02.10.2011 07:12 AM

Ignatieff takes a stand on sovereignty

Ignatieff shows some leadership.  Good.

The other day, Chantal Hebert wrote that Harper’s secret perimeter deal would split Liberals. With the greatest of respect, she’s flat wrong. Every Liberal I have spoken to sees this pact as a potential threat to our sovereignty – whether they admire Barack Obama or not.  (And I do.)

John Manley and Frank McKenna – who will almost certainly be trotted out to defend this thing – are not in the mainstream of the Liberal Party anymore. They’re smart fellows.  But whatever they have to say about the secret deal is of no force and effect with any Grit I know.  In fact, it will propel many Liberals in the opposite direction.

What we know about the perimeter deal so far frankly stinks. In the main, the secret agreement seems to involve handing over personal information about Canadians to the Americans, in exchange for illusory customs benefits. If the Reformatories want to fight an election over their desire to integrate Canada with the United States, I welcome that. They’d lose.

Michael Ignatieff, increasingly, doesn’t sound afraid of that prospect either:

“Canadians need to know: How much decision-making authority over Canada’s immigration policy is Mr. Harper prepared to give to the U.S.? Does the Conservative government intend to yield to U.S. demands that we change our immigration and refugee system? In a perimeter security deal, who will speak for new Canadians?

On America’s other land border, with Mexico, ‘security co-operation’ has led to significant U.S. control over Mexico’s security priorities and intelligence operations. Is this the future Mr. Harper envisions for Canada?

These and other questions must be answered, but the Conservative government seems determined not to answer them. We still do not know how much the proposed perimeter security measures – including new border infrastructure and expanded digital capacity – will cost, or if they will be included in the next federal budget. We still do not know who will sit on the Beyond the Border Working Group, or when it will present its recommendations.

Parliament is the place to answer these questions, in public, in front of the elected representatives of the Canadian people.”


  1. Craig Chamberlain says:



    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      P.S. If you have a problem with protecting Canadian sovereignty, perhaps there is a place for you in Mr. Harper’s cabinet. How he likes big cabinets! Room for one more!

  2. A.BO says:

    Thanks. This needs all the exposure it can get. Harper is poison.

  3. Lance says:

    Ahhhh, so it’s to be good ol’ fashioned American based fear mongering then. What is old is new again I suppose.

    • Bill says:

      As opposed to raising the ghost of Trudeau or Adscam?

      • Lance says:

        Trudeau’s “legacy” is all around us. We see it, with only two examples, in the dregs of the NEP, and multiculturarism. The other examples are legion.

        Adscam happened. It resonates today when a party like the Bloc feels that Quebec is entitled to tell the federal government, “give us billions or else”.

        Now all we hear is the spectre of fear (yet again) on how Canada is going to somehow lose it’s sovereignty and end up as mere vassals to the USA. It gets a little dated (and boring) when it keeps not happening. And so goes Liberal fear mongering.

        • Ted H. says:

          So what exactly are the dregs of the NEP? And what is your problem with multiculturalism (or do you really pronounce it multiculturarism)? People come from somewhere else to become part of Canada, they are entitled to recognition. Perhaps you think everyone should become like Lennon’s Bungalow Bill, “an all American bullet headed saxon mothers son”. Would that make you happy and when you get stopped in the street and asked to produce your “freedom card” you can thank Harper for his legacy.

        • Craig Chamberlain says:

          Lance, you have a lifetime to regret your naivety. May it be a long, long time. Of course, I’m assuming you are a Canadian posting here.

    • Doug says:

      If we knew the details of the deal there might be no basis for “fear.” Since great pains have been taken to conceal the details from Canadians, I am highly suspicious that it is a raw deal for ordinary Canadians. I believe most people who do not have a direct financial interest in a more porous border will see it this way.

      Although NAFTA has been beneficial, I think most of us have seen that the asymmetrical enforcement of disputes in the Americans’ favor shows that there are limits to how much integration is healthy between two countries so different in population and power.

      • Pete says:

        I say Canada should be a “Switzerland” in terms of our relationship to the US. The Swiss do very well being in the ehart of Europe but not being in the EU.

        • Blaster says:

          Exactly! The LPC’s moral ambiguity on everything from terror in the middle east to closer cooperation with our friendly neighbour and largest trading partner shows what a shallow, empty vessel they’ve become. The fact that someone like Kinsella would happily marginalize two of the party’s smartest like John Manley and Frank McKenna goes to show that they’ll take the hysterical populist road over intelligent policy, even at the expense of some of their former greats. And these clowns wonder why they can’t win an election?

          • Warren says:

            I’m not marginalizing them – they can’t be marginalized. They are substantial people.

            But the fact is, they are registered lobbyists for multinationals and big corp associations. They speak for those entities, not the Liberal Party.

    • Ted says:


      Where is the fearmongering? Can you show it to me?

      What of those questions or statements that Ignatieff made aren’t exactly the kinds of questions Canadians ought to know and Parliament should discuss?

      This is far more than a commercial deal, but it is extremely naive to suggest that significant sovereign authority won’t be given up by this deal, like over immigration policy, refugee policy.

      If Canadians are so supportive, as is claimed by some, and the deal such a non-threat to sovereignty, why has the government tried to hide what they are doing for so very long? Why won’t they meet with Canadians or, for Pete’s sake, our elected representatives to discuss it? Especially if it is as significant and good as Harper claims it is?

      Canadians have in the past intelligently engaged in debate that resulted in giving away some parts of our sovereignty in exchange for something bigger and better (like free trade or many maritime laws).

      Why is Harper once again afraid of facing Canadians and having an open discussion with us on important things he is doing with our country?

      • Warren says:

        I did Question Period on CTV with my buddy Tim Powers on Sunday. It was evident to me that the Cons believe that we will back off on this in-secure deal because we don’t want to be seen as anti-Obama.

        I think they fundamentally do not understand/remember that political success always comes when voters see that you are prepared to oppose even friends to defend a principle. If Bush had still been president, our opposition would have been seen as predictable. With Obama at the White House, voters will see it for what it is – defending Canada, even against well-intentioned (but wrong) people we like.

      • Craig Chamberlain says:

        The only fear-mongering I see is on the part of those warning Liberals not to go to the polls on this issue. (Gives you the warm fuzzies knowing they care so much!)

  4. The elder Liberals won’t be the problem who will push back. It will be every Chamber of Commerce. It will be every business organization including those who depend of the movement of goods and services.

    As I noted earlier it seems strange the party of Bay Street has not realized this tacking left won’t work this time.

    I remember the same fear mongering during “Free Trade” with John Turner and the Conservative would sell out Canada. How did that work out for John Turner?

    I remember the Big Red Book and Jean Chretien promising to re-negotiate and fix it. How did that work out? How many Free Trade deals did the Liberals do in their 13 years?

    I am glad the Liberals have decided to go back to their 1993 Donolo strategy of trying to frame the Conservatives as dangerous and inept to protect Canadians from those “evil” Americans and angry old white men out west.

    The world is moving to a freer and open global market place and the Liberals are stuck in the 1990’s with an old script that requires the collapse of the NDP vote.

  5. A.BO says:

    Tulk, don’t mistake this as being solely a commerce issue. You know it runs deeper or could, who knows? We haven’t been told 😉

  6. Eric says:

    Wow, the impending election is shaping up like 1993 all over again.
    Chretien ran against NAFTA – Ignatieff will run against this deal
    Chretien ran against GST – Ignatieff will run against corporate tax cuts
    Chretien ran against helicoptors – Ignatieff will run against F-35 JSF

    • Ted says:

      Chretien was way behind in the polls shortly before the election – Ignatieff trails Harper

      The Conservatives looked unbeatable and their leader was way ahead in the polls – The Conservatives look unbeatable according to the media and their leader is ahead in the polls

      Looking deeper at the polls, the Mulroney/Campbell Conservatives had a lot of unhappiness among even their core supporters, feeling the party had some good successes but abandoned the real priorities of Canadians – Looking deeper at the polls, the Harper Conservatives have a lot of unhappiness among even their core supporters, feeling the party has had some good successes but has abandoned the real priorities of Canadians and of conservatives

      The media kept running stories on how divided the Liberals still were and couldn’t get their act together and not ready for an election (they weren’t divided and they were more than ready) – the media keep running stories on how divided the Liberals are, can’t get their act together and are not ready for an election (they aren’t divided and they are primed and ready).

      Once the election got going, the arrogance of the Conservatives quickly came out and was rejected by Canadians and they started shooting themselves in the foot with ads – The arrogance of Conservatives has already started coming out and is being rejected by Canadians and they’ve already started shooting themselves in the feet with ads

      This election is going to be a dandy.

      • Eric says:

        Those paralels are quite apt, Ted. However, I don’t think that Ignatieff is the same calibre leader that Chretien was, nor is the campign / war room staff as competent this time around (I’m not just sucking up either). I also wonder if the Canadian public will be more sceptical of those promises if they see that they have been pulled off the shelf and re-heated: especially when they did not deliver on two of them.

        Regardless, your statement that this election will be a dandy is accurate!

      • The forces are not at all alike.

        The NDP vote collapsed -13.50% swing with Audrey at the helm. The Bloc was at their height +13.52% swing. The PM resigned before the voters could throw him and his party out.

        What did the WEST do? Reform under Manning gained 52 seats with the highest swing of +16.59%

        Where did the Liberals gain their +94 seats from?

        Compare the funding RULES, balance sheets and organizational strengths of each party in 1993 vs 2011.

        Do you think the Liberals are a shadow of the 1993 party?

        Many of us believed in those “RED Book” promises. We don’t drink that kool-aid anymore.

        • Craig Chamberlain says:

          More fear.

          • Actual results from the General Election in 1993 is fear?

            Why do you think Ignatieff is polling behind the Separatist leader Gilles? Why do you think the Liberals are 1/7 since he was handed the reigns of the party? The Liberals have not closed the gap since 2004 in raising funds.

            (You can fluff it off) I actually hope supporters ignore all the WARNING signs and talk about some mythical resurgence.

    • Paul says:

      “Chretien ran against NAFTA”
      …yet we still have NAFTA despite Chretien being in power for a decade

      “Chretien ran against GST”
      …yet failed to abolish it when he got to power

      “Chretien ran against helicoptors”
      …and cancelling the deal cost half a billion dollars and our personnel are still flying around in helicopters that are approaching 50 years old

      I fixed that up for you. See the pattern?

  7. Lance says:

    Well, stood with it, too – before he changed his mind –

    “The unfolding catastrophe in Iraq has condemned the political judgment of a president, but it has also condemned the judgment of many others, myself included, who as commentators supported the invasion.” Ignatieff partly interpreted what he now saw as his particular errors of judgment, by presenting them as typical of academics and intellectuals in general, whom he characterised as “generalizing and interpreting particular facts as instances of some big idea”. In politics, by contrast, “Specifics matter more than generalities”.

    What else is/was wrong about, even today?

  8. Michael Behiels says:

    Ignatieff and Donolo appear to have hit their stride! And none too soon!

    Ignatieff appears very comfortable and far more confident in his public speaking on these big issues. The Liberal caucus and Party, for the first time in a very long time, appears united behind their leader. Perhaps the caucus and the Party got the clear message from Brooke Jeffrey’s excellent book “Divided Loyalities”.

    Ignatieff and Donolo have a much clearer idea of what principles and values the Liberal Party stands for and they are prepared to defend and promote those values in a very forthright manner.

    President Obama cannot and will not deliver a trade/security agreement for Harper and the corporate world in Canada (which is anything and everything but Canadian as we can see by the wholesale sell off of the Toronto stock exchange to the masters in London) that does not guarantee that US security concerns will always trump trade.

    Why? Two reasons. One, the Republicans in the House of Congress, with the support of many Democrats, will veto such an agreement that does not give a guaranteed veto to security in a nano second. Any agreement that passes Congress and the US Senate will entail a huge loss of sovereignty for Canada. And two, the Republicans and the Democrats have become increasingly protectionist and will continue to become even more protectionist because unemployment will remain very high in the US for several years. See President Obama’s decision to include a Buy America condition for the expenditure of $60 Billion for a high speed rail system throughout the United States. Bombardier and other Canadian companies will be excluded from competing for these lucrative contracts!! NAFTA is becoming a DODO Bird! This is very unfortunate and the Corporate Elite and their lobby groups will not be able to do anything about this situation.

    At least in the EU, the member states have representatives in the European Parliament and on the European Commission and they can and do protect their state sovereignty on most salient matters. Canadians have no such political leverage with the United States. Our Prime Minister is simply putty in the hands of the American congressional system. All of this reminds me of the very secretive bilateral executive deal between Prime Minister Mackenzie King President Roosevelt for the perimeter defence of North America, called the Ogdensburg Declaration. PM King was denounced by all the Conservatives but at least he managed to get parity on the Permanent Joint Board of Defence overseeing the implementation of the perimeter security of North America. Furthermore, the Ogdensburg Declaration did not jeopardize the movement of Canadians and Americans across our shared border as the vast majority of Americans trusted and liked Canadians. More importantly, the Ogdensburg Declaration was not linked with the thorny matter of trade and the impact of the American Congress’ Lend Lease deal with the British, a deal that threatened thousands of Canadian jobs in the war industries and millions of investment in these industries. King managed to get the American Congress, through Roosevelt, to agree to extend the Lend Lease Agreement to Canada and its war industries.

    When Harper links trade with Canadians’ Human rights he most certainly will end up having to sell out our human rights for a “mess of potage.” In short the Harper government is stupid to link the two issues. Any and all free trade agreements need to stand on their own merit. A Canadian Prime Minister should never swap human rights for commercial gain.

    If this threat does not rally the Liberal rank and file then no issue will. Let’s see what Ignatieff and Donolo can do with this very crucial issue that Harper has handed them.

    • Warren says:

      Donolo? Spare me. There’s more to the LPC than a chief of staff.

      • Michael Behiels says:

        Of course there is!

        There are many very smart people involved in this team effort and the process of turning the Party around and helping Ignatieff become a successful retail politician.

        But, as you well know, Donolo is making a big difference.

        The Chief of Staff does matter. If he or she were incompetent then the knives would be out.

        Give credit where credit is due (and this includes all the other people on the team) and get on with helping the Party do what it has to do go into battle and win the next election.

        If the Harper Reformatories win another election then the Liberal civil war will erupt again.

        • Warren says:

          I don’t think he is making a big difference, actually – unless you count the fact that the party is lower (and Ignatieff’s leadership numbers are way lower) than when Ian Davey and Paul Zed ran the place.

          That’s a “big difference,” alright. It just isn’t a good one.

          • Michael Behiels says:

            Too early, I guess, to render, full and accurate assessment.

            Those people who were dropped from the team have every right to feel angry. I know I would. But a leader has got to lead and then accept the responsibility for the outcome. Too much dithering as we all know leads to a political disaster.

            Let’s agree to disagree and hope that all Liberals get their clumsy act together and begin to pull their respective oars in the same direction rather than working at cross purposes.

            This is not much to expect or to insist upon. Continued carping from the sidelines will only serve the Reformatories at the this juncture.

            The election will be one hell of a battle in the trenches, on the airwaves and through the internet.

  9. Namesake says:

    yeah, yeah: that was a crap poll, which I posted on here, http://warrenkinsella.com/2011/02/in-todays-sun-losing-our-sovereignty/#comment-25883

    and I[‘]mpolitical posted on here:

    Absent any detail or explanation of the ramifications of the full scope of the deal, people’s assent to what sounds like benign options on some components of this does NOT amount to an endorsement of the agreement, no matter what the enthusiastic corporate headline writers claim.

  10. Sean says:

    Liberals quit this issue when they made a fake Canadian their fake leader through a fake process.

    • Ted H. says:

      As was said by a previous contributor:

      “I was wondering how far I?d have to scroll before this old chestnut was trotted out”.

    • Namesake says:

      Fake Conservatives with their fake accountability and fake love of democracy couldn’t catch a fish in their fake lake.

      • Craig Chamberlain says:

        But their love for proroguing parliament, now, that’s real! When will Mr. Harper next hide from the Parliament (and people) of Canada? Welcome to Mr. Harper’s legacy!

      • Sean says:

        whatever dude… I’m a real Liberal (13 years this spring) with a real membership card etc. Like many, many grassroots Liberals, I’m holding my nose until the Ignatieff leadership fiasco ends on E-Day, eagerly awaiting the chance to rebuild in a positive way. I think Warren may well be correct on the border issue, but there isn’t a chance in hell anyone will ever look to Ignatieff for guidance. The man is absolutely the last person to be taken seriously on sovereignty issues.

        As for chestnuts being trotted out… IE *Ignatieff only returned to this country b/c a tiny group of over the hill backroom boys convinced him he would be P.M.* will be trotted out every day of the campaign. This is because it is well established and indisputable. It will be trotted out by Conservatives, the BQ, the NDP, the Greens, media pundits, many well respected Canadians and most importantly… Liberals.

        • Namesake says:

          13 years, eh? Ah, so you’re a Chretien supporter, then. Well, so was I… (when I saw him on TV) in the 1984 leadership convention, which of course he lost to John Turner, who gave us 9 years of Brian Mulroney.

          And don’t forget — as you’ve seemed to — that Ignatieff WAS in a large leadership election in 2006, against 7 other candidates and 4 withdrawn ones), who all cancelled each other out, paving the road for the Dark Green Horse Stephane Dion to come from behind, who gave us at least three more years of Stephen Harper.

          So clearly, wide open, grassrootsy, democratic Liberal Leadership Elections aren’t all you’re cracking them up to be, if the goal is to actually, you know, lead the government.

          And let’s not pretend, or allow others to, that Ignatieff was anointed leader: as noted, he DID have to run against lots of other candidates the first time (and lost); and he WAS engaged in a second leadership election in 2008 before being acclaimed, but since this occurred so soon after the last one, there were only two other candidates to start with (Bob & Dom), and the latter withdrew early on, and the former withdrew because he only had half the support of the leader’s, so it seemed a foregone conclusion (and of course the ‘Parliamentary Crisis’ events overtook the race and seemed to demand an early resolution to the contest). I.e., it wasn’t a coup, it was just an accelerated final ballot election that just picked up where the last one left off.

          As for Ignatieff’s being lured back by being convinced he could be P.M.: well, probably so, but so what? (And it’d be interesting to hear how the conversations actually went: I bet he was told the country NEEDED him to come back to be another Trudeau, because “Mr. Dithers” clearly wasn’t working out and the Party was in deep trouble… and the the latter part was clearly true!)

          That’s how head-hunting and talent-scouting AND candidate recruitment works: the recruiters hold out the very real prospects of getting a good job and perhaps soon becoming an NHL team captain or corp. director or VP or whatever, or even the actual CEO or Leader some day if they play their cards right and live up to their potential… and the candidates accept if they indeed want to become an NHL star or Corp. VP or MP or whatever… which isn’t necessarily JUST a matter of personal ambition (which most if not ALL candidates have, and need to) but also a sincere desire to want to help the team or Party or company or country, as the case may be.

          Why should that be considered such an unseemly thing? That was how Trudeau senior was recruited as one of the Wise Men (& soon to the decades-long leadership of the party & country) — to help save Canada from losing Quebec. And how or why was Stephen Harper persuaded to come back to lead the Alliance after leaving Parliament for several years… and why did he even consider campaigning for Progressive Conservative Party leadership in 1998 — except for a combination of personal ambition and patriotism?

          So, sorry that you’re so bitter about it, Sean, but I don’t think Canadians should or will hold it against him that he was offered and answered a call to duty. (It’s not like he needed the money; he was probably making more at Harvard.)

          • Sean says:

            Hamlet Act 3, Sc. 2

          • Namesake says:

            I didst defend too much?

            Fine, so, the short v. to what was, after all, your protest on behalf of the allegedly aggrieved membership:

            Dude, he did run, in TWO leadership campaigns; and, sure, he was asked if he wanted to be PM, and, d’uh!, just like every other federal leadership candidate, he does; and who’s better positioned to know we can’t trust the Americans not to put their own agenda first and to be extremely wary of them abusing people’s rights than a journalist and scholar who lived there right after 9/11 and who taught about human rights?

  11. Craig Chamberlain says:

    “this (united?) stand by the LPC could be very damaging to themselves as it will make them look like a tweedle-dummer version of the NDP”

    Wow, I didn’t know you cared so much about the electoral fortunes of the Liberals. Thanks! (Yes, that’s fear…)

  12. Cath says:

    Leadership you say? I call it Wednesday. I’m pretty sure Ignatieff’s leadership may have been put to a better test with his own caucus after Wednesday’s pitiful display and rendition of a Liberal version of O’Canada. Yep, the same song the “leader” criticized the Conservatives for trying to mess with.

    Leadership? um….nope. It’s a stand I guess but we’ll have to wait and see on this one because given Ignatieff’s history of putting his foot in his cake hole a few times to often old habits die hard.

    • Namesake says:

      Come on; that’s an unfounded charge of hypocrisy or inconsistency.

      Even the Sun’s account makes clear that Ignatieff’s crit. wasn’t that it’d be wrong to try to make the anthem gender neutral, but that it was such a hollow gesture, given how little the Harper gov’t has done for — and how much against — women’s issues, since assuming office.

      “When Harper proposed reviewing the original wording, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff took a shot at him for it, calling it the kind of ‘symbolic gesture’ the government uses to ignore real issues. ‘Anything that makes a national anthem more gender-sensitive is a good thing,’ Ignatieff reportedly said at the time. ‘There’s lots of things to do for women that are more important than changing the words of the national anthem, just as there are lots of things to do for pensioners and seniors that are more important than having a Seniors Day.'”


      • Cath says:

        it’s politically correct bullcrap. Actually Ignatieff’s been very consistent about changing his mind and message depending on his audience.

        On the border issue, as a frequent visitor to the USA I trust Harper more in getting a deal that is fair for Canadians more than I trust the guy who, when in America called himself an American (see what I mean about his messaging).

        In much the same way that the provincial Liberal machine is defining their opposition, the CPC have done a pretty good job of sticking to their definition of Ignatieff.

        I’m pretty sure that with Iggy’s stance on this issue that someone on Iggy’s team is following Warren Kinsella’s blog and borrowing his suggestions. Just my suspicion.

        • Namesake says:

          well, your trust is based on a pretty selective memory or attention span. E.g., at the very same time that Chuck Strahl was indignantly insisting that,

          “while the Americans have instituted a more intensive, if you can call it that, pat-down technique, that’s not happening in Canada. CATSA’s not doing that. They have no intention of doing that. It’s a completely separate system.”

          their gov’t was already busily negotiating an agreement that would “harmonize” the security protocols on both sides of the border… which would undoubtedly mean adopting the U.S.’s more intrusive methods.


          And you want to talk unpatriotic quotes? Have a gander at his 1997 address from one right-wing think tank (his, the NCC) to another (the US’s Council for National Policy):

          “your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world…. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term.”


          or his National Post ‘Separation, Alberta-style’ letter:

          “Canada appears content to become a second-tier socialistic country, boasting ever more loudly about its economy and social services to mask its second-rate status, led by a second-world strongman appropriately suited for the task.”

          or his ‘who cares if QC separates’ statement in 1994:

          “‘Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion,’ said Harper, who was at the time constitutional affairs critic for Reform.”


        • Namesake says:

          BTW, here’s what your great leader had to say today in one of the uber-rare occasions when he spoke extemporaneously, without an MEP,* on the occasion of this historic day in Egypt when its dictator was finally ousted by the persistent peaceful democratic demonstrations:

          “They?re not going to put the toothpaste back in the tube on this one.”

          See what I mean about his messaging?

          Certainly explains the ballooned communications budget, the gag orders, the MEPs, and the relatively limited number of gaffes: he’s so intent on controlling the message and never tipping his hand that he’s the very antithesis of glasnost

          * http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/819779


          • Namesake says:

            only according to Faux News; and repeated by others; but not by any other real news sources, and it was denied by the Egyptian gov’t itself.


            But you’re partly right: I did leave out the dozens killed and hundreds injured by the gov’t and what appeared to be it’s hired thugs.

          • Namesake says:

            p.s., you Ezracrable Hapercrites are real pieces of work when it comes to dictators: you condemn them to the high heavens when it comes to selling your ‘more ethical’ oil or excusing your bungled negotiations with the UAE, but when one is actually deposed by a democratic movement, you claim it’s not really democratic or that the successor gov’t might be made up by — gasp! — Muslims (in a country with a 90%+ Muslim population).

  13. Line Merrette says:

    I am concerned by ALL fundamentalists, they are ALL fanatics: fundamentalist (pseudo-)”Christians”, fundamentalist Jews (who have taken over Israel and especially its government) and fundamentalist Islamists.

    A plague on their houses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *