And you know people will vote for him again...

Mr. Martin said last week that he was only following Judge Gomery's wishes in receiving the report first. But Judge Gomery has made it clear that the final decision rested with Mr. Martin.

In response to a letter from all three opposition parties, Judge Gomery said all 6,000 copies of his report belonged to the Government of Canada as of 6 p.m. EST Monday.

"The commission did not and does not plan to submit its report to the Prime Minister," Judge Gomery wrote in a letter earlier Monday.

"From (6 p.m.) on, the commission no longer owns the report and has no control over how it may be dealt with. Subsequent decisions about the tabling, public release and distribution of the report are the responsibility of the government....

"I am suggesting that careful consideration be given to the request (for opposition parties to receive the report Monday night)."

Every day I develop more and more respect for King Paul. He lies right to our faces and we let him. We don't deserve better government. We don't deserve not to be taken out back and shot.

"Excessive Massacres"

That is how Theoneste Bagosora has been referring to the 1994 genocide. You know, it was warm and rainy that year, the machetes just kind of slipped in peoples hands. Yes, it does seem there were a disproportionate number of Tutsis killed, but sometimes you'll flip a coin ten times and it keeps coming up heads. It's a crazy world!

It's the 'excessive' part I really love. Like we all recognize that occasionally there needs to be a moderate amount of massacre, you just need to know when to draw the line.

The other genocidal fuckhead currently on trial (no, not Milosevic, the other one)

I know everybody is anxiously awaiting the trial against Saddam. But to bide your time until that starts, might I draw your attention towards the International Criminal Tribunal on Rwanda in Arusha where Theoneste Bagosora took the stand in his own defence today in his trial on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. He is generally considered to be the person most responsible for directing the genocide (and is Romeo Dallaire's titular "devil"). Theoneste's defense is that he can't be guilty of genocide, because it wasn't a genocide.... I guess if it has worked for Turkey for over 80 years, he may as well give it a shot.

Canada finds its place in the world

I don't even believe in destiny, but hosting the world's health ministers for a meeting on Avian flu is surely Canada's. There are only so many times that the provincial health ministers can get together before these gatherings become tedious. But international health ministers? Now that's the big time!

I don't like to start rumours (hah!), but has anyone considered that the Canadian government is responsible for creating the Avian flu? Sure SARS got the world excited about health, but not nearly enough for our liking. We needed a good old fashioned global flu pandemic in order to get the entire world completely focused on health (AIDS, schmAIDS). Sure, infectious disease isn't really our specialty (okay, it could completely be our specialty, I have no idea -- no offence intended medical researchers of Canada. Let's just say it isn't what we really like to talk about), but it's kinda hard to get the entire world focused on reducing hospital waitings times, so we'll take what we can get.

You heard it here first folks.

Well, I guess if Yasser has one....

They've given the Nobel Peace Prize to ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Remember when you were a kid and your parents used to tell you that all that they could ask for was that you try your best? (alright, those words never crossed my parents' lips, but I'm sure I've heard it said by many a TV mother) That's how the Nobel Committee decides who deserves a prize. It's not about succeeding in bringing more peace to the world, but how hard you try. The IAEA clearly wants there to not be any nuclear war, surely that counts for something. Let's give them a shiny gold star medal... and 10 million kronor!

I just hope that the Nobel Prize selection committee is prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions. By deciding that the peaceful use of nuclear energy is their issue this year, they have totally snubbed third world debt relief. And we all know an angry Bono is not going to be good for world peace. Don't say you weren't warned.

I'm never quite clear on this: will she get the virgins too?

A woman wearing an explosive belt blew herself up today in Iraq, murdering 5 Iraqi civilians and injuring 20 others. This reportedly makes her the first female suicide bomber in the terror campaign against Iraqis. Don't let it be said that al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't an equal opportunity employer!

So, in case you're keeping track.... Showing your face in public: no. Murdering innocents: yes.

You'd almost think that they didn't care

The UN's special advisor on preventing genocide, Juan Mendez, suggested today that the government in Khartoum hasn't done enough to rein in the janjaweed in Darfur. According to Mr. Mendez, they "...don't see a serious good faith effort on the part of the government to disarm."

Jeez, you would totally think that a government that turned armed militias on it's own citizens would force those same militias to back down once it became apparent that the international community wasn't going to do anything about it. Seriously people, what have you gotta do to turn genocidal regimes into responsible world citizens? 'Cos if this is going to involve actual effort well then I'm sorry Darfuris but you should have picked another continent to be born on.

But, then again, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way. According to an article published on the International Herald Tribune website, the supposed "genocide" is just Republican spin to detract from the war in Iraq. It's just like all that hoopla around the "murder" of 800,000 Rwandans back in 1994 to detract from the tragic slaughter of Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman.

I'm sick of paying for groceries too... send some of that aid my way

One of the things that you often hear from defenders of the UN is that they feed people well. If you've been raped and mutilated by government forces, rest assured that if you somehow manage make your way to a refugee camp they'll have food ready for you (hey, you might even earn a little cash selling your body to the local UN personnel... provided you haven't been too badly mutilated).

The World Food Programme has apparently decided that they feed people so well, that they can do so whether or not the aid is needed and without regard for what it does to the local economy. Tim Worstall's piece at Tech Central Station outlines just how badly they are messing things up in Niger.

Hey, if the economies in Africa improve they could be out of a job. What possible incentive do they have not to screw things up?

Simon Wiesenthal, 1908-2005

Holocaust survivor Simon Wiesenthal died today at 96. Wiesenthal was renowned for his tireless efforts, through his Jewish Documentation Centre, in making sure that Nazi war criminals were brought to justice.

Wiesenthal was not without controversy, with some accusing him of self-aggrandizement. Whatever the truth of these claims, the fact is that Wiesenthal played an important role in highlighting the role of individuals in perpetrating the crimes of the Holocaust. Far too often, the Holocaust is remembered as the genocide of European Jewry by the Nazi machine. Just as the victims were individuals, so too were those responsible for the murders.

Because you're not already wasting enough time at work....

Google Blog Search has arrived.

Stay Strong My Fellow Canadians!

Last night I attended a panel discussion on the issues arising from All Souls, the 'omnibus film' made up of 16 short films responding to the brutal murder last year of Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim fundamentalist. Which 'question' (and question goes in quotes because as anyone who has ever attended a public discussion knows, questions from the audience are just usually statements/mini-lectures which end with 'wouldn't you agree?') received raucous applause from the audience? The one in which a woman, who seemed to particularly enjoy the sound of her own voice, pointed out that in Canada we are under threat from the 'fundamentalists in the great elephant to the south'.

Is there no limit to the depth of the political discussion in this country? We are so wise.

One day I hope to be able to cycle through the streets of this city without fear that a Christian from Buffalo will ritualistically murder me. Until that day comes -- when the United Nations forces arrive to free us from our fundamentalist oppressors -- we must remain vigilant in our self-obsession!

"I'll have a large Rwandan please"

My morning coffee for the past two days has been the Rwandan Cup of Hope from Second Cup. It's some new coffee they launched, and though no information is to be found on their website and I have been unable to find a press release on-line, in stores they are marketing as their part in helping to rejuvenate the Rwandan economy.

So without further information it is not really possible to tell whether this represents a new investment in Rwanda or if they are simply buying coffee from a previously existing Rwandan coffee market. Given the tone of the posters in the store and their 'Solid Grounds' program , I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the former. In which case, good for you Second Cup.

If it is the latter and they are just exploiting the memory of the genocide to sell coffee and improve their reputation as good global citizens, I will be nominating them for the "Paul Martin Award for Audacity in Using a Genocide to Your Advantage" and renouncing my 'Coffee Agent' certification.

Film Festival leaps into the 1990s

The Film Festival has announced that for the first time this year, moviegoers will be able to order all of their tickets on-line.

"How cool is that?" TIFF managing director Michelle Maheux asked the crowd assembled for the final pre-festival press conference in Toronto on Tuesday.

"You can sit in your pyjamas and order tickets to the festival," she enthused.

In my pajamas? Is there no end to what you can do on the information super highway?!! I can't wait for the day when I can do my banking or swap music files on-line!

Am I just cynical, or does anyone else think that any event that is this giddy about on-line sales in 2005 is going to screw it up miserably? All I'm saying is that if I end up with tickets to a Lars von Trier movie, I'm gonna sue!

Spicoli in Tehran

There has been a lot in the media lately about Iran. The controversial elections, the nuclear threat, the war in the country next door that has practically the same name! It's all very confusing. Luckily, the first piece in Sean Penn's much awaited series on his trip to Iran has finally been published in the San Francisco Chronicle. Sean will clear it all up for us.

It's the week preceding presidential elections. Candidates attack one another's credibility. Activists push to boycott the vote. Traffic and pollution choke the cities. Leftists support a no-win idealist. Preachers guide their flocks toward political starboard. The media have fallen under the grip of standing power, and should they defy it, they're imprisoned. University students promote human rights, while fundamentalists deny them. It is a culture in love with cinema. With Brad Pitt. Angelina Jolie. And anything Steven Spielberg. It is a nation of nuclear power, where the lobbies of the religious right effectively blur the lines between church and state. But it is also a country of good and hospitable people. And when the local team wins a big match, there is dancing, kissing, drinking and drugs in the streets. Women are graduating the campuses in higher and higher numbers, occupying government in higher and higher numbers. Sound familiar?

Wow, Sean, yes. Iran sounds just like America! Remember when the Canadian journalist went to the States a couple of years back and took pictures of a prison and was arrested and murdered by the government? Oh, wait, that was Iran. Okay, well, remember how the government executed two teenagers in Memphis in July just for been gay? No, that was in Mashhad. That's Iran too, right? Well, alright, you do mention the grip that the media has fallen under. I will grant you that point. Because, in America, Fox News is popular and right wing and changing the channel is hard when you left the remote on the other side of the room, and in Iran independant newspapers are shut down by the state, satellite dishes are illegal and bloggers have been imprisoned just for blogging. Which, you know, is pretty much the same thing.

I'm all for showing that Iranians are not all crazy fundamentalist Muslims. It is a very important point to be made. But the Iranian state is still very repressive. This is not the same thing as having an freely elected government that you don't like. This type of comparison is only slightly less infuriating than the Bush as Hitler analogy. It's lazy thinking, and it is offensive to people who have actually been oppressed by their governments.

Personally, I think I preferred Sean Penn when he was beating up paparazzi and smacking Madonna around (come to think of it, I preferred her then too).

Missing the Point

So our Governor-General-to-be, Michaelle Jean, has publicly declared that she is committed to federalism. I for one am incredibly relieved. After all, it is an extremely important position: she represents the Queen in Canada. It took many hundreds of years of careful imbreeding to create the delicate balance of ugly and stupid that is the House of Windsor and you can't just let anyone represent them.

'Lemon, I can't believe you are being so glib about this', I hear you thinking to yourselves (or is that just the voices again?). Don't get me wrong. I think that the fact that the Prime Minister picked a GG whose commitment to the country can be questioned at all is kinda sad (but that's what happens when you let Liberals make decisions). But I find it much sadder that we don't get to pick our head of state. It is the 21st Century and we have a monarch. And not even our own. We have to share her. Am I the only one that thinks this is the bigger problem?

No one has ever really been able to explain to me why constitutional monarchies make sense. There's that old lie about "stability" that my history teacher used to feed me. But seriously, am I to believe that if we had an elected head of state that all of a sudden the country would become an ungovernable mess? When was the last time that the Queen (or her chosen representative) stepped in to resolve one of our problems? I know things can get pretty hairy with the health care debates in this country sometimes, but somehow I don't envision King Charles using his superior intellect to solve the dilemna.

I'm also not buying the whole argument that we have to have some head of state so why not the Queen. Because that's just laziness, which I don't think is generally a great quality in a nation. I don't want to suggest that it would solve our problems of national identity, but it might help a little if we had a head of state that we actually believed in.

My favourite of all the arguments for keeping the monarchy is that it distinguishes us from the Americans. No matter how bad an idea is, as long as the Yanks didn't have it first, cling on to it for dear life. Let's all go barefoot in January... they'd never think of that!

So yes, Michaelle Jean was a horrible choice -- even ignoring her attitudes about separatism. But when you're picked to represent a woman who is basically trailer trash with lots of money and a castle, it is hard to get concerned. Wake me up when the country cares about the bigger issue.

Taking Journalists to Task

Nicholas Kristoff, one of the very few journalists who has covered Darfur throughout the crisis, takes the media to task in his column today for failing to cover the genocide.

One suspects that in a decade or so when we are commemorating Darfur, as we commemorated Rwanda last year, the media will have plenty of criticism for today's political leadership -- as well they should. But they could play a very important role in bringing the world's attention to this tragedy and they have chosen not to.

No one can say it like Hitch

Christopher Hitchens has a brilliant piece on Slate today about what Srebrenica taught us -- or ought to have -- about intervention:

Why did Saddam Hussein, that great lion of the Arab and Muslim world, denounce the American bombing of the Muslim-killing Milosevic? Why did Qaddafi do the same? For the very same reason that Christian fascists in Serbia now denounce the intervention in Iraq: They know that the main foe is the United States and that this fact transcends all the others. There has been a great deal of nonsense published in the last week to the effect that an alliance with the United States can put other countries like Britain in the position of being "targeted." Why deny this? I reflect on what was not done at Srebrenica, and on what ought to have been done in Rwanda, and on what was put off too long with the Taliban and the Baathists, and I think what an honor it is to have such enemies. Co-existence with them is not possible, which is good, because it is not desirable or tolerable, either. The Srebrenica memorial stands as enduring testimony to that inescapable conclusion.

All too often the temptation toward appeasement proves stronger than the will to act. Unfortunately, it is rarely the appeasers who pay the highest price.

Ten Years

Today marks the anniversary of one of the biggest failures of the international community since the founding of the United Nations. Over 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered after Bosnian Serb forces overran the supposed UN safe haven of Srebrenica and the world stood by and did nothing. 50,000 people, including the typical foreign dignitary set, showed up at an event to mark the occasion.

Meanwhile, the commander of European Union forces in Europe insists that they're getting closer to catching Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karazdic who have been indicted in the Hague on charges of genocide for the role they played in this and other attrocities. He pointed out that it's "a bit like getting Osama bin Laden". This would be true if Osama bin Laden lived in Europe and attended public events. On Saturday, a ceremony was held to commemorate Serb victims of the wars in Yugoslavia, and who should be sat in the front row but Mladic and Karazdic (faithful readers of this blog will recall that Ratko is still collecting his pension.) So on what planet this is anything at all like capturing Osama, I am not sure.

The Europeans weren't really all that bothered about the slaugters going on in their own backyard while it was occuring, so there doesn't really seem to be a reason for them to care now that it is over. However, I would appreciate it if they didn't pretend to be trying to do something about bringing genocidal murderers to justice, when those same murderers are practically stood in a public square yelling "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, you can't catch me".

Sign me up!

Using Robert Fisk's logic (that people who refuse to bow down to Osama's demands deserve to be attacked) against him, Tim Blair has posted an ultimatum: stop writing articles like the one yesterday or we will steal your shoes.

Very well; if you, Fisk, keep writing this crap, I will employ a squadron of expert footwear bandits to steal all your shoes. Do you know what it’s like to live without shoes, Robert? To wake every morning knowing that the shoes you had the night before are now in a foreign port being busted down to spare parts by criminal gangs operating under the direction of international shoelords?

Having been raised on the wonderful game of Shoe Tag as a child (much like regular tag except instead of just having to touch someone to make them 'it', you steal the shoes from off their feet... I'm not sure what genius thought it up), let me be the first to volunteer to join this squadron.

Fisk's full article is now available on his website if you have the stomach for it.

Could I get a list of what I'm allowed to say?

I would like to preface this by saying I really really hate it when our justice system puts me in the position to have to defend anti-semites.

David Ahenakew was found guilty of thought crime (or as the government likes to call it 'willfully promoting hatred') today, and fined $1,000 for anti-semitic remarks that he made in 2002. I think this man is a despicable piece of filth. I would probably go so far as to say that I hate him, and I would willfully promote you to do so as well. I was very glad to see him stripped of the Order of Canada. I also think that this man is entitled to hate whoever he wants and to share his opinions with whoever he wants.

Yes, he probably hurt some feelings by calling Jews a disease. But I don't think it could reasonably be claimed that he actually put anyone in danger. No decent person wants to hear anyone justify the Holocaust, but this man is not in the position to start rounding people up and moving them to ghettos.

If we have become a state that protects people from having their feelings hurt, perhaps we should start having police monitor the halls in junior high schools across the country, because 12 year olds can really be mean!

Freedom of speech is an integral part of a democratic society. There is no value in what this man said. But where do you draw the line? Who gets to determine which speech is protected and which is not? And do they really think that they have done any good by finding this man guilty of hateful speech? So that now the people who agree with him feel that he is a victim of the state. Racists with a legitimate reason to be angry at the justice system. That's exactly what we need.