If Syria’s regime is permitted to continue gassing its own citizens to death – and, rest assured, it did just that last week, killing hundreds of men, women and children – then George W. Bush and Tony Blair share some of the blame.

Already, the effects of Bush and Blair’s ill-advised war in Iraq are being seen. Western efforts to cobble together a military response to the use of chemical weapons by Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad are falling part, in Britain and elsewhere – because of Bush and Blair’s disastrous quest for non-existent “weapons of mass distraction” in Iraq a decade ago.

Late in the week, Britain’s Conservative government was obliged to dilute a Parliamentary resolution authorizing military action against the Hitlerite Assad. Skittish Labour Party members – as well as Conservative MPs – now insist on United Nations approval first. That effectively means all that Assad will be facing, for the next while, is stern words.

The civilized world’s approach to the Syria crisis has devolved into tragedy and farce. When Assad can gas children to death with impunity – contrary to every known international law, contrary to whatever human decency is left – then all of us share in the blame.

Bush and Blair, as noted, can lay claim to a greater share. Their WMD misadventure has given too many faint-hearted legislators – on the Right as well as the Left – the excuse they need to delay and deny firm action.

The outcome will be more slaughter – more than 100,000 are believed to have been killed in Syria’s ongoing conflict – and, likely, more use of chemical weapons by an emboldened Assad.

Barack Obama may choose to go it alone, as Republican leaders in Congress have favoured military intervention in Syria for many months. If chooses discretion over valour, however, he runs the risk of reducing his international reputation to tatters. His fabled “red line” will be rendered a joke.

In order to remain human, the novelist Graham Greene once said, one must choose sides.

It is time to choose military intervention in Syria, as limited as possible. Barack Obama and David Cameron are right to push for it.

George W. Bush and Tony Blair were wrong to start a war over weapons of mass destruction that did not exist.

But it is manifestly worse to use Bush and Blair’s mistake to justify doing nothing now in Syria. Inaction in the face of such a calamity, per the truism, is complicity.

Comments (35)

Took this up at the cabin, as we were preparing to leave. Summer is truly over, isn’t it?

Comments (1)

In the fall of 1936, as the plague of Nazism continued spreading across Germany, Oldenburg issued a decree.

The northern German district had decided to order the removal of crucifixes from public buildings, and even from Catholic schools. For equivalency, Oldenberg’s fascist leaders also ordered that pictures of Martin Luther be taken down in Protestant schools.

While Adolf Hitler had been notionally a Catholic — his mother had been quite devout — his connection to the church was not strong. His interest in churches seemed to be limited to their architecture.

In his treatise, Mein Kampf, Hitler would attack the Catholic Church, denouncing it for being insufficiently concerned by what he called the “racial problem.” While his National Socialist Party charter lamely promoted freedom of religion, Hitler disbanded the Catholic Youth League in his first week as chancellor. Religious education was thereafter discouraged.

When Catholic clergy responded by offering spiritual teaching outside work hours, the Hitler regime prohibited state employees from taking part. And then, in 1936, Oldenberg happened.

A Hitler Youth anthem of the time pithily summed up Nazism’s view: “We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel; Away with the incense and holy water; The church can go hang for all we care, the Swastika brings salvation on Earth.”

If you are an informed Canadian (generally) and a worried religious Quebecer (specifically), you know where we’re going with this modest history lesson, of course. So let’s get one thing out of the way, right away: Pauline Marois’ Parti Quebecois are not Adolf Hitler’s NSDAP. If you think they are, you’re an idiot.

But when you read about Oldenburg, you perhaps recalled the PQ’s Orwellian-sounding “Charter of Quebec Values.” I know I certainly did.

For the Quebec public sector, Marois wants to ban religious symbols worn by the religious. Proclaiming herself in favour of religious freedom — as the Nazi Party did in its charter — Marois last week declared: “We’re moving forward in the name of all the women, all the men, who chose Quebec for our culture, for our freedom, and for our diversity,” she told a gathering of PQ Youth in Quebec City.

Except that it’s not true. The “charter” will not move Quebec, or Canada, forward one step. It will not advance Quebec’s “culture,” it will strangle it. It will not enhance Quebec’s “freedom,” it will tarnish it. And, most of all, it will not enhance “diversity” — it will, instead, murder it.

As some of us (but not all of us) have written in these pages many times, religions should not run governments — and governments should not run religions. Past measures taken by both the federal and Quebec governments — against Muslims who choose to wear burkas — were a slippery slope, we argued. No less than the Orthodox Jewish leadership in Montreal agreed.

We now know why. Marois’ “vision,” as Quebec’s Jews and Muslims foretold, will create disunity and division. If she figures out a way to get her hateful charter through the National Assembly — where, ironically and hypocritically, a crucifix is prominently displayed — she will stir up sectarian turmoil the likes of which this country has never seen.

Here’s why: To the faithful, religious symbols are not mere ornaments. They are part of their being — literally, part of their identity. To them, Quebec’s intended Charter is the equivalent of hacking off a limb.

Marois should read about Oldenburg. Not for what the Nazis did in the fall of 1936, but for what the people did next. They rose up against the decree against religious symbols. They revolted.

The Nazi Party sent in their propagandists to defend it, but the people of Oldenburg shouted them down. Thousands rallied to end it.

And they did. In a rare defeat for Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party, the Oldenburg decree was rescinded, never to be attempted again.

People power works, then and now.

Comments (16)

To fill a rather sudden vacancy.

Geriatric GTA punks, apply to wkinsella at hotmail.com!

(And, no, this is not the Big Change, but it certainly ranks up there.)

Comments (2)

…not the changes referred to in the last-day-in-Maine post, below. For those impatient to hear what “big changes” mean, stay tuned. They are indeed big, and it is my fervent hope they will give various critics a collective heart attack.

In the meantime, one big change is underway this historic weekend: Daughter has arrived at Dal. Her very sad Dad was made sadder when, while sitting on the dock, he looked down and saw her initials carved in the wood.

As one philosopher once said, life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.

Comments (15)

Just heard about this from @MorganeSG – did anyone else know about this? Wow! The Hot Nasties are famous, 33 years after the fact!

Comments (3)

Summer almost over. Leaving Maine with Sons Two and Three shortly. What lies ahead?

Comments (44)

You have to read the whole story. It is really, really important. Quote:

“Abused, neglected, vulnerable — they should have been protected. Instead, they were deprived of that most precious commodity: A childhood.

This puts all of us to shame.

And it shames us all that our premier is leaving these women in their hellish nightmare, instead of simply saying we are sorry.”

Wynne, Gerretson, the system: all will deeply regret not dealing with this before now. An historic wrong. Mark my words.

Comments (16)

The best and worst of the Liberal Party of Canada were on full display in the past week.

On the one hand, there was the “race” to be the Liberal candidate in Toronto Centre, which became available when Bob Rae decided to retire from politics.

The behind-the-scenes machinations in Toronto Centre suggest, among other things, that the entire affair has been rigged to favour one candidate over the others.

Even before the race has run its course, in fact, Toronto Centre feels like it has been decided already — and it has left many wondering if Justin Trudeau’s much-celebrated “open nominations” pledge was, among other things, a bit of spin, maybe even a fib.

And then, on the other hand, there was something else entirely, something to make us proud.

There was the selfsame Trudeau, being the first political leader to raise his voice against Parti Quebecois’ despicable plan to prevent public employees — bureaucrats, but also doctors, nurses and teachers — from wearing religious garb and insignia in public.

While Stephen Harper remained silent, and the NDP’s Thomas Mulcair refused to criticize the PQ’s bigoted initiative — calling it only “a trial balloon” — Trudeau excoriated the separatists’ planned stunt, raising it with Premier Pauline Marois, and saying it would render Quebec a laughingstock.

“I don’t think it’s who we are,” Trudeau said, correctly. “I don’t think it honours us to have a government that does not represent our generosity and openness of spirit as a people.”

It was hard to square that Trudeau — the one who has opposed a hateful, undemocratic measure in Quebec — with the one who is muddying democratic principles down in Toronto Centre.

They do not seem like the same person, even though they apparently are.

The Toronto Centre contest, which really isn’t one, recalls the bad old days of the once-great Grits, when earnest and hard-working locals were pushed aside — and out-of-touch aristocrats made their entrance, trumpets heralding their arrival, and the leader’s minions throwing rose petals ahead of them.

The aristocrat, in this case, isn’t Michael Ignatieff, although you could be forgiven for remembering him right about now.

It is Chrystia Freeland, who (like Ignatieff) has lived and worked for years in the U.S., who (like Ignatieff) passed some time at Harvard, who has written books (like Ignatieff) about Russia and the plight of people from a lower station in life, and who (like Ignatieff) is being heralded as a political star by the finest minds of deepest Rosedale.

Trudeau claims, with a straight face, that he is not attempting to engineer the nomination for Freeland — who does not even live in Canada, let alone Toronto Centre. But there is not a Liberal alive who believes him.

The fact that Trudeau professed to favour “open nominations” has made the odour emanating from Toronto Centre even more pungent. His caucus, who have had to endure plenty of indignities in recent years, have been told they must all fight to keep their nominations. No favourites, they were told.

All except Freeland, that is, whose book Trudeau rather fancied.

She therefore gets to have one of the most coveted Liberal nominations in the country. Without, you know, even living in the country.

As we say, it is as disappointing as it is puzzling. There were two Trudeaus stalking the land last week, and one of them we do not like, at all.

We need more of the one who protested courageously a scheme he knows will be popular with many in Quebec.

We need more of the young man who pointed out — unlike Harper and Mulcair — that the Parti Quebecois’ legislated bigotry is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

What we don’t need, at all, is Michael Ignatieff in pearls — and Trudeau looking the other way, while some of his BMW-driving fixers maul democracy to orchestrate her debut in Parliament.

Early impressions are important, in politics as in life.

The impression Justin Trudeau left us with in the appalling Quebec case was inspiring — even prime ministerial. We applaud you, Mr. Trudeau.

Meanwhile, the impression left by the sordid manipulations in Toronto Centre? It all stinks.

And for that, Mr. Trudeau, we say shame on you.

Comments (31)

The Liberal standard bearer has tried pot a few times and doesn’t drink coffee.

Two of the top Conservative icons, meanwhile, haven’t sued anyone for stating one of them smokes crack and the other was a major drug dealer.

I like the Liberal’s chances.

Comments (101)