Loi 192: Volez pas nos droits

Le droit de grève est en péril au Québec par un projet de loi 192 pour forcer les travailleurs des sociétés de transport de maintenir un niveau de 80 percent de service pour assurer une continuation des moyens de transport publique. Dans une ère quand les patrons demandent plus productivité pour augmenter leur profit et les gens communs perdent leur privilèges gagnés du commencement du le mouvement labour dans les années 1920 et 1930s, le droit de grève est essentiel pour protéger les droits gagnés. La protection des droits fondamentaux est une responsabilité qui le gouvernement semble avoir oublié. S'il vous plait, écrivez à votre représentât et le ministre de travail David Whissell dans l'assemblée et dites-lui que vous n'appuyez pas de cet mauvaise projet de loi.

Libellés : Droits, Québec, Économie

par Borges à 13:50

|

War in Lebanon: The assessment

The Winograd Commission on the 2006 War in Lebanon has been unveiled with much fanfare in Israel, with Premier Olmert and his key allies trembling in fear of the findings, as it had already forced two resignations before it was even released. While not a damning diatribe against the current leadership, the word «failure» is used to describe the nearly one month long series of air-rocket, blockades and eventually ground strikes that brought the world's attention once again to the land of Canaan and the conflicts existing there. The report damns the lack of an exit plan, an indecisiveness of tactics and the choice in the last days of the war to launch a ground invasion which cost the Israeli army a few dozen lives. The recommendation of the report: a thorough reworking of the politico-military structure of the state of Israel, which many in the country think should start with a new prime minister.

One's own analysis of the war is more simple: Completely unjustifiable. The basic pretext of the war was the capturing of Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah, a terrorist organisation with no real base anywhere, which is flimsy reason to start a full scale war over. The United States, Britain and Iran have been playing a tit for tat game of capture and release with prisoners in Iraq for a long time, without going to war. The release of the soldiers is a noble goal and reasonable actions taken would be diplomacy ones in order to secure their release. The answer is not to bombard the prisoners country of capture, a nation with no control over the actions of the insurgents located in the south.

Furthermore this turned into a disastrous war in which the Hezbollah forces gained popularity and influence throughout the Arab world and became heroes in the eyes of many Lebanese who saw their country under attack. The area around the border was pumelled by rockets and kept residents on both sides living in fear, however the strikes were first made by Israel, that is fact. The result was a rocket war the devastated Southern Lebanon and Tripoli and Northern Israel and Haifa killing civilians and destroying property and a naval blockade of Lebanon leaving thousands destitute. The war did nothing but cement the anti-Israeli feeling throughout much of the Middle East and the world, (even earning the disapproval of life-long friend the United States) especially with the deaths of innocent civilians inflicted upon the land of Cedars. A full scale attack by a modern national army on disunited section of a rogue organisation is not a sympathetic gesture either, especially when the attacks seem to encompass an entire country.

Ones own recommendations: Stop fighting Palestinians, the impetus behind this war was the oppression of Arabs living on the outskirts of the Israeli state (and actually the Israeli prisoners were taken in hopes of securing Palestinian prisoners release). Both Israelis and Palestinians must face up to the fact that the land cannot survive partition any more than the baby in front of Solomon could be cut in half. The leaders must use their better judgement and stop perpetuating the cycle of violence and hatred that has become such an ingrained part of the landscape, the people must let go of their national and personal grievances, and release from themselves the desire for vengeance and accept a shared future is the only future.

Libellés : Guerre, Israel/Palestine, Politique

par Borges à 09:15

|

Aung Sun Suu Kyi permise à sortir

Le gouvernement de Birmanie, étant très miséricordieux dans leurs actions, a autorisé dirigeant de l'opposition démocratique, la ligue nationale pour la démocratie, à sortir de sa maison où elle a été confiné sous un ordre d'arrêt pour la majorité des 18 ans avant, à cause de ses dénonces de le régime oppressive. Elle va rencontrer les chefs de son parti et aussi le porte-parole de la junte birmanese. C'est une petite victoire pour le mouvement hors et dehors de Birmanie pour les droits et libertés dû à chaque humain, même si on considère la refuse récente du gouvernement pour rencontrer délégués de l'ONU pour discuter l'implémentation de réformes. Et il faut que le gouvernement arrête leur guerre contre leur peuple et l'oppression complète à tous les secteurs de société: religieuse, politique, économique. Le gouvernement doit assurer le peuple birman soit donné le pouvoir de s'exprimer ouvertement et sans peur de l'inculpation ou des autres mesures pénales.

Libellés : Birmanie, Droits

par Borges à 19:29

|

Un marché de charbon pour le Canada

Bravo aux premiers ministres du Quebec, l'Ontario, Manitoba, Columbie Britannique dans leur bilan récent pour créer une véritable échange des crédits de gaz en effet serre au Canada, même sans l'appuie ou impetus du gouvernement fédéral.

Plutôt que d’attendre que le gouvernement fédéral et l’Alberta s’attaquent sérieusement à la question des GES, ces quatre provinces envisagent de lancer un système régional canadien. Celui-ci s’inspirerait d’initiatives semblables lancées par des États américains comme le Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) du Nord-Est ou le Western Climate Initiative.

C'est une bonne affiche de la valoir attaché au conseil fédéral, qui a été une création largement libéral pour assurer un meilleur coopération entre les provinces et se diriger, seul mais capable de travailler ensemble pour achever des buts importants. Quelle dommage que une essaie pour aider l'environnement n'effectue pas beaucoup: l'initiative semble qu'il promeut un manque de responsabilité pour les producteurs de GES et un deuxième option pour les pollueurs.

Libellés : Environnement, ROC

par Borges à 17:28

|

Pas plus! Développement non-viable à Lévis

Il faut qu'on dénonce l'annonce récente par la propriétaire de la raffinerie de Lévis, Ultrimar va investir presque un milliard dollars dans leurs facilités là bas. Une investiture telle grande devient un grand gaspillage des piastres quand on considère l'effet environnemental de la raffinerie et le manque de développement viable dans la banc-sud. Pour dépenser presque un milliard des dollars d'investiture dans la ville sur l'industrie d'énergie non renouvelables n'est pas une bonne chose pour la ville, or on soutient aucune essaie pour assurer les jobs des travailleurs du pays, le chômage est une peur véritable pour les gens qui travaillent dans l'industrie. Ce n'est pas la solution pour aucune problème sociale ni économique. Néanmoins, il fait mieux que les fonds viennent des corporations plutôt que du gouvernement (et on attendrait plus dans leur décision pour appuyer uncontainer méthanier quelque kilomètres plus loin du projet sur la fleuve . La mairesse de la ville n'est pas d'accord, elle croit que c'est un nouvelle marvelieux.

La mairesse de Lévis, Danielle-Roy Marinelli, qui ignorait jusqu'à présent les intentions d'Ultramar, se réjouit de la nouvelle. « C'est sûr que quand il y a du développement qui se fait dans la ville, c'est toujours très intéressant, maintenant, il s'agit de voir si ça correspond à nos exigences de développement », dit-elle.

Quelles sont les priorités de la ville, le développement à toutes prix, sans égard pour les effets de l'avenir sur l'économie et dépense gouvernementale (les effets environnementales sont souvent hors de l'aire immédiate, donc la responsabilité pour dépouiller la terre et eau touchée par les effets d'un usine ou raffinerie)? Même plus le fait que telle grande investiture est en conflit avec un consensus général au Québec: Que l'environnement doit être protégé et le développement viable priorité. Il n'importe quoi à Ultramar.

Bon blogue qui souligne les arguments contre Rabaska

La campaign pour un Québec vert, Québeckyoto, a plus d'infos

Libellés : Environnement, Pauvreté et développement, Québec

par Borges à 12:06

|

What is the future of Socialism? Part one

The Dutch Socialist Party's Jan Marjinissen was invited to the Belgian city of Ghent ,to speak on he future of socialism, both as a movement and a philosophy. Her response is well thought out, if a bit emotional, and provides for answers to the questions that many on the left in general ask themselves often.

When my party wanted to overcome its original dogmatism, we asked ourselves – halfway through the eighties – the question, “What is it that we are committed to?” The answer turned out to be three moral values. We have described these values as the core of our socialism, the socialism of the Dutch SP: human dignity, equality of all people and solidarity between people. But morals on their own won’t get us anywhere. These starting points are linked to a rational analysis of society feeding into effective standpoints - and the organisation, strategy and tactics to match...The organisers asked me to address the question, ‘Is there a future for socialism? My answer is this: for people who make it their aim to strengthen human dignity, equality and solidarity, there will always be a future. Because a future in which these elements, which have crystalised in our history, were absent would be a dead end street.

That question itself «Is there a future for socialism?» is a scary one because many think that socialism has failed, and yet it has not. For every mouth fed, for every patient seen for free, every pensioner kept warm and child kept warm, socialism is to thank for proposing and advancing these ideas taken for granted as normal expectations of the state in most people's minds (life, health care, housing, etc). A true socialist society has never existed, those who called themselves such often started out with a socialist impetus but quickly developed into states of proletarian bonepartism, where although the people own the resources and share them, the lack of democracy and stranglehold of bureaucracy takes away an essential element of any real socialist society: workers control and democracy.

To start with, I am a socialist of these times. I am not attached to old forms and thinking about socialism as holy writ, as an inevitable, necessary historical development, as a blueprint for a paradise on earth. I know the socialist movement’s past. I have a great deal of respect for it, and at least as much serious criticism. Under the banner of socialism great thoughts have been born and great deeds committed...Where democracy was an empty and hollow word and tyranny, bureaucracy and oppression of human dignity reigned...

A damning indictment, but not an incorrect one.

Libellés : Pauvreté et développement, Politique

par Borges à 15:24

|

How to fix Belgium

An important report, a long time in the making, has been devoiled by a panel of dozens of leading Belgian economists and political scientists both francophone and néerlandophone from both sides of the border (and Brussels) laying out a framework for a reworking of the Belgian federal system in respect to politics and economic, with the goal in mind to strengthen the nation and truly remedy the problems and inequalities which plague the entire structure and have been sources of disdain for decades. The recent crisis of government only served to underline what many Belgians (using that term lightly) have said for years: it's not working, fix it. There is also given considerable attention to Belgium's relationship with Europe, although that will not be as much here discussed here, except in the sections where the two overlap.

The first principle is clearly stated: «To increase the standard of living of the population and maintain the sustainability of our social system» and makes that the goal of all economic development. As such, the report highlights four areas of concentration:

1. A sane general economic policy
2. Reduce unemployment
3. Increase innovation
4. Create effective institutions

Economic policy, according to the group, should considered within a European framework, as Belgium's economy is so small and is in fact open (its a member of the Eurozoe and the EU and as such its currency and labour market is largely linked with the rest of the continent) and so accepting that the EU's policies will need to be implemented and are a good thing is key. But they should not be subject to the whinnings of individual federal entities, they should be nationally administered and as such complained about at that one level... so says the research team.

Employment is rightly seen as a key issue, considering its pervasiveness in areas of francophone southern province Wallonia, and the huge demand for labour in Dutch speaking Flanders. The problem is that while many Dutch speak French, as a rule even, most adult francophones have very little if any competence in Dutch, even Brussels residents! So language instruction and then employment coordination is recommended to help a situation with such an obvious solution.

Innovation and research should be coordinated within a European sense of development, with a focus on international research. Institutions should be reformed with an eye to transparency and effectiveness, and a priority made of eliminating the competition of interests between regions.

As for competencies specific to Belgium, 3 are treated in the report:

1. Social security
2. Brussels
   
3. Advantageous exchanges between regions

Social security seems to be an area of considerable debate, and is thought to be best served by a financement on the federal level, and notes that as transfers exist between the regions there is bound to be inequalities. Efficiency and responsibility should be underlined to make sure that resources are used most effectively to ensure equality between federal entities.

Brussels and its neighbouring districts, being as it is the motor of economic development for the nation, should be administered in a more communal way, with acknowledgement that all communities share Belgium, despite being majority francophone but entirely within Dutch speaking Flanders (although most of the actual political district of Brussels proper administered as a separate entity). The suburbs and city must be also be considered more together, as their populations are increasingly diverse and requirement for consensus grows ever greater.

The major source of exchange between regions, apparently, should be population, as Wallonia has surplus of labour, and Flanders a demand, which is currently being filled by immigrants who are more apt to learn Dutch than francophone Belgians. That must change, and francophones must accept that they must learn another language, just as the Flemish have had to do since the kingdom was created.

Libellés : Politique

par Borges à 11:09

|

The Harper government is downplaying its proposal to overlook up to 10 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution from the oil and gas industry in its plan to fight global warming. [Montréal Gazette 28.01.08]

Of course it is...

Libellés : Environnement, ROC

par Borges à 18:54

|

Silence du gouvernement à propos des prisonniers afghans n'est pas acceptable

Il est choquant les actions récentes des ministres du gouvernement harperien, dans leur présomption de silence sur les enjeux opérationnels autour de la scandale des prisonniers afghans. On peut pas imaginer comment est-ce qu'un gouvernement élu populairement peut se tailler quand ils sont posés des questions sur issus comme défiance de militaire et les abus des droits humains, et se défendre par dire que c'est un matière de sécurité nationale. Les américains en Irak ont utilisé les mêmes excuses pour justifier leur manque de mots à propos de Abu Ghraib, etc. Maintenant les conservateurs semblent à regarder au sud pour s'informer comment diriger une occupation étrange.

Libellés : Droits, ROC

par Borges à 18:11

|

Castro and Chavez scheming

Hugo Chavez has long ago launched a coordinated effort at currying anti-US sentiment among the nations of the Western Hemisphere, often through propaganda and rhetoric, and now, with the «Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas» (everything with Chavez is Bolivarian, even «his» revolution and «his» republic), set up to be a united front to counter-balance United States hegemony in the region. On Sunday President Chavez called on the Americas to come together to defend themselves:

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has called on other Latin American and Caribbean countries to form a military alliance against the United States. [BBC News 27.01.08]

And in perusing the Brazilian press this morning, one sees the following headline involving President of Cuba Fidel Castro urging Lula de Silva of Brazil to join with other nations in opposing the United States, as de Silva's policies have been decidedly more pro-US than his neighbors such as Chavez or Eva Morales:

O presidente afastado de Cuba, Fidel Castro, mandou um novo recado para o presidente brasileiro, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, em um artigo publicado neste domingo (27) pelo jornal Juventude Rebelde. Nele, Fidel alerta o presidente brasileiro para a necessidade de ajudar os países mais pobres e lutar contra o egoísmo "pregado" pelos Estados Unidos. [Jornal do Commerco, 28.01.08]

The nature of such pushes for independent action are simply reactionary in that neither Mr. Chavez nor Castro represent the interests of workers in a genuine way: this is a diplomatic action which will have no effect on the socialist mission to improve livelihoods and education, it will simply raise the profile of Cuba and Venezuela's leaders. This sort of defiance against the United States, though refreshing to see, should not deceive, it is just as much an act of manipulation as anything the Americans would do.

Libellés : Diplomatie

par Borges à 11:57

|

Keep Fighting: Ama Sumani

Update on Ama Sumani, the university student with life-shortening cancer which requires daily dialysis because of the effect on the kidneys who was «removed» from the UK when her student visa expired, back to Ghana where her treatment costs 100 a day, plus a few thousand dollars deposit of course. She still thanks Britain and looks kindly upon the nation that prolonged her life free of charge for a year while she studied in Wales. Fortunately some generous doner from Britain have sent her money to prolong her treatment, but that money is not secured. One can hope that Britain's generosity will continue (except for the Home Office of course). Please, spare a moment and write a line or two to the Border and Immigration Agency of the Home Office of the United Kindom, for example:

I would like to voice my deep outrage at the removal of Ami Sumani of Ghana, who has effectively been sentenced to death by the actions of your agency. Please be humane and allow her re-entry into the United Kingdom.

Thankyou

Libellés : Droits, G.B., Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 07:31

|

نا بھولو نا بھولو پاکستان ھمارا ھے

Pakistan, despite being artificially formed less than three quarters of a century ago, is a nation of pride, in the concept and the reality of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, a South Asian Muslim democracy which has survived the fire of its birth and the struggle of its life. As such, nationalist sentiment, such as that expressed in the patriotic «Kabhi Bhulo Pakistan» by the prolific Pakistani rock band, with the lyrics (forget ye not, forget ye not, Pakistan is ours), is well representative of a strong allegiance to the independent state of Pakistan, sometimes even more so than to their ethnic or even religious identities. The government of Pakistan, despite its faults, defends and governs a nation built on broken ideal, and when the nation seems to be under threat, people rally around their leader.

That being explained, the policy of the United States and other countries towards Pakistan, especially its border regions, is incomprehensible for a country that claims to be trying to win hearts and minds. Bombings, incursions, diplomatic reprimands, all push the Pakistani public further towards the President, and if not him, then towards the Islamist militants who denounce his soft stance on foreign intervention. The United States can't see either situation as a good thing, and as such has not tempered its actions accordingly. The result is a growing sector of Male and Female youth falling under the spell of political Islam that has swept the Arab world already, exactly the opposite of what the United States hopes to achieve.

The most insulting action is probably the early January visit of two high level officials of the United States intelligence agencies to Pakistan to petition President Musharraf to allow the Central Bureau of Investigation to operate more freely in the tribal border region which sees the most insurgent activity. This incident is worst because it was secretive, and after all this upset about emergency rule, Bhutto's assassination, and the upcoming elections, all of which the United States has made conspicuous areas of concern, has left the nation both hostile unto itself and to the outside world. So for a foreign power to push for further lee-way in the nation when the secular government is so fragile. Does the United States in fact want Pakistan to be in constant turmoil, and is making so very much trouble for that precise reason?

Libellés : Diplomatie, Pakistan, Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 14:51

|

712 Days wit h Harper, enough is enough!

Il y a 712 jours que le gouvernement conservateur est pris pouvoir dans un contexte minoritaire, et c'est trop loin! Radio Canada nous informe que c'est des plus loin gouvernements minoritaires, et il choque, franchement. Il choque parce qu'il souligne très fort le manque de leadership démontré par chef du Parti Libéral du Canada, Stéphane Dion. On soutient le PLC et ses délégués et son programme parce qu'il est le plus progressiste et raisonnable, mais il faut qu'on dise «tabérnak» à propos de l'inconstance du leader, même si on l'aime. Stéphane Dion est un fort raisonneur et polémiste qui peut représenter le parti ben, mais il faut qu'il parle plus fortement et franchement en matière des enjeux qui importent les plus aux canadiens, comme services de santé, pensions, l'environnement, l'Afghanistan, etc, pas seulement en réponse aux paroles conservateurs. Prenez-vous l'offense Dion! Le parti est fort, s'il peut s'unir et assurer que son message est diffusé largement au pays. On croit qu'on doit tomber le gouvernement, et arrêter cette impasse libérale.

Libellés : Libéraux, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 12:01

|

Is it because I'm Black?

80 percent of Black Americans in South Carolina voted for biracial presidential candidate Barak Obama. Is one going to be informed that one is supposed to believe that race had nothing to do with such an overwhelming preference? Such contentions are unbelievable. As is apparent, race is still playing a huge role in American politics, although not the same role it once did. Race, now that it has entered the forefront of politics, is used to both help and hinder candidates causes, each would-be president trying to curry favour with different groups, to seem representative of as many sub-sections of the American demographic as possible. The telling questions in the South Carolina debate: Asking M. Obama if Bill Clinton was in fact the first Black president. Obama's response: «I'll have to check his dancing ability and some other things...». Such meaningless questions on the night of what was probably the most important public forum of the American Democratic primary so far show the way race is affecting this competition.

That is not to suggest that Senator Obama has no worthy ideas for this country or that he does not deserve to be a front runner (it is not for one to say), indeed to suggest that all of M. Obama's supporters are drawn to him by race would be offensive and stupid, however to see that nearly four fifths of Blacks voted for Obama makes one wonder what the point of democracy is: Whether people are electing their leaders based on whom will be the best candidate, or whether they want to see someone that looks like them (same could be said of women and Hilary Clinton). Any functioning 21st century democracy should be able to count on the fact that race and gender are at the very least ideally discounted from people's decision making process. The impressive, nearly Soviet (in terms of turn out and then percentage gained) proportion of votes cast for Obama by Black South Carolinians demonstrates that the ideal has not been achieved.

One imagines the next provincial election, if in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve the Parti Libéral du Québec was polling its members or committee members as to whom should represent the party in the next contents, there was a Muslim candidate, or an allophone candidate, or a male candidate, or a young candidate, ones own understanding of democracy would help one prevent themselves from being attracted to a specific candidate à cause of his-her race, gender, or religion. That is how one sees this contest in America, as one that should be divorced of considerations of sex, or faith or colour.

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 09:00

|

À la suite de l'accord dans le Nord-est du RDC

La sommet qui suit la cesse-de-feu dans la nord est du République Démocratique du Congo, tenu à Goma, la plus grande ville de la région (et malheureusement a souffrit la proximité d'un volcan active), va concentrer sur les enjeux de développement et intégration des soldats, ça c'est une très bonne nouvelle. Comme on a déjà dit, la seul solution pour les problèmes de Nord-Kivu (et Sud) est pour remédier la situation économique pour les citoyens et militaires qui occupent cette terre, brulé sou le feu de guerre perpétuel. Mais les mots de président Kabila-Kabange évoque souci avec leur sagesse.

Le président Joseph Kabila Kabange a clôturé mercredi 23 janvier à Goma, chef-lieu de la province du Nord-Kivu, la Conférence sur la paix, la sécurité et le développement, dans les provinces du Nord et du Sud-Kivu en affirmant toute sa détermination à «enrayer la machine à produire les pilleurs, les violeurs de femmes et des seigneurs de guerre» et en brandissant «la justice et l'État de droit comme incontournables», tout en expliquant que «la paix ne peut naitre sans pardon» [Le Soir, 25 January 2008]

Un autre issue, moins simple, est cela de vengeance senti par les communautés divers qui ont souffrent sous la règne des armées rogues pour beaucoup des années. Malheureusement les peuple ne sent pas nécessairement la haine vers les soldats, mais vers la groupe ethnique de la armée qui les a blessé et oppressé. On peut espérer pour tribunaux et réconciliation entre les forces mililtaires, mais la réalité existe encore que cette aire multiethnique n'est pas pacifié soi-même, çela requit beaucoup de couer pour oublier les crimes commis contre un.

Libellés : Guerre, Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 08:13

|

UK, US and France speak out against Burmese Oppression

Apparently the world powers assembled in Davos have taken a moment from their busy schedules to speak on behalf of the Burmese people. This move comes after months of disregard by the most influential nations of the world towards the situation in Burma. They are committed to human rights once more and are pushing for reforms in order to ensure that even the most basic of privileges, or should one say rights, are guaranteed to a people so long suffering. Yes, the United States, UK and France can take comfort in fulfilling their self-given moral remit which includes making perfunctory meaningless statements about issues such issues as democracy, that they care nothing about in order to portray themselves in a compassionate light. One isn't suggesting that the move is a bad one, indeed it is highly welcomed, simply that it is a bit late considering the time that has passed since the last demonstrators were removed from the streets of Rangoon.
Why now? Just last night, this blogue saw a lack of attention on the world stage and made a small attempt at contributing to the raising of awareness about the situation in Burma, and today one finds that 3 UN security council members are taking a stand against the defiant military government of that nation. Well they will certainly be receiving accolades for this announcement, that's more human rights street credit (if you will) that they gain without actually having to confront any country that they see as of importance (such as the kindly regime in power in Saudi Arabia).

Libellés : Birmanie, Droits

par Borges à 15:16

|

George Bush Syndrome

Acting like an ass hole, Premier Stephen Harper claims he had no idea that Afghani prisoners were being tortured. Whenever he found out, it certainly wasn't the other day when the allegations were made, it was much earlier. Is that kind of secrecy acceptable, military security is one thing, but our Prime Minister is supposed to represent the interests of the public, and the public interest is appalled by these allegations, and had a right to know. This calls into question, well its not even really a question, of his competency as the chief public servant of this country.

Libellés : Droits

par Borges à 11:43

|

Alberta's climate chage program: Every little bit counts... I guess.

Alberta's climate change plan: 14 percent by 2050.... seriously. This is frankly unacceptable that a province so wealthy could take such a restrained view towards standards for gas emissions. Usually, the argument is that poorer places cannot support the burden of going green for because of economic hardship, Alberta has no excuse. That its economy is based on polluting natural resources makes it all the more important that the government of the province take steps to reduce the impact of tar sand oil, etc, as demand for oil rises with the influx of foreigners seeking a safe haven for their oil investment dollars, as well as by the property and construction boom under way there. Relative responsibility makes sense, the most able and most responsible should make the most, or at least the first, sacrifices for the sake of reducing the tons of greenhouse gases released over the Prairie skies every year. Honestly, 14 percent reduction by 2050, that is pitiable.

However upon delving deeper into the plan, we see that there is at least a coherent plan to implement these, although with less than stringent measures. 70 percent will be carbon capture and storage, 18 percent making green energy, and that age-old government buzz-word, efficiency, 12 percent. Carbon capture has serious potential once the technology advances enough to make it better, green energy can be dependent on the specific situation and what fuels are used, and efficiency, well that will probably be the goal achieved first as it requires the least restructuring. As for the Albertan carbon market, industries will be able to buy credits for 15 dollars a tonne.

Albertans see the effects of climate change and the dire need to help slow down and reverse its effects before this planet is permanently destroyed. As each of us contributes willingly to the sources of pollution that damage our Earth, we must each take responsibility. Perhaps Alberta is not acting so reprehensibly, rather they are acting most honestly, because if any of us ask ourselves honestly, what would we give up for climate change, the answer will probably not be «whatever it takes» rather «the best I can do». However as a government, the Albertan administration should look past their basic human drives for wealth and self preservation, and look to the future and to the good of the Albertan people and the land they love so much. It's just unfortunate that the government of that province is so non-caring, although what can one expect from Conservatives (ben même les ceux qui s'appelle progressistes).

Libellés : Environnement, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 10:11

|

The Bloc's new conditions for acceptance of the Harper budget demonstrates fully their lack of principle on any issue. A few months ago they were hard-core opposition, morally at odds with the conduct of the Harper government. Now, they are willing to support the Conservative government for a few soft conditions that serve only advance their populist agenda and their representation of themselves as the defenders of Québec. However it also speaks of a wider lack of principle in the entire political system.

One does not deny the political game that is essential to the functioning of this parliamentary system, nor does one host illusions about any of the political parties acting less reprehensibly. One simply wishes to highlight the ad-hoc, hypocritical nature of such games, games which lend nothing to the improvement of the nation or its democracy. The bargaining of small sums in back rooms must stop, as must the pompous announcements portraying themselves as better than the rest. Ottawa's politicians should take a look at themselves and wonder if they are upholding the principles of their respective parties.

The first party to do this must be the Liberals, as they are the only competent left-of centre party in the system. The Greens, NPD, the Bloc, are too small to reform themselves, they have too much to loose. However Liberals, with their traditional idealism among the party base, should make sure that those politicians who stand under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada are genuinely interested in the ideals espoused by the organisation. Otherwise Liberal partisans and supporters cannot be sure in saying that their party is indeed the best for Canada.

Libellés : Politique, ROC

par Borges à 18:29

|

Pas pour une nouvelle politique linguistique au Québec

Le plus nouveau gémissement du chef de l'Action Démocratique du Québec Mario Dumont est trop stupide pour être attendu, même par ses critiques plus fervents. M. Dumont, après l'automne de la Commission Bouchard-Taylor, il veut re-ouvrir le débat sur les accommodements raisonnables, cette fois en matière de l'assimilation linguistique des immigrants, après la révélation que francophones de Montréal ne compte plus que 53 percent des résidents. M. Dumont contient que c'est une situation grave qui doit être remédié par une politique d'immigration nouvelle, plus prudente, en considèrent la décision récent pour augmenter le nombre de nouveaux immigrants au pays pour séjour de 45 mil à 55 mil.

À premier, la situation n'est pas mal pour les francophones, démontré par l'étude récent sur les langues d'usage des entreprises de la 405. Francophones ne se trouvent pas comme minorité, la langue de travail et de fonction publique sera toujours le français, après les avancements procurés par la Charte de la langue. Les Montréalais du futur seront plus diverses, mais moins capable de parler le français: presque tous les enfants au Québec peuvent parler le français quand ils sortent de seconde V, donc les enfants des immigrants seront francophones couramment, n'y a pas de choix, grâce à politique linguistique du pays, donc ce souci n'est pas raisonnable. Deuxième, la grande majorité des immigrants parler le français, la figure 40 000 de 45 000 nouveaux arrivants au pays sont déjà francisés, donc un réduit des immigrantes nouveaux n'affecterait pas la situation.

Pour M. Dumont et son équipe dit «vedette», les études dévoilées récentes sont données par Dieu pour aider-leur dans leur croisade pour un protéger leur patrie contre l'invasion étrangère. Une nouvelle politique linguistique est la solution raisonnable pour remédier un problème linguistique, s'il existe. Seul l'ADQ penserait que tels problèmes peuvent être fixés par une change dans la politique d'immigration. Mais ce n'est pas une solution, pour ce problème non-existante.

Libellés : Accommodements raisonnables, Politique, Québec

par Borges à 14:44

|

Israel and Palestine: Blinded by vengeance

One finds the recent difficulties the United Nations has had in its deliberations over the recent flair up in hostilities between the Israeli army and the Hamas-led Gaza strip, with discussions stifled by various players who believe that their interests are being hurt (which may very well be the case). No one is right, and no one is wrong, because these two concepts are mutually exclusive, and in the human sole there exists no such black and white context which helps us decide such moral quandaries such as who is justified in the killing of other human beings. One doesn't know where this need for justification, this illusion of justification, comes from, simply that it is ingrained in all of us.

That is why we must strive to see this in the most broad of terms. Israelis and Palestinians must be seen as one group of indigenous people of the land of Canaan, each with an unalienable right to live and prosper in their homeland. That two differing ethnic groups have come to inhabit that land is not important. This disregard is essential in because there will never be an acceptable decision as to whom has more rights to the land, in fact such determinations are impossible. These two groups have over the past 60 years done terrible, sometimes unspeakable things to each other, and neither side has a monopoly on pain, nor does either side have a right to retribution.

This sort of stark and clear cut outlook may seem to be divorced of the realities of human existence, but one believes that in fact this point of view is the only one that could remain true to humanity, in that it denies our difference and privileges, and recognises that conflicts are inevitable if both sides are humoured with illusions of entitlement, because entitlement dissipates not, it grows into jealousy, and then vengeance, which takes itself in the form of violence, which feeds the vengeance. Perhaps such philosphical journeys into the wilderness are inappropriate when discussing a war happening here and now, but it seems right now that the only sensible thing to do when observing such hopeless disasters, is try to analyse oneself and find the answers there.

Libellés : Droits, Guerre, Israel/Palestine

par Borges à 10:43

|

Repression continues in Burma

In a move all too typical of the regime which has been in power there since the early 1990's, the military government of Than Shwe has jailed a M. Sa Wai for publishing a love poem in anticipation of Valentine's Day, which contained the anagram: «General Than Shwe is crazy with power». Yeah, not drunk with power at all...

This move highlights the dire situation there ,but also the curious nature of the Burmese resistance movement: known for its characteristic cynicism and sense of humour which allows its participants to endure such awful oppression for the sake of their ideals. Democracy leader Aung Sun Suu Kyi is still under house arrest (even when meeting with government officials), the economy has been decimated by mismanagement, and hundreds are still lingering in jail from the brave Fall demonstrations.

The international community's response to the movement and the recurring oppression which followed was heartening, as it demonstrated a surprising commitment to the cause of «freedom» in Burma, with the United States and Canada leading the world's individual nations with calls for an end to the repressive action which prevailed in the country, along with a serious campaign of concern from the United Nations, who attempted several times in the course of events to mediate between the sides and secure the freedom and safety of the Fall demonstrators, and to carry forward reforms in Human Rights. This has not happened, the UN envoys and teams have been kept out of the country at its leader's whims, and the World seems to have forgotten about Burma.

You are urged to contact your local United Nations ambassador and remind them of the importance of this issue and the urgency it requires:

Canada: prmny@international.gc.ca
Chine: chinamission_un@fmprc.gov.cn
Grande Bretagne: uk@un.int
France: france@un.int
United States: usa@un.int

Libellés : Birmanie, Droits

par Borges à 20:52

|

Keep it Green: European Commission's plan for energy and greenhouse emissions

The European Commission released its proposals for the European Union's energy and climate change strategy. The major figure is 20: 20 percent reduction by 2020, with a series of measures being implemented (unevenly) across the European Union depending on a nations individual wealth and capacity to adapt to the guidelines. The total costs are estimated at nearly 60 billion dollars, or 3 Euros per EU citizen. An original figure of 30 percent was deemed too high, however after 2020, the figure will be increased to 50 percent by 2050.

A major component of the scheme will be the Emissions Trading Scheme, a European-wide carbon market which will help countries achieve their goals through the placing of nations and specific industries under their individual targets. These businesses and nations will be able to trade their carbon allocations on the market in order to meet their limit for the year.

This plan seems as comprehensive as any proposed so far, indeed more ambitious than anything coming before that besides perhaps Kyoto Protocol itself. This will indeed secure Europe's international reputation as leader in fighting climate change, but inside this will bring fierce opposition, not least from the Euro sceptics lurking in the corners of every EU institution and in the corridors of every national government. Industry is still key in Europe, and an unfavourable business climate will provoke cries of opposition from the powerful business lobby's. And any standards that lead to a company leaving the EU for Asia or the United States will see an absolute uproar.

All these concerned have already been raised today as it was unveiled, and indeed this plan will undergo severe scrutiny in the European Parliament and other parts of the EU legislation process. One just hopes that by the time it is a law in effect, it will not be too watered down.

Libellés : Environnement, Europe, Politique

par Borges à 15:48

|

Dion: Compromise not the integrety of the Liberal Party of Canada

The Liberal Party of Canada must soon decide what course of action it is going to take in regards to the toppling of the Conservative government over the budget to be released within the next few weeks, because current political situation is untenable and harmful to the Liberal party's status as defender of leftist interest and electoral integrity. The Liberal leadership have already taken the country, and their base, forward and back numerous times on the question of support for the Harper administration, and in doing so put themselves on par with the Bloc and the NPD, both parties who orchestrate certain public stunts in order to protray themselves as a strong opposition party who is not afraid to stand up to the government (or apparently stand down).

One is not apt to make an assessment of the Conservative budget which has yet to be revealed, and so can offer no evaluation of its pros and cons. However it is clear that the government will continue with its current reactionary policies, and so one sees no reason not to bring down the government, as its behaviour in the past is certainly contemptuous. If Harper and Friends cannot manage this country in a satisfactory way, then the party must act, and must act decisively.

Poll numbers keep changing, and electoral fear, and indeed risk, is a normal part of politics, however a concious decision must be made to stop politicking for a brief moment and consider what is best for the country. In staving of the decision as to whether or not to support the government, the Liberal party shows a great disregard for the political process, and further seems to demonstrate a lack of respect for the will of the public. That is not the nature nor is it the character of the Liberal Party, which must continue to stand for the freedom and well being of the confederation.

Libellés : Libéraux, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 11:42

|

Make your voice heard

Last call to vote in the first round of Canadian Blog Awards. And if you are so inclined, cast a vote for Borges Blogue in the «Best French-language blog» category.

par Borges à 06:47

|

Somalie sous le feu

Des coins du monde oubliés, Somalie est des pires endroits sur la planète quand on parle de la guerre qui s'est produit là pour les derniers 40 ans, depuis l'indépendance de l'Italie et son régime colonial en 1972. À coup d'œil, il semble un pays qui devait réussir: un état uni-ethnique et mono-religieuse, ce pays n'était pas crée par les autorités comme la majorité des autres pays africains, mais c'est qu'on considère une chose très importante: les bandes régionales.

Les bandes de Somalie ne sont pas comme les de Kenya, qui corresponde à une étnicité spécifique, les somaliens ont tout la même identité nationale et parle la même langue. Ces bandes se sont devenus équipés avec forces armées qui se sont battus pour plus terre ou ressources pour leurs membres, ou pour protéger les intérêts économiques de la bande. Beaucoup de tentatives pour réconcilier les groupes ont échoué, les essayes pour former un gouvernement fédéral n'est jamais réussi. Ça guerre créa un des plus grandes populations de refuges au monde et a détruit les économies traditionnelles de la population natif, et continue maintenant.

Dans les grandes villes, même les aires rurales les luttes continuent, aussi les attentats terroristes fait par les militas divers, les deux qui évoquent la peur dans les coures des ceux qui doivent les souffrir. On peut pas nier la douleur immense senti par eux, et on espère qu'un jour les somaliens.

Libellés : Afrique, Guerre, Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 17:49

|

Sorry our jokes suck

A reader has sent in their view of events concerning accommodements raisonnables in Québec, which is always encouraged on this blog, which aims to help facilitate discussions between differing view points, besides being a tool for disseminating ones own.
Well, first let's supprimer «we» because M. Bellemare speaks only for himself. So he used to like seeing immigrants, however now that there is an «Islamic Holy War», which he no longer finds humorous, the situation is different? One finds that a hard message to follow, however the gist of it is: Conflict in Islamic nations justifies a feeling of hostility to new arrivals in Québec. That is certainly one person's opinion and it is this blog's prerogative to publish that, however contrary to one's own opinion. So thankyou M. Bellemare for sharing his opinion and for making one privy to his views. And finally, my response:

M. Bellemare, I appreciate your email and your sharing your opinion. While I don't personally share your opinion, I do understand the sentiment. To that I would simply like to respond that not, indeed most are not, all Muslims are proponents of religious warfare or the tactics of various religious-political movements, and so should be assumed to be representatives of Jihad or fundamentalism in Québec. I would like to encourage you to visit a Montréal mosque for yourself and see what Islam in Québec looks like, or if you are not already well informed about the basics of Islam perhaps you would like to seek out more information on the subject before you cement your views any further. Your comment will be published on my blog, with your email adress redacted to protect your privacy. Thankyou very much

Abdul-Rahim

Libellés : Accommodements raisonnables, Québec

par Borges à 13:50

|

Choississez, s'il vous plait

Les libéraux du niveau fédéral agissent d'une manière tant calculé et tant timide dans leur polémique sur la question de déclencher les élections ou non. Élections sont prévues pour le prime temps si le gouvernement conservateur se trouve sans le soutien des libéraux dans son dévoile de budget, mais la situation économique évoque peur dans les mentes des leaders libéraux, alors ils ne décideront pas jusqu'au budget est dévoilé. On croit que ce n'est pas comment on se conduire dans la joue politique, les libéraux doivent s'agir plus prudente et plus honorable.

Si les libéraux des Communes n'appuient pas le gouvernement harperien ni sa politique, le parti doit tenir une discussion ouverte et libre entre les membres et députés pour former un consensus sur les prospectes de l'avenir. Il n'est pas honnête pour réserver leur position jusqu'au moment final, il montre un manque de leadership et un mépris pour la volonté publique et opinion publique. Quoi, le gouvernement de Harper est acceptable seulement s'il dévoile un bon budget dans les yeux de libéraux, mais si non, le gouvernement est dit d'être mépris etc., mais quoi change, sauf que le budget. Il montre une inconsistance morale qui va pas attirer votes.

Libellés : Libéraux, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 11:32

|

Don't get your hopes up

In the Democratic Republic of Congo province of North Kivu, centred around the expansive city of Goma, there has been a war which has ravaged the area for years. Hundreds of thousands dead, raped, maimed, people's livelihoods were destroyed as paramilitary forces of all different ethnic labels traverse the region fighting for larger swaths of territory to increase their wealth, under the pretext of defending their specific community's interest. For a point of reference, several of the groups are actually left over militias from the 1994 Rwandan civil war, demonstrating the convoluted nature of the process, with its various foreign players, whether they be in government or business, who have played a role in prolonging the conflict with their support of the various armed groups.

Well it would seem another cease fire is to be implemented, this time with a United Nations peace keeping force set up at 13 posts across the area to prevent fighting, along with a relatively huge aid package and an amnesty for those who have not committed human rights violations (what soldier has not in such a long war). The various rebel organisations have signed up for this, perhaps perceiving this as the best deal on offer at the moment, perhaps realising that there is more money to be made and stolen once the area has been flushed with United Nations aid. A peace keeping force will most likely be defeated in a country where the Blue Helmets are disgraced anyway after a well-publicized scandal involving child prostitution.

The likelihood of this agreement sticking are slim to nill, and that is a saddening prospect, however it is the only realistic one as this is just the next in a series of cease fires that have been broken once this or that group has decided that it would be in an advantageous position to attack. The only chance to end this conflict would be to offer some sort of reform program which can give those soldiers who want to leave military action a new start and possibly an education or skill, in order to provide for them a living that their army used to. The exploitation of the land and people is a huge contributing factor to ethnic tensions, with ordinary people under the illusion that they are at war with their neighbour, when in fact it is their bosses, their leaders, who are responsible for the wretched poverty that exists in some areas.

In all, a cease fire will most likely save some lives in that fighting will at least stop for a little while, and every life counts. However one who has followed this situation for any amount of time will see hope dissipate when the cease fire agreement is put under scrutiny, applied to the actual situation on the ground. The fact is that roaming bands of men have roamed the province for years and years, extracting their livelihoods as they please, pillaging on their way, answering to no one. With these forces still in existence, and the ethno-politico environment which they exploit has changed so little.

Libellés : Afrique, Diplomatie, Guerre, Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 08:31

|

Gardez les garderies, les gens manchistes approchent

Marois veut imposer la langue aux garderies publiques, les CPEs), et on peut pas s'arrêter penser que c'est une mesure trop ardent pour être efficace ou sensible. Pour instituer le français aux garderies par les conditions d'admittance aux écoles de la Charte de la langue française semblerait une initiative pénalisant pour personnes qui parlent pas le français comme langue maternelle. Cette geste du PQ, c'est un truc politique qui n'est pas apprécié: on se rappelle des gaffes nombreux d'ADQ et comment ils ont étés reçus dans l'assemblée et le public.

Il y a des mesures appropriés pour défendre la langue au Québec Il est bête pour croire que les garderies peuvent augmenter la taux de francisation des enfantes: ils sont déjà destinés pour une éducation francophone, si on est éduqué dans une autre langue maternelle, ou l'anglais, on peut donner directive pour encourager les garderies non-francophones à enseigner le français, dans un niveau base bien sur.

Ou un autre idée: si on accepte 5000 non-francisés chaque année, on peut faire l'inscription et complétion d'un cours de français, fourni gratuitement par l'état québécois, une condition de leur séjour continué. Donc quand nouveaux arrivées viennent, leur moyenne de francisation serait déjà organisé. Immigrants ont majoritairement une vrai hâte pour apprendre le français, mais quand on arrive les demandes de la nouvelle vie préviennent souvent l'apprentissage, donc si leur éducation française est déjà plané, il est facile pour faire. C'est juste une idée, pour démontrer qu'il faut pas qu'on soit tel pénalisant aux institution publiques ni les parents des enfants, et il faut pas qu'on blâme les allophones pour les défis de la Charte. Arrêtez-vous Mme. Marois, vous semblez tant fervent, presque fondamentaliste...

Libellés : la langue, Québec

par Borges à 15:12

|

What do Canada, the United States and Israel have in common (besides British history)?

The World Economic Forum, utilising the Gallup Polling Company, has conducted a world wide survey of opinion on the relationship between the Islamic World and the West, and informs us that Canada and the United States and Israel are the three most accepting of Islam and the differences between the Islam and the humanist tradition, in that they are the three countries whose populations overwhelmingly see interaction between «Muslims and the Western worlds». The survey also inquired after the perception of the «conflict» that is said to exist between the Occidental sphere and the Islamic world, United States seems to be the country where there is the greatest sense off futility in offsetting a conflict seen as inevitable.


The United States and Canada are perhaps not so surprising. Some North Americans may be confused with the figures, as Europe is known for its large Muslim population, so why is interaction seen as such a negative thing. Well because that interaction is in many cases non-existant, and so the only encounters they may have with MUslims, besides passing on the street or sitting next to in the tram, will be through news of disturbances or unrest or non-integration. In Israel, the spectre of isolation is apparently felt strongly there, and the need for a coming together in dialogue and personal interface is well underlined. As for the the United States and Canada, North American countries, being as they are built on immigration and integration of different communities (indigenous, various European, African and Asian peoples playing a definitives role in the nations of North America, from Panama to Baffin Island, and so should really surprise no one.

And regarding the methodology of the survey:

Gallup questioned about 1,000 people, mostly between March and September last year, in face-to-face and telephone interviews. The results are published in a report on Muslim-Western relations for the World Economic Forum. Countries polled were Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Italy, Malaysia, the Netherlands, the Palestinian Authority, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the US.

Libellés : Accommodements raisonnables

par Borges à 13:02

|

Le Québec brillant: Beau et accommodant

Il semble que 75 per cent des québécois surveillés n'ont pas de problème avec les accommodements donnés aux nouveaux arrivés et communautés culturelles, et c'est une bonne nouvelle pour apprendre ce belle matin. On savait pendant les rangs de la Commission Bouchard Taylor que le Québec n'est pas vraiment comme a été présenté: xénophobe, menacé par touts les nouvelles choses qui apparaissent au Québec depuis la haute d'immigration non-européen. Peut-être ils sont plus défensives de leur culture et société «native», de leur langue qui est sous l'attaque, il est normal, attendu en fait, pour populations accueillantes avoir peur du monde qu'ils voient changeant autour des eux. On considère pas la racisme qui semblait montrée pendant les consultations publiques comme une phénomène normale ni acceptable, donc pour comprendre que les québécois questionnés nouvellement comprennent que les communautés culturelles contribuent beaucoup au l'enrichissement du pays, pas seulement dans les termes économiques, mais c'est aussi une bonne addition pour le développement de société et culture.

Est-ce que cette change montre que les consultations ont exercé un bon effet sur la population, en les faire plus compréhensifs des différences qui existe, les contributions que les «autres autres» ont fait, le commitement général par immigrants pour être accepté et intégrés. Ou est-ce qu'est ils se sont réalisés que la laïcité ne voit pas nécessairement la manque complète des symboles religieux, soit il hijab ou crucifix? Est-ce que la majorité du Québec acceptant et chaleureuse, ouais, il est.

Libellés : Accommodements raisonnables, Québec

par Borges à 10:00

|

Don't play yourself, Duceppe: The role of the Bloc québécois in Canadian federal politics

M. Gilles Duceppe has revealed that he believes his party, and its political machine, to be ready to fight and win a Spring election with the hope of being able to topple a possible Conservative government by taking important Québec ridings from Conservatives (this is of course predicated on the idea of Spring elections). M. Duceppe is engaging in typical Bloc behaviour by presenting a strong and powerful face of the sovereignty movement in the hopes that such a façade will attract voters, without actually having changed a thing. The quibbling nature of the Bloc québécois will no doubt stay the same, nor has the special relationship with Montréal and Québec business elite been severed.

Overall however it seems that the Bloc, under M Duceppe, has accepted its role in 21 Century Canadian politics, despite having failed its objectives of the 90's of achieving sovereignty Québec, through the path of least resistance whether that be at the provincial level of the federal level. Their failure in a way defeats their purpose of existence: The Bloc's goal is to carve up the Canadian confederation which has been strong for over 100 years. The inclusion of Québec in Canada is an accepted fact, at least until the end of the decade, and so in reality all initiatives and such taken on by the Bloque are doomed to be complicit in the realm of federal politics concerning Québec, which is the very element of the Canadian system that they claim to oppose.

The Projet du Pays recently devoiled by Mme Marois of the Parti Québécois gives a special place to the sovereignty movement at the federal level, if not mentioned by name the strategy remains that the Bloc will be the facilitator of negotiations should the country decide to leave the confederation. The souverainiste gestures she has proposed are the other side of that strong face the souverainiste movement tries to portray, one that will not be hindered by the details of reality, who instead dream of inflicting upon la belle province another round of bitter division in Québécois society.

In the intervening years, they have tried to cement a role as the defender of Québec's interests, as if elected MPs were incapable of serving their constituencies, regardless of the riding. They pose themselves as the ones capable of getting Québec the best, most preferential, special treatment deal that they can from the government funds, while at the same time able to protect the province from the outside directives and influences of Ottawa and the ROC. "We respect all our adversaries, but the battle will be between us and the Conservatives," Duceppe has been quoted as saying. That is a shocking admission of their commitment to federal politics in itself. The

Libellés : Politique, Québec, ROC, Souverainistes

par Borges à 17:09

|

Face to Face: Israel and Palestine

The recent upstart in fighting between Israeli and Palestinian forces may signal to some a lapse in the peace process that perhaps looked so hopefully just a few weeks ago. In fact the absolute break down of the situation in the Gaza Strip underlines the false nature of the entire Annapolis Road Map Part 2. Besides the absurdity of the two state solution serving as a means to peace in these disputed lands, the political situation is not appropriate for, or accommodating to, such huge compromises to be made on both sides. Perhaps there was a time when Israel and Palestine were sending honest delegations to summits and conferences, but currently the cadres hammerig out the details of this supposed peace agreement are answering to a multitude of masters at home, many of whom are at odds with the very idea of peace.

On the Israeli side we see the military, a proud Israeli institution, now showing signs of rebellion against the perrogatives of the Israeli PM Ehud Olmert and his administration. At the same time, there are the highly politicized hard-line Orthodox Jews who oppose any sort of deal that excludes Jewish settlement of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (hey what ever happened to Golan Heights by the way?), as it goes against one of their basic tenets of belief: That the land of Canaan is the promised land of the Jewish people, given to them by God. People living with such a strong sense of identity, and duty to their faith are not easily suppressed, and in this case are a growing segment of the population. Then of course there are those top level ministers and advisers who have a stake in the perpetuation of warfare and anti-Palestinian sentiment. Also, that large section of the Israeli population which, after years of being under attack, now fears and somewhat dislikes the Palestinians and their cause in general.

For the Palestinians, it is not so complicated. There are those who are firmly committed to the idea of a two state solution for an independent and sovereign Palestine by the side of Israel, and there are those who (in either a general sense or specifically) oppose the existence of Israel and see the struggle against the State that orchestrated the robbery of their land, the soiling of their honour, the crushing of their livelihoods, and cannot accept a peace agreement with such a State. Some people are soft anti-Israeli, while others are committed to its destruction by whatever means (there is no political movement for the destruction of Israel, well except for Hamas but they are politco-terrorists).

As often stated here, both sides are right. Both narratives are true, and both pains are real. Humans are prone to want vengeance, to be protective, to act erratically, and so the history of this land since the Balfour Declaration (60th anniversary this year) is littered with valid claims for compensation and retribution. In the end the only way to live side by side is to relinquish the element of exclusivity and privilege from their view-points. If Jews have a right to settle in their promised land, then they must also accept that right for indigenous communities. If Palestinians have a historical claim to the land, then so do the Jews, certainly. This shift in paradigm, the only way to make this shift possible, will come when the population is no longer manipulated by their ruling classes into hatred. It will come about when Israeli and Palestinian face each other as equals, workers fighting for the same goal: liberation.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Guerre, Israel/Palestine, Politique

par Borges à 10:53

|

Ta geuele Monsieur: Torture aux États-Unis

Mon Dieu seigneur, on peut pas comprendre pourquoi Ministre des affaires étranges Maxime Bernier a rejeté la position du Canada (en fait ses forces militaire) pour mettre les États-Unis sur la liste des pays où y a de menace de torture pour les prisonniers. Le président américain s'est admis que son militaire utilise les techniques déjà acceptée par monde comme torture. La fierté qu'on s'est senti quand on a appris de cette mesure gras est bien disparu maintenant, avec cette vrai affiche de soumission aux États au sud, on a honte du Ministre, qui en fait cette action néanmoins gaffer son département et pays, mais qui nie la peur et douleur souffrent par les prisonniers de Guantanamo. Bon soir samedi.

Libellés : Diplomatie, ROC, États-Unis

par Borges à 18:41

|

Évaluation du Projet du Pays du Parti Québécois

Le récemment dévoilé projet du pays du PQ est un document qui montre une face très ambitieux du parti, et plus un sens d'empressement impressionnant qui devrait évoquer peur dans les cœurs des fédéralistes. Il est tant frappant parce qu'il est prédiqué sur un victoire électoral, plus un victoire signifiante, parce que les autres partis majeurs de l'assemblée ne voteraient jamais pour ces initiatives (duh), même s'il a été écrit et appui en 2005, quand l'assemblée d'abord un espace de deux partis avec quel que petits au trou du fond d'influence politique, maintenant l'ADQ, malgré soit «autonomiste» les adéquistes sont au cœur, et aux référendums, fédéralistes.

A parte de ça, on trouve le programme acceptable, et une bonne ouverture politique, même si on n'appuie pas les objectifs du programme. En fait, il y a quelques sujets dans le dossier qui sont bien raisonnable: comme une constitution québécoise, une promotion d'identité québécoise. Et pour souverainistes, ils sont très heureux de ces buts, il représente, finalement, un vrai plan pour avancer l'agenda indépendantiste quand le climat politique permit. Avant ça, les souverainistes se sont trouvé sans un vrai cahier de route pour emmener le peuple québécois au sein avec eux. Les mesures proposés dans le document semble un travail vrai loin et vrai difficile pour accomplir, la furie qui apparaitra si ses mesures semblait aucune autre que imaginaire serait ben forte pour lutter. assessement

Le Québec n'est pas proche de accepter ces objectifs, le PQ peuvent pas gagner plus de 35 de vote, rien plus est même possible, y ça comprise les personnes qui considèrent pas le souveraineté quand ils vont aux urnes, donc le projet du pays n'est pas une menace. Mais on peut pas juger si le programme aidera le PQ ou le blesser dans les booths. Est-ce qu'ils comptent déjà tous qui appuieraient tels mesures, ou est-ce qu'il est possible pour attirer des autres partis souverainistes errante? Est-ce que les souteneurs du PQ qui sont pas en fait prête pour l'indépendance afflueraient aux partis plus souples? On va voir, peut-être il changera rien de tout, ouais, il changera rien.

Libellés : Politique, ROC, Souverainistes

par Borges à 17:26

|

Burama: "There is a huge gap between where we need to be and where we are"

... so says United States ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad, which is in line with the recent UN redresses that progress so far made in Burma in terms of freedom and respect to basic human rights is not nearly enough . Hundreds of people remain incarcerated for participating in the Fall demonstrations, talks with arrested democratic movement leader Aung Sun Suu Kyi have been fruitless, and virtually no changes have been made in terms of the Burmese regimes attitude towards public self-expression or the use of state force. UN visitors have been refused entry and audience in Burma with the government, and will not be allowed in until at least April, according to the whim of the Burmese junta. These actions taken together demonstrate a complete lack of change in the policies of the Burmese government, nor does it seem to reflect a willingness to move towards any sort of reform. May the world not forget Burma, in such the state that it is.

Libellés : Birmanie, Diplomatie, Droits

par Borges à 09:33

|

And she would've got away with it too, if it wasn't for that meddling kid

15 year old arrested for former prime minister/convicted embezzler/wanna be usurper Benazir Bhutto's Murder. Yeah, he did it... Fitting that her assassin would be almost as young as her successor (19 years old)

Libellés : Pakistan

par Borges à 07:40

|

Priorities for action of the PQ's «Project for a nation»

In an effort to help provide the Anglophone Canadian community with greater access to the materials necessary to understand québécoise politics, this blog will attempt to provide accurate and concise English renderings to the ideas and concepts contained in the Projet de pays document released by the Parti Québécois concerning their plans for the building of a sovereign state, whose basic principles are covered here:

First Issue Identified- Proposal of a project for independence
Priorities for Action

• 1. Present the fundamental reasons for a nation-state via:
  

a. Giving weight and credibility to the arguments for its existence

• 2. Accent the essential reasons for independence
  

• 3. Produce a favourable climate for sovereignty and make the notion acceptable to Québécoises
  

a. Undertake a programme of mass education and public meetings
b. Create support for independence based on the financial plan of souvérainistes, and convince the population that Québec will be better as its own country
c. Promote sovereignty and national pride

• 4. After the election of a PQ government, implement the necessary measures to make sovereignty possible .

a. Undertake a truly profound exercise in participative democracy- Citizen forums etc.
b. Put together the financial, bureaucratic and legal framework for independence. (distribute the financial plan, adopt a constitution, diffuse messages explaining the project and changes coming, implementation of a citizenship and the creation of a native broadcasting corporation )
c. Hold a referendum and ensure the international community is watching closely.

• 5. After referendum, make concrete changes to reflect the will of the people in favour of an independent country

a. Sovereign national gestures- Claiming more areas of competence from Ottawa, primacy in tax authority, offer to opposition of a role in government negotiations for sovereignty, and the creation of a constituent assembly.
b. Propose international gestures of sovereignty- Agreements for the free circulation of goods and trade between Québec and Canada, continuation of all treaties and organisations which Canada has signed up for in the name of Québec, submit and have recognised a declaration of independence by the international community

Libellés : Diplomatie, La question nationale, Politique, Québec, ROC, Souverainistes

par Borges à 13:25

|

Israelis have a right to settle in the West Bank

The question of settlement of the West Bank and the Gaza strip provokes strong feelings from various facets of society. From the the Jewish population there is a multitude of views regarding the building of homesteads on land that is under Israeli and international law are illegal: Some see them as an essential part of their religion, an expression of their right to a promised land, others see such people as unpragmatic zealots who can't accept compromise. From Muslims, indignation that a land holy to themselves would be claimed by another, and that their religious brothers and sisters would be cast off of their land and put under attack, and as such settlement in the occupied territories is all that much more damning.

The truth is that both are right. Jewish people have as much a right to live on their chosen land as anyone else. At the same time, Arabs too are native to the land and as such must be guaranteed access to the habitation of that area, therefore the expulsion of those who would eventually become Palestinians was immoral. No peace can come from a division of the land of Canaan between two communities, that can only provide a temporary mask for tensions at best. The true solution for the problem in Israel-Palestine is the acceptance of the mutual right of both communities to inhabit the country.

Libellés : Droits, Guerre, Israel/Palestine

par Borges à 08:22

|

Gâchis pour unité!

Est-ce que les gâchis et fusées qui pleuvent sur la terre palestinien dans les aires résidentielles de la Bande de Gaza intentionné par ses envoyeurs dans l'armée israélien pour faire réunir les factions palestiniens, soi-même divisées entre les souteneurs de Hamas en Gaza et les souteneurs de l'Autorité palestinien dirigé par le mouvement Fatah dans la Cisjordanie. Il semble que oui, bien on ne pourrais pas imaginer pour quelle autre raison peuvent forcer la main des israéliens pour interrompre les négoces pour la création d'un état palestinien viable par telles actions disruptifs. On doit noter que l'organisation politico-terroriste de Hamas avait arrêté ses fusées etc. pour quel que temps, mais maintenant que les tensions apparait encore, ils luttent encore avec armes.

On sait pas pourquoi les israéliens choisissent ce cours d'action pour suivre, on est confondu quand on considère que le PM israélien dépende du procèss de paix pour assurer son avenir politique, pourquoi les incursions offensives vers la bande a étés autorisés, quand on est sur que telles actions vont blesser les négoces? On se demande et se rend compte qu'un option possible est que les israéliens utilisent une stratégie de attaquer et unir, comme si les palestiniens comme tout se sent sous le feu, ils vont se réunir. Donc quand une fusée est détonnée près du fils du dirigeant de Hamas M. Zahar, son homologue, M. Abbas de Cisjordanie l'ont téléphoné pour lui offrir ses condoléances. C'est le première conversation entre ces deux homme pour quelque mois, donc on est sûr que la mission est réussi...

Libellés : Droits, Guerre, Israel/Palestine

par Borges à 16:01

|

Vote for Borges Blogue :-)

S'il vous plait, votez pour moé. One was nominated for Best French language blog on Canadian Blog Awards and would appreciate anyone with the volonté to do so to vote for Borges Blogue. Merci et mil grâces.

par Borges à 11:30

|

Dion, what the fuck?

Stéphane Dion has recently made worrying comments in regard to the «War on Terror» and its theatre in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The liberal party leader suggested that if Pakistan cannot contain the spectre of terrorism that plagues Afghanistan as of late, NATO action could be taken against militants in the sovereign state of Pakistan. These comments are absolutely flooring for most liberals, who would deem such interventionist military action as abhorrent and it strains the mind to imagine what the impetus behind this statement was, considering how out of character such overtures are from the Liberal party, and how absolutely foolish such notions are.

Pakistan and Afghanistan share a border nearly a thousand kilometres long, one which crosses mountains and valleys and remote villages, and is absoulutely impossible to secure. If that does not excuse Pakistan, consider the millions upon millions spent on military operations in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to counter the threat of terrorism, under which indeed Pakistan itself suffers. Bombs and attacks by jihadists are quite common compared to most other places in the world, but Pakistan is doing the most it possibly can to help contain the proliferation of terrorist operations and ideologies.

NATO strikes could only hope to ferment the isolated villages and valleys which give refuge to terrorist groups, or lead perfectly pacified villagers to join and support the jihadist movement. In the cities of Pakistan, the fundamentalists-politicians would should of the corrupt West and the need for it to be destroyed as it seemingly attempts to destroy sovereign Islamic state after another.

As for his motivation, that is the will of M. Dion, one can only imagine that he is trying to carve out some sort of leadership image for the Canadian public, an image that sees him as a strong defender of Canada and its security, the man who can figure out Afghanistan and save us from terrorism. A personna who is tougher and less jelo-like in his convictions. However in this case one hopes that M. Dion climbs down on this recent stunt. Liberals are supposed to support the rational application of international law, the personal freedoms of World citizens, the right to live in peace. Supporting such reactionary military intervention would be damning to their moral and political position to those on the left.

Libellés : Libéraux, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 09:09

|

Explaining the Sovereign Gestures of the Parti Québécois

The recent announcement by Parti Québécois leader Mme Pauline Marois that the PQ will be pursuing a plan of «gestures souverains» when elected to government, that is, certain legislative actions which will bring more self-determination and reserved powers to the province, thereby laying the framework for an eventual referendum on independence, after no less than 3 terms elected. The principles governing the programme of action are as follows:

• Québec is a nation and will be a country

Québec is and will be

• democratic
• peaceful
• francophone
• a society founded upon education
• creative
• inclusive et laic
• promoter of sustainable development and poverty relief
• prosperous
• solidare
• decentralised
• open to the world

• Québec will agree upon a true social contract.

Libellés : La question nationale, Québec, ROC, Souverainistes

par Borges à 20:00

|

Conservative slights of hand

Without being too partisan, one would like to congratulate all the parties of the opposition in not using the tactics of the Conservative Party of Canada in raising and spending funds during the election campaign. An independent report alleges that more than 60 conservative federal candidates benefited manipulation of finances in order to spend more than is allowed by law on advertising. While this sort of thing could be expected from any politician, it should be noted that indeed in this case the Conservatives were the only party to be affected by such strategies. While not the most damning inditement of parliamentary conduct, hopefully this and their recent opinion poll loss signal an avalanche of bad press and scandal coming for them, and that l'équipe libérale knows how to take advantage of a good thing.

Libellés : Politique, ROC

par Borges à 08:28

|

Europe poses threat to U.S. security...

One recently pondered the meaning, and implications, of France's recent moves in the Middle East, such as the agreements to build an army base in the UAE, along with providing that country with the expertise and support to develop its own nuclear power program. Although these overtures are strictly French in origin and purpose, the prospect of Europe becoming a counter-balance to the U.S. juggernaut is looms larger and larger, confirmation comes as U.S. head of homeland security Michael Chertoff warns that "Europe poses a key threat to United States". Of course, no one is suggesting that this is in geo-political terms, Chertoff claims that Europe is quickly becoming a hotbed of terrorist activity. Let us just hope that it fares better than Afghanistan did in that area.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Europe, Sarkowatch, États-Unis

par Borges à 21:48

|

Continued- Face off: Sarkozy v. Bush

M. Sarkozy has announced that France will build a military installment in the United Arab Emirates where they 500 soldiers will be stationed, presumably for easy deployment in case of some sort of erruption of tensions. This will make France the only other military power in the Gulf besides the United States and should be a nice follow-up to their recent friendly overture towards the UAE in promising support in the development of its domestic nuclear energy program.

Is France in the process of some sort of diplomatic push for power, especially in the lucrative Middle East region, where, the French would like to think, they has been so quick in the past to «stand up against» the United States for the interests of the greater global good? Do the French truly wish to counter-act the weight of the United States monolith, independent of the European Union? They have already made a stake for leadership by initiating discussions for a Mediteranean Union of sorts to include the countries of Southern Europe, North Africa, and the Mediteranean coast of Asia. Is France simply trying to regain a sense of power and control that it lost long long ago, one that cannot be attained through group action with the collective European Union?

Libellés : Diplomatie, Europe, Sarkowatch

par Borges à 14:36

|

Harper ne s'inquiète pas des provinces maritimes ni Terre Neuve et Labrador

L'indifférence démontrée par M. Harper aux Maritimes (et T.N. et Labrador) n'est pas très choquant quand on considère son manque de leadership vers les plaintes des provinces maritimes et T.N e L. Qu'il soit les québécois se sent souvent trahis, mais c'est les provinces à l'Atlantique qui souffrent la négligence fédérale. Pire qu'il semble que les provinces là-bas essayent souvent pour s'enrichir, s'améliorer, avec plans et buts fantastiques pour devenir moins dépendent sur d'aide d'Ottawa et les transferts fédéraux: Les planifications d'immigration, développement économique, spécialement la technologie et énergie, sont bien faits, mais pour en implémenter, on a besoin d'argent, l'argent qu'ils méritent pour les contributions aux impôts et leur besoin énorme.

En fait le facteur la plus puissant pour affecter l'indépendance économique des provinces de la côte atlantique sont le manque des fonds du gouvernement fédéral. Cette push à autonomie arrive quand les industries historiques de la région, forestière, papier, pêche, ferroviaire souffrent une dévastation marquée. Même les nouveaux développements dans la secteur de propriété aux endroits nouvellement chique pour les weekenders et entrepreneurs d'industrie gaz, comme à St. Jean T.N, n'est pas viable au long terme (et en fait peuvent affecter négativement les résidentes natifs). L'Alberta et la Columbie Britannique continuent à attirer les jeunes régionaux là-bas pour étudier et travailler, et l'immigration ni la construction historique qui enrichit le pays ailleurs ne touche pas ces petites provinces. En tout, on espère que les Maritimes et Terre Neuve et Labrador pourront continuer suivre leur buts de développement, même si l'aide et les revenus, qu'ils méritent n'est pas donné.

Libellés : Pauvreté et développement, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 10:04

|

Oh Ouais!

Liberals now surpass Conservatives in most recent poll. Finally some good news! :-)

So, why now, and for how long, and does this change anything? Would Liberal MP's now decide to vote against the budget, thereby toppling the government and going to elections?

Libellés : Libéraux, Politique, ROC

par Borges à 23:46

|

On the purpose of the Liberal Party of Québec

The following passage opens up Claude Ryan's history of the Liberal Party of Québec, titled "Liberal Values in Contemporary Québec". The work itself is very informative, and although written in support of the Party does indeed provide a rounded view of the development of the party and its role in québécoise society. Commentary and observations provided after:

As its name suggests, the Liberal Party first accords
attention to the values which relate to freedom.
Whether it is a draft bill or a regulation or a government
program, the first concern of a liberal spirit is to ensure
that the proposal does not contain any unjustified restriction
of individual freedom. In the Liberal view, for any limitation
of freedom to be acceptable, it must be justified by a greater
good, which must be established conclusively.

This attachment to individual freedoms goes back to
the days of LaFontaine. But it should not be confused
with the rigid doctrines put forward by liberal parties of
the European model. In this regard, the Liberal Party represents
values drawn from three different traditions, the
continental European tradition, which stresses the doctrine
of the supremacy of the individual and the values of
reason and of progress; the British tradition, which
stresses political freedoms; and the American democratic
tradition, which attempts to reconcile individual rights
and social rights.

The prejudice of the Liberal Party in favour of freedom
was shown at the time of the numerous changes
which occurred during the Quiet Revolution. Following
the Liberal victory in ...., an atmosphere of liberation
spread through educational institutions, the media, cultural
bodies and trade unions. In most areas of social
activity, the controls that had been in place for a long
time gave way to a nearly unlimited permissiveness. The
end of movie censorship, the lawful extension of the trade
union movement into the health and education sectors,
and the transfer of most of these institutions from the private
to the public sectors, illustrate the winds of freedom
which were blowing in Quebec. [Ryan, Liberal Values in Contemporary Québec , 2004]

Though one's view is surely tempered by their own political experiences and preferences, one would have to remark the excitement with which one reads such an account. To imagine oneself part of a tradition of freedom, and progressivism, in this beautiful and free country, marks one secure in their past electoral choices.

At the same time however one must be constantly vigil. Power and control breeds contempt and corruption, that is a fact. No bourgeois party can ever truly be independent and representative of the needs of the common people, as it is inextricably linked to the capitalist economy and the special interests and negotiations which go one behind the seens. Members of the liberal party who consider themselves progressive should be aware of the nature of the Liberal Party and reconginse that although it is the best choice for the province, our leaders and politicians must be kept honest and true to the values which they are supposed to posses. Liberals must keep pushing the party to the left, towards the advancement of society for all, with the protection of individual freedoms still intact.

Libellés : Droits, Libéraux, Pauvreté et développement, Politique, Québec

par Borges à 15:19

|

Les partis nationalistes: Leur succès ne signifie pas une hausse en sentiment indépendantiste

On est surpris quand les partis qui soutiennent l'indépendance prétendent qu'un gain électoral représente un gain signifiant pour leur position constitutionnelle. Même si les mouvements indépendantistes réussissent des temps pour réaliser leur but d'indépendance, il semble bête qu'un parti qui travaille pour le système qu'il veut détruire interprète son succès dans ça organisation comme une victoire pour leur désir d'indépendance.indépendantiste

C'est parce que les partis nationalistes qui participent aux systèmes politiques de leurs pays dirigeants doivent se battre pour les votes, donc chaque parti, sans égard à sa position constitutionnelle, doivent engager le système qui est tenu par lui à s'oppresser. Donc, dans leur programme politique, un parti nationaliste dévoile une plate-forme compréhensive qui inclut les idées pour le gouvernement du pays actuel, et pour leurs désirs futuriste pour autonomie ou indépendance. Quand l'électorat lit ce programme, il ne les importe pas nécessairement l'avis du parti sur l'indépendance. Indépendance est perçue comme une idée qui ne va pas arriver pour beaucoup de années si jamais. Non, mieux importante pour eux sont les enjeux domestiques, comme les services essentiels, la bonne gouvernance, les sujets qui les affectent plus fortes et fréquentes.

C'est par ce critérium que les gens choisissent leur parti, sur les enjeux normales, quotidiens. La question nationale est garroché à la poubelle pour être considéré à une fois plus tard. La réalité de la présente est le facteur qui influence la volonté des électeurs, pas les possibilités de demain. Les victoires des partis nationalistes ne montrent pas une plus grande taux de soutien pour l'indépendance, il représente un parti qui semble mieux représenter les intérêts du pays, pais pas nécessairement dans le contexte constitutionnel.

Libellés : La question nationale, Politique, Souverainistes

par Borges à 09:38

|

Face off: Sarkozy v. Bush

Est-ce que M. Sarkozy compète contre M. Bush en matière d'influence internationale? Il semble que ouais, quand on considère que les deux amis présidents se trouvent dans le même endroit (les Émirats arabes unis), pour discuter de même enjeu (la production d'énergie nucléaire aux pays du Moyen Orient), mais la politique internationale diffère beaucoup entre ces deux pays.

Aux Émirats, M. Bush et son administration leur croyance que le pouvoir nucléaire doit être limité, permis, apparemment, seul aux pays sympathiques aux causes des États-Unis de bâtir capacités nucléaires, les pays hostiles ou rogues peuvent pas participer dans un programme d'énergie tant puissante et dangereuse. Donc, l'Iran ne qualifie pas pour produit sa propre énergie dans sa manière désirée, non, dit Président Bush.

À l'autre côté, on trouve Président Sarkozy, qui défende la prolifération de telles technologies vertes au monde, est arrivé aux Émirats arabes unis pour dire juste ça, et pour offrir le soutien français dans leur projet pour développer une plante nucléaire (la France continue diriger le monde dans le secteur de production d'énergie nucléaire), et pour proclamer sa volonté que la technologie soit ouvertes aux pays qui veulent participer dans son futur viable.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Environnement, Europe, Sarkowatch

par Borges à 17:25

|

Refugees in Britain: Unwelcomed at home, unwelcomed abroad?

Perhaps it speaks of the increasingly reactionary nature of British politics that a majority of its population believe that Britain's Human Rights Act is being abused by asylum seekers. Britain's Human Rights Act is in itself a specially-watered-down version of the European Convention on Human Rights , for which the United Kingdom insisted on receiving an opt-out, provides for the basic freedoms and guaranteed rights which everyone is entitled to, with a few key omissions from its original European counterpart. However there is nothing in the Act, nor even in the Convention, that lowers the standard for asylum applications, indeed Britian's opt-out means that asylum seekers (nor anyone else) can't appeal to the European Courts of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Asylum seekers, refugees is a better, less sanitised word, are given permission to remian to Britain based on a strict set of laws along with a consistently updated list of possible conflicts and situations in all possible countries that could be claimed as reason for fearing ones life because of political, religious, political, etc. affiliation, with a ruling and reasoning for each. Not all claims are accepted, and indeed the process is extremely difficult for people to endure. Despite the stringent standards, and the continued (then, and then, and now) reduction of asylum applications and acceptances, refugees fearing for their lives seem to be a growing source of scorn and distrust from other British residents.

The crux of the issue is that all social services are under pressure to perform better, deliver more, and spend less. Asylum seekers are among the higher priority groups among benefits claimants because it is illegal for them to work, and so require state help just to survive. So you have a local population, whether of British or other origin, looking upon recent newcomers in desperate situations, but seeing only needy competitors for the services and funds and housing that they themselves require. It is a simple trick of the light, a slight of hand, an unnoticed and false assumption that these people, fleeing for their lives constitute a threat to British society or indeed the British exchequer , when indeed the real threat are the capitalists and politicians that continue to betray them.

P.S.- Concerning the larger question of immigration to Britain, see this piece in the Sharpener.

Libellés : Droits, G.B., Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 13:04

|

You say that now...

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has suggested that he will step down from his position if the National Assembly passes a movement of impeachment against him once the body reconvenes after the 18 February General Election. Such a strange man that Pervez, no? After disregarding the will of the National Assembly for 9 years (the legislature does elect the president, including the one which Musharraf ousted in a military coup), it seems that he is willing to respect the actions and views held by the legislature. So one must ask, is he serious, and no matter if he is sincere or not, why?

Musharraf has been making commitments to respect Pakistani civil society since he came to power, always telling the public that sometime soon the status would change and he would step down, respect democracy, etc. Rarely, very rarely, he does, for example when in late November, he previewed that he would decommission his military post so as to become a strictly civilian president, one doubted such a notion very much, considering that he had just a month or so before declared a state of emergency in the wake of political opposition and upheaval in the country, allowing his security forces to detain and arrest people as safety threats. And yet within day, we saw him in Rawalpindi, getting a ceremonial good bye from his troops and handing military control to another.

In regards to his latest pronouncement, one doubts its veracity, simply for the fact that it is a n offer to actually relinquish his power. No politician wants that unless the situation becomes much too unbearable, or unless he is sure that he is about to lose it anyway. One can't imagine that the current climate would be considered an exceptional situation which needed escaping. Admittedly, the death of Bhutto did indeed bring Musharraf much resentment, but Musharraf is in danger of being a casualty of some sort of popular uprising.

Now, if he is not serious, what reasoning does he have for making such serious announcements, if he only plans to deny it later? Well, it could be a public relations move for both him and his party (after all, there is still an election coming up, and a hostile legislature will not be welcomed), in hopes of staving of some sort of sweep in the elections by opposition parties. Another could simply be that it was decided that Pervez should show a commitment to democracy. Whatever the impetus behind it, one would advise caution, and cynicism, when considering its probability.

Libellés : Pakistan, Politique

par Borges à 16:14

|

Une rencontre gênante

Hier la dirigeante du mouvement démocratique en Birmanie, Mme Aung Suun Su Kyi, a profité de la grâce du régime militaire qui a pris pouvoir dans ce coin du sud-ouest de l'Asie quelque 4 décennies avant, quand le gouvernement l'a permise une rencontre avec représentatives du régime pour discuter... quoi? On ne peut pas penser à quoi ils parlent. Le régime va pas lâcher son pouvoir absolu, il va pas se soumettre aux demandes populaires de la population birmane pour plus de liberté et un arrêt à la répression et violence commis par les force gouvernementales, il n'existe pas un point de compromise pour s'accorder. Donc, qu'est-ce qu'est M. Su Kyi et le délégué du gouvernement discuteraient? Comment est-ce qu'est-t-elle s'est amusé pendant ses années de assignation domicile imposé par le régime? Qu'est-ce qu'elle pense à propos de la race présidentielle américaine, les idées de Rousseau, quoi?

Libellés : Birmanie, Droits, Politique

par Borges à 13:21

|

A death sentence

Dialysis treatment in Accra-
Required Deposit: 3 000 pounds
Fee per day: 50 pounds
Those who can't pay: life-less

Recently one pondered the existence of health services and social safety nets in sub-Saharan Africa, and found themselves happy to see that in Malawi there existed social services such as an incapacity benefit for people with HIV-AIDS. One cannot say the same about Ghana, or, indeed, large parts of Africa. In the capital of what was once referred to as the Gold Coast, and the first African nation to become independent from colonial rulers, life-saving treatments are not available, even for those that are in terminal need.

This story is highlighted by the plights of Ms. Ama Sumani , a univesity student hailing from Ghana, who until recently was studying in Britain, and also happens to be suffering from the life threatening illness malignant myeloma, a type of cancer that does great damage to the kidneys. As she was studying in the UK, she was given access to the National Health Service, which provided free of charge her life saving dialysis. Unfortunately for her, Ms. Sumani's student visa expired, and she was removed from the Cardiff hospital where she was recieving treatment and deported, back to Ghana. Heartless.

Upon her return in Ghana, she was given a one off treatment, and was there upon informed that it would indeed be completely dependent on her ability to pay whether or not she received the treatment. The price of the treatment is prohibitive even to most Westerners, let alone someone living in much less affluent countries. The hospital is not to blame, they live in a reality where no one will step in an help fund it, no one to save it if it fails, it will simply have to shut down and then Accra will be without a place for dialysis treatment. Ms. Sulamani has stated that she will travel back to her home village in the north of the country, where no such places even exist, and pray for her life.

One refuses to hear the British government's defence. Immigration, health care, budget reform are being used as excuses for not being able to allow her to stay (if we provide every non-legal immigrants with health services...), and one sees the callousness of capitalism, even in a country which has socialised health care.

Libellés : Afrique, Droits, G.B., Pauvreté et développement, Politique

par Borges à 09:28

|

Pob lwc Cymru, Bonne chance Québec

The most startling comparison able to be made between la belle province-pays du Québec, is to be found in the British principality of Wales. Keepers of an ancient linguistic tradition, fiercely proud of their history, however blighted with oppression and misfortune it may seem to be. The Welsh people did not rekindle their national identity until the 1850's, a time of flourishing of nationalist culture and thought among all the nations of the Isles, and it was still not until the middle of the 20th century that the Welsh began to develop a comparable sense of uniqueness and pride.

The issue of language is where the comparison with the French language in Québec comes into play. Though Québec is still majority francophone, the language came under attack for years of the British colonial administration until the tranquil revolution. After that, the french language was enshrined as an essential part of the québécois identity, such as it existed, and its protection was seen as paramount. A similar thing happened with the Welsh language movement, where the majority of the population had been anglicised, the language was put at the heart of the national identity, a neutral yet unifying social component.

The original impetus for the nationalist party of Wales, Plaid Cymru, was in fact the need to organise to preserve the Welsh language. By the end of the 19th century, Welsh lanugage knowledge dropped below 50 percent. The turbulence of the next half century would leave the tongue in an increasinly ambivelous situation, until the «Tynged yr iaith» (Death of the Languae) speech was given in 1962, and Welsh citizens finally took notice of the erradication of their languege. This led to several protective acts for the Welsh language, eventually culminating in the recognition of the language its users rights in 1967, and eventually the Welsh Lanuage Act of 1993, garaunteeing the right to receive public services in Welsh. Another consequence was the rise of welsh-medium schools, and most importantly, in 2001 census, a rise was seen in the number of Welsh speakers for the first time in over a century.

Language was not the only way in which Welsh nationalism was expressed and not the only area with which Wales shares a similar history to that of Québec. The calls for a locally devolved government to share in the governing of the constituent countries had been growing louder for years since the 1970's saw Labour ministers actually considering the idea, but was silenced by a loss on both the Scottish and Welsh fronts in a 1979 referendum on the subject. By the turn of the century though, opinion had shifted and the Welsh people aproved the idea of a National Assembly by only a few thousand votes.

Since its establishment, the Welsh National Assembly has done much for the nation. From protecting its interests to giving the Welsh a real sense of identity ad self-determination, to whatever extent they wish, the National Assembly has contributed to a pride in Wales that has never seemed so strong.

National Assembly, a breif history
Welsh «performanc» will end in an independent nation
History of Welsh

Libellés : G.B., la langue, La question nationale, Politique, Québec

par Borges à 15:02

|

Vive le Reagan!!

Les principes du parti républicain américain, selon le débat tenu hier dans l'état unisien de Carloline de Sur, semble à être les suivantes:

• Avoir une allégeance filial au démagogue républicain en chef, Ronald Reagan
• Se résoudre à réduire les impôts, sans égard à l'affecte économique ou sociale, négatif ou positif.
• Respecter le nouveau accord-social des états-unis, ça qui est fait par les conservateurs sociales, économiques, et les war-hawks néo conservateurs
• Jamais questionner la politique public du parti ni du président, en particulier M. Bush

Il était bien apparent qui avait de courage et qui avait peur dans le discours hier soir. Les conservateurs plus traditionnelles ont pris chaque possibilité disponible pour attaquer les positions moins normale. Le plus défiant devrait être M. Mike Huckabee, ancien gouverneur de l'état de Arkansas et probablement le plus attirant aux conservateurs religieuses. Il est défendu ses politiques implémentés pendant son règne, comme le répand des programmes sociales et une amélioration dans la qualité de l'enseignement public. Pour ses crimes, M. Huckabee a souffrent des questions de loyauté, engagement avec les buts de bases de républicains. Mais dans un autre sens, le débat était bien prédicable, poche et plat. Les positions des candidats sont majoritairement de tout même, comme les démocrates de l'autre sein.

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 10:42

|

Such promise, such folly, such farce

Because he is so wise, George W. Bush decided, and announced his conditions for Israeli-Palestinian peace process. This includes such firm demands as "stopping settlement in some areas" and "confronting terrorists". To his credit, he certainly is demanding more of Israel than Palestinian Authority, making clear the necessity of re-establishment of pre-1967 borders, compensation to refugees, basically all the demands that Palestinians would want, except of course a right to return, and a more reactionary goal of disestablishing all Jewish settlements in the West Banks (Gaza's have been demolished since 2005). Also, America doesn't like terrorism.

The most dissapointing part of the speech was his discours on the ethnically defined nation state:

The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people, just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people. [George W. Bush, 10.01.08]

Any state established on such an overly-simplified principle cannot live in piece. The concept that a people have a historical, moral and political claim to control arbitrary borders. The potential for compromise is there, but not on these terms.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Guerre, Israel/Palestine

par Borges à 19:18

|

Laughing when one really should not

For consideration, two interesting responses to the crisis in Kenya, the first from the British political debate show Any Questions:

I like to imagine there's an Any Questions going on at this moment in Nairobi and they're being asked a question about political corruption in Britain and ...[CLAPPING] and I hope that there are a whole load of Kenyan politicians speaking just as confidently as we are about the funding crisis within the Labour Party and how Mr Brown must really sort it out. [Moore, Any Questions, 4.1.07]

The other is a rather sensationalist attempt at drawing attention to the tragedy occurring there, in an attempt to remind the world that the Earth still turns, even when New Hampshire votes:

For everyone that likes to talk about “stolen” elections in the United States on the like, we would, today, like to kindly direct your attention to Africa where Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki might well have literally stolen that election, an event which has precipitated mass internal migration and tribal violence. The newest front in that violence? Innocent, innocent foreskins.

Kibaki’s rival Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe, which does not practice circumcision, while Kibaki is a Kikuyu, which does. In fact, the Luos are about the only tribe in Kenya in which tribal customs dictate that a man should not be circumcised. So, if you’re part of an angry, violent mob out to do violence, what easier way to check and see if someone is a Luo and thus in need of slaughtering/circumcision than to make him drop trou?

Oh, I mean, they’re totally raping women, too, but they’re cutting skin off of penises! Of babies, even! And, um, you know, killing people and forcing people from their homes and basically segregating the entire country by tribe. But forced circumcisions! Perhaps that can garner some attention!

Yeah, no, I know. Hillary, 8,000 votes, New Hampshire, November elections, whatever. Silly me.
[Carpenter, Wonkette 9.1.07]

par Borges à 16:22

|

Making Connections: Separatism in Québec and the United Kindom

Is appeasement the true solution to nationalist independence movements for ruling governments? One knows that surely the reforms and accommodations made for the sake of pleasing Québec saved, not once, but twice, from a "yes" vote. Currently the Bloquistes control majority of conscriptions in Québec, with the Conservative party gaining rapidly, and yet on the ground, and indeed, according to all recent opinion polls, in provincial politics the Parti Québécois, the only party proposing anything close to independence, has just 34% of the intended vote, which does make it the front runner, but surely puts a damper on the hopes of a revived sovereignty movement. Furthermore, Bloquistes have been sweeping Québécois ridings for years, and have yet have not managed to advance one bit the cause of independence. Considering the policy taken by both parties that whichever could advance towards independence first would be supported by the other, seems rather inconsequential.

In Britain, their provincial assemblies (though really national assemblies, and not really in the Canadian sense of the phrase anyway) are all the three controlled by seperatist parties. Whether it be the skin-of-you-teeth majority of the Scottish National Partiy's administration, or the sharing of power between Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionist Party. As strange a pair the previous one is, it's nothing compared to the Welsh National Assembly where Plaid Cymru governs with... Labour(!).

Some, apparently, interpret this situation as the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is not. In fact it could be argued that the election of such parties actually is a sign of a strengthened union, as these parties surely represent nothing more than a soft nationalist expression of identity. Regarding devolution itself, some contend that the process, and the increasing amount of competencies given to the Assemblies, is hurting the Union, again not true. Accommodating and placating soft-nationalists with the illusion that they are in control, rather than under the finger of Westminster and Whitehall, with such satisfaction the momentum of any independence movement is weakened. It would be detrimental to the Union if devolution had not happened to such a degree, because confrontation between Westminster and one of the local assemblies always means a hardening of sentiments among the electorate.

Libellés : G.B., La question nationale, Québec

par Borges à 14:25

|

Eliminating poverty: it can be done

A new goverment directive in the Lakes Region African nation of Malawi will see citizens with HIV receiving an increase in disability payments. This was somewhat surprising as one did not imagine that such social safety nets existed in Africa. Certainly there are successfully governed, well successful states on the African continent, however to discover that there are comprehensive programs in Africa, based on the notion that the sick should be cared for, regardless of ability to pay, was a serendipitous discovery. Though it is certainly not a Malawian NHS or Régie de l'assurance maladie, and the nation is among the few that do have social safety nets, but all the same, it makes one smile, to know that even in some of the world's poorest countries, the basic concept of brother helping brother, is still alive and well, and able to be acted upon in a meaningful way.

The dream of an Africa, of a world, who have access to healthcare, education, sanitation, nutrition and political expression, could seem wildly idealistic, and yet is a goal so achievable. The wealth already exists in the world, the technology is there, to provide a comparable level of basic services around the world. A truly radical redistribution of wealth and a reorganisation of the world production and economic relations can assure this. Economically advanced capitalist countries have managed to assure these things for their citizens on the backs of the third world, their wealth created with the resources and cheap materials of the continent. It is indeed time for payback, no?

Obviously it is not simply a matter of redistributing money, pouring it into African nations, That has been done for decades and remains a policy of resounding failure. The post-independent continent was assured to fail from the beginning of its existence. Governments are weak, corrupt, and unscrupulous, people are distressed and desperate, and there exists no way to break this cycle, except for a revolutionary renewal of democracy and the mode of production, the taking of national assets and wealth for the enrichment of people, under the direction of a truly democratic government based on workers councils, with the will of the people represented at all levels, from village to national.

Some may find that solution quite stupid, they may even think that this idea has already been proved at fault by the failures of the USSR and other countries who have claimed to be socialist. However, the fact is that these countries were not socialist, they were napolean bonapartiste, states which have adopted some form of nationalised economy, while lacking the essential mechanism of democracy. And besides that, for those who doubt, one simply requests that an alternative be proposed, because it is obvious that capitalism has done nothing to help.

Libellés : Afrique, Pauvreté et développement, Politique

par Borges à 10:48

|

Putting out the "wild fire": Mme. Clinton wins NH

One smiles a little smile upon learning the results of the NH Primary. One doesn't care so much for Senator Hilary Clinton, or her presidential program, however the news that she has defeated Barak Obama has indeed put a smile on one's face, as she has done what so many had deemed impossible. The entire world proclaimed the candidacy of Barak Obama after one state caucus, and all but published a political obituary for Mme. Clinton. As it came to seem more and more a forgone conclusion, the new found confidence of M. Obama was indeed a turn off, his grand promises of a revolution in American politics enough to make one sick. Yet the media remained blinded by his smile. The BBC in particular disspointed greatly. The most respected news outlet in the world basically publishing his press releases and singing his praises, and that is in terms of tv, radio, and online. This BBC journalist elaborates:

...I suspect, in fact, that they are as surprised as everyone else but surprise will turn to action now to take this from NBC reporters about the difficulties some have had staying disinterested when covering Obamania in New Hampshire. We nearly started a TV piece with his voice - preacher-like - over pictures of the pretty New Hampshire snow. It would have looked compelling but, well, a touch hagiographic. Not the words but the images. We thought again - but we could equally have made the case for doing it. The NBC man was simply acknowledging something any educated person knows to be the truth - that political campaigns touch people when they really work and journalists are people. [Justin Webb, 9.1.08]

In any case, Mme. Clinton, since Thursday in the Iowa caucus, has changed her tactics and gotten personal with voters. She drew back on big stump speeches, and instead utilised more of a town-meeting format, a long respected NH tradition, and one that certainly pleases voters in the Granite State. Mme Clinton highlighted her experience, her accomplishments, basing her arguments on the ground, not with her head in the clouds.

Now that Obama has been defeated, and Mme. Clinton has balanced out the media hype (hopefully) around him, one can return to watching with interested detachment as these two politicians play their game. May the best man, or woman, win.

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 09:43

|

La danse de Balfour

Aujourd'hui, à la première conférence de presse après le sommet d'Annapolis, on note l'absence d'un des 3 partis qui participent à cette nouvelle essaie de résoudre les problèmes qui existent dans le Canaan. C'est de M. Mahmoud Abbas, du gouvernement de Cisjordanie, qui a manqué cette occasion. Il révèle beaucoup à propos du résolve des dirigeants, et franchement les prospects de cette plan ambitieux. En fait, on voudrait mieux savoir pourquoi ils ne se sont pas réalisés, après 62 ans de délibérations et sommets et accords, que l'idée de deux états ne marchera pas.

Non, la solution n'est pas de deux états, c'est trop tard pour telle notion réactionnaire à satisfaire les vengeances historiques qui sont sentent par les deux côtés. Un état nation est un concept d'anachronisme, il n'est plus la meilleure méthode de gouvernance. Il a servi ses purposes dans l'époque du développement de capitalisme mondial: Diviser la population, garder la richesse. Le plan était pour balkaniser le monde dans petites parcelles de terre définis par groupe ethnique, ça permettrait contrôler les travailleurs provenir l'unité. Dans l'ère coloniale, les peuples du monde se sont unis en révolte contre leurs dirigeants coloniales, et ont montré une puissante force de change contre les bastions de capitalisme qui les ont réglés.

Avec la prolifération de l'état-nation partout le monde, les groupes diverses, récemment frères dans leur lutte contre le colonialisme, sont maintenant ennemies, luttant pour les partes des autres pays souverains qu'ils considèrent leur propre. Les conflits deviennent guerres, les guerres se continuent, la haine entre peuples développement et voilà , les coins du monde plus pauvres sont divisés, pauvres et prêt à accepter leur rôle comme producteurs des vivres et récolter les matériels premiers pour les nations plus riches, comme avant, comme toujours.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Guerre, Israel/Palestine, La question nationale, Politique

par Borges à 00:50

|

Move over Bilawal, it's Asaf's time to shine

Poor Bilawal Bhutto, being handed a life most Pakistanis could only dream of, a place at Oxford where his mother is a most respected alumni, and now the inheritance of the leadership of the Pakistan People's Party, only to be "harassed by the media". Surely the heir to a political dynasty can expect a little privacy, it's not like he's a public figure... oh wait, he is. Right, well, he seems to be getting the message, that perhaps one should consider resigning and fading away from public sphere and let the grown ups get on with things.

Meanwhile, Mme Bhutto's lapdog husband, a M. Asaf Ali Zardan has been basking in his new found role as someone of consequence, and quite rapidly, the darling of a doting international press. Maybe he could take over, although however many years of standing in the shadow of Benazir Bhutto has surely kept him in the dark about the best strategies when playing this political game. When the elections declench in Febuary, one would expect to see M. Zardan

Libellés : Pakistan, Politique

par Borges à 15:11

|

''He who tires of New Hampshire, tires of life''

Spending this past weekend in New Hampshire (the timing was coincidental) has indeed been an interesting experience. There's a feeling that this city, Manchester, of 110k people, is for a brief moment the centre of the political universe. No media organisation can ignore the importance, no candidate dare challenge, the New Hampshire primary and its first in the nation status. In fact, New Hampshire, as far as one rembembers, will not actually be allowed to send representatives to the Democratic National Convention in July to pick the candidate because New Hampshire insisted on holding the primary so early, agains the directive of the DNC ( NH has little choice, considering that the first in the nation status is enshrined in the constitution here.

No matter how one chooses to follow events, since his triumph in the Iowa caucus there remains one word on the lips of everyone: Obama. Yet the more this Obamania spreads, the more repulsed one is by him. In discussing the rise of Obama with different people, some have expressed the feelings of being turned of by the media white out that surrounds his campaign, by his newly pompous and presumptuous manner. By his new found Southern Baptist cadence. By his evocations of Dr. Martin Luther King, by comparing the lunch counter strikers and freedom riders of the civil rights era to his own supporters. One can just imagine a room full of young, white Obamites, trembling with pride as this man screams into the microphone, telling them that they are the inheritants of some sort of supremely noble struggle.

It is surprising how some Americans, in fact many, limit their political participation to a single vote every 4 years (if that) . The only race of interest to anyone, the only political contest to draw real public attention, is the presidential election. What a great gap in this democracy, that most people couldn't name their Congress people, let alone remember when they last took part in a Congressional-only election, let alone care. Has it been forgotten that the president, the executive branch, is in fact 1/3 of the American political system, complemented with the legislature, and the judiciary? The president's job is to enforce the laws of Congress. The president cannot pass laws, or institute policies, or decide how money will be spent. This revolution Mr. Obama speaks of, will have to be accompanied by a whopping defeat by Republicans in the legislative elections that will be occurring in November, in order to even have a chance at success. More than that, he will have to convince the varying degrees of Democrats to support these, as yet undefined, radical changes. The imperial Presidency handed to M. Bush by Congress after September 11 was an exceptional circumstance, and the President's directives were for the most part rubber stamped by Congress, it was not until really 2006, with the new Democratic majority, that Congress and the president started to have a more functional relationship, namely that of conflict and compromise, rather than that of subservience and fear.

Obviously, one has no actual influence over the vote, and one hopes to be back in la belle province before the polls close, away from this political bombardment.

P.S.- Shock should not be expected that a biracial man could win a presidential primary, considering that in fact, the proportion of Black Americans in the U.S. House of Representatives is nearly equal to that racial group's share of the United States population. Around 13% of the United States population declared themselves to be non-Hispanic, Black. Exactly 42 members of the House of Representatives are Black, out of 435, a little less than ten percent. More troubling though is that the United States Senate, the upper chamber, is in fact only 1 percent Black, and considering that person is Barak Obama *who is biracial*, probably not a ringing endorsement for the American House of Lords.

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 07:53

|

No passports till Summer 2009 at least

One hopes that this is the definitive answer, considering that the date has changed like 12 times in the past years.

Dec. 20, 2007 — U.S. Congress passes a year-end budget bill that includes a Democrat-sponsored measure delaying the land/sea passport requirement until June 1, 2009 at the earliest. The delay will buy "breathing room to try to find better and more sensible answers for border security, especially on the Northern Border," said Vermont Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy, who sponsored the budget measure. [CBC 3.1.08]

Imagining that terrorism or crime could be controlled, neigh, stopped, by securing the 2 United States borders which literally span a continent. The closing of borders and limiting of movement between countries to affect social change is a classically reactionist tactic. One day perhaps will see the free movement of workers around the world, within a global socialist system of production

par Borges à 18:11

|

Bits and Bobs

• Alberta Strong and Free: Est-ce que les tensions dans plusieurs régions de production d'essence cause une haute de l'extraction des sables bitumineux dans endroits plus calme? Économistes et pontifes suggèrent que qu'il y aie plus et plus intérêt dans, et donc investement, dans l'Alberta à cause de sa situation stable (on estime qu'il y aurait pas beaucoup des Albertains qui suriraient pour penser à avoir une réputation tant timide).
• The Road Map Part 2- Allowing Israeli settlers to occupy several hundred homes and apartments in Palestinian (as such) East Jerusalem this past December was not the most obvious move for Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, in light of recent events, and did not speak well of the commitment to peace that is supposed to exist on both parts (where's Hamas??). What is really surprising thought, is that M. Olmert has issued an apology and admits that the decision was in conflict with the spirit of the Road Map-Part Two. Bravo, honestly, it takes a strong individual to admit fault, and really speaks well for the prospects of a peace deal, it shows a commitment to working to make things better (even if, in this case, it was directly caused by the repentant), and also because such mea culpa from previous Israeli prime ministers would have been nearly unthinkable.
• Bridges Burned- One can't help but think that the only reason for President Kibaki's offer of a national unity government are simply for show, to suggest that he is a man of peace, an unwilling player in this awful conflict, considering that it is indeed far too late for such a proposal to be sufficient, although it would have been much better to offer such a coalition after the election results were announced (the actual results were quite close).
• Territorial Autonomy- What chance was that?
  

Libellés : Bits and Bobs, Guerre

par Borges à 08:11

|

Self-pride killed the cat

Quick bit of news before the Saturday night gets under way: Musharraf affirms what I have said (i'm not sure if I should feel validated or discredited, or neither), basically that she should have never been in that courtyard in the first place, and definitely should not have stood up, triumphantly, after the rally came under attack (although suggesting that her assassination was her fault is a bit harsh). One hopes to learn a life lesson about huberous and humility from this senseless, and frankly annoying, death.

Libellés : Pakistan, Politique

par Borges à 19:44

|

Bhutto's assasination: Where blame is due?

The death of Benazir Bhutto should be surprising to no one, as the Pakistani government has consistently warned her of the dangers surrounding her public appearances. If one remembers correctly, upon her return to the country she was greeted by a bomb, and was subsequently put under house arrest for her own protection, and in the weeks leading up to the elections (which were due to be held in 8 January) , Mme Bhutto was assured that her life was in peril.

Mme Bhutto's pathological need for attention was probably the motivation behind her flouting of the threats against her person, her defiant public appearances necessitating a special security team to be provided for her by the government. In the run up to the 28 Dec. rally in Rawalpindi, Bhutto was warned that the premises, an open courtyard in the central area of the city centre, was impossible to secure. This is not the word of the government, these warnings were made public before the assassination.

What one cannot make sense of is the decision to stand up in the middle of this unruly crowd, after a bomb has gone off, simply for the purpose of waving to her locay fans, wanting to receive the praise and accolades of her supporters, only to be killed and leave a body and political mess. And now, in the World, the reality of Pakistan is ever more distorted, the situation less stable, and the President is blamed for everything. Fault is placed with the government, first for allegedly assassinating her, then an alleged cover up, and now blame is placed upon the state security forces, despite doing everything they could to help protect an attention hungry demagogue who was warned repeatedly. The death of Benazir Bhutto is not her fault, and it is sad, sad in the sense that lives were lost. The fault lies in those who committed the deed. That said, why do people insist on tempting fate.

Libellés : Pakistan, Politique

par Borges à 12:05

|

Obama on the cross: Rising to heaven to forgive the sins of White America

Do not be duped (by stories such as these). Barak Obama is not the face of new America, neither is he the face of change. M. Obama is a politician, a lawyer, a senator, with all the corruption and misdeeds that should be assumed of such a person. M. Obama is not a normal, average Joe. In fact, he is probably less ''middle class'' than many of the others. M. Obama is the son of jet-set socialites, who provided him with the best things and the best education and opportunities necessary to become part of the American political elite. Any portrayal of Obama as one who has climbed his way up from the bottom is nothing more than lies, the playing on the assumption that successful Black males must have had to won a heroic struggle against society and the world in order to achieve.

M. Obama has one thing going for him: A tan. The multiracial candidate has made the White American liberal electorate's hearts swoon with energising speeches and proclamations. And yet M. Obama finds himself unable to win the confidence necessary to be the most front runner Democratic candidate among voters of colour, (that would be Mme Hilary Clinton). Perhaps non-Whites have difficulty seeing the golden halo that seemingly surrounds all non-threatening, upper class people of colour. Many White people like the idea of a ''Black president'', they like the idea of showing themselves that their country is finally equal. In M. Obama lies HOPE of forgiveness and absolution that those liberal White Americans suffering from some idiotic historical guilt feel they need.

One hopes that personality, and policies, will decide the 2008 presidential elections, rather than skin colour. That is not to say that the respect and support that Obama has gained is unwarranted (his program is basically the same as the rest of the Democrats so he should be as popular as Edwards and Clinton), or that all of his support stems from the burning shame felt by liberal White Americans about the racism that exists and has existed there. Nonetheless, his skin colour is clearly a source of political attraction for many White Americans, some openly admit to simply liking the idea of a Black president. The choosing of a candidate based on their skin colour is racist. If it is acceptable for Obama-supporters to vote for him because they want the first ''Black President'', then surely all those who would vote against him based on his skin colour would be justified.

(P.S.- Did anyone hear his victory speech? One found that at times he seemed to be attempting to imitate the style of speech and demeanour of Martin Luther King Jr., that deep, shaking voice. One has never heard Obama speak in such a manner before)

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 08:28

|

Startling comparisons of Kenya and Rwanda

As the violence continues in Kenya, this so-called political upheaval is now branded as an "ethnic conflict", and even some have gone as far to compare the situation in Kenya to that of pre-1994 Rwanda. Many would balk at the suggestion, thinking it an idiotically over-simplistic view of events, however when looked at with a dialectic materialist point of view, it becomes clear that the overall situation is indeed quite simple to that which existed in pre-genocide Rwanda.

Divorcing the artificial nature of the Kenyan and Rwandan nation states, one must remember that both Rwanda and Kenya saw , with the coming of the colonial powers, the creation of an ethnic hierarchy using the often employed strategy of choosing one group to be the dominant power in economics, politics and military, thereby creating loyal native masters, and sowing division and disdain among the various groups that prevents the formation of a united opposition to colonial rule.

The result in both cases is a class system seemingly defined by ethnicity. While poverty and oppression are a reality for most Kenyans regardless of their ethnicity, the appearance in the public mind is created of a privileged exploitative tribe, masking the reality which is that local owners and employers of all communities are responsible for the deprivation that common people suffer from. Under this situation, ethnic tensions continue to be boil, and as fledgling democracy takes shape and politics invariably becomes entwined with ethnicity, and eventually one event sparks off a campaign of inter-ethnic violence. In Kenya's case, politics became the battlefield, with each group now seeing elections rather than warfare as the manner in which to fight for tribe-specific interests. And once the voting booth seems to fail, or is not capable of delivering a desired result, people take up arms. May we not see the scale and scope of pain and death that was suffered upon Rwanda.

Libellés : Afrique, Guerre, Pauvreté et développement

par Borges à 12:23

|

Mystery, Inrigue and Espionage... in St. John, Newfoundland

The child like nature of the Harper administration is apparent in its most recent spat with the rogue Progressive Conservative led Newfoundland and Labrador. In the past few days a stupid, pompous statement by Federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn (Conservative- St. John's South-Mount Pearl), boasting that the senior cabinet minister had unrestricted access to all going on in the Newfoundland and Labrador capital, St. Johns (the oldest European settled city in what today constitutes as the Canadian federation!):

"There are times I'm sure I know as much as what's going on in cabinet and caucus or on the eighth floor as the premier does," said Hearn, referring to Williams's office in Confederation Building in St. John's...that's why we can always be one step ahead of him," Hearn said in a year-end interview with CBC News. "I have friends throughout cabinet and caucus." [CBC 30.12.07]

It is not so much the declaration of deceitful practice, but the language suggesting that it is openly accepted that Ottawa and the provinces are engaged in some sort of battle. The language of "us and him", when speaking about a democratically elected Prime Minister, is certainly inappropriate posturing from a high level government official. One cannot imagine how, with such obvious disregard for the the government of Newfoundland, the federal government can hope to reach a reasonable compromise over transfer payments and new energy revenues. The citizens of NFLD and Lab. should feel happy that they have a competent and strong PM to defend the interests of the province against what seems to be an increasingly hostile exercise in intra-national diplomacy.

Libellés : Politique, ROC

par Borges à 08:02

|

Losing weight and goffie ears to become popular

Mike Huckabee takes the nomination in the Iowa Republican Caucus, Barak Obama wins the Democratic vote

Libellés : Politique, États-Unis

par Borges à 21:31

|

Kenya brule sous le feu de pauvréte extrême, pas de conflicte éthnique

Les images qu'on voit récemment du Kenya après les élections de la dernière semaine sont ben' attristantes: les églises et maisons brulés pleins de gens, la terreur évoquée par les militais politiques qui se sont devenus actifs à la campagne électorale et la réalité montrée au monde occidental qu'aucun pays est exempte des problèmes tant typiques pour pays en développement. Il n'est pas très choquante, aucun pays qui se fait par quel que 40 bandes qui vivent en pauvreté dans une lutte constante pour terre, il n'est pas surprenant que les tensions politiques autour de l'élection du président se manifeste dans les conflits ethniques-tribales. En fait, son histoire politique est plein de coups d'état et violence inter-ethnique, le fait que le Kenya est réussi à s'enrichir malgré ses problèmes ne devraient pas dupé pour croire que le Kenya est différent.

Qu'il soit pas choquant, il n'y a pas de raison pour être pas consterné avec les évènements récents qui s'y est passé là-bas, mais c'est tout même prévisible, les pays plus pauvres soufrent pas seulement d'un manque de vivres et monnaie, mais aussi d'espoir. Cela crée une bonne situation pour les démagogues, les dirigeants violents, pour capitaliser sur la douleur et désespérance des gens. Quand on vit sans espoir, on vit sans peur, donc si on croit que ce politicien ou l'autre va les sauver, ou si on croit que «les autres» vont venir et prendre le petit qu'on a, c'est cause à prendre les armes, marche avec flambeaux, etc. On ne trouve pas difficile pour comprendre, ouais?

Libellés : Afrique, Pauvreté et développement, Politique

par Borges à 18:19

|

Inquieries into death to be big waste of time, offer vindication and comfort for non

The announcement that elections in Pakistan will be held off till 18 Feb 2007 (at the very least) is very much a non-nouvelle as it would be absolutely absurd to continue with the previous schedule after Pakistan has seen its worst political rioting in a long time (riots are fairly common, however they are usually localised and on a much smaller scale). It is not an affront to democracy or the strangling of the will of the people, it is simply common sense prevailing over populist politicians and their agendas.
The United States will be sending special investigative teams to Sudan to aid in the inquiries into the murders of John Granvill and Adel-Rahman Abbas in Khartoum on Tuesday while Scotland Yard will be helping in Pakistan's independent inquest into assasination of ex-PM-exiled-for-embezzlement opposition politician Benazir Bhutto. One still doubts that the results of either will be accepted by nearly anyone, and these are both exercises in futility, however necessary.

Libellés : Diplomatie, Pakistan, Politique

par Borges à 19:57

|

The cuddly side of Stéphane Dion

Yesterday night Radio Canada aired Infoman 2007, the annual review of the hilariously satirical news magazine hosted by Jean Réné Dufort, ended with M. Stéphane Dion inviting Dufort into his house to play twister on New Years Eve. He's great, isn't he?

Libellés : drôle, Libéraux

par Borges à 09:10

|

Tensions due to rise in Sudan

Sudan's increasingly defiant nature in face of Western pressure to curb terrorism and prevent the genocide in Darfur by government proxy-forces, has been spoiling for an Islam v. West angle for quite a while. With the arrest of the British school teacher Ms. Gibbons we saw an expression of anti-occidental sentiment in the protests against a perceived leniency in her punishment, the reality of a real confrontation seems soon upon us. Now, with the breaking news that a chief United States diplomat has been shot in Khartoum, this row seems certain to escalate, especially considering that just hours before a disinvestment bill for Sudan was signed into law.

The political consequences of any further strain on Western relations will indeed soon be felt. The United Nations has just taken over the peace keeping force in Sudan and international aid has been funnelled in to help the fledgling and newly peaceful South of the country. If the United States, or indeed the U.N., responds in the wrong way, Sudan could react harshly by banishing all international aid organisations from the country. Harsh reprimands will only alienate the government and the public.

A near certainty is that regardless of the reactions by the West, Sudan will be driven into the arms of China, its number one investor and defender. This international juggernaut has repeatedly defended the actions of the President Bashir regime and its abuses against diplomatic action by the international community. Billions flow into Khartoum from multinationals developing the oil industry in the country. Sudan is by no means out of options if serious ruptures occur with the international community, investment will not dry up and indeed the government will benefit from such tough appearing actions. A one sided crisis to come.

Libellés : Diplomatie

par Borges à 09:08

|