The Court Challenges Programme

The folks over at My Blahg have been going on about the cancellation of the Court Challenges Programme. (Site). Lorne Gunter of the National Post provides this explanation:

The Bear Blog » The root of all evil ?

Not only did left-leaning interest groups want to keep CCP cash flowing into their legal departments, they understood that if they controlled the CCP granting process, they could keep groups opposed to their viewpoints from receiving equal funding, thereby giving their own causes an unfair advantage in court.

This seems a perfectly good reason for axing a programme. Consider this: if the NDP were to form a government and found that the Fraser Institute had been receiving most of its funding from the Federal Government, then, I would suspect that they'd axe that funding. It would seem reasonable of them to do that.

All that being said, the principle for which the CCP was formed is an excellent one. The idea is that freedom and equality belong to us all. The courts are an instrument that help to insure that equality. But since the freedom to challenge legislation in the courts is meaningless without the financial power to do so, the CCP is an essential element of our system of freedoms. Because no one knows when they might be without the resources and with the need to challenge legislation, we are all less free now than we were before. This is a disappointing state of affairs. A non-biased CCP-type mechanism needs to be established in the wake of these cuts.

powered by performancing firefox

More on Afghanistan

Idealistic Pragmatist: The NDP's real position on Afghanistan

So again, in point form and rephrased into plain language, the reasons for the NDP's official stance on Afghanistan are as follows:

[1]* like the war in Iraq, the Afghanistan war is poorly planned
[2]* also like the war in Iraq, too much money and effort is being poured into combat while the humanitarian side is being neglected
[3]* we're following the U.S.'s lead in a mission that's supposed to be Canada's
[4]* it's impossible to win a war when we don't have a clear statement of what winning would entail, and
[5]* as things now stand, we're not doing any long-term good over there.
[Numbers courtesy of Ramblings]

Though I am eagerly awaiting response on my previous post I would like to quickly comment on the quotation above.

1. Upon what information is this statement based? What kind of planning are we talking about? I doubt the average Dipper/Blogger is privy to war planning.
2. Is the humanitarian side being neglected?  Remember we were asking for more combat troops recently? The reason was not that NATO countries have not participated in Afghanistan, it was because they are only participating where it is safe to do reconstruction. So, in reality it is the combat side of the house that is suffering.
3. The US is withdrawing more troops every year:

The U.S. force in Afghanistan will be drawn down from 19,000 to 16,500
this year, although both military and civilian leaders have promised an
American presence in the country for years to come.

We have substantial command positions in ISAF and the operation is a multilateral NATO run affair. (See "Which countries are contributing")
4. Winning would certainly not be made easier by withdrawing troops.  This is an argument for better analysis and communication.  What would be a clear definition of success?  How about when the Taliban are no longer capable of fielding an army? The definition is not up to me, but when you think about this question it is not so easy to answer, but that doesn't make the war unwinnable, just unpredictable... much like the way war has been for a long time.
5. Is that what Karzai thinks?  Do you really think that what we have done so far is going to have only a limited long term impact?

powered by performancing firefox

powered by performancing firefox

Enlightened Moderation

This is good...

Gen Musharraf at the UN on Tart Cider: Around the World in 80 Canapés

We also need to bridge, through dialogue and understanding, the growing divide between the Islamic and Western worlds. In particular, it is imperative to end racial and religious discrimination against Muslims and to prohibit the defamation of Islam.

powered by performancing firefox

Afghanistan

There has been a lot said about the situation in Afghanistan, but I think Scott Brison said it best:

I am fortunate to live in a country that has allowed me to become an elected Member of Parliament and a Cabinet Minister. In the Taliban-led Afghanistan, I would be thrown in prison or executed for being gay. The same fundamental human rights that we enjoy in Canada are no less important than the rights of the people of Afghanistan. We have a responsibility to defend those rights, at home and abroad. Those rights should be the basis of a values-based, principled Canadian foreign policy. Our country must be willing to stand up for the values that we espouse. I don't take these rights for granted. (Link)

Yesterday, and for the last couple of years we have been a witness to the price that has to be paid when you stand up and stand for something. The price of believing in equality, is understanding that everyone is equal, not just our countrymen. Human rights and freedom is about equality.

The Taliban is probably one of the most despicable governments we've seen in a long time. It has no inclination towards rights, equality or freedom let alone any idea of an equal right to basic liberty. So, since we are engaged in combating the scourge of the Taliban any talk of disengagement will involve, in all likelihood, strengthening the Taliban's position. Ipso facto one is strengthening the hand of inequality and repression.

So, my question is: Why would the NDP, whose leader has said:

I do not subscribe to the view that human rights are a buffet from which one can selectively choose. (Link)

Urge the Government of Canada to do the following:

1. Take the necessary measures to ensure the safe and immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan; (Link) [I'm lazy and didn't search the NDP site for its version... I trust this guy... he's a philosopher]

Clearly it is not out of pacifism because in the same resolution they want to send our troops to Darfur:

2. Increase significantly our resource and financial commitments to United Nations led multilateral Peacekeeping and humanitarian initiatives such as Darfur; (Link)

So why commit to Darfur and not to Afghanistan? This looks like picking and choosing from the smorgasbord of failed states and human rights catastrophes.

I will not debate the relative merits of these tragedies. The criticisms that seem to most often be made against staying in Afghanistan is a) Americans are involved and b) the casualties in Afghanistan are too high.

The first argument is absolutely ridiculous (from principles). The fact that you have Americans helping you in your goal does not make your null or void.

The second argument needs to be argued. The fact that the rates are high or higher than others is not a reason in itself for disengagement (See Tart Cider, Wonder Dog and Wrangler). The argument has to made with respect to the objective that high casualties are interfering with or making the objective unattainable. Understand that a commitment to use military force is a commitment to take casualties however unfortunate or tragic. When the armed forces are deployed in operations there is always a risk of casualties. The fact of casualties is not an argument against ceasing an operation. One may argue that the operation was never worth anyone's life in the first place, but I haven't heard that, yet.

This leads to the last point in the NDP resolution:

Support the continuation of development assistance to Afghanistan and democratic peace building in that country so that reconstruction efforts and good governance are achieved;(Link)

I am a bit confused about this point given that point 1 would pull all of our troops out of the country. That being said a UN force would have to face the same problem, namely, the Taliban grip on the South. How do you do point 3 when the Taliban can field fighters in a pitched battle in certain areas? Unless you ride on the coat tails of NATO - expecting them to continue to fight and die while you get the accolades at home for saying "look I'm reconstructing and not fighting". My point is that an argument for democracy building cannot be made without a plan for security. Remember the NATO mission does have UN blessing and that as a member nation it is entirely within the rights of the US to contribute troops.

Lastly, Dinner Table makes this point:

It calls for a continuation of development assistance for Afghanistan and democratic peace building so that good governance is achieved, not merely a fake democracy where the interests of human rights abusers and war lords are best served.(Link)

This is a legitimate concern. However, neither the drug nor the imperfect democracy point necessitate disengagement on the scale envisioned by the NDP. The drug issue was faced early on in the operation and was, to my recollection, a conscious decision. [Commanders, I believe, thought that it would be better to fight just the Taliban and not the poppy growers and the Taliban... I know the Taliban dislikes opium... but my enemy's enemy is my friend]. As far as Democracy and Human Rights are concerned, remember, it takes a long time to get them right. Remember the Florida recounts and Residential Schools? Perfect democracies and Human Rights regimes don't happen over night they require people with the courage to stand up with conviction and the strength to remain standing.

powered by performancing firefox

NDP Values

Something I was working on and shelved for a couple of days:

It is now official NDP Policy:

Members of the federal New Democratic Party on Saturday overwhelmingly endorsed party leader Jack Layton's call to pull Canadian troops from Afghanistan.The vote came during the national party's convention in Quebec City, where the mission in Afghanistan has dominated discussions and debates.

However at the same convention a lady going by the name "Jane Doe" spoke. As reported by Dinner Table Donts:

Jane Doe urged Youth Delegates to stand up and speak out againt sexual violence against women, to treat it with the same distaste as racism, sexism, agism, and all other destable practices.

The implication is, and I think it to be true, that the NDP is against all of those detestable practices. In addition, the NDP is in favour of some form of equality. So, what about working to insure that some people in Afghanistan begin to be afforded shelter from those detestable practices?
Well, a strategy of disengagement from that country when the foe stands as the antithesis of equality and the champion of dispicable tactics seems to call into question any principles of equal access to rights. The principles of equality, particularly a principle of equal access to rights and freedom would seem to demand some kind of engagement in Afghanistan.

More to come...