Avoiding certain colours

I'm not the only person to have noticed this, but what do you notice about the logo for "Canada's Economic Action Plan?"

How about the TV ads?

Similar things have been noticed by people who watch the ad business . . . and possibly by everybody else who has seen the work.

It's propaganda, but at least it's hamfisted propaganda.

Die, CanWest, Die!

So it looks like Canada's largest purveyor of fascist-minded diatribes is in considerable financial difficulty. Obviously, this isn't exactly a victory for any of their detractors, as much as it is vindication for those of us who thought that they couldn't support a crappy, ideologically-driven publication like the National Post forever.

Of course, the fact that some of its creditors might approve of the work CanWest is doing might be one reason why the company has managed to "stave them off" for so long. They don't want to see the country's main source of popular fiscal Konservatism go out of business.

It's not all roses, however; If CanWest is forced to sell off its assets, who will buy them? BCE? The only thing worse than a print and broadcast oligopoly is a print and broadcast monopoly.

All the things you can do if you're Immigration Minister

So it turns out that you can do a lot of things if you're the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Konservative Immigration minister Jason Kenney has been having a blast this last month. The first thing he did in early March was to proudly announce that he was going to terminate language-training contracts with the Canadian Arab Federation because they publicly opposed his political views.

"Here we have in Canada, someone who, until the end of this month at least, was receiving public subsidies from my department, who says ... these organizations that are essentially anti-Semitic and seek the destruction of Israel ... should be able to operate in Canada," Kenney said.

Actually, the CAF was not recieving any "subsidy" but a contract from Citizenship and Immigration to offer language training to newcomers - many of whom are not Arabs. Kenney's decision, however, is strangely coincidental with some harsh criticism he received from the CAF's president, but never mind that. I have no information that the CAF supports any policy regarding what organizations should or should not be allowed to operate in Canada, but even if they did, so what?

Just one of the worrisome implications of Kenney's statement is that once an organization is on the list of banned organizations, discussion of its place there ist stark verboten, as the Germans say. If that's true, then the only way for an organization to get its name off the list is for the Government of the day to take the initiative and do it - any organization that calls for a change to the list is going to be blacklisted, because obviously, they support the terrorists.

The second thing you can apparently do if you're Immigration Minister is override your department's decision if they decide to, for "security" reasons, ban someone from coming into the country. In the case of George Galloway, whom the ministry ostensibly found to be a "security threat," Kenney unsurprisingly refused, with his spokesman saying "we don't want him to pee on our carpet."

Ostensibly, Kenney and co. are afraid that Galloway's visit to Canada will entail him holding fundraisers for Hamas, or meeting in darkened rooms with Al-Qaeda sleeper agents, or perhaps accepting brown envelopes full of cash which he will then FedEx to various organizations whose names are engraved on the aforementioned List.

Evidently, no one at Immigration has heard of the wire transfer.

More likely they are afraid that Galloway will do something that makes embarassing headlines for neoconservatives everywhere.

For instance, there was that time that the US Congress, strangely unaware of all the Canadian government's security "intelligence" on Mr. Galloway, invited him to a hearing.



Or there was that time he savaged the SkyNews anchor for her biased reporting of the war in Lebanon:



And then there were his many encounters with erstwhile Trotskyite turned atheist neocon, Christopher Hitchens:



. . .but enough of that.

Obviously, Mr. Galloway only poses a "security" risk if by "security" you mean the political fortunes of Kenney's ideological fellow travellers.

Now whom do we find defending this reprehensible attack on freedom of speech? None other than the odious Ezra Levant, himself a self-styled champion of unrestricted expression:

George Galloway, the pro-terrorist MP from the United Kingdom, has been denied entry to Canada on security grounds. I suspect it has to do with his track record of providing financial assistance to terrorist groups like Hamas, which is listed as a criminal organization in Canada. It would not surprise me if CSIS determined that Galloway's visit would have had fundraising or recruiting spin-offs for Hamas or other terrorist groups. I'm sure Galloway himself would boast of those activities. (UPDATE: I am advised that, in fact, his planned speaking engagement at a Toronto church was to raise funds for Hamas.)

Aha! So it was a Hamas fundraiser! Hosted by a Church, no less! Well where is this church?! Let's close that place down too! Obviously it is breaking the law no less than Mr. Galloway.

Now. . . let's see FOUND IT!

How exactly do Levant, or the thousands of other conservative bloggers who are spreading this nonsense know that it is a Hamas fundraiser? Well, the truth is that they don't - they just made it up, because I'm pretty sure that the Metropolitan United Church did not circulate a flyer saying "George Galloway: From Gaza to Kandahar. Admission $5. All Proceeds to Hamas."

Levant is, like most of his bedwetting ilk, disingenuous in his love of free speech.

Neither he, nor Jason Kenney, have anything on George Galloway, other than his criticism of their shared love of violent imperialism.

The question nobody has asked, however, is why non-state actors qualify for the list of "terrorist" organizations, when state actors strangely do not.

Random politics

I recently received an inexcusably stupid robo-call on my answering machine (yes, answering machine. Yes, the kind with two tape cassettes. Yes, it is over 20 years old. Back when electronics were built to last) from the Konservative party. I might take a moment to get into the details later, but if you awoke last night at 3AM, drenched in sweat, screaming "I wonder what The Proud Islamist thinks about the coalition!!!!!" then the answer is: I support it. In the long run, it might backfire politically on the liberals, but from a principled point of view, it was the right thing to do.

(For those of you who haven't been following the situation, the excellent CBC journalist Neil MacDonald tried to explain it to Americans like this. The old man over at Atlas Hugged also has a lot of insight on this sort of thing; he amazingly predicted it in October.)

People who have been protesting against it as being undemocratic don't understand a parliamentary democracy. People who say that the Liberals are being hypocrites after criticizing Harper for trying to do the same to Martin are ignoring the critical difference - back then, Harper did not have the confidence of the House.

People who say that Harper is being a hypocrite for labeling the coaltion as a deal with "separatists" are bang on. Harper did indeed propose the same thing before Martin went out; he just lacked any ability to make it a reality.

People who say that "separatists" shouldn't be allowed to influence the government have either been living on another planet for the last 40 years, or they hate both Canada and democracy.

-------------------

In unrelated news, here is an interesting exchange between Imam Zaid Shakir and a reader of his New Islamic Directions website, on the election of Barack Obama. It is long, but worth at least a skim through, especially if you don't understand why people like me are critical of liberal America's latest saviour.

What I like to hear!

The NDP are taking my advice. (Ok, it's improbable that Jack Layton has has dismissed his consultants and is perusing this site for his election strategy, but how do you know he isn't?)

On to the awesomeness:



And in French, it's double the awesomeness:



Polished, unapologetic, knows who its audience is (and more importantly, is not), and strongly suggests that Stephen Harper Hates Canada (TM).

If only they'd start saying it all in English.

Sorry

Yesterday, Stephen Harper, the leader of the Bush Administration - Canadian Edition (TM), did something quintessentially Canadian. He apologized.

I don't mean that in a derisive way. It says a lot about this country that we can face up to our history and admit that we did wrong. We are a country so progressive that even the party of the wealthy white warmongering evangelical Christian male can still be cajoled into an apology (and cajoling there was). There are few places in the world where a similar situation exists. Imagine if Turkey were to apologize to the Kurds (or the Armenians for that matter), or if the "State of Israel" were to apologize to the Palestinians. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it would convince everyone that a solution was possible.

Still, an apology should only go so far. Listening to CBC yesterday, I couldn't help but wonder why so many First Nations leaders were gushing over the eloquence and sincerity of the apology. While there was dissent elsewhere, inside the House each representative from an indigenous group offered Harper sincere and heartfelt thanks for his apology.

I've long thought that Canada's indigenous peoples have suffered for being too nice, suffering relatively quietly, given the magnitude of the malice and injustice they have faced, and lashing out more at themselves than anyone else - the average suicide rate in indigenous communities is 6 times the national average. Yesterday seemed no exception.

Effectively, Harper said, "For kidnapping you as children and putting you in the care of sadists and sexual predators (although I hear some of them were nice)*, in a deliberate plot to wipe out your culture and languages, we're sorry."

I'm not sure what the right response is, but "thank you" doesn't really seem to me like it fits...

*"While some former students have spoken positively about their experiences at residential schools – these stories are far overshadowed by tragic accounts of the emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect of helpless children and their separation from powerless families and communities." - Stephen Harper