Saddam's Death Sentence

Saddam Hussein has lost his appeal of the sentence of death that was handed down to him last month. He will likely be executed within the next thirty days.

I do not believe that Saddam should be executed. In the first place, my disagreement with the sentence stems from the fact that I disagree with the death penalty in general. I do not believe that executions solve anything, and killing only leads to more death. In the second place, I do not believe that Saddam Hussein received a fair trial. Among, other injustices, Saddam's lawyers were not allowed to make closing statements at his trial, and had their microphones summarily cut off when the presiding judge did not like what they were saying. The presiding judge himself had reason to be biased against Saddam because his family had suffered in the crushing of the Shiite revolt that followed the First Gulf War. Saddam simply did not receive a fair trial.

There will be those who say that he has no right to a fair trial because he denied that right to so many others. But to say such a thing reduces the rest of the world to his level, the level of a murderous dictator. Every person has a right to due process and no act can strip a person of that right. Personally, I believe that Saddam was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused, but a free trial should have been held. Saddam could likely have been convicted on the strength of the existing evidence. I would have liked to have seen Saddam convicted in a fair trial before an impartial judge and sentenced to life imprisonment. That is the appropriate punishment for what he did. To rot in a jail cell for the rest of his life.

In all likelihood, the execution of Saddam will spark off yet another wave of violence in Iraq, that will result in the deaths of yet more innocent Iraqis. The civilian population of Iraq is not a legitimate target for the insurgents, only the occupying forces. The bombs set off by insurgents that kill Iraqi civilians are just as detestable as the American bombs that kill Iraqi civilians or the Canadian artillery shells that kill Afghani civilians. Violence can not bring about a better world, it only leads to more violence.

This will be my last post of the year, and to everyone reading it I wish you a happy new year, and a healthy and prosperous 2007.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 756

UN Security Council Proclaims Sanctions Against Iran

On Saturday, December 23, the UN Security Council proclaimed trade sanctions against Iran intended to prevent it from aquiring the materials needed for its uranium enrichment programme and missile programme. It seems to have escaped the notice of the members of the Security Council that these sanctions are patently in violation of international law. As a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), Iran is entitled to persue nuclear power for peaceful purposes. As the NPT states:

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle, all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to participate in the fullest possible exchange of scientific information for, and to contribute alone or in cooperation with other States to, the further development of the applications of atomic energy for peaceful purposes... (text available at this page)

No evidence has to date been presented to prove that Iran is seeking anything other than peaceful nuclear power. Iran has not attacked any of it's neighbours since before the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which is a marked contrast to other states in the region like Israel, which is in fact armed with nuclear weapons.

Now let me be very clear. I don't believe that any state has the right to nuclear power or nuclear weapons because both pose an unconscionable risk to the people of this small world. What I am opposed to is the blatant hypocrisy and disregard for international law being displayed by many, many western states that either have nuclear weapons (US, UK, France, Israel) or have the capacity to produce such weapons through a domestic nuclear energy programme (most of the rest of the west, including Canada). These states claim a right to nuclear energy but are unwilling to allow such to their geopolitical adversaries. Such blatant hypocrisy is sickening.

Not until every other state abandons its nuclear energy/weapons can the west claim a moral prerogative to stop Iran from building up nuclear energy capability. Someday, I hope this will be the case.

May the holiday season find all of you who may read this well and may you have a prosperous 2007. May you enjoy whatever activity you undertake at this time of year, be it a religious observance or simply spending time with family.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 760

A Christmas Tempest in a Teapot

Christian fundamentalists have decided to brew up an enormous controversy over the decision of judge Marion Cohen to remove a Christmas tree from the lobby of a provincial courthouse in Toronto. Judgee Cohen ordered the removal of the tree saying that it is not appropriate to have a Christian symbol in the foyer of a secular building. That is entirely correct and right. We have a theoretically secular state here in Canada, and it is anathemic to such a secular state to display religious symbols of any religion in government buildings.

The Christian fundies are trying to turn this into an enormous issue, though they are trying to get at it through the back door. The fundies are trying to insist that the Christmas tree is not, in fact, a Christian symbol. The fundies claim that the Christmas tree is a pagan symbol, a symbol of nature religion predating Christianity. The roots of the use of trees at the time of Christmas is certainly pagan, but the tree has been whole-heartedly adopted as the symbol of Christmas. If you show any person living in the western world a picture of an evergreen tree covered in ornaments and lights and ask them what it makes them think of, they will tell you Christmas. The Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas (the Christian festival celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ) in the modern context. To claim otherwise is to be at least preposterous and at worst disingenuous.

Good on Judge Cohen for making a stand to advance the secularism in Canada, and shame on the fundamentalists of this country who are lying to the people. We should be putting our theoretical secular state into action.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 766

In Memory of the Montreal Massacre

On December 6, 1989, 14 women were shot dead at the l'Ecole Polytechnique by Marc Lepine, simply because they were women at the school. We must always remember what happened there, and that it remains the duty of all people (but particularly of men) to work to end violence against women and to end the misogyny that lies at the root of such violence.

May we always remember the names of the victims:

Geneviève Bergeron (b. 1968), civil engineering student.
Hélène Colgan (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Nathalie Croteau (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Barbara Daigneault (b. 1967) mechanical engineering student.
Anne-Marie Edward (b. 1968), chemical engineering student.
Maud Haviernick (b. 1960), materials engineering student.
Maryse Laganière (b. 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department.
Maryse Leclair (b. 1966), materials engineering student.
Anne-Marie Lemay (b. 1967), mechanical engineering student.
Sonia Pelletier (b. 1961), mechanical engineering student.
Michèle Richard (b. 1968), materials engineering student.
Annie St-Arneault (b. 1966), mechanical engineering student.
Annie Turcotte (b. 1969), materials engineering student.
Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (b. 1958), nursing student.

May they rest in peace.

Dion Wins Liberal Leadership

Well, this is about the best that could have been hoped for. And in less time than I expected. Congratulations to Stephane Dion for winning the leadership of the most ideologically bankrupt party on the Canadian political scene. No, scratch that, the second most ideologically bankrupt. First place has got to go to the Green Party. At any rate, a rant about the Greens is a topic for another time. Everyone pretty much knew that Dion had won after the third ballot, when he moved ahead of Michael Ignatieff with the vast, vast, majority of Gerard Kennedy's delegates. It was certainly exciting, though the high-point of the tension was actually waiting for the third ballot results, rather than the fourth ballot, because it had to be seen how many of Kennedy's delegates would follow his lead.

This outcome is probably the best that could have come out of the convention for Canada considering who the top four were. Stephane Dion can likely win the next election, but it will (in all probability) be a third consecutive minority government, a string unprecedented in Canadian history. This means good things for the NDP, even if a Dion led LPC does horn in a little on NDP territory in Ontario and British Columbia. It is much better to have a minority governing party with whom the NDP shares at least some principles rather than an ideologically anathemic party whose arm must be twisted through threats in order to achieve the very smallest gains, or no gains as the Bloc proved this year. Additionally, the Dion-led LPC (and to an extent the Green Party) may draw environmentally conscious prairie voters who would never vote NDP away from the Conservative Party in seats that are NDP - CPC contests. This could very well result in seat gains for the NDP in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Obviously as a New Democrat I would have loved to run against an Iggy-led LPC, but as a progressive I could never wish that on Canada. Iggy was a menace, and it is good that he has been stopped. I hope he decides not to run in the next election. Because if he does run, and the Liberals win, Dion will feel a need to appoint him to Cabinet. And what an ugly thought that is.

A Dion-led LPC can still be made to wear the Liberal record of the 1990s: massive cuts to healthcare and education transfer payments, major corporate income tax cuts and most importantly reducing EI benefits while increasing premiums to create a surplus in a programme that was never meant to have one.

All in all, it will be an interesting next few months, and an interesting next election, which I will go on the record as predicting will be called in late-February or early-March, before the next budget comes down.

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 782

The Liberal Leadership Convention

It's going to be an interesting weekend. Tomorrow, Liberals will choose a new leader for their party. The hope that this new leader will be the one to defeat Stephen Harper in the next election. Personally, I think that whoever is elected Liberal leader will be the next Prime Minister, but not because of anything that the Liberal Party will have done right, but rather because of what the Conservatives will have done wrong. What this means is that Liberals have to think very carefully before selecting their new leader. Do they want to be led by a man who has turned out to be the most anti-peace leadership candidate in decades, Michael Ignatieff, who endorsed/supported the war on Iraq, endorses torture of detainees, "didn't lose sleep" over the massacre of Lebanese civilians in Qana and is really an American? Do they want to be led by a man who has proven time and again that he has no principles, Bob Rae, who still bears the baggage of governing in Ontario during the worst recession since the Great Depression? Do they want to be led by a personally detestable unknown from Toronto, Gerard Kennedy, who has yet to prove that he has any significant traction beyond southern Ontario?

I want to see Stephane Dion as the next leader of the Liberal Party, because of the four front-runners he is the one who will do the least damage to Canada. He is committed to greenhouse gas reductions, reducing atmospheric and water pollutants and a United Canada. He has experience in a successful government at the federal level which is lacking in all three other front runners. Dion is also on the centre-left of the political spectrum, and will support universal medicare remaining sole-payer and sole-provider. I say that I want to see Dion win, despite the fact that he will likely damage the NDP's prospects to expand in the next election. And that is because in the next election removing Stephen Harper and his paleo-cons from office is so important.

Having said that I will never, ever, vote Liberal, because they are the party that allowed social programmes across Canada to go down the tube with the massive cuts made to the transfer payments to the provinces. They are the party that created a surplus in the Employment Insurance programme by cutting benefits and raising premiums. They are the party that would prefer to cut corporate income taxes rather than spend money on affordable and supportive housing, despite the fact that some of the most powerful people in the party recognize that there is a desperate shortage of affordable housing. No, I will never vote Liberal.

Cheers

Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 783