something expressly condemned by the Geneva Conventions that outline the rules of war. The Americans were rightly blasted for Mai Lai during the Vietnam War. However, that same standard absolutely must be applied to other nations without exception. An attack such as Lockerbie does constitute an act of war and the Gadhafi was lucky his nation didn't become another Iraq in the process. One could argue that the US was indeed arming Libya's enemies but this still doesn't excuse the country of committing an unprovoked attack. The country had also been closely allied with the Soviet Union during the 1980s and had been assisting Palestinian terror groups. Libya is not exactly known for respecting the lives of civilians, even their own.

The second part of the story is whether Megrahi was guilty to begin with. Many, including former Israeli prime minister Sharon, have argued that it was actually a Palestinian terror group working for the Iranian government that committed the bombing and that Megrahi was wrongfully convicted. Without knowing the details of the trial, I cannot really comment on how sturdy the case was. It can be assumed he was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. If there was such doubt that did exist, international organizations such as the UN should have been advocating further investigation into the case. It is far easier to get someone off a serious crime than it is to convict them due to the higher burden of proof. The conspiracy theorists will of course argue that the trial was tampered with by the US. It is a distinct possibility but then again if the international community knew this, there should have been more scrutiny. However, there was little to none. This leaves us to conclude that Megrahi was involved in the bombing. Therefore, the Scottish government has released a convicted mass murder eight years into his sentence so he can go back to Libya and become a national hero before he dies. As the Toronto Sun put it, how would the victims families of Paul Bernardo feel is he were released on compassionate grounds? What about other notable mass murders such as Herman Goering or Rudolf Hess, tried at Nuremburg. Would people today come to their aid today? Some have even begun to theorize that Libya has brokered a deal with the Scottish parliament for Megrahi's release. I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories but it certainly seems that things do not add up in this case. No other criminal of that calibre would receive that sort of treatment. Either that or it is political correctness run amok. Regardless, the Scottish Parliament has made a colossal mistake releasing this man and rightly deserves to be internationally shamed.

Source: BBC News, BBC News Reader Comments

Edited Aug 23: Fixed some spelling issues and added sources.

read more...

Toronto Strike Highlights Need for Municipalities Inquiry

During yesterday's rather heated debate at Toronto city hall over whether the strike deal should be ratified, council took a rare but not unprecedented step. In a motion during the debate that only one councillor voted against, video feeds were cut and all members of the media and the public were asked to leave. The debate over the deal continued behind closed doors away from the public eye. At the federal and provincial level, such a motion would violate the rules of parliament but it is perfectly legal for municipal councils. Of course this is raising many questions over what exactly was discussed during that closed door debate among a sadly dysfunctional. Whether or not you agree with the contract or the strike itself is a moot point. Looking at the bigger picture, we have been presented with a mayor who has chosen to conduct city business in the utmost secrecy, and someone who is not afraid to stretch their autocratic muscle should they not get their way. As much as a weenie David Miller appears to be in public, he strikes me as being ruthless in his dealings outside of preying eyes. During the part of the debates that did make it to the media, Miller accused councillors who planned to veto the contract of "hating" Toronto, and furthermore claimed their dissent was a personal attack against him. The public was not kept informed regarding the mediation process, they were kept in the dark by the mayor, and when we finally had something, they were shut out of the debate. This is not democratic. This is the kind of government behaviour I would expect in the People's Republic of China or Cuba.

This is just another addition in a long line of scandals that the city has tried to keep under wraps. Councillors have been caught spending taxpayer money like water on their expense accounts, billing everything from fine dining to one particularly chintzy member who billed a bottle of Advil to the city. Debates over misspending have raged since Miller became mayor despite his main campaign platform in the first election being to clean up city hall. He actually had a broom in hand when he made that statement, as if we need another walking political cliche. Toronto is now plagued by crumbling infrastructure that it cannot pay for, mainly due to councillors' pet projects and generous contracts for unionized labour. Toronto may not be a dangerous city, crime wise, but it sure looks like it. No longer maintaining its clean reputation, the city is downright dirty even at the best of times; and examining critical infrastructure is like hopping in the DeLorean to go back to 1955. The council just uses tax payers like their own private bank account, and McGuinty's foolish City of Toronto Act has allowed them to accelerate that process unrestrained with all sorts of new user fees.

Unfortunately, corruption issues within Ontario municipalities are not limited to Toronto. It is just more noticeable there due to the larger media presence and variety. I've taken strong issues with the way the Town of Milton operates. Both Vaghan and Ottawa's mayors have seen court cases with accusations over electoral fraud. Other cities in the GTA, such as Burlington and Brampton also have serious issues with corruption according to the scuttlebutt in political circles. What goes on behind the closed doors of Ontario's city hall would probably make your blood boil. Everybody knows it; however, it's extremely difficult to prove. Given what we know about in Toronto, I do believe there is substantial enough cause for some sort of provincially led investigation into how municipalities in Ontario are being run. While many would balk at the idea of spending millions more in tax dollars, I think the situation has gone beyond critical mass and that there is no other way to deal with it. Most municipal politicians, is seems, care little of what their constituents think; partially out of arrogance, partially because nobody votes. This attitude is the vary antithesis of the responsible government concept that this nation was built on.

The Ontario government first of all needs to appoint a group of independent, non-partisan auditors to comb through the books of a select number of municipalities where there are the largest number of complaints. Sniff out any questionable expenses and "income sources" that councillors and civil servants might have. From there, if proof of corruption if found, it may be necessary to investigate the personal finances and assets of said individuals. Look at everything from voting records to ties to stakeholders such as big time land developers. From there, a system of checks and balances needs to be set up to ensure councillors and civil servants must remain fully transparent and accountable to their citizens. I think it is time to do what the United States has always done and appoint municipalities as a third level of government, rather than having them as self-governing corporate entities under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing as they are now. Doing so would require councils to operate under the same decorum, constitutional conventions, and procedures that Parliament and the Legislature are required to operate under. Failing that, each city should at vary least have an independent auditor general and ombudsman appointed by the province to investigate citizens' complaints. Once who is accountable only to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and not city council.
City councils must be roped in through some way, shape, or form to make sure citizens are getting the kind of democratic government they deserve.

read more...