I for one have to say that I was not all prepared for the BC Government to come out and offer to pass a law that will recognize aboriginal title and rights in BC. The Liberals are proposing to recognize First Nation governments, their right to the lands, and their right to a share in the revenues from the resources.
The TC has an article about this.
This is a monumental change, a change so fundamental in the relationship with aboriginal people that there is precedence anywhere else.
Gordon Campbell is the first Premier of BC that has decided to treat the First Nations with the respect they are due and is willing to sit down with them in real partnership.
This law will give aboriginal people real and concrete property rights through out the province. It will mean that the resource wealth of this province will be extracted only in complete partnership with First Nation governments.
Havign been on the aboriginal side of the table and having had to deal with government people that would not talk about the fundamental issue at hand - who owns the land and who gets to make decisions. Provincial and Federal governments of all stripes before the BC Liberals have always done everything they could to deny the existence of aboriginal people having continuity as self governing societies.
As an example, the Cultural Heritage Act states that every archeological artifact in the ground from before 1846 belongs to the Crown. These are specifically all the things that were here before there was any 'white' government.
First Nations have asked for generations "By what right do you claim to own the land?" "When did we agree to be disposed?". BC and Canada have avoided this question for generations, at one point going so far to ban lawyers for acting for First Nations on the issue. The Crown clearly has agreed it did not conquer the First Nations and could only gain control of the land if a Treaty has been signed. In BC this was not done and the "Indian Question" has remained in limbo.
The Williams case pushed the legal envelop a long way. The Xeni Gwichin had title to the land.
It takes huge courage for the provincial government to come forward and agree they will recognize First Nation governments and their title to the land.
I want to see this bill and see how it plays out. I am curious how the NDP will react to the proposed bill. I know that when I worked for First Nations and the NDP was in power, they were anything but friendly when it came to aboriginal title and rights issues.
I know many people in the right may be very concerned or upset by this, but I see this as the strongest blow for property rights in a long time in Canada. I also like the breaches it brings to the monolithic power of the Crown.
I like the Nisga'a Treaty because it gives a third level of government constitutional standing. It is the First Nations that are fighting for all of us to reduce the all encompassing power of the Crown.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
24 Hours Lay Off Sean Holman
Public Eye Online writer/editor Sean Holman was laid off today by 24 Hours - the media is really in a tailspin.
October 6th 2009
On this date, baring deaths and early resignations, the Liberal Party of Canada lose their majority in the Senate.
On that date the Senate will have:
On that date the Senate will have:
- Liberals 52
- CPC 48
- Others 5
- CPC 51
- Liberals 50
- Others 4
Why I like the Economist
This week the Economist has once again raised the issue of how to deal with the war on drugs - legalize the drugs.
I first starting reading the Economist in 1987 when I was still a hardcore leftie. I found time and time again that I agreed with them on numerous issues. It was in 1989 that they called for drugs to be legal. Over and over again no one media source has been as independent and as reasoned as the Economist. Over time I saw that when I disagreed with them, odds were that I was one that was wrong. I never meant to stop being a leftie, but the Economist had all the best reasoned arguments on all issues related to politics - it also helps they are socially liberal.
As much as when I was 21 I did not want to believe that the free market and competition are the best ways for society to move forward and bring benefits to the most people, the Economist showed me that it was the answer. The global trade boom of the last ten years has lifted more people out of poverty than at any other time in human history. The business growth in China and India each year has done more for third world poverty than all the first world aid projects have done over the last ten years.
As to legalizing drugs, this is something that needs to happen now and immediately. Legalization has several public policy goods that come out if it.
1) The government would be able to collect more taxes. Sales of drugs are about 1/5 the sales of alcohol in most jurisdictions. Legalizing the drugs would mean they could be taxed and bring in a new revenue stream.
2) The quality of the drugs would go up - no more getting a bunch of shake at the bottom of a 1/4 ounce. Even more important, no more cutting heroin or cocacaine with stuff hazardous to your health.
3) Competition in the market - people would be able to get more for their money.
4) Less policing costs and no gang wars.
5) A major blow to organized crime.
6) Legal pot, heroin and cocaine would remove the market and demand for stupid drugs such a crystal meth and crack.
7) Healthcare costs related to drugs and addiction would go down as it all comes out of the shadows and into the public eye.
I would legalize all drugs, hard and soft. Then tax it to pay for the 'stimulus' budgets that everyone seems to think make some sort of rational sense.
I first starting reading the Economist in 1987 when I was still a hardcore leftie. I found time and time again that I agreed with them on numerous issues. It was in 1989 that they called for drugs to be legal. Over and over again no one media source has been as independent and as reasoned as the Economist. Over time I saw that when I disagreed with them, odds were that I was one that was wrong. I never meant to stop being a leftie, but the Economist had all the best reasoned arguments on all issues related to politics - it also helps they are socially liberal.
As much as when I was 21 I did not want to believe that the free market and competition are the best ways for society to move forward and bring benefits to the most people, the Economist showed me that it was the answer. The global trade boom of the last ten years has lifted more people out of poverty than at any other time in human history. The business growth in China and India each year has done more for third world poverty than all the first world aid projects have done over the last ten years.
As to legalizing drugs, this is something that needs to happen now and immediately. Legalization has several public policy goods that come out if it.
1) The government would be able to collect more taxes. Sales of drugs are about 1/5 the sales of alcohol in most jurisdictions. Legalizing the drugs would mean they could be taxed and bring in a new revenue stream.
2) The quality of the drugs would go up - no more getting a bunch of shake at the bottom of a 1/4 ounce. Even more important, no more cutting heroin or cocacaine with stuff hazardous to your health.
3) Competition in the market - people would be able to get more for their money.
4) Less policing costs and no gang wars.
5) A major blow to organized crime.
6) Legal pot, heroin and cocaine would remove the market and demand for stupid drugs such a crystal meth and crack.
7) Healthcare costs related to drugs and addiction would go down as it all comes out of the shadows and into the public eye.
I would legalize all drugs, hard and soft. Then tax it to pay for the 'stimulus' budgets that everyone seems to think make some sort of rational sense.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
A Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
This an interesting column in Newsweek from Fareed Zakaria about how much better Canada is doing than the US. Canada will come out of this recession as a global economic tiger.
For a more right wing and ranting view, check out Captain Capitalism. Once again, Canada is doing so much better than the US.
My biggest complaint with GW Bush was the fact that he was a fiscal liberal and spent money like there was no end. I was certain he was pushing the US towards an economic disaster since 2003.
I am stunned at the scope and insane scale of the budget proposed by Obama. The money he is suggesting being spent in the US is beyond what government can meaningfully oversee. Much of the money the US will spend over the next three years is going to get wasted and only leave them much deeper in debt.
My hope is that fiscal sanity continues to prevail in Canada and that the federal government works very hard to move us back to surpluses as quickly as possible.
For a more right wing and ranting view, check out Captain Capitalism. Once again, Canada is doing so much better than the US.
My biggest complaint with GW Bush was the fact that he was a fiscal liberal and spent money like there was no end. I was certain he was pushing the US towards an economic disaster since 2003.
I am stunned at the scope and insane scale of the budget proposed by Obama. The money he is suggesting being spent in the US is beyond what government can meaningfully oversee. Much of the money the US will spend over the next three years is going to get wasted and only leave them much deeper in debt.
My hope is that fiscal sanity continues to prevail in Canada and that the federal government works very hard to move us back to surpluses as quickly as possible.
Prediction of the May 12th 2009 Election
Playing around with some numbers at the UBC ESM website to see how the election might turn out. In this scenario I assumed voters returning to the Liberals from non-voting, one in 20 NDP voters in the 2005 choosing not to vote, and finally a small portion of NDP vote going to the Greens.
Keep in mind that this is global view and not micro adjusted - specifically I have not adjusted Delta South for a possible independent win.
Here is how that looks:
Provincewide result is
Liberals - 48.4% and 65 seats
NDP - 37.9% and 20 seats
Greens - 10.2% and 0 seats
Keep in mind that this is global view and not micro adjusted - specifically I have not adjusted Delta South for a possible independent win.
Here is how that looks:
| Constituency | Political Parties | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIB | NDP | GRP | OTR | ||
| 1. Abbotsford-Mission | 56.3% | 31.8% | 10.1% | 2.3% | |
| 2. Abbotsford South | 61.9% | 27.6% | 8.5% | 3.2% | |
| 3. Abbotsford West | 61.5% | 28.7% | 7.4% | 3.8% | |
| 4. Alberni-Pacific Rim | 34.0% | 52.1% | 8.7% | 3.8% | |
| 5. Boundary-Similkameen | 47.9% | 37.3% | 10.5% | 4.0% | |
| 6. Burnaby-Deer Lake | 49.9% | 37.2% | 8.9% | 5.0% | |
| 7. Burnaby-Edmonds | 43.8% | 44.0% | 10.9% | 1.7% | |
| 8. Burnaby-Lougheed | 49.8% | 40.4% | 9.0% | 1.0% | |
| 9. Burnaby North | 47.9% | 41.6% | 8.9% | 1.7% | |
| 10. Cariboo-Chilcotin | 46.5% | 43.3% | 6.5% | 3.2% | |
| 11. Cariboo North | 48.2% | 43.1% | 6.4% | 1.8% | |
| 12. Chilliwack | 58.0% | 30.7% | 9.2% | 3.2% | |
| 13. Chilliwack-Hope | 55.0% | 34.2% | 9.4% | 2.0% | |
| 14. Columbia River-Revelstoke | 42.5% | 47.4% | 9.7% | 0.0% | |
| 15. Comox Valley | 47.8% | 39.4% | 10.3% | 2.0% | |
| 16. Coquitlam-Burke Mountain | 57.4% | 34.2% | 7.0% | 2.1% | |
| 17. Coquitlam-Maillardville | 47.1% | 43.0% | 7.7% | 2.1% | |
| 18. Cowichan Valley | 44.4% | 43.3% | 8.6% | 2.8% | |
| 19. Delta North | 45.4% | 43.4% | 8.9% | 1.9% | |
| 20. Delta South | 39.3% | 21.9% | 5.3% | 33.9% | |
| 21. Equimalt-Royal Roads | 39.5% | 46.9% | 11.5% | 1.6% | |
| 22. Fort Langley-Aldergrove | 61.5% | 26.6% | 10.4% | 2.1% | |
| 23. Fraser-Nicola | 44.5% | 43.2% | 9.4% | 2.1% | |
| 24. Juan de Fuca | 38.3% | 43.6% | 11.8% | 5.4% | |
| 25. Kamloops-North Thompson | 45.7% | 41.5% | 8.2% | 4.4% | |
| 26. Kamloops-South Thompson | 54.7% | 33.6% | 8.1% | 3.7% | |
| 27. Kelowna-Lake Country | 55.1% | 27.5% | 10.3% | 8.7% | |
| 28. Kelowna-Mission | 57.9% | 28.6% | 13.3% | 1.5% | |
| 29. Kootenay East | 50.8% | 40.1% | 9.4% | ||
| 30. Kootenay West | 28.5% | 57.1% | 9.2% | 3.5% | |
| 31. Langley | 54.9% | 30.8% | 13.2% | 1.9% | |
| 32. Maple Ridge-Mission | 46.7% | 40.8% | 9.9% | 2.5% | |
| 33. Maple Ridge-Pitt Meadows | 46.1% | 41.5% | 8.6% | 3.5% | |
| 34. Nanaimo | 45.0% | 41.5% | 11.0% | 2.2% | |
| 35. Nanaimo-North Cowichan | 39.0% | 46.5% | 11.1% | 2.3% | |
| 36. Nechako Lakes | 52.5% | 33.2% | 8.9% | 5.5% | |
| 37. Nelson-Creston | 29.1% | 53.9% | 13.8% | 2.0% | |
| 38. New Westminster | 40.0% | 47.0% | 10.7% | 1.9% | |
| 39. North Coast | 42.6% | 47.8% | 7.5% | 1.9% | |
| 40. North Island | 45.0% | 41.3% | 8.5% | 4.6% | |
| 41. North Vancouver-Lonsdale | 47.9% | 35.8% | 13.3% | 3.1% | |
| 42. North Vancouver-Seymour | 58.8% | 26.9% | 12.5% | 1.5% | |
| 43. Oak Bay-Gordon Head | 48.2% | 39.6% | 9.6% | 1.6% | |
| 44. Parksville-Qualicum | 54.0% | 35.2% | 9.1% | 1.5% | |
| 45. Peace River North | 64.6% | 24.6% | 7.7% | 5.8% | |
| 46. Peace River South | 59.8% | 31.1% | 10.5% | ||
| 47. Penticton | 52.2% | 34.0% | 11.3% | 2.8% | |
| 48. Port Coquitlam | 45.9% | 44.3% | 8.1% | 1.3% | |
| 49. Port Moody-Coquitlam | 51.3% | 38.4% | 7.9% | 2.4% | |
| 50. Powell River-Sunshine Coast | 32.0% | 39.8% | 26.8% | 0.6% | |
| 51. Prince George-Mackenzie | 51.9% | 33.5% | 8.5% | 6.6% | |
| 52. Prince George-Valemount | 48.7% | 32.3% | 8.7% | 11.2% | |
| 53. Richmond Centre | 62.9% | 29.7% | 8.5% | 1.2% | |
| 54. Richmond East | 61.0% | 30.4% | 8.4% | 2.0% | |
| 55. Richmond-Steveston | 62.2% | 28.5% | 9.0% | 1.2% | |
| 56. Saanich North and the Islands | 45.4% | 34.3% | 16.3% | 3.4% | |
| 57. Saanich South | 47.3% | 41.4% | 8.3% | 2.1% | |
| 58. Shuswap | 49.0% | 32.3% | 6.8% | 12.1% | |
| 59. Skeena | 46.8% | 45.3% | 5.9% | 1.8% | |
| 60. Stikine | 48.4% | 39.8% | 6.6% | 4.4% | |
| 61. Surrey-Cloverdale | 62.7% | 27.5% | 9.1% | 1.2% | |
| 62. Surrey-Fleetwood | 47.4% | 43.6% | 5.7% | 3.3% | |
| 63. Surrey-Green Timbers | 32.8% | 58.2% | 5.6% | 2.7% | |
| 64. Surrey-Newton | 36.4% | 54.7% | 6.8% | 1.8% | |
| 65. Surrey-Panorama | 53.1% | 36.8% | 8.8% | 1.2% | |
| 66. Surrey-Tynehead | 52.0% | 38.0% | 6.5% | 4.2% | |
| 67. Surrey-Whalley | 34.1% | 51.7% | 8.4% | 6.0% | |
| 68. Surrey-White Rock | 60.0% | 24.1% | 11.2% | 5.1% | |
| 69. Vancouver-Fairview | 46.0% | 42.8% | 10.2% | 1.2% | |
| 70. Vancouver-False Creek | 52.4% | 34.3% | 12.3% | 2.3% | |
| 71. Vancouver-Fraserview | 50.9% | 39.1% | 7.6% | 3.0% | |
| 72. Vancouver-Hastings | 35.7% | 50.1% | 10.3% | 4.2% | |
| 73. Vancouver-Kensington | 46.1% | 45.1% | 7.2% | 1.8% | |
| 74. Vancouver-Kingsway | 44.1% | 47.1% | 7.5% | 1.9% | |
| 75. Vancouver-Langara | 60.3% | 30.2% | 8.9% | 2.4% | |
| 76. Vancouver-Mount Pleasant | 24.9% | 59.5% | 11.9% | 4.3% | |
| 77. Vancouver-Point Grey | 49.1% | 34.4% | 15.8% | 1.2% | |
| 78. Vancouver-Quilchena | 69.8% | 19.2% | 10.9% | 1.4% | |
| 79. Vancouver-West End | 41.1% | 42.3% | 14.9% | 2.6% | |
| 80. Vernon-Monashee | 46.2% | 30.6% | 7.9% | 16.1% | |
| 81. Victoria-Beacon Hill | 32.6% | 52.4% | 12.7% | 1.5% | |
| 82. Victoria-Swan Lake | 32.8% | 51.3% | 12.9% | 2.2% | |
| 83. West Vancouver-Capilano | 69.4% | 16.4% | 13.8% | 1.6% | |
| 84. West Vancouver-Sea to Sky | 50.9% | 20.7% | 27.7% | 2.0% | |
| 85. Westside-Kelowna | 55.7% | 28.0% | 12.5% | 5.4% | |
Provincewide result is
Liberals - 48.4% and 65 seats
NDP - 37.9% and 20 seats
Greens - 10.2% and 0 seats
Degree of Deficit with the NDP
As many of us blogger types are doing, we are riffing off of Vaughn Palmer's column about the NDP thoughts on spending.
The NDP do have a point when looking at the current BC budget, it is optimistic. I suspect we will see larger deficits this year and next. But where the NDP loses me is when they talk about cuts to the healthcare and education. Neither has happened. The NDP may not like how much money the Liberals have added to education and healthcare, but that does not turn increased government spending into budget cuts. I would have much more respect for the NDP if they got rid of the moronic spin masters that are suggesting some of their lines. Let Carole be Carole, it can be worse than the doublethink pablum they are dispensing.
I am also concerned that the NDP wants to abandon the carbon tax but not the tax shifting. The Liberals have done a zero sum with the carbon tax by tax shifting. Tax shifting has been an important concept on the left for about 20 years but few governments have been willing to do it. Now that there is a government in BC willing to do it, the NDP opposes tax shifting. But it is worse than that, the NDP is opposed to taking action on climate change issues by the method recognized globally as the most important tool to achieving the change.
The carbon tax is a great Pigovian tax - using taxation to marshal market forces for a public good. The NDP wants to get rid of it.
Losing the carbon tax will mean a big budgetary hole, I have no idea how they plan to fill it. Losing the carbon tax will also reduce demand for transit and force government to offer a higher subsidy to transit operators.
Dropping the carbon tax will return most of the money to the richest 10% of the population and businesses but I do not see them coming out and supporting the NDP for offering them a tax cut.
This bears saying clearly and dramatically:
The NDP plan for the Carbon Tax will help the rich the most and put us much deeper in debt.
As a quick estimate, based on what the NDP has been saying, in three years the NDP would add about $6 000 000 000 to $8 000 000 000 to the provincial debt. That is $1500 to $2000 more in debt per person in BC than what is going happen with the BC Liberals.
I may be a huge Phil Hochstein fan, but his line at Vote Smart BC - Wrong Leader. Wrong Party. Wrong Time. resonates with me.
The NDP do have a point when looking at the current BC budget, it is optimistic. I suspect we will see larger deficits this year and next. But where the NDP loses me is when they talk about cuts to the healthcare and education. Neither has happened. The NDP may not like how much money the Liberals have added to education and healthcare, but that does not turn increased government spending into budget cuts. I would have much more respect for the NDP if they got rid of the moronic spin masters that are suggesting some of their lines. Let Carole be Carole, it can be worse than the doublethink pablum they are dispensing.
I am also concerned that the NDP wants to abandon the carbon tax but not the tax shifting. The Liberals have done a zero sum with the carbon tax by tax shifting. Tax shifting has been an important concept on the left for about 20 years but few governments have been willing to do it. Now that there is a government in BC willing to do it, the NDP opposes tax shifting. But it is worse than that, the NDP is opposed to taking action on climate change issues by the method recognized globally as the most important tool to achieving the change.
The carbon tax is a great Pigovian tax - using taxation to marshal market forces for a public good. The NDP wants to get rid of it.
Losing the carbon tax will mean a big budgetary hole, I have no idea how they plan to fill it. Losing the carbon tax will also reduce demand for transit and force government to offer a higher subsidy to transit operators.
Dropping the carbon tax will return most of the money to the richest 10% of the population and businesses but I do not see them coming out and supporting the NDP for offering them a tax cut.
This bears saying clearly and dramatically:
The NDP plan for the Carbon Tax will help the rich the most and put us much deeper in debt.
As a quick estimate, based on what the NDP has been saying, in three years the NDP would add about $6 000 000 000 to $8 000 000 000 to the provincial debt. That is $1500 to $2000 more in debt per person in BC than what is going happen with the BC Liberals.
I may be a huge Phil Hochstein fan, but his line at Vote Smart BC - Wrong Leader. Wrong Party. Wrong Time. resonates with me.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
May 12th Election - I am bored already
I have yet to hear any realistic scenario that would have any other result other than the Liberals winning the next election. I have looked for input from people as to what the 'killer issue' could be, what could be the defining ballot box question and I have heard nothing new, nothing different than 2005.
The anger from 2005 is no longer with us which is what pushed the NDP to their strong finish last time.
I get an sense of a campaign by rote from both sides. No one is talking about anything exciting. The NDP is not resonating strongly with any issues. The public sector union leadership still hates Campbell. The left still thinks that Campbell is some sort of far right guy.
None of this shows me that there will be any dramatic shift in voters in this election. The only significant issue I can see that has traction is the economy and this is a loser for the NDP. I see people that sat on their hands in 2005 voting for the Liberals this time.
What interests me the most is the campaign for the leadership of the NDP after Carole James resigns after the election. The serious people have to have their feelers out, a sense of who their supporters are and where they will find the money.
The NDP needs someone to come in that looks like a pragmatic centrist and build an NDP that is not overly dominated by public sector labour leaders.
So who could be in the running:
The anger from 2005 is no longer with us which is what pushed the NDP to their strong finish last time.
I get an sense of a campaign by rote from both sides. No one is talking about anything exciting. The NDP is not resonating strongly with any issues. The public sector union leadership still hates Campbell. The left still thinks that Campbell is some sort of far right guy.
None of this shows me that there will be any dramatic shift in voters in this election. The only significant issue I can see that has traction is the economy and this is a loser for the NDP. I see people that sat on their hands in 2005 voting for the Liberals this time.
What interests me the most is the campaign for the leadership of the NDP after Carole James resigns after the election. The serious people have to have their feelers out, a sense of who their supporters are and where they will find the money.
The NDP needs someone to come in that looks like a pragmatic centrist and build an NDP that is not overly dominated by public sector labour leaders.
So who could be in the running:
- John Horgan - I am impressed with him, but with some health issues, will he run?
- Gregor Robertson - It is too soon for him to leave as mayor and he was not nearly as impressive as MLA as expected
- Rob Flemming - This is one round too early for him. He also does not seem to have the comfort in public to be leader
- Harry Lali - I think he will make a run for it, he has the experience and the public presence to be leader.
- Mike Farnworth - I am not sure he wants the limelight.
- Harry Bains - He has been strong in his critic role and could be a very interesting candidate if he runs.
- Jagrup Brar - I do not know enough about him to know if he would want to make a run for it.
- Adrian Dix - Few people know the backrooms of politics as well as he does, but is he your man for the forefront?
- Bruce Ralston - Not sure he has the passion or presence to run.
- Nathan Cullen - He has done well as an MP though a bit young this time around. If he speaks French, I think he would be a good choice to replace Layton.
- Peter Julian - another MP, I do not know enough about him to have an opinion
- Bill Siksay - He stepped and has done well in Svend Robinson's seat.
- Libby Davies - She has been an MP since 1997, I am not sure she has the desire to be BC NDP leader.
Monday, March 2, 2009
I have been sick over the weekend and have not had much energy to write anything much, but here is something for people read and consider from Randal O'Toole in the US on light rail. He is one of the few voices that looks at the details and sees where a lot of the flaws have been in the US with transportation planning.
Also, there has been some coverage of this week being Israeli-Apartheid Week, and some mention by Terry Glavin - he is my constant hope of a rational and intelligent left, the sort of type that might make me consider supporting the left.
I read some of the stuff from IAF and shake my head. Last time I checked, Hamas has made Gaza a place where there is no space for anyone who does not agree with them. They seem to have managed to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians that are Christian from Gaza.
I am wondering if the IAF people notice that Israel is the only country in the middle east where labour unions can freely exist, where there is freedom of speech, and where left wing parties can get elected? Did you know that if you do not include Iraq, the majority of freely elected Arabs in the middle east are elected in Israel? If Iraq can emerge as a democracy, then for the first time there will be some place outside of Israel in the Middle East where Arabs will be able to freely choose their leaders.
I have seen the wonderful spray painting here in Victoria calling for "Free Gaza" - I can go along with that. The people of Gaza need to be freed from the fascists in power in there. The people of the world need to unite and free the Palestinians from Hamas.
Final note on Gaza - the US is the main funder of the reconstruction. Nice of Obama to offer more money than anyone else, but to do so before there is an open civil society there is a simply a waste of money. Far right extremists have a globally bad record when it comes to spending money wisely. Hamas is fundamentally a corrupt organization - can anyone belief that they will not be taking most of the money for their personal benefit? Does anyone believe that Hamas will not use the US money to do whatever it can to exterminate Jews?
Also, there has been some coverage of this week being Israeli-Apartheid Week, and some mention by Terry Glavin - he is my constant hope of a rational and intelligent left, the sort of type that might make me consider supporting the left.
I read some of the stuff from IAF and shake my head. Last time I checked, Hamas has made Gaza a place where there is no space for anyone who does not agree with them. They seem to have managed to ethnically cleanse all the Palestinians that are Christian from Gaza.
I am wondering if the IAF people notice that Israel is the only country in the middle east where labour unions can freely exist, where there is freedom of speech, and where left wing parties can get elected? Did you know that if you do not include Iraq, the majority of freely elected Arabs in the middle east are elected in Israel? If Iraq can emerge as a democracy, then for the first time there will be some place outside of Israel in the Middle East where Arabs will be able to freely choose their leaders.
I have seen the wonderful spray painting here in Victoria calling for "Free Gaza" - I can go along with that. The people of Gaza need to be freed from the fascists in power in there. The people of the world need to unite and free the Palestinians from Hamas.
Final note on Gaza - the US is the main funder of the reconstruction. Nice of Obama to offer more money than anyone else, but to do so before there is an open civil society there is a simply a waste of money. Far right extremists have a globally bad record when it comes to spending money wisely. Hamas is fundamentally a corrupt organization - can anyone belief that they will not be taking most of the money for their personal benefit? Does anyone believe that Hamas will not use the US money to do whatever it can to exterminate Jews?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)