VOTE LIBERTARIAN on Oct. 10, 2007 in Scarborough–Rouge River
Meet candidate Alan Mercer. Time: Sat. Oct 6, 2007, 1-5PM
Place: Church of the Nativity in Malvern, 10 Sewells Rd. (off Neilson), Scarborough, Ontario.
Q&A Pro-Liberty Political Action.
All Freedom Issues: Education, Tax, Justice, Civil Liberties etc. Ron Paul fans welcome.
I’m Alan Mercer and I’m running for the Libertarian Party in Scarborough—Rouge River.
You may not have heard the word Libertarian before.
It means Liberty or Freedom.
Like Ron Paul who is running for president.
Libertarian means self-ownership and property rights
It means government as our servant and not our master.
The other parties stand for authoritarianism and interfering in our lives, for forcing teens to stay in school until they’re 18 like the Liberals have done.
Libertarian stands for justice reform, for restitution to victims of crime.
For educational choice and independence from government, unlike the Tory plan to take over more schools.
For health care choice and freedom.
For a voluntary society.
The other parties stand for tax slavery, social engineering and central planning.
But the Libertarian Party stands for choice and freedom. For more info, go
to canadianliberty.com or libertarian.on.ca
October 6th, 2007
Faith, Family, Life Questions
“Dear MPP candidate Alan Mercer:
“We are trying to help a group of Canadian Chinese voters who would like to find out about your personal stand as well as your party’s stand on pro-life and traditional family issues, and on the proposal on funding of faith-based schools.
Could you kindly take 1 minute to mark your answers to the following short questions?”
1. Is your party
PRO-CHOICE? SEE BELOW
The Libertarian Party does not take a position right now on this question, because individual members will have different philosophical beliefs on the question of when life starts. We believe in individual rights, in the right to life and liberty of each person, so the question comes down to whether a libertarian believes that the State has an obligation to protect the life of the unborn or not. There are pro-choice libertarians and pro-life libertarians.
We do not believe in government subsidizing or promoting abortion.
In general on most issues, we are “pro-choice” and believe in choice and do not believe in state interference in peoples’ lives. We do not believe that the state should interfere in family life and in churches and in schools etc.
I can quote a statement from the LP of Canada (of which I’m president, a separate organization but related to the Ontario LP ) that helps to summarize:
“The Libertarian view, generally, is one of skepticism towards government interference in our lives. Perhaps the majority view among Libertarians is that the government should not interfere in a woman’s choice concerning abortion, but there are also Libertarians who believe that the unborn should be protected by law.
“It is possible to be a Libertarian and hold either view. Some believe the foetus is not a person, some believe that it is a person, and some believe that the woman’s control over her own body should be the deciding factor in any case.
“The fact is that people do not agree on this issue and many libertarians believe that it will not be settled by political means. In fact, politicizing the issue may very well be getting in the way of people finding alternatives to abortion. Government has proven itself ineffective at solving problems, and it can be argued that abortion is a moral, philosophical and religious problem that people will almost certainly be able to handle better without government interference.
“Libertarians oppose tax support for abortion so that nobody who believes that abortion is immoral should have to pay for it. In a libertarian society, because of greater freedoms in adoption laws, or increased wealth and technological advances, abortion may very well be seen as less necessary over time and even become obsolete.”
More on my own views below.
FOR Same-Sex Marriage? SEE BELOW
Libertarians are for letting people do what they want. The Ontario LP has no specific statement on this yet I think. Libertarians believe that the government should not be involved in marriage, licensing it or interfering in it.
Let me quote a policy from the Libertarian Party of Canada:
“With respect to same-sex marriage, we recommend that the government removes itself from the issue of marriage altogether. Individuals and groups in society decide their own spiritual and social beliefs and do not need the government to determine whether they are married or not.”
So in some cases, libertarians may see a vote on same-sex marriage as a positive thing in that it may allow people more choice. In other cases, it may be an effort by the government to promote an agenda of social engineering and promoting interference in how families and churches conduct their own business.
So a political position of saying that the government should allow this kind of marriage – such as “same-sex” or polygamous marriage – does not mean that all libertarians promote these lifestyles, so I can’t say I’m “for” same-sex marriage. I’m for more choice to let people do what they want. It means that the government should get out of the marriage business and let people do what they want as long as they are not hurting others.
More on my own views below.
FOR public funding of faith-based schools? NO
The Ontario Libertarian Party platform says the following:
“…, the policy of the Ontario Libertarian Party is to create conditions in which quality education can develop by completely ending all government participation and allowing education to be a matter of individual choice.”
Answering “no” to your question could be misleading because the status quo of forcing everyone to fund the public school system is unacceptable to us – and I believe parents should be able to direct their money to the school of their choice. However, there are problems with the Tory proposal.
We do not believe people should be forced to pay for education through tax, or that the government should be taking control over more schools in addition to the ones they already run. See more of my views below where I advocate for separation of school and state.
2. If elected, would you vote in Parliament PRO-CHOICE (Not Pro-Life) on related issues relating to abortion on demand? DEPENDS
I have a similar attitude to abortion as Congressman Ron Paul, who is running for president in the U.S.. He believes that abortion is wrong, that there is a human being before pregnancy and a human being after pregnancy. But I do not believe he is correct in saying that the U.S. states should regulate abortion.
I think that it is a moral issue and that those who oppose abortion should spend more time arguing their position and less time using politics. The political solution to problems – the use of force by the government – would probably lead to a greater intrusion and terrible interference by the government in personal lives. There would not be any gain from it or success from this strategy.
On the other hand, I oppose government funding of these procedures – that obviously many taxpayers disagree with - and I oppose government or U.N. or Chinese government propaganda in favor of abortion or one-child policies or population control.
I’m agnostic or deistic, but I feel that Christians are fooling themselves when they believe they are going to use the government to help end abortion or promote Christian values. The government has been used to undermine the independence of individuals, families and churches through the welfare state and the education system – and through warfare - and will continue to do so.
The government promotes abortion.
3. If elected, would you vote in Parliament FOR Same-Sex Marriage in related bills and regulatory issues? DEPENDS
I tend towards YES. If same-sex marriage legislation reduces the role of government in peoples’ personal decisions, then I would favor it. If it’s just used as propaganda to undermine peoples’ beliefs and continues to preserve the role of government, then I would examine such legislation carefully. I don’t believe in “same-sex marriage”. I recommend traditional marriage and this is my personal belief. I just believe people should be free to do what they want. Government should allow people to do what they want. And it has no place regulating or defining marriage. I think the government is only interested in how much tax it can steal from families.
Libertarianism deals with the political sphere and what should be allowed in politics and says that government is only for protecting individual rights. I’ve also mentioned my personal beliefs in these answers, but in terms of politics, government should be restricted to a very narrow sphere of influence.
4. If elected, would you vote in Parliament FOR the proposal to publicly fund faith-based schools? NO
No, I wouldn’t vote in the legislature for this. This Tory policy will clearly undermine the independence of religious schools and bring them under more government control. Is this really what religious groups want? Government domination of their own schools?! I hope not. Government promotes dependency on itself, tax enslavement and mindless obedience.
Property tax should be reformed to allow taxpayers to keep the money that goes to the school system and use it for the education of their own children as they see fit, religious or otherwise, home-schooling or formal education.
I believe in the Separation of School and State. See my statement here.
“Alan Mercer…
“Why I Signed: Public education is funded by force, by forcing parents and others to pay for it through taxation. The effect of public education – intended or not – is to manipulate children into conformity to our valueless culture, so that as many as possible have no clue how to live happily and think independently. The beliefs and authority of parents are undermined by the curriculum and the social engineering….”
I might add that there is a group called Libertarians for Life (www.l4l.org) and complimentary Libertarians for Peace (www.libertarians4peace.net).
Not playing God does go so many ways; by not banning it you let someone and say it’s okay for man to decide the life and death of the human life (even not a full person yet, and unable to concent) and if you do, you decide no one man can decide to take the life of human life not offending your life. Such as gun rights, even there, try for the knees.
Now at this point enabling such a God complex does not exist.
It can start as a condemnation or act preventing any funding or enabling of clinic operations. Also the question of a rapist driving a woman out of her mind, temporary insanity being used to defraud someone into an abortion and a rapist is also part of the murder of the child. The mother, if at all, is the least culpable. I have trouble with the death penalty, I do not trust a mob or state to kill someone, you’d need to know more than 99% that someone is guilty and that may be fine for prison but it is impossible to be 100% certain.
Secular or non-secular, it’s wrong to do his duty, give him who created the miscarriage decide.
Best
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
“The first destroyer of the liberties of a people
is he who first gave them bounties and largess.”
— Plutarch (c.45-125 A.D.) Priest of the Delphic
Oracle
Hmm is the Tory bill not a Voucher thing?
I’m okay with that, since the parent takes that to a school, at least more so, especially if it’s a interest free program with a 10% added to tuition price. This includes secular schools and can cause and lead to the destruction of government school administration and boards. The Canadian constitution says a right to education but not state run education.
Best
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco Buday
“Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.” — On Liberty, The Library of Liberal Arts edition, p.7.
I found your blog via Google while searching for christian curriculum home schooling and your post regarding looks very interesting to me. I could not believe the amount of quality material on this site. The site is extremely eyecatching and pulls the reader straight it, the articles are great quality and are very professionally written. I have seen too many of these sites where it looks like they pay an 8 year old to do the writing – Not this one. Your site is easily the best that I have seen in a long while.
Elections Interview with WikiNews
Interview here. I haven’t compared the Wiki version to the answers I copied below from my own notes. I flip-flopped again on MMP during the week and sent a second answer which is quoted below. A little positive, then a little negative, then a little positive again under the onslaught of pro and anti-MMP forces. But it’s really a diversion from the issues I need to focus on. It could be good for the LP and that’s the bottom line.
“Why have you chosen to involve yourself in the political process? Why did you choose to run in this constituency?”
I live in Scarborough—Rouge River. I’m involved in the political process because of my desire to promote the message of individual liberty during provincial and federal elections, and to help build the libertarian political movement in Ontario and Canada. There is more information about me here, here and here.
What prior political experience do you have? What skills and insight can you bring to office, from other non-political positions you may have held?
I ran in the provincial by-election in Scarborough—Rouge River in 2005, and I was a candidate in the 2006 federal election for the Libertarian Party of Canada. I was elected to the Board of Directors of the Libertarian Party of Canada in May, 2005, and I was appointed president of the LPC in February, 2006. I have also served on the executive of the Ontario Libertarian Party. I have had opportunities to explain libertarian principles and positions to various media.
I helped to write the Ontario Libertarian Party’s current environment policy.
and the Libertarian Party of Canada’s current platform.
I have contributed press releases for both the Ontario LP and LP of Canada, which include:
“Which of your competitors do you expect to pose the biggest challenge to your candidacy? Why? What makes you the most desirable of all candidates running in the riding?”
The incumbent has all the advantage, and after that the NDP candidate and Conservative candidate in that order. Literally, there is no other candidate in the riding who is even going to come close to presenting a libertarian message. My candidacy represents liberty and allows the electors to hear this message. The Conservatives do not even come close to voicing free market positions or any opposition to infringements on personal liberties and property rights – such as the Smoke-Free Ontario Act or the Greenbelt Act or the Liberals forcing teens to stay in school until they’re 18. The major political parties still advocate price controls on the economy and the Greens are just the most extreme kind of control-freak mentality that the major parties represent with their corporatist-socialist policies. There is a complete vacuum and libertarians need to get involved right now and get their own pro-liberty message out to the Canadian public which is starved of this.
“What do you feel are the three most important issues to voters in your riding? Are these the same top three issues that are most important to you? What would you do to address these issues?”
I’d say that poverty, education and the economy are all important issues to both myself and to voters. The welfare state mentality, along with forced wealth transfer through taxation, and restrictions on people through ever-increasing authoritarian regulations are just going to push us towards worse conditions. I advocate the separation of school and state. People should not be forced to pay for the public or separate school system if they do not want to use it. Property tax is highly unjust and oppressive and should be abolished. I oppose the Tory plan to impose government control over faith-based schools.
What should be the first order of business in the 39th Legislative Assembly?
Rolling back government taxes and regulations. Increasing opportunities for health care and educational freedom. Liberty in all areas of life. Justice reform so that the needs of victims of crime are addressed through the principle of restitution.
Are the property taxes in your riding at a fair level for the amount of services received in the municipality?
No property tax is fair. Property tax violates property rights, and they oppress those who are least able to afford them. People need to be able to pay for the services they use and opt out of those they don’t.
How can the province lead the way in stimulating job creation?
Free up the economy. Eliminate price controls such as minimum wage and rent controls, which respectively stop people from finding low-wage employment and stop landlords from being able to maintain low-income housing. Eliminate the professional monopolies that impose one standard for certification and lock out immigrants from the economy. Let young people into the economy and stop imprisoning them in schools if they would rather work or start their own businesses. Reduce taxes and reduce the size of government drastically right now.
What are your views on the mixed member proportional representation (MMP) referendum?
If MMP leads to more diversity in the legislature and allows more representation by smaller parties (they need to pass 3% which is still a real obstacle), that may be a positive thing, but the proposed system may also decrease the level of representation in parts of Ontario, and there is a problem with accountability to the electorate. Unfortunately, MMP is a distraction from freedom issues, i.e. personal sovereignty vs. authoritarianism. To reform our society in a libertarian direction, since we have to appeal to the majority anyway, I think political libertarians should consider the pros and cons of direct democracy. In other words, each citizen being their own representative in a virtual legislature. This may act as a check on the power of government through allowing more voices of dissent, more ideological diversity and more opinions to be heard in the legislature. I don’t believe things are really heading this way with MMP. MMP might have the opposite effect and empower the establishment parties even more. But a movement towards direct democracy could open up an opportunity for libertarians to appeal more directly to the public rather than to the special interests who use the major parties to milk the public.
What role, if any, does “new media” play in your campaign, and the campaign of your party? (websites, blogs, Facebook, YouTube videos, etc) Do you view it as beneficial, or a challenge?
I think new media is a critical element in our campaign. Our website is central to our campaign. We use mailing lists. I make use of my personal blog as much as possible. Also we have started to make use of Facebook through the “Libertarian Party of Canada” group. The OLP and LPC are still small parties, but I think we can make more and better use of the Internet if we grow in our volunteer base.
Of the decisions made by Ontario’s 38th Legislative Assembly, which was the most beneficial to your this electoral district? To the province as a whole? Which was least beneficial, or even harmful, to your this riding? To the province as a whole?
There is some really destructive provincial legislation from the point of view of people who care about the liberty and personal responsibility of Ontario’s citizens. One example is Bill 52, Education Amendment Act (Learning to Age 18), 2006 which suspends the drivers’ licenses of 16-18 year olds who don’t stay in school. And also of course the infamous Smoke-Free Ontario Act which copy-cats the rest of the world’s efforts to crack down on personal freedoms. I could go on and on. Bill 56, Emergency Management Statute Law Amendment Act, 2006 is a direct threat to civil liberties in the event of a flu pandemic or other excuse. The Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 interferes with the rights of landowners. The Clean Water Act, 2006 interferes even more with private property rights. Bills can be found here.
Botton line: the government of Ontario is giving itself more and more power over our lives – over land, over homes, over educational decisions, over personal decisions. As a libertarian, I fundamentally object to this whole massive system of centralized control which has been growing for decades, and believe it’s time for society to move in the opposite direction towards decentralized person-to-person systems of rights protection.
As to MMP, you may be overlooking the impact of two things: the Local Candidate Vote, and the low 3% threshold. First, local MPPs are far more accountable and independent when they can stand up and say “everyone in my riding knows I got 5% more votes than the party.” Second, the chances of a group of libertarian Conservative MPPs, tired of being told what to think, crossing the floor to form a successful new party, are enhanced with the low 3% threshold; that threat alone could be enough to free them. So the Libertarian Party might get 3% on your own, or might get a little help. Either way, more diversity and more freedom. Those 103 Citisens heard voters say they wanted more choice and more accountability; so they opened the door to more parties, gave voters a separate vote for the MPP and the Party, and made both MPPs and governments accountable two ways.
Questions from MyChoice.ca on Anti-Smoking Oppression
“Dear Candidate: With an election approaching, mychoice.ca would like to provide you with an opportunity to share with the province’s 1.8 million adult smokers your views on issues that concern them. Please take a moment to fill out the following short questionnaire and return it to us by email. Thank you for your time and participation.
Yes
Yes, smokers have rights like all individuals. They have a right to do what they want with their lives and smoke with people who are accepting of their smoking. They own their own lives and bodies and are responsible for their own health.
2. Should laws promote cooperation and mutual respect?
Yes
Yes, laws that protect basic rights should promote a cooperative voluntary free society that is based on respect for individual liberty and property rights and mutually agreed contracts. People should be free to associate with whom they like and business owners should be allowed to set the rules allowing or not allowing smoking on their property.
3. The provincial government has broken its own law and provides smoking shelters attached to its casinos to retain customers? Should this option be available to others?
Yes
Yes, this is total hypocrisy. Many people are not going to stop smoking. Governments should not be allowed to interfere in businesses to prevent them from setting aside space for smokers. The government of Ontario needs to be controlled by the people of Ontario. Its power needs to be restrained because its abuses of freedom and property rights will only increase if electors keep sending it approving signals for what it is doing. The other parties need to be sent the same message, which is why supporting and getting involved with the Libertarian Party will help.
4. Fewer than 20 of Ontario’s 600+ long-term care facilities are now able to maintain smoking rooms because regulations governing exemptions for these homes are too restrictive. Should steps be taken to help these homes provide safe and secure smoking rooms/shelters to their residents?
Yes
Yes, absolutely. People should be especially careful to show proper respect for the freedom and choices of the elderly who want to smoke, and those who are suffering from illness. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you try to push people around using the government, expect the same to be done to you. If people want to use the government to control others including elderly and disabled people, and treat them like they’re just garbage to be pushed around, then expect others to do the same to you when you are also helpless and dependent. All the major parties in Ontario plus the Greens are either actively promoting this kind of authoritarian society or are letting it happen. Support the Libertarians.
5. Would you consider changes to the law to permit smokers designated venues where they can go to smoke without imposing on non smokers?
Yes
Yes, I would. And I would also push to abolish the Ontario government’s smoking bans and fight future attempts to expand the smoking ban to homes and cars.
6. Are smokers entitled to equal access to the health care system?
Yes
Yes, depending on what this means. Ideally people should pay for their own health care and the results of their own lifestyles, either through some kind of free market insurance system or directly or through voluntary private aid. The current socialist health care model is failing due to its very nature, so government is using this excuse to introduce authoritarian measures to try to save an authoritarian health care system which restricts choice. The bottom line for me however, is that even with this health care system, smokers are paying more than enough in tobacco tax to cover their medical conditions!
7. Should smokers face discrimination when seeking a job or a home?
No
No, I would say they should not, not generally. They should be free to discriminate against smokers, but it’s probably unfair in many cases. It’s too oppressive to be discriminating against smokers unless there is a good reason. I think people are all thinking like little dicators and should learn to negotiate with people and work out guideliness for their own space. The person’s private life is their own business and the employer’s space is theirs for setting their rules in that space. The two should negotiate if there are conflicts. Learn to live and let live. The government picks up on our controlling attitudes to others and fails to respect the freedom of smokers.
8. Should the government ban people from smoking inside their own home?
No
No, absolutely not. Not their homes, nor their cars. This is their own space. This is their private property. How can anyone say it’s “their own home” if the government is ruling over it? That’s nonsense. Libertarians stand for property rights. This is a concept based on traditional natural rights. This is the way people are naturally. They know that they are responsible for how they live in their homes and how they are with their families and this is their space. Liberty means personal responsibility. Concerns about second-hand smoke are also blown way out of proportion, and it appears that the goal is really to violate the personal property and personal space of individuals wherever laws like this are proposed. Authoritarianism is the goal – where people are reduced to obedient slaves – and erasing the concept of personal sovereignty and propery rights are the means to this goal. Our society’s progress towards greater authoritarianism is continuing and Ontarians should be more alarmed about this, and bring their government under control. Tell their politicians to leave people alone, and start reducing taxes and stop passing legislation.
To get involved with the Libertarian Party provincially and federally, contact …
October 6th, 2007
2 comments to Questions from MyChoice.ca on Anti-Smoking Oppression
I applaud the recent changes to the smoking laws as I think that there are true health hazards with this habit. I do however take some issue with the way that non-smokers (NS) vilify smokers (S). Firstly, the government and other private agencies have literally spent MILLIONS of dollars on campaigns designed to get people to quit smoking – good for them, it is working. Here are some things I think we should all consider…
1) The number of homeless in Canada continues to increase. No roof over their head and they could freeze to death, but hey at least they don’t smoke.
2) The number of under-nourished children in Canada continues to get worse. They may starve to death, but at least tobacco won’t kill them.
3) Toronto, Abbotsford, and several other cities have had a record number of air pollution warnings in past years. So bad that people are told not to go outside or they could DIE. Well the pollution from industry might kill ya, but at least tobacco won’t.
4) Canadians continue to purchase a record number of SUV’s and vehicles that throw THOUSANDS of tons of toxins in the air every year… In fact did you know that a 4 cylinder car puts more toxins in the air in a day than a smoker in a year? Well, at least tobacco won’t kill them.
5) The number of women being diagnosed with breast cancer is on the rise, funny that most of them live in high pollution centres like major cities… AH well, at least tobacco won’t kill them.
6) All those SUV’s, flights to exotic places are destroying our world. Our children will probably live to see the flooding of New York, But hey tobacco won’t kill them.
7) It is estimated that we drive one species to extinction every day as we chop down trees and clear land to make paper and build our big fancy homes. But hey tobacco won’t kill you.
The rate of global warming is so serious that the world’s weather patterns are changing to a point that millions are dying from starvation and disease caused by droughts, floods, etc. But hey at least tobacco is not killing them.
9) We go to war to fight for oil, and thousands die, just so we can keep buying all our nice things, drive our SUV’s and take our trips. But hey… yup that’s right tobacco won’t kill us.
My point is…
The next time you get off the plane from your exotic vacation, where you bought some items for dirt cheap made in a third world country by children, and get into your SUV that costs $100 to fill a tank that lasts a week, and you drive to your 2000 square foot home that costs hundreds to heat a month, and you throw out all that food that went to waste in your fridge (could have fed a family in Africa for a week), and you take a hot shower for 1/2 an hour using all that fresh water (more than some will see in a life time), and then clean your shower with those chemicals that make your life easier but are poison (it says right on the bottle not to drink them) and wash them down the drain, then crawl into your nice warm bed for a restful night… think twice before you tell off a non-smoker.
The reality is, you are no better than they are.
Anti-smoking laws are created by control freaks and there are a lot of those.
1) 2) Poverty is caused by taxes, licensing, and regulations that prevent Canadians from having economic freedom and real property rights.
3) 5) No legal protection for property rights and personal health means pollution runs amok, because governments are there to protect and subsidize big industries – such as the subsidy announced for Ford in Ontario this week
4) This may or may not be true about the amount of toxins, but government subsidizes the auto industry and the highway system – with our taxes.
6) I don’t believe SUV’s are going to cause mass flooding.
7. “We” would like to chop down trees and use these resources in a sustainable way with respect for the natural rights of indigenous people and others – property rights in other words.
I think the assertion about global warming causing drought etc. is questionable. War and politics and privileged oligarchies are causing these disasters.
Yes, “we” pay taxes to these criminals to launch their wars, which are really about controlling resources which don’t belong to them. “The Secret History of the American Empire” by John Perkins deals with this subject from a left-wing point of view but it is a real eye-opener.
9) Is a person’s worth to be measured by how little enjoyment they have? I think people should find a way to make ethical decisions in life that respect other peoples’ rights and make judgements about who they do business with. But we also have to recognize the government tax-paying cage we’re forced to live with and try to resist it but not just blame ourselves. We need to get some control over our own lives, but how can we do this if we’re going to feel guilty for shopping. Our wealth is stolen from us.
Election Results
I feel that the Ontario Libertarian Party’s election results were very promising for the future and I think there are signs out there that we can continue to attract support for the pro-liberty cause. The more candidates we have, the fuller the slate of candidates – we only had 25 this time – the more exposure we will get.
I’m thinking of the federal election now (a minority government means the date is uncertain) and I hope that the Libertarian Party of Canada can benefit from the momentum gained during this provincial campaign to build up our candidates and volunteer network. The ultimate goal is a full slate of 308 candidates.
When talking to people, there are good signs that some people are very surprised by the libertarian idea and I hear from people who are disappointed we’re not in their district. I know from experience that many Ontarians have not heard this word “libertarian” yet at all. As we grow – ”we” meaning the base we have plus the new people we need – we can do more to get the freedom message out. I see a libertarian political party as an instrument for libertarians to join and have an impact on Canadian society.
I think our vote counts were objectively better overall when compared to the past.
I came in last in my riding after the Family Coalition Party candidate (581 votes). I had 492 votes which is 1.4%. The reason I’m happy about that is because the 2005 by-election result for Scarborough–Rouge River was 0.6% and the 2006 federal election result was 0.52%. It’s a 230% improvement for me. And it’s similar for many of the other candidates like Phil Bender in Simcoe–Grey.
By the way, the people who stayed home from voting who are interested in personal sovereignty and respecting the autonomy of others have an alternative in supporting the Libertarian Party.
The order of the results in my riding reflected the Liberal Party’s landslide in the province:
Small numbers because we’re not there yet. We don’t have the volunteer base yet to compete with the other candidates. I think it is just a matter of effort – shared effort – spreading out the effort among many new motivated people – not letting too much work fall on one person’s shoulders – and not overdoing it. People in our society are not inclined to volunteer because they are so busy with other things, but they also should realize that it is their responsibility to stand up for what is right, for freedom, property rights, justice, peace. Political action means asserting their will, their individual rights during elections or at other times, through expressing their views however they want to do that. People are thinking about politics during elections, so it’s an ideal time.
Another point to make is that the LP always needs to keep decentralized. While pledging to keep the same principles, it needs to keep letting people adopt their own individual platform based around those principles, and encourage debate and thereby education among fellow libertarians as much as people want to do that. If the stakes aren’t so high, maybe the debate could be friendlier.
When running as a candidate, it is always a learning process. You have your message but you also are competing with the level of knowledge that the media has, that specialists in the public have when they question you. It’s a way to directly engage in the political system way beyond voting. You never know enough. You’re learning about libertarianism, about how the society is governed and you’re also educating those who listen to you.
But to encourage people to find their own way and express themselves is to let them strengthen their own understanding of libertarian ideas. When there are local associations, the members can pick the candidate whose ideas they prefer, whose ideas are closer to the principles they share. Suggesting, debating, arguing is very healthy, but I think that any effort to impose views or direction would just automatically reduce the enthusiasm of candidates and efforts at diluting the libertarian message just reduces the likelihood of new activists joining the LP and will stop the growth. It’s a dead end strategy.
People who care to get involved want liberty and consistency and principle. This mistake of diluting the message has been already done to death and I don’t see any call for repeating it again and again. You can not control what other people believe - whether they think they are “moderate” or “radical”. You can just talk and argue. I think these concepts of “moderate” and “radical” are just based on misunderstandings anyway – misunderstandings about libertarian philosophy and about what the public believes, and about the rationality of the public. For one thing, libertarians have different philosophical beliefs and lifestyles, so they’re going to have different emphases and prejudices. And another point – you may be rational, or informed, but many other people are not. They won’t even be interested in what you’re saying. A Libertarian should be realistic about the job ahead and believe in what he’s struggling to attain – AND to expect changes in his lifetime! If I look at “moderate” in a positive way and not contrary to “radical”, then what I would mean by moderate is to focus on priorities and essential issues that other human beings can relate to: war, civil liberties, personal freedoms, surveillance society, taxes, property rights, social engineering, global warming propaganda, educational choice, health care choice, justice system reforms, self-defence rights, freedom of speech. Wait, is that list moderate or radical?
If Canadian libertarians take action, which is necessary to stop things from getting worse, I think it’s possible there will huge overnight leaps in awareness and understanding in our society. But even if that happens, things won’t end up the way we want or expect them – but they might end up more like we want if we just do the job of getting the message out. And you should use all the arguments that you believe in – emotional, ethical, rational. Put these arguments out there. You’re looking for people who care enough to listen.
The LP of Canada strategy for the future should be radicalism plus action. Radicalism means consistency, integrity, principle – these qualities withstand scrutiny. But I could add a point about focusing on the most relevant issues first, the highest priorities, the worst injustices (in the context of the campaign and level of government). Federal campaigns in Canada include both national and international issues and federal responsibilities such as the criminal code. So there is a lot of scope.
And the way to ensure radicalism and growth is to let people be who they are and believe and argue their positions without trying to impose one view on everything. The discussion of ideas and a diversity of candidates’ platforms will get the liberty message out there. People will see what we have in common.
Individuals are motivated by their own strongly held beliefs and not by imposed beliefs or formulas. Libertarians are truth-seekers. The public doesn’t need another top-down party with an arbitrary platform. It needs to hear the truth from individuals willing to explain it as best they can. Libertarian ideas leads to a stream of implications and questions that will never end and what we should want is to see as many people as possible in Canada start to ask these questions about why human beings don’t need to continue to live in subservience to each other.
…biometric IDs, government regulation, and an industry wide standard for secure software. He even embraces the idea of a closed internet – which seems to have sparked a death threat from net pioneer Vint Cerf.
October 14th, 2007
Ron Paul and the Golden Rule
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
October 14th, 2007
New Items in Store
Added DVD’s on freedom and political themes to the Canadian Liberty store.
October 16th, 2007
Warrantless Search of ISP’s
Canadian government efforts to erode our rights are very slippery. The following story slipped out in September where the government seemed to back off from their secret plans when those plans were made public.
Here is the clear voice of lawless tyranny disgracefully posted on a Canadian government website:
Public Safety Canada and Industry Canada are seeking current views and/or new issues associated with the question of accessing customer name and address in the modern telecommunications world. … please submit written comments, by October 12th, 2007 …
Law enforcement agencies have been experiencing difficulties in consistently obtaining basic CNA information from telecommunications service providers (TSPs). In the absence of explicit legislation, a variety of practices exists among TSPs with respect to the release of basic customer information, e.g., name, address, telephone number, or their Internet equivalents. Some companies provide this information voluntarily, while others require a warrant before providing any information, regardless of its nature or the nature of the situation. If the custodian of the information is not cooperative when a request for such information is made, law enforcement agencies may have no means to compel the production of information pertaining to the customer. This poses a problem in some contexts…..
Government agencies are moving to gain access to telephone and internet customers’ personal information without first getting a court order, according to a document obtained by CBCNews.ca that is raising privacy issues…
And here is Stockwell Day playing it down (playing the “good cop”):
Now, the government has extended the discussion period until Oct. 12 and has rewritten the consultation document to include civil-liberties groups among those it is seeking comment from. Mr. Day said he expects to be able to table legislation on this issue in the fall session, once the consultation period has ended.
But, Mr. Day added, the purpose of the consultation is not to look for ways to make it easier for police to obtain customers’ personal information without a warrant. Instead, the federal consultation is seeking to ensure Internet companies are aware of their need to comply when presented with court orders, Mr. Day said.
That statement clearly contradicts the website. And what is this legislation that is planned?! What has gone on during these consultations? I bet it doesn’t take much to make ISP’s and telecommunications companies comply with whatever the government wants.
As far as I know, the consultations went ahead or are going ahead. It’s significant. Even the multiple meanings attached to the word “government” allow for constant bait-and-switch when discussing these things. The ruling party – called the “government” – and elected M.P.’s are just the stewards of the actual “government” which is an enormous institution full of bureacrats who push their department’s agenda and interests.
It’s obvious that the ruling Conservatives don’t intend to restrain what the bureaucratic class really wants to do, nor make any strong denunciations of these ideas, nor make any strong statements of principle about the rule of law and protecting our civil liberties and privacy from abuse. Businesses have a right and obligation to protect their customer data from anyone, including lawless government officials. This is what liberty means and Canadians need to start speaking up for liberty and restraining their government.
Five men are currently the subject of security certificates — four have been released on strict bail conditions, while suspect Hassan Almrei is still in custody…
Suspects named in a security certificate do not get the chance to testify before a Federal Court judge after a closed-door hearing has taken place. The suspect is only provided with evidence against him or her that the judge has ruled can be safely released without providing a threat to national security.
Almrei, who was born in Syria and came to Canada as a refugee in 1999, has been held without charge since October 2001. The government claims he was part of a forgery ring linked to al-Qaeda, but has not released the evidence against him.
This unjust practice was introduced in 1978 and was declared in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by the Supreme Court in February, meaning it’s illegal but those in power get away with it anyway. I guess they’ve been standing ready to violate “rights and freedoms” since 1978 then. Who’s going to detain them?
So the government is making some gesture towards modifying the practice so detainees have access to a “special” advocate.
October 25, 2007Rendition has just opened in movie theatres across Canada, and is a fictional portrayal of the actual United States Federal Government’s practice of sending terrorism suspects overseas to be tortured. The movie depicts the saga of a man of Arab lineage, kidnapped on a return trip from business in Africa. His pregnant American wife is left scraping together his whereabouts and demanding justice. Meanwhile, a young CIA agent is charged with overseeing the suspect’s brutal interrogation, and finds himself questioning the utility and morality of this barbaric practice. The film stars Omar Metwally, Jake Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Peter Saarsgaard, and Reese Witherspoon.
The Libertarian Party of Canada applauds the team behind this film. Viewers should remember the sorry truth: that what happens on screen is happening in real life to some very frightened people. Those victims have been denied due process, habeas corpus, and the respect of global convention. It is especially important in times of great threat that we choose not to turn on ourselves and our values. Canadians value liberty, justice, and the rule of law – goals shared by the Libertarian Party of Canada. Not only has Ottawa failed to condemn Washington for the practice of Extraordinary Rendition, but there is strong evidence that our federal government has been complicit in the practice: a United Nations report named Canada as a participant in the practice (http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=30949), and a Canadian citizen was disappeared to Syria and tortured in captivity with the knowledge and aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_Arar).
The Libertarian Party of Canada believes that this policy cannot be allowed to continue. It does not guard us against terrorists, and it puts every Canadian’s liberty at risk. The film Rendition should help to raise awareness, and motivate Canadians to hold their government responsible.
As the only party that opposes all forms of state coercion, our message is clear: there is something you can do. Speak out, join, vote, and run for the Libertarian Party of Canada.
Please support Ron Paul this November 5th. On that day thousands will flock to Ron Paul’s official website and contribute $100. It is hoped to register 100,000 supporters to raise $10,000,000 in one day.
If you support Ron Paul then go to this website and register:
IN 1957, the French journalist Henri Alleg was tortured by the French in Algeria. In The Question, the famous book that he wrote about his experiences, he described the following ordeal…
I’m glad people are reacting against this action by the police and I hope that in future Canadians will be even more intolerant towards authoritarianism in all its forms. Tasers are dangerous weapons - period – and they SHOULD NOT BE USING TASERS except against armed criminals. But maybe barbarism is the hip thing now for the ruling parties – the latest fad – and they want us to get used to it. And the latest business trend is selling “non-lethal” weapons to governments like tasers and the crowd control auditory weapons recently used by the Georgian government against its people – supplied by our allies. Along with ID cards and biometric technology. It’s amazing how police departments can afford this weaponry as Canadians get poorer and deeper into debt because of taxation. It’s a total disgrace. Our value-free society is in total melt-down and it’s run by a bunch of thugs who we enable and we let them get away with it. They’re strutting their stuff, boy! You sure showed us! Yes, I’m getting the “message”.
-Alan Mercer, Libertarian Party of Canada
November 16th, 2007
1 comment to Video of Man who was Tasered to Death by Canadian Police
Another person who has missed the boat. It’s not the Tasers, its their method of use, in this case completely unwarranted use.
If tasers are responsible for the death of 1% of the people who they are used against and there are 100 instances of their use that is one single person.
Take the Taser away and tell me how many potential deaths out of that 100 there would be when the police resort to their only other stand off weapon, the 9mm pistol.
Britain using its Sex Offenders’ Register as insanely as possible for maximum oppression. They’re having a debate about the poor guy. He’s the one who has been violated, not his bike.
According to CBC Radio, the Royal NewfoundlandConstabulary is not going to use tasers.
November 19th, 2007
Vive le Canada – Oppose the SPP
Even though I’m a libertarian and have no problem with removing barriers to trade internally and externally – actually all barriers placed on individuals to prevent them doing what they want economically etc. – I agree with a lot of what is in this document , Wake Up Canada, that raises alarms about the Security and Prosperity Partnership.
In effect, this is another level of government that removes decision-making even further from the Canadian electorate, and exposes Canadians to the abusive “security” policies of the U.S. government. It’s bad enough with our own. This is a very serious issue and Canadians have to be aware of it. If their M.P. is not even involved in it, it’s totally illegitimate. I believe the border is there to define jurisdiction of our laws which we have enough trouble reforming as it is, and to protect us from foreign governments. I have a similar view to sovereignty and international agreements with respect to Canada as Ron Paul has with respect to the United States.
Message from science fiction author and freedom activist L. Neil Smith to the Libertarian Alliance.
November 23rd, 2007
Nova Scotia Inmate’s Death Associated with Taser
Howard Hyde had schizophrenia and some violent behavior led to his arrest by Halifax police. I think tasers are dangerous and they’re used to force compliance (which is torture). I think the main effect of these devices is to terrorize the public into submission because people now expect tasers to be used (more likely than guns). This is inappropriate for a society that is based on the idea of government as servant of the people - and I don’t think government and the police have that idea in mind.
How do we hold them accountable? This is the age-old problem or power. Someone gets out of line because of his mental illness and he ends up dying. What’s the function of the police? To defend rights or violate them in the name of authority?
And look at all the arbitrary laws (and some legitimate ones) we have to obey and the different stumbling blocks we can trip over that can lead to someone calling the police. Is there justice for both sides? Are the police following due process before they hurt someone? There is already a power imbalance between disarmed public and armed police, with a massive government apparatus and web of laws backing up the police – and tasers are making this imbalance much worse.
It doesn’t make sense – do police forces exist to protect the public with proportional response to genuine threats or to enforce “authority” through terror? English bobbies didn’t even carry guns in the past. All we hear are the techno-babble sales pitches and excuses – but people are reacting to these taser events because of this deeper power imbalance.
November 23rd, 2007
New Taser case – Man Dies in B.C.
A 36-year-old British Columbia man [Robert Knipstrom] has died in hospital more than four days after being subdued by RCMP officers with a Taser and nearly every other available weapon except firearms.
It’s good that the mounties were trying to avoid killing him, but this is more evidence that tasers are lethal, so what’s the point of having them?
As a retired physician, I would like to make a point. Tasers, which are powerful enough to cause a generalized tonic-clonic seizure obviously have enough power to cause a cardiac dysrhthmia. The fact that the arrhythmias occur some hours after the taser event is probably irrelevant. The cardiac muscle fibers have already been damaged by the electrocution event. Some people are more susceptible to cardiac shock than others. However, it is inevitable that some deaths will occur with the use of this device, and in most cases it is the fault of that device. Statistically, this is a lethal weapon. Police officers should also never allow themselves to be tasered during “training” events and demonstrations.
Taser killed more than Chinese toys, yet Chinese toys get all the attention. When are they going to bring a class action against Taser Inc. for the death of their loved ones?
Tasers should be used with the same caution as they do their firearms; When they feel their life is in danger. Four propperly trained officers should have no problem handling one man without a taser. I live in a small city in Alberta and taser use by police officers is abused regularily in situations where it is has no reasoning just because they dont want to get their hands dirty. My best friend was tasered watching a fight outside a local pub, he dropped, yelped in pain and was tasered again. He missed a weeks work.
http://www.thepigs.ca , P.I.G.S. is an acronym for police integrity guarantees sovereignty!
A ‘class action law suit’ is the only answer to this growing epidemic.
On Friday, Attorney General Jerome Kennedy called the security lapse a “very serious matter that required immediate action” to determine whether there has been ”any illegal activity or hacking.”
Do you trust governments with your personal information? In the case of the health care system, there is barely any competition allowed. There is no direct accountability to consumers for loss of data as there would be in a market situation.
Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a “trilateral regulatory cooperation” not undermine our national sovereignty? …
Also alarming are SPP pledges to “work towards the identification and adoption of best practices relating to the registration of medicinal products.” That sounds like the much-criticized Codex Alimentarius, which seeks to radically limit Americans’ health freedom.
When going to private residences, for example, they are told to be alert for a person who is hostile, uncooperative or expressing hate or discontent with the United States; unusual chemicals or other materials that seem out of place; ammunition, firearms or weapons boxes; surveillance equipment; still and video cameras; night-vision goggles; maps, photos, blueprints; police manuals, training manuals, flight manuals; and little or no furniture other than a bed or mattress.
In his valuable new book A Nation of Sheep, retired federal Judge Andrew Napolitano describes how our society – both the Regime ruling us and far too many of the ruled – has succumbed to positivism, a legal perspective in which “the law is whatever those in power say it is…. Under positivism, whoever or whatever controls the government, whether a majority or a minority, always rules and always gets its way.”…
As Napolitano explains, positivism “is perhaps the most primitive legal theory, having evolved only slightly from the sort of justification that could be offered for following the demands of a tribal chieftain or general-turned-dictator. The theory promotes fear rather than respect…. The problem today in America, the greatest and gravest threat to personal freedom in this country, is that the positivists are carrying the day.”
I’ve noticed, however, that there are always those in the freedom movment looking for some reason to give up. There always have been and there always will be. If they’d just go ahead and give up now, for whatever reason, I, for one, would appreciate it very much.
…my crime is potentially punishable by 10 years in jail according to the Criminal Code, as amended in 1995.
Several months ago, when my firearms licence expired, as it does every five years, I filed all the required documents but with a little tweak. I refused to answer question 6(d): “During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?” I wrote, “My love affairs are none of your business.
If you want to see Ron Paul, come to the Liberty Forum Jan 3 – 6, in Nashua, NH. It is a 3-day event, with numerous who’s who pro-Liberty speakers. Dr. Paul will speak on Sunday January 6th, 2008 – check out http://www.freestateproject.org/libertyforum/
I’m amazed that the Bush solution to the stagnant economy was to go and tell people to buy stuff. Spending money on low level consumer goods isnt helping anyone. no one is building equity, no one is saving. the average american has spent 150% of their income per year. So much for the protestant work ethic. were people are supposed to build up capital to reinvest in themselves. I guess thats what happens when you abandon Keynesianism.
The B.C. Civil Liberties Association (seems to do excellent work in educating the public on civil liberties while neo-cons are out war-mongering and not defending Canadian sovereignty) also highlighted the following story …
“Topping the naughty list was “Montebello’s (Let’s Make A . . .) Riot Police.” The Civil Liberties group gave them the infamous status for inadvertently “starring in” an Internet documentary, in which they appear to be trying to “foment violence among people peacefully protesting” the summer’s North American leaders summit in Montebello, Que.”
I don’t know if it will become law, but this bill appears to be on the right track in amending the State Immunity Act and the Criminal Code to allow ordinary people to suit foreign states.
Any person, other than a foreign state, who has suffered loss or damage on or after January 1, 1985 as a result of conduct by any person that is contrary to any provision of this Part may, in any court of competent jurisdiction, sue for and recover from the person who engaged in the conduct an amount equal to the loss or damage proved to have been suffered by the person, together with any additional amount that the court may allow.
The nature of centralized legislation in general is that it is full of weaseley controls, contradictions and limitations. As an idea, we could have a natural type of law and judicial system that could evolve to allow anyone to sue any government for any harm they did.
It seems to leave out some major state instigators of terrorism such as the U.S. (oh, sorry, Merry Christmas) in this clause where it says:
Despite anything in this section, no proceeding may be brought under this section against a foreign state
(a) whose name appears in the schedule to the Extradition Act, or
(b) that is bound by a bilateral extradition treaty with Canada, and the court shall stay any such proceeding.
December 25th, 2007
Continued Assault on Freedom of Speech – Nothing Personal
Well, the neocon war-mongers with their fantasies about the Moslem menace always seem to be getting the dirt end of the stick when it comes to restrictions on their free speech, so maybe they will pay more attention to the issue of free speech when it applies to everyone in general – or maybe not.
Other right-wingers always call on libertarians like me to support their free speech rights which they failed to protect for decades with their “Conservative Party”. Absolutely, I support their rights to their stupid imperialistic views just like I also support the rights of far-right extremists to express their ignorant hateful views also. When I say “rights” of course, I mean natural rights, because legal rights are being stripped away.
I hate to pander, and my own message about liberty gets interrupted while I dwell on these poor guys getting trampled on by the establishment they flirt with – and I have to take time out to give some kind of “support” to Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine while ignoring any of their war propaganda against God- knows-whatever-country-this-week or their condoning of Guantanamo.
I support the right of a free press and the right of free expression. For everybody. And we should all defend this principle.
It is troubling to hear about the “conservative” groups coming under attack from other enemies of free speech who use the establishment Canadian Human Rights Commission to suppress opinions that offend them.
The Canadian Islamic Congress seems to be shooting itself in the foot and shows its ignorance of the Canadian culture of respect for the principle of free speech that has been suppressed by the Canadian establishment in recent decades. The CIC is absolutely adopting the wrong strategy if it wants to win over the hearts of peacefully inclined tolerant freedom-loving Canadians. Canadians are not their government and the government does not represent their best interests. This is a hard truth for everyone.
The CIC should be challenging neocon propaganda and delusions through peaceful means that respect the values of freedom that are being destroyed by all sides of the establishment in Canada. Using human rights tribunals as a weapon is not peaceful. It is threatening.
By the way, on a related subject, the Criminal Code “hate speech” amendment that was made by the Canadian Establishment long ago was criticized harshly by a genuine pro-liberty conservative hero, Supreme Court Justice Beverly McLaughlin:
In the dissenting judgment,[36] McLachlin J. was particularly concerned by what she saw as the breadth, vagueness and subjectivity inherent in section 319(2). According to McLachlin J.
… [T]he broad criminalization of virtually all expression which might be construed as promoting hatred effected by s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code is not, in my view, a proportionate and appropriate means of achieving the end to which the legislation is directed. The breadth of the category of speech it catches, the absolute nature of the prohibition it applies to such speech, the draconian criminal consequences it imposes coupled with the availability of preferable remedies, and finally, the counterproductive nature of its actual effects — all these features of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code combine to make it an inappropriate means of protecting our society against the evils of hate propaganda.
Anyway, neocons will just be neocons as long as they continue to ignore the growing international suppression of free speech and American government suppression of free speech, and the Conservative Party of Canada’s acceptance of the suppression of free speech. They are more concerned with perpetuating war against imaginary enemies than governments stripping us of our God-given freedoms.
December 27th, 2007
2 comments to Continued Assault on Freedom of Speech – Nothing Personal
Hello,
I am one of several Canadian victims I have come accross that is being constantly harassed 24/7 by directed energy weapons, surveillance and so on. This sounds crazy, but there is lots of proof that is out there.
and many many more………………….
Everyone refuses to help the victims and they try to say that
the victims are paranoid or delusional so we continue to suffer in great pain and isoaltion. Many of the victims end up committing suicide within 6 months because they just can’t take anymore. We need to do something and we need help in stopping this horrible crime. Our rights and freedom are totally disappearing it seems !
Canadian Defense Minister Peter Mackay [Dec 26] accused Pakistan and Iran of supplying weapons to insurgents…
What about the weapons supplied to the occupying armies of NATO? The Canadian government’s policy – what good does it do for Canadians?
Is this policy really leading to greater security for Afghanistan – or escalation? Do we really have any business propping up the government of Afghanistan?
Especially in light of the assassination today [Dec 27] of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, let’s cut our losses and make peace with all sides.
Here are some articles from 2006 on the contradictory Canadian approach towards Afghan opium production:
Is the whole point for the UN and NATO just to spout concern about the opium trade while the opium trade thrives? I think it would be counter-productive and brutal to launch a full-out assault on opium farmers, but:
In distancing themselves from poppy eradication, could Canada’s military be accused of duplicity in the matter?
“Hey, duplicity is a reality,” said the British officer in Kandahar. “We’re not arguing about some libertarian, lovely, sort of thing here. This isn’t Ottawa. This is Afghanistan, and this is realpolitik.”
It’s interesting that the opium/heroin trade seems to be doing so well in Afghanistan after these years of Western occupation. Who benefits? According to Canadian researcher Michel Chossudovsky,
Implemented in 2000-2001, the Taliban’s drug eradication program led to a 94 percent decline in opium cultivation. In 2001, according to UN figures, opium production had fallen to 185 tons. Immediately following the October 2001 US led invasion, production increased dramatically, regaining its historical levels.
In regards to the question of why Canada is still there after all these years, rather than taking responsibility for their own policy and properly justifying it to the Canadian people, pro-war spokesmen have immature excuses like this:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Tuesday [May 7, 2006] Canada will not backtrack from its commitment to Afghanistan because doing so “would be a betrayal” of the soldiers there.
I think that Canadian taxpayers, as well as Canada’s soldiers, are being betrayed by the current government policy. I think that Canadians would be surprised if they understood that Afghanistan was being “stabilized” by NATO in such a way that it seemed to benefit the drug trade. I think this is really quite amazing.
It looks like NATO forces aren’t really in control of Afghanistan at all and that it is impossible to be in control. They know the limits of their power – for one reason or another, they can’t interfere too much with the drug trade – but the people pushing this occupation don’t want to bring the troops home either.
Libertarians argue that legalizing drugs would reduce the profits for the drug trade. So let’s end the war on drugs and stop criminal groups from profiting!
At the same time, let’s bring the troops home and reduce the risks of having to deal with terrorism.
And we should also condemn the U.S. policy of propping up dictatorships around the world, a policy which creates resentment among their populations. The Canadian government should disassociate itself from that kind of policy.
I think Canadians have to wake up and deal with this situation before it gets worse. Are the accusations against Iran and Pakistan going to escalate and turn into war? Only the Canadian public in large numbers will be able to make their government listen to reason.
Recent Comments