Jack Layton: A real gentleman and a citizen politician - 1950 to 2011

I am privileged to have once met and interviewed The Honourable Jack Layton. He was introducing three local candidates at Bar Bobards on boulevard St-Laurent during the 2006 election.

At least two of those candidates, it should be noted, were fervent Québec nationalists whose acceptance speeches left little doubt they were steadfastly looking for a platform to push Québecois separatism.

I should note that I had previously formed a rather withering opinion of Jack's father (the Honourable Robert Layton) when as a cub reporter during the 1988 election, I saw him in action as a Mulroney Progressive Conservative incumbent, getting booed at an all-candidates debate for suggesting Lac St-Louis water would become clean enough to drink if Mulroney was given a second mandate. As it turned out, Robert Layton was easily re-elected by West Island voters who ultimately voted for him as default support for passage of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

Utterly honest
So I was curious to ask son Jack, back in 2006, why he'd spoken so reverently of his father - who had himself succumbed to prostate cancer some four years earlier - on the two occasions I had come out to see him speak as NDP leader. Well, Jack looked me square in the eye and said he had great respect for his father, but that didn't mean they saw eye-to-eye on very much, politically. In fact, he related, that was the one area they were always at loggerheads, notwithstanding having a loving and respectful relationship as father and son.

Can you imagine a more honest, human, and respectful answer? Not I. And I have no idea if my question - which I only posed because I had never heard him asked it before - caused him to rethink his stump speech. But I never again heard him speak of his father's influence when introducing himself as the NDP leader, as if he had determined the astute voter might be as confused as I was, given their almost diametrically opposed politics.

It is in this spirit that I remember and revere the man whom I unfortunately must still blame (partially, at least) for putting Harper in the PM chair, by whipping his party to vote down the Martin government; something historians will doubtlessly argue was or wasn't a seminal moment in the NDP's existential journey as an independent political force.

A mixed legacy on policy
I also recall his insistence on going cap and trade instead of carbon tax when the latter made more sense, and finding his reasoning on that choice rather wanting. I recall with sadness his decision to have his party vote against a 2007 (?) Liberal motion to end the Afghanistan mission in July, 2009, based on the fact they really should be brought home immediately (he was quite right on that point of course), which unfortunately ended up with the misguided mission continuing on much longer. Also, Jack's reticence at allowing Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to be included in the 2008 election debates rankled.

Meanwhile, I championed Jack Layton grandly for forcing the 2005 Martin budget to be amended to halt planned corporate tax cuts while increasing social spending in the period where the NDP held the balance of power. I even voted for one of his throw-away candidates while living in the Outremont riding after Paul Martin had parachuted a former Bloc-Québecois founder (Jean Lapierre) in to take Martin Cauchon's place.

And yesterday morning I cried - yet not so much as on last July 25, when we all saw death tapping impatiently on Jack's shoulder - to hear of his passing.

Despite anything else, Jack Layton was a good egg. He tried. He fought. He brandished humour and a forthrightness that was touching and palpable in both official languages. He worked with dedication to his ideals with true and rare conviction. In short, he stood for something, and he made sure that it was a something he could get fully behind. Then he would make a convincing argument that you and I and every other Canadian could get behind it too.

As long as we listened to our hearts.

What next?
Now, a huge gabble of neophyte NDP Québec MPs will have to find their way in the HoC. They also must prove their worthiness to their constituents, despite being stripped of the coattails of the one guy in whom the voters put their full-throttle faith. And that was no small leap of faith either. These voters bravely abandoned their BQ candidates who had mostly done nothing less than tirelessly represent their constituents' interests in Ottawa with pride and passion for several years.

No, the Bloquistes can only blame their party's connection with separatism on their historic defeat to the mostly unknown Dippers that won their constituents' votes based almost solely on Jack Layton's endorsement. Continued NDP support in Québec will be a very tough sell, regardless of Thomas Mulcair's considerable respect in this province.

But that sort of speculation should be explored another day. For today, I am pleased that our Prime Minister has been honourable enough (against type) to bequeath a state funeral for Jack Layton.

Hard to believe as I type his name that he is no longer with us.

Jack, all in all, you did good by us Canadians. Posthumous gratitude in spades. Many, many thanks. RIP, if that is at all possible for you!

- 30 -

Missing the Canada that stood for human rights

RE: Bureaucrats and other critics often face wrath of Conservatives

It's too bad the Conservative government is so hellbent on political gamesmanship and throwing good civil servants under buses; when they instead could be working to fix a broken situation, take responsibility for errors in the directives provided to our soldiers in Afghanistan, and own up to the fact that we lost our way with our earlier policy of handing prisoners over to known torturers.

There we are, acting just like Bushco, ignoring our obligations under the Geneva conventions.

Canada

I hate when I feel shame for my country. I really wish we could just bail on this pointless mission right now.

- 30 -

Afghanistan and the cost to Canada in fighting there

This post copied - and expanded on - from a comment I made on John Waugh's blog post: NDP Pathetic on Afghan war

What this adds up to is pretty simple. During this campaign Layton will leave the war on the back burner. He will not make opposition to the war a central plank in his campaign platform. He will not repeat his party's opposition to the war unless he has to. He will not fight for the withdrawal of Canadian forces from Afghanistan.

Progressive Canadians have no party, they have no leader.

In defending the NDP as the party best representing those like me who feel Canada has no business participating in ISAF (the NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan), leftdog has a point with his comment that the NDP have been the loudest political voice in opposition to our combat role there. But at the same time, it's telling that he had to go back eight months to find any mention of the NDP stance being put forward by the party machinery on Canada's role within the ISAF mission.

I think what this says (and John Waugh was astute to pick up on it) is that the NDP don't see this issue as even cracking the top ten list for them - on the eve of an election campaign to boot.

This cuts to the heart of the matter for a lot of us who may have previously defended/supported the NDP and share much of their worldview; but have found it just as partisanly unwelcome a home as the Martin Liberals had been.

But there is another party with ideas on the subject. I am talking of course about the Green Party.

On page 104 of the Vision Green policy document (updated just last month) you may note on pages 103-104 the GPC maintains the NATO-led mission is wrong and that Canada should withdraw our troops from the effort by this coming February at the latest.

...Despite this disheartening situation, there is also a very high risk that the immediate removal of all foreign troops would lead to the outbreak of a full-scale civil war and a humanitarian catastrophe. Accordingly, the Green Party believes we need to shift as rapidly as possible away from the current US-led NATO command mission, to a more ethnically balanced and regionally represented United Nations command effort and a greater security role for the Afghan National Army. This mission redesign improves the probability that over time the conditions will emerge for a viable political solution to the conflict...

Will this become a central plank in the campaign? I certainly hope I can influence this from within the party. While global warming and its potential for devastation is perhaps the most important issue for humanity right now, the wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere must not be dumped out of the discussion merely for politically strategic reasons.

As John rightly points out, this is our biggest international commitment currently, and it sucked up all the resources we had previously spent 35 years building up as world leaders in peacekeeping activities - a shameful about-pace for which the Liberals and Conservatives need to be held to account, and which (one would hope) the NDP, Bloq Québecois and GPC would not let up on.

3:00 p.m. Update: It seems I was even timelier in posting this than anticipated.

OTTAWA — A majority of Canadians still view their soldiers as peacekeepers and would rather see them helping disaster victims than fighting, an internal poll prepared for National Defence suggests.

The results of the exhaustive survey, obtained by The Canadian Press, come despite the best efforts of both the Conservative government and the military to rebrand the Canadian Forces as a combat outfit.

“The image of the Canadian peacekeeper is one that has taken hold in the Canadian national psyche in the decades since the Korean War,” said the Ipsos Reid study, which is expected to be released Monday.

“Recent attempts at repositioning this traditional role toward one that emphasizes a more activist approach which includes the use of force have met with relatively little interest and still less acceptance.”

Why am I not surprised?

- 30 -

Why I'm proud to be Green

Elizabeth May asks all the right questions.

CALGARY – Green Party Leader Elizabeth May today called on the Harper government to stop stalling and cooperate with the Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC).

“There is no credible reason of security or strategy in blocking access to documents about the treatment of prisoners. Defense Minister Peter MacKay and Prime Minister Stephen Harper apparently want a cover up, not an inquiry,” she noted.

The hypothetical of how evidence of treatment of prisoners could possible be a security issue is mooted by the fact the MPCC is itself an arm of government with full security clearance.

For more than a year the complaints commission has been unable to access key evidence due to obstruction by the government.

“Canadians want the truth. The allegation that detainees were tortured needs to be thoroughly investigated. What does this government have to hide?”

This used to be a country the world could look up to as an example of what it looks like to have respect for Human Rights. Not so under the Super Secret Harper Imitation Tories regime.

What I don't understand, is why we don't hold these Prisoners of War ourselves? And you can call them "detainees" to try and skirt the UN declaration all you want - the distinction is merely mealy-mouthed posturing. The fact is: you're in a war zone. You take prisoners. They're prisoners of war, okay?

It's disgusting to me that my country is failing to live up to its responsibilities to the world, and it's a damn shame this practice is unfairly tarnishing the reputation of our fighting men and women who are forced to carry out these orders.

- 30 -

Canada: Fighting for Afghanis' Rights to Hang Christians

While Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay frets that Canadian troops would be demoralized if the House of Commons were to have a debate about our UN-sponsored NATO commitment to ISAF, I am sure they can all take heart in this news highlighting the kind of freedom Canadian troops are defending in propping up Karzai's government:

An Afghan who has renounced his Islamic faith for Christianity faces the death penalty under Afghan law in a throwback to the brutal Taleban regime.

Abdul Rahman, 41, is being prosecuted for an "attack on Islam", for which the punishment under Afghanistan's draft constitution, is death by hanging.
...

"The Attorney General is emphasising he should be hung. It is a crime to convert to Christianity from Islam. He is teasing and insulating his family by converting," Judge Alhaj Ansarullah Mawlawy Zada, who will be trying his case, told The Times.

"He was a Muslim for 25 years more than he has been a Christian. We will request him to become a Muslim again. In your country two women can marry I think that is very strange. In this country we have the perfect constitution, it is Islamic law and it is illegal to be a Christian and it should be punished," said the judge.
(Emphasis mine)

Hooboy, can't you just hear them in forty years' time, bragging to their grandchildren about their courageous exploits to save the fledgling Afghanistan government that bravely sought the most brutal punishment to stifle basic religious freedom, and promoted poppy growth to feed the world heroin market? Doesn't it make you wish you were young and idealistic and had a chance to better the world by signing up for duty yourself?

Ah, what stories they will tell...

- 30 -

The Afghanistan Mission is Bullshit

Canada is supporting a new government in Afghanistan that is encouraging opium production to supply the world's misguided kids with the heroin that will ultimately destroy them. Canadian kids too. Just lovely. This is not in keeping with the values of most Canadians, and I don't need to wait for a poll to figure that one out.

Peevey Stevie can spew all the Bushco lines he can memorize to shore up support, but at the end of the day, I'm sorry to say, it's all a load of shit. Karzai, the ex-CIA hack, is not a guy we want to prop up. And he's proving it with this policy. I don't want to hear about how we have NATO commitments. Let's put leaving NATO on the table. I don't want to hear about how the UN has sanctioned the mission. There are other places in the world (and at home) where our armed forces could be more useful. The empty threat of attack here from jihadis will not be stemmed from us killing "bad guys" over there. If anything, it makes us a higher-profile target. And our presence has facilitated the United States to draw down their troop-level in Afghanistan,

In the face of Afghanistan's deepening troubles, the US government is now slashing its funding for reconstruction from a peak of $1 billion in 2004 to a mere $615 million this year. And thanks to the military's recruitment problems, the United States is drawing down its troops from 19,000 to 16,000. In short, despite Bush's feel-good rhetoric, the United States is giving every impression that it is slowly abandoning sideshow Afghanistan.

...while reports say more U.S. troops are headed to Iraq.

If I was a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, I'd be wondering why the hell I'm putting my life on the line for this.

The fact the Conservatives are pulling out all the rhetorical stops to stifle debate of this mission speaks volumes. Do not take it at face value.

Tip of the hat to Robert at MyBlahg for bringing this to the fore.

- 30 -