Blogcritics Author: Werner Patels

Patience Is A Virtue: Is Conventional TV Worth Saving?

Werner Patels — Fri, 2 May 2008 12:27:18 EDT

Conventional TV is worth saving, but it takes a bit of patience.
Television actors are really nice people. Every day, they come to my home, shrink themselves down to doll size, and perform their mini-theater plays right in my living room. They are even kind enough to bring their own sets, props, and costumes. I hear they do the same thing for millions of other people; nevertheless, I feel no less special and...

Obama and Clinton: Nasty Politics

Werner Patels — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:53:23 EDT

The battle between Obama and Clinton threatens to tear the Democratic party apart.
At this stage in the race for the White House, no one has any doubts anymore that moving back into her “home” of eight years is Hillary Clinton’s overriding motivation. She spends more time denigrating and “misspeaking” about her opponent, Barack Obama, than about issues, or Republican candidate John McCain; to the...

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

An Inevitable Split?

Werner Patels — Thu, 30 Nov 2006 13:03:16 EST

December 2, 2006, marks a historic date: for all intents and purposes, “Super Saturday” will decide the short and long-term future of this country. Alberta will elect a new premier, and Liberals will crown a new leader and, possibly, future prime minister. Even though the first event is provincial, no one should doubt that there will be repercussions for the entire country.While those powers-that-be in Ontario and Québec have not yet realized it, the center of gravity is moving out West, and, whomever Albertans elect as their new premier, their choice will have consequences for the powerhouses of the “Old Canada”.By the same token, Albertans would be foolish to write off the Liberal leadership event as an “Eastern event” that had nothing to do with them. For their choice of Liberal leader will decide such future developments as the role Alberta and/or provinces will play in the confederation and the structure of the political landscape (e.g., rise or fall of the NDP, collapse of the traditional party system, etc.).Whatever view you may take in these two leadership votes, both parties, the provincial Tories in Alberta and the Liberal Party of Canada, are set on a course that will take them either to new heights or annihilation – depending on whether those whose favourite candidate loses can find it in themselves to continue to support their party or not.In Alberta, the writing is on the wall: if Jim Dinning wins, a good percentage of the membership will be driven away. A Ted Morton victory, however, would achieve the same thing, but to a much greater extent.Soon-to-be former premier of Alberta Ralph Klein’s right-hand man Gary Mar has already promised not to run again if Morton wins. It is quite possible that a disillusioned Mar could pull a number of “Klein MLAs” (Members of the Legislative Assembly) with him and sit as independents in preparation for creating a new party. And that party could then very well turn out to be the next “ruling dynasty” in Alberta.If Dinning or Ed Stelmach wins, Morton might do the same and leave the party. However, he would probably not start a party from scratch, but simply cross the floor to join the Alberta Alliance (the only party and MLA to endorse Morton). Such a move might strengthen the Alberta Alliance a bit, but wouldn’t do anything to improve its electoral chances: the majority of Albertans consider it a fringe party, and a vote for the Alberta Alliance is a wasted vote.Either way, a split of the Progressive Conservatives is pre-programmed.Similarly, the Liberal Party will have a lot of bruised egos to salve come Sunday morning. By all accounts, a victorious Michael Ignatieff would have the biggest potential of splitting the party.To many (if not most) Liberal party members and supporters, Ignatieff is a tad too right-wing or radical for their taste. Additionally, a Liberal Party led by Ignatieff would most certainly increase votes for the New Democratic Party (NDP), because the traditional swing voter who keeps alternating between Liberals and NDP from one election to the next would not be able to stomach Ignatieff.I am actually prepared to predict that the NDP would see a drastic increase in its seat count with Ignatieff at the helm of the Liberal Party. Conversely, a Liberal Party under the leadership of Bob Rae or Gerard Kennedy could wipe out the NDP.Many delegates, it is said, will choose a leader based on electability, i.e., his chance of beating Stephen Harper in the next election. At this point, the issue of electability has become a purely academic one, because Harper has done himself so much damage that a re-election is no longer in the cards for him. In other words, the Liberals will almost certainly win the next election no matter who their leader is.Naturally, once this happens, the Liberals will gather around their new leader and then-prime minister, but the wounds and rifts inflicted during this long leadership campaign won’t just go away.In order to prevent a major split, Liberal delegates would be well-advised to choose a leader with the best chances of uniting the party. Or, to put it somewhat more pessimistically, the one candidate who offends the smallest number of party members and voters across Canada.

Werner Patels is a freelance translator, interpreter, pundit and writer in Calgary, Alberta. He holds degrees in translation/languages and political science. Werner Patels is a Canadian citizen with an extremely international background: he spent many of his formative years in Canada, Austria and Britain.

Canada's 2006 Fall TV Season

Werner Patels — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:29:40 EDT

This year’s television season is barely a few weeks old, but one can already discern certain patterns emerging.The biggest faux pas to date was probably CTV’s showing of the second episode of Grey’s Anatomy, rather than the season premiere. A typical mistake for a typically dilettantish Canadian network. As in seasons past, the number-one commercial TV network in Canada has bought more shows from the U.S. than it can accommodate, which is why such new shows as Justice have been left off the Canadian broadcast schedule for several weeks. One can only hope now that they have acquired CHUM and the various CityTV stations across the country, they will be able to split their inventory between two outlets the same way Global has done for years with its Global TV/CH network.Some of the new shows had been announced to the viewing public with much hype and advance praise, particularly Studio 60. Aaron Sorkin, however, made a fatal mistake. His West Wing was dropped like a hot potato, even by diehard fans during the show’s final two seasons, yet he felt it necessary to turn Studio 60 into a carbon copy of his previous failed show. Even the text inserts use the same font as West Wing. Reproducing the long-winded, nonsensical conversations involving Bradley Whitford walking and talking along long corridors that became the trademark of West Wing is not helping either.Shaun Cassidy fell flat on his face with his show Invasion last year. It boggles the mind, therefore, why anyone would attempt a similar type show this season – yes, this is in reference to Jericho, which undoubtedly will last about as long as Invasion.After the Seinfeld curse, some actors may now be in for the Everybody Loves Raymond curse: Brad Garrett, trying hard to land himself another hit sitcom, is likely to lose his new show, Til’ Death. Rumour has it FOX will not return the show after baseball goes off the air.Vanished turned out to be a total flop for FOX (and Global in Canada). Despite some attractive “Canadian content” (Joanne Kelly), this show has had it, having failed to replicate the success of 24. At least, the show had an apt title.The procedurals CSI and Law & Order are still around. The three Law & Order shows have undergone a number of cast changes, but overall, they are holding their own about as well as before.Canadian export Howie Mandel is still giving NBC good ratings with his game show Deal or No Deal. But that success could soon be dampened by a new overabundance of game shows (1 vs. 100 and Show Me The Money).ABC is about to make a colossal mistake. This fall, ABC is showing only six new episodes of its hit show Lost and then putting it on hiatus until February. This sort of programming style could prove fatal even for the most successful show. Instead, ABC should have followed FOX’s lead and returned the series in early January, followed by an uninterrupted run until mid-May.But there are some bright spots this season too - at least in Canada: CBC has launched a smorgasbord of new shows, such as Intelligence, Rumours and Dragon’s Den. The latter is said to have had only about 250,000 viewers last week, but the show is truly refreshing. And what could be more fascinating than watching some Canadian bright minds trying to pitch their product ideas (and getting smoked by the Dragons in the process)?Finally, if you are capable of handling British accents and live in Canada, you should definitely check out some of the fare on BBC Canada, such as Gil Mayo Mysteries and Hotel Babylon.Thanks to British and Canadian content, not all hope is lost.

Blogging: A Threat To Journalists?

Werner Patels — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:32:51 EDT

There are thousands and thousands of bloggers around the world, and each day their number increases by several hundred, if not several thousand. Some observers have said that blogging is the journalistic equivalent of grassroots politics. Anyone with a blog can make his or her voice heard and become editor-in-chief of his or her own "newspaper."The majority of blogs, however, are still quite “infantile,” and reading them on a regular basis would be a complete waste of time. But there are also many fine and well-written blogs that do a better job than many journalists in the mainstream media. It is those few blogs that give journalists a run for their money, which is why more and more columnists in the traditional media scene feel compelled to write articles about the blogosphere with the sole intent of denigrating bloggers.The latest example is Adam Radwanski, who wrote a column for the National Post. In it, he denounces the blogosphere as an echo chamber where original thought is rare. He feels that blogs are a good medium to swap recipes and such, but that they don’t have the makings of taking on the jobs of “real” journalists or pundits.Radwanski, who blogs himself, has it all wrong, but I believe he is motivated by feelings of protectionism, as most professions are when they are faced with serious competition from the outside.He is right, of course, that a lot of bloggers simply repeat and reinforce each other’s ramblings, but there are also plenty of high-caliber blogs with lots of fresh and original ideas. Some political bloggers, for example, have managed to dig up dirt on politicians or landed high-profile interviews with the newsmakers of the day. But to Radwanski, so it seems, bloggers will never measure up to traditional journalists.Radwanski’s bio does not say much about his educational background. It mentions his involvement in politics and contributions to various newspapers and magazines. For all we know, I have more journalistic training in my little finger than he’s ever had. Still, since I happen to write for this medium, rather than the mainstream media, I am automatically painted with the same broad brush by him as all those truly lousy wannabe writers who blog about the most inane stuff and cannot even write a short sentence without messing up grammar and spelling.Every profession is filled with wannabes, whether it be the legal, medical, or writing professions. In every group of professionals, there are only a precious few who truly excel in their chosen craft. I see that in my other line of work, translation, every single day. Right now, blogging is a budding "profession," if you will: there's still tons of chaff in there, but there is also some pretty healthy wheat growing in between that will spread its seeds and eventually blow into the fields of the mainstream media. If people like Radwanski can’t live with that, too bad. But making such crass generalizations is not becoming of a supposedly top-class journalist such as Adam Radwanski, and since he’s writing for the National Post, a paper that has never broken even and is rumored to be on its last breath before being shut down for good, we only have his word that he is a “real” journalist.

Choosing Sides in Canadian Politics

Werner Patels — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:47:10 EDT

Last year I conducted a little experiment: first born out of anger and frustration over the current government at the time, I decided to "join" their side and blog accordingly. But I also sought out various political parties, federal and provincial, to get a better feel for what was going on in our political system.As one of my former political science professors would tell us: you always have to "compare and contrast" based on sound data and/or experience in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Too many people always look at one side of the proverbial coin, without ever bothering to examine the other side as well, which makes for uneducated and often outright silly choices and decisions.Having the advantage of having blogged on both sides of the "aisle" and, in real life, having experienced the party-political situation across the board first-hand, I think I know more than most voters. Still, for the last few months I have been struggling with myself. I have been torn between different ideologies, because while one party tells me that policy xyz is the best there is, common sense may suggest that this is not quite true.I voted Conservative in the last federal election, because I was convinced that we needed a change and that the Liberal Party needed some well-deserved time-out. I know that the Tories are in a minority position right now, which does not allow them to act in a way they might want to, but I think that it still gives us a good picture of what the Tories can and want to do in power.While I do have some misgivings about some of their policies (not to mention some of their actions), my problem is mostly one of "personality". I look at the various current leaders, and none of them strike me as overly competent. Prime Minister Stephen Harper may be a sharp thinker, but as a person he's become way too arrogant for my taste. In other words, he's not the "Opposition Harper" anymore. I also know that more and more Conservatives on his own turf, in Alberta, are increasingly becoming disenchanted with him.The Liberal Party is currently undergoing a period of change and reform. Yes, I know, they're not quite there yet, but the will and effort is there. Depending on the leader they choose for themselves, they could become a truly innovative and modern party. One can say about the Liberals a lot of things, but they are willing to change and adapt to a "new world order" - something that is not quite true of the Conservatives, who define their general goals and then stick to them, come hell or high water - whether they are in the interest of Canadians or not.The last federal budget was a joke, something even a (Tory) cabinet member in Alberta has admitted to me. The promised tax cuts are of a cosmetic nature, with most Canadians not really benefiting from any real tax cut. In addition, the Tories decided to scrap previous (Liberal) tax reductions, which simply added insult to injury. A good politician would have recognized the benefits even if they were set in motion by his "mortal enemy". A good politician is above pure partisanship - a test that Harper and the Conservatives have failed miserably.There are good policies and ideas coming from all parties, without exception. Some conservative ideas are excellent, to the point where even the left-wing New Democrats can agree to them, just as there are great ideas coming from liberals, social-democrats, greens, etc.Somebody asked me recently whether I knew myself exactly where I stood, and at that time, my answer was no. But I have concluded that I feel more comfortable on the "progressive" side of the political spectrum, which to me is not about left vs. right, but about finding solutions that move Canada forward.As for Alberta, I still support the provincial Tories, because after having "sampled" the other choices out there, I can attest (more than anyone else) to the fact that they are still the "best game" in town, or the province, for that matter. And unless a viable alternative comes along, they will continue to have my support. Federally, though, I don't see myself supporting the Conservatives anymore. Perhaps stung by the current mood of new beginnings, new opportunities and, hopefully, a new way of engaging in politics in Canada, I took out a membership with the Liberal Party in support of Gerard Kennedy, who, in my view, could be the poster child for a new generation of politicians in Canada. That doesn't mean that Liberals will get a free ride in my analyses. If they do something wrong, they'll get to hear from me.I know I will be maligned and hated by many regular readers, but I am my own boss, and what I say goes.

Tory or Liberal?

Werner Patels — Fri, 30 Jun 2006 00:01:10 EDT

I have always tried to keep an open mind when it comes to politics. After all, partisanship taken to a fanatic and frenetic level is not what a pundit - or any voter - should pursue. Last year, I was in the fortunate position to get an inside look into both the Conservative Party of Canada and Liberal Party of Canada (as part of a "blogging experiment"). In the process, I got to mingle with Tories and Liberals at various events, making friends in both parties and also getting a feel for what goes on inside these two federal parties.What struck me the most was that Liberals actually have a lot in common with Tories, even though the official policies of the Liberal Party would tell you otherwise. For example, at Liberal events I attended, Liberals were as outraged at Canada's dysfunctional immigration policy as some of the "worst" Conservatives. Liberals, too, feel that the immigrants we take in should be able to speak the language, integrate and contribute to our society - even Anne McLellan, former (Liberal) Deputy Prime Minister, said so in so many words. But official party policy remains silent on the issue, at least under the current Liberal Party brand.Also, when you mingle with Liberals in Alberta, you'll also find that a lot of their members are provincial Tories. Maybe it's true and Ralph Klein, Alberta's long-serving premier, is also a federal Liberal.One woman in our constituency, who is a devout Conservative, provincially and federally, told me today that she really did not care whether the Tories or the Liberals were in power, but that she had not voted Liberal because of the Liberals' corruption and lack of honesty. If the Liberals were more honest, she said, there would be little to no difference between them and the Tories, and I have to agree with her. Given Prime Minister Harper's record so far, one cannot help but label him "Liberal Lite".Then again, that these two parties are separated by a fine line only should not be surprising: after all, both parties adhere, or claim to adhere, to the principles of liberalism, which Random House Dictionary defines as "a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties." The only problem with the current Liberal brand, apart from its inherent corruption, is that the party has moved too far left in recent years, toward statism (i.e., excessively Big Government) and, thus, away from true liberalism.The current Liberal leadership contest, however, has shone a light on a few candidates who might just be able to return the party to its roots of liberalism, e.g., Gerard Kennedy or Martha Hall Findlay. Even Michael Ignatieff is a serious contender for the title of "upholder of true liberalism". Joe Volpe, on the other hand, represents everything that is wrong with the Liberal Party today. Volpe clings to the current Liberal brand introduced in 1993, but it is this brand that has no future with Canadian voters anymore. The future of the party lies with people like Kennedy, for example, but not the Volpes, of whom the party still has way too many.As I mentioned in the introduction to this column, unlike most Canadians, I have had the unique experience of going deep inside both federal parties, and based on my personal experience, I am hard put to feel overly positive or negative about either one. But if someone asked me which party has the greatest potential at this time, I'd have to say it's the Liberal Party. The Tories under Harper have dug in their heels; they keep pursuing their objectives, without ever looking right, left or, heaven forbid, forward (except for those few moments when they try to imagine what a future with them holding a majority government would look like). The Liberal Party, however, as it is going through a difficult "birthing process", stands to make a gigantic leap forward, provided the party members make a smart choice at the leadership convention later this year. It is about "lessons learned": learn from your mistakes, make amends and move forward.

Political Blogging and Punditry

Werner Patels — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 01:30:59 EDT

In the past, when people wanted to get an inside look at certain subjects or topics, they would rely on columnists in newspapers, specialist magazines or tell-all books. Now, however, they are increasingly looking toward what bloggers have to say.Blogging really took off when some individuals started revealing the internal affairs of the companies they worked for. Readers were drawn to these insiders for a number of reasons: The company in question was very controversial, such as Wal-Mart, and people hoped to find some dirt that they could use against the company. Or the corporation was the envy of many in the same industry, e.g., Microsoft, and they hoped to get their hands on some inside information they could use to their own advantage.Soon, we saw the rise of political blogging. In the United States, for example, some political bloggers have become celebrated pundits with a lot of clout – not only among their readers, but in politics. Dan Rather, of CBS News, lost his job as a result of concerted blogging action.But with the rise in status and power of political bloggers, one cannot help but try to define what political blogging should be all about: Should political bloggers be impartial or driven by their affiliation with a certain party?The most powerful group of political bloggers in Canada is the Blogging Tories, an association of conservative-minded bloggers, including members and officials of the Conservative Party of Canada. Not only is it the one blogging group that has seen the fastest growth, it is also the group that is often credited with swaying public opinion in favor of the Conservatives in the last federal election in Canada, which the Conservatives won. After all, the Blogging Tories website does claim that its affiliated blogs are collectively viewed by 30,000 people every day.A recent study of Canadian political blogs has shown, though, that most partisan bloggers seem to be missing the point of what it is they are supposed to do. According to the study, which examined conservative, liberal and social-democratic bloggers, most of them do not write positive stories about their own parties, but, instead, spend most of their time and energy attacking, criticizing and denigrating the leaders and politicians of other parties. In short, the Canadian political blogosphere is filled with a lot of negativity.The study authors apparently believe that it would strengthen political discourse if bloggers used their power for good, rather than “evil”. If this is, indeed, their general conclusion, one would have to agree. As a matter of fact, I would go even further and posit that a good and effective political blogger should not be affiliated with any specific political blogging group, but remain independent and as non-partisan as possible - despite, perhaps, being a member of a political party in “real life”.Some of the most interesting blogs I have come across are not affiliated with any particular group, and they dish it out left, right and center. Just as in newspaper columns and op-ed pieces, you tend to find real gems in those independent blogs.By contrast, a group like the Blogging Tories generally produces tons of posts every single day, but most are of an “incestuous” nature: Bloggers congratulate each other and slap each other’s back for having written one or the other “great post”. Dissent – with other bloggers or the Conservative Party – is strictly prohibited, as is even the slightest trace of criticism of the Conservative Party. One Blogging Tory, therefore, recently terminated his affiliation with the group and has gone independent.When bloggers simply repeat the same old mantra and follow the “leader” like sheep, the blogosphere deteriorates into an “echo chamber”. As such, it will never be able to compete with the mainstream media on an equal footing. Like any good columnist, bloggers need to be able to analyze issues from all angles and sides, even if this means that sometimes they will have to speak up against their own party.Am I particularly fond of liberals? If you have read any of my columns or blog posts, you’ll know that liberals and I aren’t exactly friends, but as a blogger and political pundit, I am not afraid to write something positive about liberals if the situation warrants it. I don’t believe for a minute that Conservatives are infallible, and when they do mess up, I feel it’s my duty as a blogger and pundit to speak up. Blogging Tories, on the other hand, are not afforded that freedom of speech and thought: Voice any concern that might make the group or the party appear in a less than favorable light, and they’ll kick you out. That’s what happened to me about a year ago when I hypothesized that Belinda Stronach (a member of the Conservative Party who had switched to the Liberal Party at the time in an attempt to prevent the Liberal government from being censured) had been a “Liberal mole or infiltrator” all along. Within literally four or five hours of my posting this, the powers-that-be at Blogging Tories removed my site from their blogroll, and I became the subject of collective name-calling.My little theory did not even involve any real criticism of the Conservative Party; it was rather a reflection of how low the Liberals would stoop in order to cling to power. Still, it was perceived as a slight, and my Blogging Tories membership was history (and I am still convinced that my theory is spot-on).If you look at other blogging groups, such as Liberal Bloggers or Blogging Dippers (bloggers dedicated to the New Democrats [NDP]), you’ll find that they are more open and diverse in how they treat certain issues. They, too, have been found guilty by the authors of the study I mentioned above of mostly criticizing others, instead of singing the praises of their own respective parties, but overall, they are more tolerant of dissent and even outright criticism within their own ranks.Nevertheless, political bloggers should be independent and provide impartial (to such extent as is possible and/or reasonable) analysis of current events. If readers wanted only the usual spin, they might just as well turn to certain newspapers or news channels - or even to the political parties themselves. Clearly, though, this is not what makes blogs attractive. What does, however, is the input and views of average people, like you and me, who take today’s issues and problems and present them in a way that, hopefully, may enlighten others.

Iggy, Schmiggy

Werner Patels — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:30:19 EDT

When the race for the Liberal leadership started and the number of candidates began to grow at a rate that prompted some commentators to say that it was easier to list those Canadians who were not running, several Liberals admonished their brethren and sisters to abstain from mud-throwing, as this would hurt the already damaged unity of the party.With the first debate of the leadership hopefuls out of the way, one thing is clear: unity does not figure prominently among their concerns. Instead, it's about winning at all cost, and most of them seem to have identified their common target: Michael Ignatieff.Harvard icon Ignatieff, after being parachuted into a Toronto electoral district for the last federal election at a moment’s notice, was initially vilified for being a Brit or American since he had spent most of his adult life outside of Canada. Then, following his first public address at a Canadian university, he was attacked mostly by Western Canadians who didn't like his attempt to revive some of (Liberal prime minister in the 1970s and early 1980s) Trudeau's old policies, such as taking a more authoritarian stand vis-à-vis the provinces, including musings about bringing the hated National Energy Program [nationalization of provincial oil resources, which caused a lot of economic hardship in the province of Alberta] back to life.Now, however, it’s Liberals who seem to hate his guts for being too “conservative” for their taste. Fellow leadership candidate Joe Volpe thinks that Ignatieff is merely a pawn for the Republican-controlled White House and not a true Canadian. Ignatieff owes this characterization to his voting with the Conservative government recently to extend Canada’s Afghanistan mission. It’s always funny to see that Liberals don’t seem to have any short or long-term memory: It was the previous – Liberal – government that green-lighted the mission in the first place. How soon we forget, eh?But Ignatieff also dished it out. He accused Joe Volpe of having caused tremendous damage to the reputation of the Liberal Party for accepting allegedly illegal donations, including from 11-year-olds, and then trying to justify and/or sweep the affair under the rug. In so many words, he suggested that Volpe should pull out of the race before he wreaked even greater havoc.Even Bob Rae, Ignatieff’s fellow college roommate, could not contain himself and hammered away at his buddy. Most of the other candidates ganged up on Ignatieff and accused him of wanting to dismantle universal and public health care and also reproached him for being, seemingly, opposed to the Kyoto agreement. In other words, he's been called unCanadian and unLiberal - the worst epithets that Liberals have reserved for anyone who dares not to support the Liberal Party of Canada.Some Liberals have started a website, www.stopiggy.com, to explain to Canadians (and Liberals) why Ignatieff is the worst possible choice. The authors of the site profile all the various candidates and endorse each one simply for “not being IGGY”.So much for unity. The Liberals are already beginning to pull in all sorts of directions, and the ultimate carnage cannot be far off. Ignatieff can be a formidable opponent, but some if not most of the other candidates are apparently oblivious to his political skills of total annihilation. In their attempt to gang up on him, they risk being destroyed in the process. More importantly, with so many candidates vying for the top job, they risk splitting the party not into two camps, as happened during the Chrétien-Martin feud [between former prime minister Chrétien and his then finance minister Martin, who was trying to push Chrétien off the throne and claim the crown for himself], but into as many as ten or eleven different “Liberal Parties”.When this whole dinner-theater performance is over, the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper might very well be left without any real opposition.

Homegrown Terror

Werner Patels — Mon, 5 Jun 2006 18:49:28 EDT

When a country produces its own homegrown terrorists, it’s always a disaster and shameful for such a country. Following the arrests of 17 would-be terrorists in Toronto this past week, the media devote lots of time to pundits and experts who tried to find out why Canadians, or people who came to Canada when they were five years old, would turn against their own country in such a barbaric way.Islam, in itself, is a peaceful religion, but it is used by fanatics as a means to recruit people to commit terrorist acts. Just as Catholics are shocked and aghast when a priest is found to have committed terrible acts such as sexually abusing a child, Muslims must show that they are offended by terrorist acts committed in the name of their religion. While a large number of Muslims in the West condemn terrorism, there are an almost equally large number of Muslims who either tacitly condone such barbarism or even support them in some way.The press conference in Toronto, where Muslims and Muslim leaders had a chance to meet with the chief of police of Toronto, was a sad example of the latter rather than the former. Muslims wanted to know from the police chief what he intended to do to protect the Muslim community in Toronto and not what he planned to do for all residents of the city. Amidst the questions, which revolved around this common theme, one person stood out: an engineer who works for an auto company and who immediately let loose an anti-American tirade. Thankfully, he was cut off before he could do even more damage.Only the most narrow-minded among us would paint all Muslims with the same brush. There are good and bad in any group of people, regardless of religion, race, or origin. I still have fond memories of a group of truckers in Toronto who were all devout Muslims from Somalia. We’d spend hours at the local coffee shop discussing everything under the sun.Right after 9/11, we had long discussions about terrorism and its connection to Islam into the wee morning hours. Those Somali truck drivers were as outraged at the events of the time as any other American or Canadian. One of them kept saying, “If you kill only one person, it’s as if you kill all of humanity.” Indeed, this is what it says, more or less, in the Koran.But in the same coffee shop, there was also another Somali, with a degree in philosophy according to some who knew him, who would sing a different tune: “America and the West are evil and need to be fought all the way!” In terms of immigration, it goes without saying that Canada can count its blessings for having such people as those truck drivers settle in Canada, but as for that “philosopher”, he should have been stopped at the border and sent back straight away.It is people like that philosopher who recruit young people for their cause. In the group of 17 arrested last week, one man by the name of Jamal stands out. At 43, he’s the oldest in the group and most likely the “brains” behind that cell. He is also the one who was not born in Canada but found his way here some time ago.People like that seek out the impressionable young to brainwash them. If that’s indeed the case, it is safe to assume that these 16 young people might have never been drawn into radical Islamism and terrorism if Canada’s immigration officials had not fallen asleep at the switch and had rejected his application.When people say that the Liberals and their lax or non-existent enforcement of immigration laws are to blame for what is happening now, Liberals and others on the left are quick to jump in and point to the age of those arrested. “They were born here, or they were five years old when they came to Canada. That was before Chrétien was prime minister,” they say.This is true, of course, but that does not change the fact that the people who infect such adolescents with murderous ideology have entered Canada only over the last five to ten years – in other words, during those years when Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin were in power and flouted most, if not all, proper rules under Canada’s immigration laws in their quest for votes from ethnic communities.Whether or not they realized this, they actually did themselves and the Liberal Party a lot of harm, because a growing number of immigrants are not too happy with the sort of people who have landed in Canada on a Liberal ticket. A young student from Pakistan in his early twenties, with whom I also spent many hours discussing the politics of Canada and the rest of the world, actually left Canada after several years in the country, because, according to him, he was utterly disgusted with the Liberal approach to immigration, and he simply did not like what he saw.If Somalis and Pakistanis are unhappy about the current state of immigration to Canada, one can only wonder what “native born” Canadians must be thinking.It is so ironic, really, that homegrown terrorism in Canada should have become such a hot issue within barely a month of the U.S. State Department’s publication of a report that labeled Canada a “haven for terrorists” due to the “liberal immigration system that allowed terrorists to infiltrate the country.” (The existence of this report is now being denied by some Liberals -- the same ones who only a month ago railed against the U.S. government for issuing the report in the first place.)In light of what we know now, it should have been worded more correctly as saying that Canada is a haven for terrorists due to the “liberal immigration system that allowed radicals and fundamentalists to infiltrate the country for the sole purpose of recruiting young Canadians of the Muslim faith for jihad.”Many Muslims have found a new home and life in Canada, and they have accomplished a lot. They have become good Canadian citizens who enjoy being part of Canadian society and the Canadian way of life. Immigration of such people is good for Canada as many of them tend to be engineers, scientists, or academics. But we need to draw a line between them and Islamists, that is, those who propagate an extremist and fundamentalist ideology of hate and murder. It is those that Canada needs to keep out. Unfortunately, the Liberals failed to do so miserably. We can only hope that the new government will do a better job at finding those who are already in Canada and having them deported as well as at separating the wheat from the chaff at the border.