Censorship in the era of unrestricted warfare against the United States

This one's for American readers who've threatened to scream if they see another word about Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act

2006
"The initial reports of the [Toronto terror bombing plot] caused some controversy when a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer, Mike McDonell, described the arrested people as representing a "broad strata" of Canadian society and the Toronto Star claimed that it is "difficult to find a common denominator" among them, even though all were Muslims and many attended the same mosque."

"Google dumps news sites that criticize radical Islam: Search giant axes another news page, calls terrorism discussion 'hate content.' "

2007
"A Muslim police officer is suing former CIA official and counterterrorism consultant Bruce Tefft and the New York Police Department for workplace harassment merely because Tefft sent emails with relevant news stories about Islamic terrorism to a voluntary list of recipients that included police officers. [...] Already, publishers have canceled books on the subject of counterterrorism ... "

"[Stephen] Coughlin was fired as a Joint Staff contractor after his confrontation with Hasham Islam, a special assistant to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England [...] Mr. Islam, a Muslim, referred to Mr. Coughlin as a "Christian zealot with a pen" during the meeting several weeks ago, a slur rejected by Mr. Coughlin's supporters. [...] defense and military officials supportive of Mr. Coughlin said the real reason is that critics like Mr. Islam want him sidelined because they oppose his hard-to-refute views on the relationship between Islamic law and Islamist jihad doctrine. Those views have triggered a harsh debate challenging the widespread and politically correct view of Islam as a religion of peace hijacked by extremists."

"Islamic Bloc Scores 'Defamation of Religions' Resolution at UN

Although the resolution refers to defamation of "religions," Islam is the only religion named in the text, which also takes a swipe at counter-terrorism security measures.

It expresses alarm about "discrimination" and "laws that stigmatize groups of people belonging to certain religions and faiths under a variety of pretexts relating to security and illegal immigration." [...]

The resolution decries "the negative projection of Islam in the media" and voices "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

[Organization of the Islamic Conference] secretary-general Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu earlier this month addressed an international conference on "Islamophobia," held in Turkey, and told the gathering that freedom of expression was being used as a cover in the West to promote anti-Islam sentiment.

* * * * * *
"If you'd said [on September 10, 2001] that whether something does or does not cause offence to Muslims would be the early 21st century's principal political dynamic in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the United Kingdom, most folks would have thought you were crazy."

The quote is from the prologue to Mark Steyn's 2006 book American Alone: The End of the World as We Know It; it also appears in the first paragraph of the excerpt from the book that Maclean's magazine published in October 2006.

Steyn's major point is that it's not Muslims or even the realities of demographics that are dismantling the cradle of Western civilization; it's Westerners who are psychologically incapable of addressing a serious threat to their civilization, even when it punches them in the face.

To review, The excerpt is the basis for the Section 13 complaints filed by Mohamed Elmasry, the president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, against Maclean's magazine et al.

Invoking Section 13 language, Elmasry complained that the writing was likely to cause feelings of hatred and contempt for Canadian Muslims.

Elmasry's complaint, and the support he's found for it in Canada's government and among Canada's strongest defenders of multiculturalism policy, are an eerie echo of Steyn's major point.

Speaking quite frankly, years of war have made me ruthless about priorities. My overriding interest in the Section 13 Affair is that news and discussion about the war on terror and related issues, which include Islamism, not be censored in a country that borders the United States.

We already have an uphill battle in the US against the Saudis and other powerful actors who are attempting to block virtually all news and public discussion of Islamist-related terrorism. (See Mark Steyn is Not Alone for a discussion of some of the actors.)

In this struggle against censorship there is no border between Canada and the United States; no way you can say, 'That's their problem.'

I will close with a promise to give readers a break, after this writing, from Section 13, and by reprinting a writing by a Canadian Muslim. Salim Mansur perfectly understands the threat that censorship poses to Canada.

However, I am not sure Mansur is correct when he asserts that Professor John Yoo at Berkeley coined the term "lawfare."

In any event, lawfare was articulated as part of the unrestricted war strategy against the United States that China's army developed in the late 1990s. Al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri lifted the strategy lock, stock and barrel from the Chinese work.

Thus, the link I've provided to the term presents a more comprehensive description than has recently been cited in discussion of moves to censor Islamist-related topics.

Assault goes beyond violence
By SALIM MANSUR
Toronto Sun, January 19, 2007

Since 9/11 it is transparently clear the assault against the West by Islamists is not limited to indiscriminate violence.

Islamists also are "using our own legal system as a weapon against us" as Professor John Yoo at the law faculty of the University of California, Berkeley, recently noted.

Islamism is Janus-faced with one face bearing the dreadful visage of Osama bin Laden and the unholy fanatics of the Arab-Muslim world. The other face bears the likeness of "everyman," making it indistinguishable everywhere.

Islamists with their ideological fellow travellers and apologists wearing the Everyman's mask have adopted "lawfare" -- a term coined by Yoo -- as "another dimension of warfare" against the West.

The case brought to the federal and provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) Human Rights Commissions against Maclean's magazine for publishing Mark Steyn's essay on the future belonging to Islam, a growing faith, is an example of "lawfare" being used to undermine the fundamental values of liberal democracy.

The case was brought by Mohamed Elmasry and the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC).

Elmasry and the CIC are well known to Canadians keeping track of them, and the case against Maclean's reflects their political hucksterism and notoriety as apologists for Islamism.

As once noted about the Holy Roman Empire for being neither holy, nor Roman, Elmasry's CIC is neither Canadian, nor Islamic. It speaks only for that segment of Canadian Muslims who publicly or privately support the Islamist agenda of global jihad.

Elmasry's complaint that Maclean's discriminated against him as a Muslim and the Muslim community at large by publishing Steyn's essay, described as "flagrantly anti-Muslim" is frivolous and false.

Elmasry is incapable of grasping what freedom means -- he is on public record for insisting all adult Israelis are legitimate targets for Palestinian suicide bombers, only apologizing under duress -- since he comes from a culture where freedom is mostly non-existent.

But it is outrageous that the HRCs are willing to entertain such frivolous complaints as Alberta's did in accepting a similar complaint against Ezra Levant, the publisher of Western Standard, now out of business.

The objection of Islamists that discussions of Islam and Islamism -- the latter being a totalitarian ideology -- is offensive and deserves contemptuous dismissal, not an investigation by the HRC at taxpayers' expense.

The complaint by anyone -- least of all Islamists as determined foes of liberal democracy -- of being offended by the general robustness of free speech would be indicative that the complainant cannot distinguish between speech that could be construed as maliciously directed at an individual, or a group, and speech in all its variety and vigour that makes for free discourse in the media and academia.

Freedom comes with cost, and the cost of freedom of expression enshrined in Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is finding someone occasionally offended, yet this cannot be the basis for bridging or censoring the most fundamental right of an open society.

It will not be surprising to learn the HRC bureaucrats find incomprehensible the observation made by Ronald Dworkin, a highly respected legal philosopher, "the only right you don't have in a democracy is the right not to be offended."

Federal and provincial legislators bear heavy responsibility in protecting our democracy and safeguarding our freedoms.

The HRC's function urgently needs confinement by statute to its original purpose, while denying it authority to entertain frivolous complaints -- as is Elmasry's case against Maclean's -- that would subvert rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter.

If we would all learn never to say anything to cause fear you wouldn't have to ask these silly questions

Readers who closely follow the Section 13 Affair know that within the past week there has been a massive shift in perception.

Two weeks ago arguments about Section 13 revolved almost exclusively around the issue of freedom of speech, as they had for years. Then came a convergence of events from unrelated quarters.

When the events met last week, thousands of Canadians and many outside Canada suddenly realized that Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act was more than an outrage against free speech: the way it's administered made it a crime, a government crime.

As to why nobody had noticed before, that part is easy to explain. The announcement of the Section 13 filing against Maclean's magazine brought more scrutiny to Section 13 from more sharp observers than had ever occurred before, and all at the same time. This converged with revelations arising from other Section 13s under HRC review, and which pointed to criminal aspects of specific Section 13 proceedings.

The perception shift is so new that I assume the attorneys defending the Section 13 respondents are still trying to sort it out. It has not yet made its way into Canada's mainstream media.

Also, I doubt the shift has percolated into Canada's Parliament, with the possible exception of any MPs who closely follow Section 13 cases. And it doesn't seem that the shift in perception has arrived at the Attorney General/Justice Minister's office.

So. What's the next step?

Clearly nobody likes my idea -- at least, not yet -- of bringing criminal harassment charges against Canada's human rights commissions. (See my last post.)

Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant like the idea of approaching Rob Nicholson, Canada's Attorney General/Justice Minister, and asking him to explain why the HRCs he oversees are engaged in criminal behavior. In that regard I received a letter from a Canadian reader who observed:

Mark Steyn and others have raised the question of whether some complaints made to Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals have involved criminal activity by the complainants and the staff of the Commissions and Tribunals acting in collusion, presumably amounting to the crime of conspiracy or something analogous to it.

There have also been suggestions that the Attorney General of Canada should look into this. I have no idea whether the Attorney General would be minded to prosecute, but it seems to me possible, assuming that there has been such criminal activity, that it could be prosecuted by means of a private prosecution. The information [at the Canadian Federal Prosecution Service policy webpage] seems to indicate that this course is feasible.

If you want the Attorney General to act, there might be a snag, which Levant alludes to in the post he titled Questions for Rob Nicholson. Levant observes

[...] I'd hang the antics of the human rights commission around the neck of the man who is ultimately responsible for it -- and in the case of the federal HRC, that would be Rob Nicholson.

I don't want to short Levant's opinions in this matter so I recommend reading the entire post. But with regard to the snag, Levant closes by observing that he knows Nicholson well enough to know he's "not clueless" and yet Nicholson is:

[...] likely facing resistance from bureaucrats and civil service lawyers giving him a dozen "yes minister" reasons why the CHRC can't be reformed or abolished. But they're not the ones who are ultimately politically accountable -- he is.

I think there are two ways to read Levant's observations:

1. If Nicholson finds himself under enough pressure he might overcome politics as usual.

2. The fox is in charge of the chicken coop.

There is a third possibility, which is that Levant is wrong; that with regard to the legality of Section 13 Nicholson really does not have a clue.

I do have another suggestion. It might be a help if a few Canadians who've become familiar with the criminal aspects of Section 13 administration would attend a January 24 panel discussion in Calgary called "Offensive Speech: What's Legal? What's Ethical?"

The panelists will be Alan Borovoy, "Canada's best-known civil libertarian;" Stephen Ward, Director of the Centre for Journalism Ethics at UBC; and Micheal Vonn, Policy Director of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

See The Sheldon Chumir Foundation for Ethics and Leadership for details; attendance is free but requires registration.

The discussion will focus on "the limitation of offensive speech in a free society."

Micheal Vonn will weigh-in on the importance of not side-lining equality rights in free speech advocacy. “The tone of the current debate is quite troubling. The free speech advocates I'm reading in the mainstream press are insistent that marginalized groups are 'merely offended' and not threatened or genuinely afraid. What this public discussion needs is a lot less polemic and a lot more honest assessment of the complexity of the issues.”

The website also notes that "Panellists will discuss where we should draw the line when speech is offensive to one or more groups, for example, gays or Muslims."

So I think it would be a help if during the Q&A period something like this was asked of the panelists:

"You've spoken about where to draw the line. Have you given any thought to how? The way that Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act is administered means that respondents are presumed guilty of instigating actions that have not occurred and might never occur.

"That kind of government proceeding is illegal in any society that accords presumption of innocence; in fact, it's illegal in Canada. Yet the proceedings continue with the full backing of Canada's Parliament and federal and provincial governments. Do you have any idea why?"

I warn this line of questioning might be lost on Ms Vonn, who has clearly gone beyond the Section 13 goal of ending the likelihood of hatred and contempt and is now working on ridding Canadian society of the likelihood of fear. However, asking how she intends to do this by revoking presumption of innocence in quasi-judicial proceedings could scare up -- if you'll pardon the expression -- an interesting reply.

I note from the website that on appointment the panelists are giving interviews before and after the discussion. So interested bloggers and reporters might want to put the above questions, and others relating to the legality of Section 13 proceedings, during an interview.

Any questions about the state of democracy education in Canada?

The following exchange is from the Warman vs Lemire Section 13 hate speech hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Commission (page 4793 of the transcript). Barbara Kulaszka is the attorney for the respondent in the case. Dean Steacy is the chief CHRC investigator.

MS. KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

MS. KULASZKA: Okay. That was a clear answer.

MR. STEACY: It's not my job to give value to an American concept.

Pundita answers the critics

Dymphna at Gates of Vienna linked to my post Don't rile the natives ... and titled her commentary An Ancient Struggle: The BCM vs the AGM.

The post brought forth arguments and questions from GOV readers, which caused me to realize I should provide further explanation on some points I raised.

When I wrote the essay I didn't consider that the points that attracted strongest criticism were central to my discussion. But the arguments caused me to acknowledge that by bringing up the subject of British colonial rule and connecting that with Canada's official multiculturalism policy, I should be prepared to argue for a line of reasoning that's not addressed in current political debates.

I posted my replies at Gates of Vienna, but also provide them here. I don't provide the full text of the comments, which of course you can access at GOV.

I want to begin, however, not with an argument but with a reply I made to a comment that came into GOV just as I was posting my explanations:

I think it's vital for those outside Canada to realize that quietly, under the radar, Canada's version of multiculturalism is having an impact globally. This impact will only increase. As I noted in my essay, the Aga Khan is pushing the Canadian Way. And many world leaders are doing the same.

But as I pointed in my earlier essays on the Maclean's affair, Canada's government is making a deceptive sales pitch to the world. They're saying in essence, 'We have this beautiful liberal democracy and multiculturalism is big part of our success as a liberal democracy. If we can do it, you can do it.'

My earlier essays, starting with the Jan 8 one, turned up that Canada is not a liberal democracy. The Canadian government is studiously ignoring that to make their multicultural policy 'work,' they're having to make the fundamental rights of Canadians very conditional. And they are having to take draconian measures, including the blatant intimidation represented by Section 13, to repress speech.

That is not a liberal democracy. But the Canadian Way is manna for repressive governments that want to put on the appearance of democracy.

* * * * *

By multiculturalism I am referring to Canada's official policy by that name. In the essay under discussion I provide a link to a Canadian Parliament research service paper on the official policy. I strongly recommend that everyone interested in the topic read the paper. No matter how multiculturalism has been defined, Canada's version is the one that is being promulgated worldwide.

* * * * *

The argument that multiculturalism is a socialist invention is uninformed. However, the term has come to mean so many things, and been bended to so many modern political causes, that the best I could do in my essay was to warn that the term had many meanings.

But study Canadian history to become aware of the profound distinction between the genesis of multicultural policy in Canada and Europe. From the beginning, Canada's multicultural enterprise was used as a tool of expansion in 'native' tribal regions and for nation-building. In Europe, multiculturalism was used as a means to manage immigrant populations.

Turning to more modern times, and just to set the record straight, the first full articulation of Canada's multiculturalism policy came not from a Liberal or socialist but from a Progressive Conservative, Senator Paul Yuzyk, in his initial Senate speech in 1964.

The Liberal government that brought Yuzyk's ideas into legislation was acting on the problem of Canada's 'third force' more than on socialist politics. Canada's third force -- after the first and second forces of the British-French compact and the aboriginal inhabitants -- was the huge and rapid influx of a wide variety of culturally diverse immigrants during the post World War Two period.

The size and speed of the influx had overrun assimilation policy. This situation was leading to 'ghettoizing' of large numbers of immigrants, thus raising the specter of race riots and worse.

So, without launching a discourse, I'll just note that given the crisis situation that had built up, it's likely that even the most hard-core Conservative Canadian government would have clutched at the straw that Yuzyk offered.

The bending of a nation-building strategy to managing immigrant populations had mixed results, and was viewed with deep distrust by the Québécois. They feared that multiculturalism would rob them of their historic place of importance in Canada's power structure.

To whatever extent West European socialists found multiculturalism policy attractive, it is inarguable that West European governments that began to adopt multicultural policy in 1973 were influenced more by Canada's success than by socialism.

The more you know about the distinction, the more readily evident that the current arguments in West Europe about multiculturalism are too narrow. If those Europeans contesting multiculturalism want to get on better ground, they should study Canadian history and the history of the British colonial enterprise. But make sure to dig deep, when it comes to studying the Canadian enterprise.

As I politely indicated in my essay, Canada's official version of how multiculturalism came about in Canada is not the only one. If you want a far more critical version, read historical anthropologist Eva Mackey's book, The House of Difference: Cultural politics and national identity in Canada.

Mackey's view of the building of the Canadian nation is also open to some dispute. But if you put Mackey's and the official views together, you'll be in the ballpark. From that vantage point you can feel your way to an understanding of how the BCM was very effective at nation building and managing natives -- and even the French, who themselves were no slouches at colonial enterprise.

With regard to a critics's sweeping claim that the British empire "imposed British values" on those ruled under the British enterprise, the claim is so vastly misinformed that I have to restrain myself from mockery.

Would that the British had imposed their values on the 30% of Africa that they ruled! And if only they had imposed their values on Ceylon, and India including the region known today as Pakistan! If only -- then oceans of blood would not have been spilled in the sectarian and tribal convulsions that arose to replace British rule.

The British imposed order on myriad tribes and clans. As part of that effort, they created a veneer, a stage show of British justice and governments. Once the veneer wore off, prebendalism arose like a monster from the deep, only made even more vicious and grasping by the long decades of British 'management.'

Prebendalism is an undescriptive term for the age-old tribal and clan practice of expropriating the lion's share of state revenues for the personal use of the most powerful chief, his immediate family, and their protectors.

The graft is vast that arises from prebendalism in governments that only pay lip service to the kind of values the British espouse. It is so vast that nobody in the modern development or aid community wants to attempt to tot up the trillions of US dollars and British pounds that ended up in the pockets of a relative handful of scoundrels who bled their nations.

If British values had been absorbed in their 30% of Africa, by the 1980s, post-colonial British Africa would have been a trading and industrial giant that eclipsed the European and American ones.

So let us not talk about the imposition of British values on regions that only knew the clan system or tribalism before the British came along. The British were intent on managing those populations, not transforming them into genuine democracies.

Toward the end of Empire, yes, the British made sincere attempts to encourage 'home rule' and a transition to independent democratic government in many places they ruled. But within less than a decade of British pullout, it was evident that in many former holdings, the effort was too little, too late.

There are exceptions to the rule but without examining the list, I think it's fair to observe that in places where the British system managed to hang on well past the British exit, there was a government infrastructure in place prior to British arrival that represented an elevation on tribal government. India's maharaja system is one such structure.

None of the above is an attempt to demonize the British or their empire. One must look at things in the context of history, and not neglect the many positive contributions of Empire. It is very likely that many of the tribes the British oversaw would have otherwise died out from wars, cycles of revenge, and starvation. Why, even the Saudi tribe owes their existence to British intervention against the Turks' attempt to wipe them out.

Yet all the above explains why the British became so very critical of the US nation-building effort in Iraq. They knew from long experience that the US had walked into a maze of tribes and clans that the US could not expect to transform into a genuinely democratic nation -- not without more years and patience than the US was probably willing to invest.

The British also knew the consequences of the US hastily setting up a "stage show" democratic government, then pulling out of Iraq, leaving to their own devices the tribes and clans that had been released from the Baath party's iron grip.

Now I turn a critic's mention of PC. The critic asks if what I call the BCM is indeed "a historical left over in former colonies, then how, pray tell, does multiculturalism and political correctness rule the roost in countries that were neither colonies nor under British influence? To wit, all of Western Europe."

The above answers much of the question but with regard to PC, that was not a British invention, or British modification of strategies used by the Roman Empire. Political correctness comes from an entirely different stream; namely, the ancient Chinese one.

The strategy arises from tactics for managing tribes that came under Chinese rule. The strategy is almost the inverse of multiculturalism. PC arose from the idea that no matter what tribe you belong to, when you are under the rule of the Emperor, you are going to think and act like a right proper member of the Middle Kingdom. This means it's not correct if your choice of words reflects anything but the Middle Kingdom way

This strategy was updated by Mao Zedong and used to repress dissent in China against his brand of Communism. This led to the Orwellian tactic of not naming unpleasant situations for what they are. Thus, the death camps in Mao's China had names roughly equating to "The Happy Inn of Reeducation."

So. As to how PC and multiculturalism got married in West Europe (and in America and Canada) frankly, I think I would need to ingest a powerful hallucinogen before I could wrap my mind around how the situation came to pass.

But I'll bet that when you dig to the bottom, you will find mass education systems that don't put much emphasis on teaching world history except maybe revisionist history, which was never much good at describing the details of Mao's reign of terror.

I hope all the above helps underscore why I brought up British colonialism in the context of a discussion about Canadian multiculturalism policy, and Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act. The angry debates about Canada's human rights commissions and the discrimination complaint against Maclean's magazine are hyper-focused on Canada's Conservative-Liberal political divide.

I interject that the debates have been egged on by American Conservatives jumping into the fray. But to hear these debaters tell it, the entire problem could be solved by getting rid of the 'Liberal invention' of the rights commissions. And from the other side, Liberals howling that the Conservatives are hell bent on destroying Canada's rich multicultural 'liberal' democracy.

So, with the facts of history in mind, my essay was in the nature of rifle shots aimed above the head of an unruly mob that was turning violent. If everyone would calm down and think, they would realize that the situation they find themselves in -- facing the death of free speech in Canada -- was not an invention of socialist or Liberal policies.

It arose from highly pragmatic nation-building strategy, which by many twists and turns had led Canada to where it is today: a nation that is a 'liberal' democracy in name only.

Canada is not yet a police state, but it has long been drifting somewhere between the authoritarian democracy of a nation like Singapore and the liberal democracy of the United States. That Canadian's don't seem to see this -- they better open their eyes.

My essay was to warn that unless Canadians ditch the narrow Left-Right context of their debates, they stand to lose more than free speech. They stand to lose their democracy.

Don't rile the natives, or what do Canada and Chechnya have in common?

NOTE
For background on Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which is the basis of the discrimination complaints against Maclean's magazine and Ezra Levant, see these Pundita posts:
Jan 8: Maclean's Magazine Affair reveals deep fissures in Canada's democracy
Jan 14: Canada's version of The Minority Report: pre-crime and presumption of guilt in Section 13 cases
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
If I thought medication would help, I suppose I would tell a psychiatrist that I'm always on the lookout for the British counterinsurgency. I don't like admitting this to you -- paranoids generally don't unburden themselves for obvious reasons; you could be a Redcoat spy. But as there is no other way to explain the reasoning behind my view of Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act (see the last two Pundita posts about Section 13), I have let you in on my secret.

I am not prejudiced against the British, you understand; I'm waiting for them to make another try. There is a difference.

Section 13 is a direct consequence of Canada's official multicultural policy, which is written into their Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Section 27.

But what is multiculturalism and how did it come about in Canada? Here is the Canadian government's explanation. Yet mountains of books and scholarly papers have been published in the attempt to answer the question. None of them are worth a plug nickel in my view, unless they explain that multiculturalism in its modern version was a British invention for managing native populations.

So when I review published criticism of the Section 13 complaints against Maclean's magazine I can only shake my head in wonder at such blindness. The critics, whether from Canada or America, are doggedly determined to pin blame on human rights commissions, or Liberals and the Political Correctness movement.

Let us be clear. The war between the American colonies and Britain ended, but the ideological struggle never did. That struggle has been played out most recently in Iraq, which saw the British approach to managing the natives in Basra in open conflict with the US attempt to block Iranian weapons from entering Iraq. My nightmare is that it's being played out in Afghanistan as well.

What are the two sides in the struggle? The British colonial model (BCM) is that you allow the natives you rule in foreign lands to keep to their own ways as much as possible without your losing control over them. This approach arose out of practical needs to keep tribal rivalries from spilling into wars that the British home office would find hard to control.

On the topic of democracy the BCM says: What use it is to teach these tribes democracy when the first thing they'll do with it is tear each other to pieces and balkanize into territories the size of a postage stamp?

The BCM is basically a conflict-management model.

The American Government Model (AGM) is built on the defense of liberty and the protection of individual rights. That the United States has often betrayed the model when applying it to foreign relations does not invalidate it.

I see in the conflict between the BCM and AGM the age-old struggle between maintaining order and self empowerment.

Now we proceed to Pundita's one minute history of the modern world.

In the post-World War Two era the BCM seemingly went into eclipse. But on close inspection -- and Canada is a good example -- in many places the BCM continued to influence government policies even in countries that had won full independence from the British.

The BCM produced a way of thinking that is so deeply ingrained in post-colonial countries that I believe this is why many Canadians don't see that Section 13 poses threats to their freedom beyond the issue of freedom of speech.

When push comes to shove the BCM is so useful at maintaining order that there hardly seems a contest between it and the AGM.

Here we come to a snag, which became evident when British rule left countries that often were creations of Colonialist deals and alliances.

In the many bloodbaths that followed it was clear that all the BCM had ever done was keep a lid on situations. In horror, the British tried as best they could, given their own very difficult situation after World War Two, to right the wrongs of the BCM in former colonies.

They soon learned that several governments in the former colonies preferred mass slaughter as the means to managing uprisings, despite all the years of British influence under the BCM.

The British got a chance to redeem themselves during the Cold War, and particularly toward its close, when they threw considerable resources at helping Eastern European countries learn the ropes of democracy.

Then came the end of the Soviet Union. Then followed the golden years when it seemed that globalization had obsolesced the ideological struggle between order and freedom. Somehow, unrestricted trade between nations would translate into freedom and order for all.

Then came 9/11, followed by the Democracy Doctrine and Bush's announcement that he planned to export the doctrine to the four quarters. At this news people around the globe thought they were experiencing an earthquake. No, it was just millions of government officials hitting the floor with a thud after fainting in horror.

And here we are today. Where exactly is "here?"

Canadian multiculturalism is looked upon with admiration by many world leaders - particularly His Highness the Aga Khan. In a 2002 interview with the Globe and Mail, the 49th Imam of the Ismaili Muslims described Canada as "the most successful pluralist society on the face of our globe", citing it as "a model for the world."

He explained that the experience of Canadian governance - its commitment to pluralism and its support for the rich multicultural diversity of its peoples - is something that must be shared and would be of benefit societies in other parts of the world.

With this in mind, he went on in 2006 to establish the Global Centre for Pluralism in partnership with the Government of Canada. The Centre seeks to export the Canadian experience by promoting pluralist values and practices in culturally diverse societies worldwide, with the aim of ensuring that every individual has the opportunity to realize his or her full potential as a citizen, irrespective of cultural, ethnic or religious differences.

Do not assume that the Aga Khan is a rustic. The first Aga Khan suppressed a regional rebellion against the British Raj in India, which earned him the only personal gun salute that the British accorded a native leader. For their loyalty the British Raj heaped high rank and nobility on the Aga Khans.

The present Aga Khan has used his position and wealth for the betterment of countless people, and he's done it so well that it reflects a kind of genius. His work in international development has been an influence on me for many years.

But we cannot expect all things from one person. The Aga Khan is not the flagship for democracy. He's got a lot of tribal peoples to look after, and who are scattered in more than 30 countries that have varying degrees of freedom and prosperity.

The Aga Khan has taught his people to practice tolerance for other cultures and religions, and to live in peace with those whose ways of thinking are radically different from their own. So it's no wonder that he would embrace Canada's multicultural policy and promote it around the world.

To complete the picture of where we are today, let's listen to Yossef Bodansky explain Russia's new approach for dealing with natives. Actually, you'll have to listen to a summary of my hastily scribbled notes from radio broadcasts because I have not yet read Seffy's new book Chechen Jihad: The Next Wave of Terror.

Surely the book addresses the title topic. But during his conversations with John Batchelor and John Loftus on their respective radio shows, Seffy focused on outlining how the Russian government defused the Chechen rebellion without further bloodshed:

After years of attempting without success to brutally suppress the rebellion, Putin and his technocrats noticed that the more they suppressed, the more this drove the Chechens into terrorism.

Putin saw another way when it became clear that the Chechens were fed up with the foreign neo-Salafists who had taken over their rebellion. Those usurpers belong to the Global Caliphate by the Sword crowd -- al Qaeda and kindred.

Most Chechens weren't interested in being rulers of the world. They just wanted things like jobs, education, and enough to eat. But they didn't want to live under Moscow's thumb because that would destroy their way of doing things. And they didn't want to live under Salafist rule because that would do the same.

So Putin&Co. went to Chechen leaders and said, in essence,'What we want is for you to stay with Russia. What you want is to retain your tribal forms of government. So why don't we make a deal that gives us both what we want? You stay with Russia and keep your way of doing things.'

Seffy termed this deal the Russian Model, which caused me to throw my pen in the air and shriek, "What does he mean Russian model? That's the British model for keeping the natives in line!"

But the approach was Open Sesame. The deal has been so well accepted by the Chechens that if I correctly recall from Seffy's conversation, there are now 12 times the number of Chechens serving in Russia's security forces as Chechens still running around the hills and talking about blowing up Russia.

Several of the latter types have left for Iran and other parts of the world where they can work on the Global Caliphate plan. But the Russian Model has so far been such a success at quelling the Chechnya rebellion that Moscow wants to apply the model to other regions.

Seffy suggested that the United States apply the Russian Model to Afghanistan and other parts of South Asia/Central Asia. To support his argument he laid out the bottom line:

Does the US want to continue promoting democracy when the tribes are determined to continue their ways? Or do we want their help in guarding thousands of miles of oil pipelines that are vital to the West?

To this I exclaimed, "He's asking America to act like the British Raj! Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

I know at the back of my mind that the BCM is far older than Britain. It goes back to the Roman Empire and much earlier. Again, it's a conflict management model, which served ancient empires that based far-flung trade on managing the natives.

So if it wasn't for the fact that humankind can't go on for eternity with countless tribal governments carried by a few highly productive nations, the BCM would be the clear winner in the argument with the AGM.

That is something Canadians need to ponder. And everyone needs to notice that debates between multiculturalism and assimilation are sucking oxygen from the debate between freedom and oppression.

I understand the issues connected with "visible minorities" and immigration management in the face of declines in the majority population. I know that these are pressing issues for governments that must deal with large numbers of immigrants who arrive from vastly different cultures.

And yet these are conflict management issues, which are not the linchpin of a nation's democracy. My last two posts pointed out that Canada drifted away from being a liberal democracy, to the extent the country ever was one. How much more drift do Canadians want, before they wake one morning and realize they're living in a police state?

Democracy is not a given. And multiculturalism is not an equivalent value with democracy. Nor is it an equivalent value with human rights. Nor is it equivalent with progress.

I am haunted by the words of a village elder in Afghanistan. He wanted his daughter to become a doctor because that was what she wanted to do with her life. There was no school in the village yet he refused to give up his dream for his daughter.

So measure that dream against pipelines. Then tell me whether any nation should go ahead and rile the natives in Afghanistan or do business as usual. Tell me whether a thousand miles of pipeline are worth the life of one good man.

I hear voices wafting from the Great North: 'But Pundita if we don't keep all these diverse immigrants happy we won't be able to keep our economy going! Then Canada won't be in a position to help that man!

Do you really think that's the kind of answer that produced the U.S. Bill of Rights?

You cannot confuse tolerance with respect for human life. Even the British at the height of their colonialist enterprise understood that. There were times when they knew they had to draw the line:

... the British in India were faced with the practice of “suttee” -- the tradition of burning widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands.

General Sir Charles Napier was impeccably multicultural: “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

I am not asking Canadians to give up multiculturalism entirely. Just ask the British what happens when multiculturalism trumps the values that support democracy. Then realign priorities.

Yes, tolerance is good up to a point. Respecting other people's heritage is good. But in this era the conflict between freedom and order is a pivotal struggle in many nations. It's even arisen in Canada in the form of the Maclean's affair and Section 13.
JANUARY 17 UPDATE
Some points in the above writing brought for criticism and questions, which I answer here.

Canada's version of The Minority Report: pre-crime and presumption of guilt in Section 13 cases. More on the Maclean's Magazine Affair.

There have been developments since my January 8 post on the Maclean's affair. And since then I have learned more about Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act, which is at the heart of the affair.

All this has caused my view on the matter to evolve. Section 13 is so bizarre that I think many have been on a steep learning curve since the news broke in December about the Maclean's affair.

So I have set aside my intended post about Mohamed Elmasry's complaints against Maclean's magazine in favor of more discussion on basic issues relating to Section 13.

Readers unfamiliar with the Maclean's affair and Section 13 might want to read the January 8 post before tackling this one. But in brief, Section 13(1) states:

It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

Subsections 2 and 3 extend Section 13 to include computers, the Internet and similar means of communication.

One of the developments I referred to is that on January 11 Ezra Levant appeared at a preliminary inquiry conducted by the Alberta Human Rights Commission. The inquiry was in response to two complaints filed against Levant under Section 13.

While he was publisher of the Western Standard magazine Levant reprinted the famous Danish cartoons about Islam's prophet that had outraged many Muslims. This was the basis of the Section 13 complaints against him, which were filed by Muslims citing religious grounds for their complaints.

Levant launched his appearance at the inquiry with a ringing defense of what he claimed is his "inalienable" right as a Canadian to free speech. It was a beautiful declamation but misinformed. It turns out that a fascinating qualifiying clause in Canada's version of the U.S. Bill of Rights effectively renders null and void all the rights accorded Canadians. They exist at the pleasure of their government.

So Levant is also misinformed when he centers blame on Canada's human rights commissions for censoring speech in that country.(1) Mark Steyn and virtually all others cheering on Maclean's (and Levant) also seem misinformed on that point. So I'll begin here:

The first section of [Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms] states that its guarantees are "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society," a qualification not found in the U.S. Constitution.

The passage is from an article on Canada's Constitution that is published on the website for the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC.

So to whatever extent the human rights commissions are censoring speech, they are only carrying out laws that represent what Canada's government deems "reasonable limits" on speech. And so far, Canada's Supreme Court has backed up limitations on speech imposed under Section 13. (See the Jan 8 post note.)

That said, the Section 13 proceedings still strike me as unconstitutional. I do not believe anyone has disputed the proceedings on the grounds I propose. So the rest of this post will be to sketch my argument.

First, I'll return to the article about Canada's Constitution:

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees some of the same rights, called "fundamental freedoms," that are protected in the U.S. Bill of Rights: freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. It guarantees legal rights, such as the presumption of innocence; the right to life, liberty, and security of the person; and security against unreasonable search and seizure.

If you go down the list, it's fairly easy to see how any of those rights might be limited under certain extreme or precise conditions -- with one exception:

The right to presumption of innocence.

There is no way democratic government can limit or suspend that particular right without crashing the entire legal system, not to mention the entire society unless it becomes a police state.

Any Canadian court that presumes the guilt of the defendant prior to a fair hearing has committed a crime. Would this also apply to proceedings conducted by Canada's "quasi-judicial" human rights commissions? I'd say yes:

HRC decisions are backed by law; the respondent's failure to comply with the decisions can lead to a prison term. Once prison is in the mix, a proceeding cannot evade presumption of innocence by claiming to be quasi-judicial.

Except under Section 13 there are very specific criteria for discriminatory acts; e.g, denial of housing, being fired from a job, and so on. Once the term "discrimination" is used in a legal context, there must be objective criteria for establishing whether discrimination occurred. So, with the exception of Section 13, you have to produce evidence that an act is discriminatory.

The rules do not apply with Section 13 because it does not relate to acts, discriminatory or otherwise. It deals exclusively with hatred and contempt. To be more precise, it deals with "likely" hatred and contempt arising from a communication.

In other words, Section 13 deals with hatred and contempt that have not yet occurred. It deals only with likelihood, which refers to the future.

How can the HRC agree to review a complaint about the likelihood of a future occurrence? Only by assuming that the occurrence is likely.

That means presumption of guilt.

The situation evokes Philip K. Dick's science fiction story, The Minority Report. The plot revolves around a criminal justice system that includes "pre-crime." A person can be arrested and sentenced to prison for a murder that has not occurred but which is deemed likely to occur.

Of course such a justice system is a contradiction in terms. It's not justice or even law; it's an inversion of both concepts. The very notion of charging a person with pre-crime is an outrage against humanity that cannot be justified under any circumstance.

But in Canada, under Section 13, pre-crime charges and convictions are a fact.

I should add that terms such as "conviction" are not used in the HRC process. Because the HRCs are quasi-judicial they don't employ judicial language. But again, once the threat of a prison sentence is in the mix, it's merely a matter of convention that the HRCs employ non-judicial language. HRC's that find against the respondent engage in de facto conviction and sentencing.

To wrap it up, although it seems Canada's Supreme Court has done fancy footwork to allow Section 13, there is no way to administer Section 13 without running afoul of the law pertaining to presumption of innocence.

1) Above I only provided one link to Ezra Levant's tales of his encounter with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. But if you access his blog's main page you'll see he has several posts on the subject, including video clips of his discussion with a commissioner. The posts provide some illuminating insights about the Section 13 inquiry process and related matters.

Levant had quite an adventure at the Alberta HRC. He went armed with the Oakes Test, which describes the Canadian legal test that governments must meet before they're allowed to override freedom of speech.

He recounts that the hearing commissioner nodded her head "in agreement."

"But look at any -- actually, every -- human rights decision: these commissions claim that the Oakes Test doesn't apply to their censorship."

Maclean's Magazine Affair reveals deep fissures in Canada's democracy

"Illiberal democratic governments believe they have a mandate to act in any way they see fit, disregarding laws or the constitution if they desire, as long as they hold regular elections."(1)

In October 2006 Maclean's magazine, Canada's only national news weekly, carried Islam is the Future, an excerpt from a book by Mark Steyn titled America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It

In April 2007 Mohamed Elmasry, the President of the Canadian Islamic Congress, filed the first of three discrimination complaints against Maclean's and related parties for their publication of the excerpt. When the filings became public in December they touched off an uproar over free speech, and its limits, in Canada.

The uproar obscured an even bigger story about the state of Canada's democracy. Eerily, the story has never surfaced in the media; it can only be inferred by studying the very strange Canadian law that supports Elmasry's complaint and how the law is administered.

Under law, a Canadian citizen can be charged with and found guilty of hate speech even when:

> The complaint does not allege hate speech.
> There is no evidence of hate speech.
> There is no suggestion the citizen engaged or unintentionally engaged in hate speech.

If you're Canadian, you can be found guilty of hate speech merely on suspicion that your words may incite thoughts of hatred or contempt.

And all this without recourse to trial or even a civil courts hearing.

How could this happen in a supposedly liberal democratic society? I don't know. But it might be that Canada's criminal justice system handed off the responsibility for investigating complaints about hate speech to Canada's human rights commissions when there's not sufficient evidence to charge a crime.

No matter how it came about, in Canada you can be found guilty of a de facto hate crime by a de facto (i.e., "quasi-judicial") ruling body, even when no such crime has been committed. And Canada's courts and criminal justice system will do nothing to protect you.

Yet the sentence meted out is not de facto. While the penalties for hate speech are not as severe as those for hate crime, they can be ruinous and do involve a prison sentence if the citizen refuses to abide by the quasi-judicial decision.

Isn't it against the law for a non-judicial body to execute a law that can treat an incident as a crime? Well, in a genuine democracy, I'd say yes. But Canada's law deploys Orwellian language to skirt the issue by not identifying hate speech, or more precisely "hate messages," as a crime. It's identified as a discrimination issue, even though it is treated as a de facto crime.

Here readers familiar with the Maclean's Affair might ask whether the issue I'm addressing isn't much broader than Mark Steyn and others have conveyed in their published comments. Those defending Maclean's magazine have confined the issue to one of free speech.

I think it's a matter of focus. There is an issue of free speech, which has captured the attention of those defending Maclean's. But when you turn to study how the law works in this regard, the issue is much broader.

One critic charged that Canada does not have free speech, only "the illusion of free speech."

But from the viewpoint of how the law under discussion is carried out, I think it's closer to the truth to observe that Canada has only an illusion of liberal democracy.

At the least, the country drifted years ago into the foggy region between a liberal democracy and the kind of illiberal democracy found in Singapore.

Yet the Canadian public doesn't seem aware that their democracy has drifted. The Maclean's Affair should be the wake-up call, but maybe because published descriptions of the affair focus on free speech, the broader issues are not in public discussion.

I assume that Canadians are well aware that their government reserves the right to suspend free speech under poorly-defined conditions, and that they're content with this. The U.S. Department of State has noted:

[Canada's] Supreme Court has ruled that the government may limit free speech in the name of goals such as ending discrimination, ensuring social harmony, or promoting gender equality. It also has ruled that the benefits of limiting hate speech and promoting equality are sufficient to outweigh the freedom of speech clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the country's bill of rights incorporated in the country's constitution". (H/T Volokh Conspiracy)

Okay, but that says nothing about the right to a trial and the right to be found innocent in the absence of evidence of guilt. If those rights, which are basic to democracy, can be suspended in the name of ensuring social harmony, this is not a genuine democracy we're talking about. This is a democracy stage show or at best an illiberal democracy.

Readers who are familiar with Steyn's criticism of Canada's human rights commissions, or with criticism voiced by those supporting Steyn and Maclean's, might be asking at this point why the supporters' blame is aimed at the commissions rather than the law itself.

I think the blame is misplaced in this particular matter. With regard to their decision to hear Mohamed Elmasry's complaint against Maclean's et al., the Canadian Human Rights Commission and British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal are simply carrying out the law and specifically, Section 13 of Canada's Human Rights Act.

Alan Borovoy, general counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, recently noted that his organization:

[...] is concerned about the human rights complaints process. It's too easy to claim an article may subject a group to hate or contempt under commission rules, Borovoy said. "Even truthful articles describing some of the awful situations in this world could run afoul of this law, it is so broad and such a potential threat to freedom of speech," he said.

Borovoy also noted in earlier comments:

"[...] during the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech."

But again, freedom of speech is not the only issue, and neither is how the human rights commissions interpret the law.

What is Section 13 of the Human Rights Act? Here is the wording; I have emphasized the most relevant passage:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

(The Section has been amended to include computers, the Internet and similar means of communication. See subsections 2 and 3.)

Exactly what does Section 13(1) mean by "likely" when it states "...any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt ...?"

The Canadian Human Rights Commission does not provide guidance on their interpretation of likelihood with regard to the Act's wording and the law is very unclear in this matter. From a comment posted at Wise Law, a Toronto law blog:

[...] The legal standard for "likely" is so vague and general as to be no protection for defendants in these cases. Let me quote the court in this case:

"The Nealy Tribunal went on to say that the use of the word 'likely' in s. 13(1) means that it is not necessary to prove that the effect of the communication will be that those who hear the messages will direct hatred or contempt against others. Nor is it necessary to show that, in fact, anyone was so victimized. These findings were later endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor, supra."

So in the Newspeak of the Canadian judicial system, "likely" means "remotely possible." [...]

If there are no objective criteria for deciding on the likelihood of certain speech inciting hateful or contemptuous thoughts, and when there is no evidence of such speech leading to a discriminatory act -- how do the commissioners arrive at a decision?

I have not made a study of the commission rulings on such cases. But from comments I have read about some of the decisions, evidentially the commissioners/tribunal members receive so little direction from Section 13 that at times they must fall back on their personal interpretation of the grounds presented by the complainant.

This can mean arriving at a decision on the suspicion that certain speech will create or has created hateful and contemptuous thoughts, or has led to a discriminatory act(s).

In summary, the way Section 13 is stated means that anyone in a Canadian group protected under the Human Rights Act can bring a complaint of discrimination with no objective basis for the complaint. He can complain solely on his concern that a publication of fact or opinion is likely to expose him to hatred and contempt.

This is exactly what Mohamed Elmasry did in his complaints.

If he had complained about a small journal or website, the matter might have languished in relative obscurity. But by taking on Maclean's, Elmasry inadvertently played Pandora. He exposed for all who care to see that for many years Canada has not been a liberal democracy.

I'm not sure I'll have time this week to turn my notes on Elmasry's complaints into a post. But I have put the task on my to-do list and tentatively aim for publication on Saturday.

For readers who'd like to get the jump on the discussion, and even for those who think they are familiar with the case from reading comments about it, here is a link to a post at Steyn Online. The post contains links to PDF copies of the actual complaints, or rather what's publicly available of them.

There's quite a bit of published misinformation about the complaints and much confusion arising from that. So it's helpful to study the actual complaints if you're interested in following the news about the Maclean's Affair.

(I have not mentioned the third complaint that Elmasry filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission because they still haven't announced that they'll hear the complaint.)

Other helpful background is the Canadian Human Rights Commission web page A Watch on Hate, which contains several Q and A on Section 13 and how the CHRC handles such complaints. I linked to the page earlier in the post but there it is again.

No, I did not drop a word. It's not a watch on hate speech, hate messages, or hate crime. The CHRC seems determined to wipe out hate, period. As to how they plan to do this, I have no idea.

I do know that establishing a climate of fear is an effective way to condition people to thinking as you want. It's easy to create such a climate once people are willing to trade fundamental rights for an atmosphere of tolerance.

But then again, maybe the CHRC war on hate is their contribution to the war on terror. Maybe the commissioners think it's better to live in an atmosphere of forced tolerance than to live in an outright police state. From that viewpoint, Maclean's magazine would just be collateral damage.

For more on the topic, see David E. Bernstein's "You Can't Say That!" Canada's thought police on the march. Bernstein is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of You Can't Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Anti-Discrimination Laws.

1) Illiberal Democracy, Wikipedia

Beam me up, Scotty

Here's the deal, O Great Chief United States of America. We are nations when it suits us. When it doesn't suit us we are tribes, such as the 700,000 strong Bhutto tribe in that region you call Pakistan or the Kikuyu or Luo tribe in that region you call Kenya.

Here's the way it works. We want all the benefits of nationhood, but we don't want to change our tribal ways. And we want you, O Great Chief, to help us when it suits us and when it doesn't we want to blame you for all that goes wrong.

Be happy that we accord you such great respect. Until you are properly grateful for our respect, you will never make progress in that region you call the Middle East. Are you writing all this down? Because if you're not, we can always bring our allegiance to a chieftain such as Iran, China or al Qaeda.

True, those are middling chieftains today but the chief is just a figurehead. We have all the power. We are the tribe. Now bring us our blanket and bottle.

***************************************************
The above is my response to Yossef Bodansky's argument in Chechen Jihad that the United States faces a choice: continue alienating tribal peoples by trying to move them toward democratic government, or follow the new Russian model and leave the tribes to their own devices, so they'll agree to do things such as guard oil pipelines in remote regions and provide intelligence on al Qaeda franchises.

Thus, the 21st century version of the European Colonalist dictum, "Don't rile the natives," which helped land the Middle East and Central Asia in just the mess they -- and the rest of the world -- are in today.

21 for 21

In recent weeks players have talked about the strange circumstances that occurred -- a gale force wind in New York that blew a punt 20 extra yards, missed opponents' field goals in which the wind blew the kicks wildly to one side, passes that seemed to hang in the air an extra second until Redskins could catch them -- and said they believed [Sean] Taylor was at work for them.

Happy New Year to my readers!

Happy New Year to the US troops and veterans!

An inspiring way for Americans to start off the new year is by reading Heroes Among Us: Firsthand Accounts of Combat from America's Most Decorated Warriors in Iraq and Afghanistan. (H/T John Batchelor Show.)

The book is by Major Chuck Larson, who served for a year with the US Army in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom and was awarded the Bronze Star.

My plan was to also wish happy new year to all those groups and individuals I knew about who have done more than just their job in supporting the US war efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and in other places around the world.

I was thinking about the kind of people who have given more than 100 per cent in their work; the kind who believe it's their responsibility to put all their heart into supporting the war effort.

But when I began drawing up the list I realized that it would need to be book length, to even begin to do justice to the many thousands who deserve credit.

So I will just wish a Happy New Year to all those who have worked overtime to support the war effort, and with a special note to those whose efforts never receive much mention -- the translators, cooks, camera crews, aides, analysts and countless other kinds of workers who have labored unsung.

And Happy New Year to my hometown football team! The Washington Redskins game yesterday was a highly symbolic and inspiring victory. Their entire astonishing comeback this season is a reminder that when your heart is fully engaged in a just cause, the winds have a way of blowing in your favor.

"The Washington Redskins were drenched with rain, sweat and even a few cathartic tears Sunday evening when they entered their locker room after a 27-6 demolition of the Dallas Cowboys.

Rock Cartwright screamed: “We won by 21! We won by 21!”

Several teammates joined in, the chants growing louder and louder, until the refrain echoed off the walls.

“No one had to explain anything,” defensive end Chris Wilson said. “We all knew what he was talking about.”

On a day when they capped an unlikely late-season surge by clinching the National Football Conference’s final playoff berth ... the Redskins’ margin of victory matched the jersey number worn by Sean Taylor, the promising safety who was shot to death last month ..."

Grey water, hot water, and the electric car battery deal

Although I was born and baptized a Christian I left the Church a long time ago. However, for decades I continued to celebrate Christmas, and I learned in India that the spirit of Christmas transcends religion. Yet in recent years I'd become quite a Scrooge, feeling like a stranger in a strange land around Christmas time.

John Batchelor's joyful Christmas show this Sunday for KFI radio gave wonderful gifts to his audience: discussions with the authors of A Bull in China: Investing Profitably in the World's Greatest Market; Happiness and the Human Spirit: the Spirituality of Becoming the Best You Can Be; and How to Change the World.

I thought sourly that even the segment on the dangers of asteroids and a discussion of the US presidential primary race didn't dampen John's celebration of hope for the future and affirmation of America as a beacon of liberty.

And I noted that even his discussion about Pakistan's politics with Najam Sethi, editor of Pakistan's Daily Times, ended on a hopeful note. Najam recounted that Pakistan's lawyers were joining with the country's feminist and other human rights activist groups to form the core of a revolution in the making, one that transcends tribal and religious affiliations.

Bah. Humbug. Pakistan would never change.

Then today came a knocking at my door. It was a Muslim friend bringing a Christmas present. After feeling the outline beneath the wrapping paper I figured it was a box of chocolates. When I opened the present I squealed with surprise and delight; it was a book I'd been wanting to read more than any other.

Later, knock knock. Some Jewish friends dropped by; they'd chipped in on a Christmas present. When I tore off the wrapping I found that the gift was a much-needed item.

Okay okay, I get it. Here is your present. Merry Christmas to one and all!

Very smart products, and a way to get smart product ideas around faster:

From Products We Wish Were in America:

[...] Sometimes, necessity makes for the most innovative products. In Australia, water is in short supply in many parts of the country, the result of a devastating drought. These days, Australia has become a country of water misers, with water-saving products to match. Gardeners who wish to water their plants can buy a new invention called the Water-Leech, which reuses so-called “grey water,” that is, water run-off from the bath or shower. A hose attachment hooks up to the shower or sink drain, then a pump in the relatively compact unit draws the water into a self-contained storage tank. Once the tank is full, it’s easy to wheel the unit outside to water your lawn or garden. The company says the unit can help the average household conserve 35,000 liters annually.

Another great water-saving product coming out of Australia is the instant, compact, continuous-flow hot water heater, which is slowly gaining in popularity in [America]. Rather than heating a large amount of water the way most hot water heaters in the U.S. do -- and keeping it heated -- this product instantly heats the water on demand and in a much more efficient way. Once it is activated, it delivers a constant supply of hot water. Since heating water accounts for over 20 percent of home energy use in this country, this energy-saving product could save homeowners money while also being more environmentally friendly. Also, the hardware on these systems usually lasts twice as long as that on regular tank systems. Some experts estimate that the average family can save between 30 and 50 percent of the cost of heating water each year with tankless systems.

Of course, cars are one of the biggest energy guzzlers. And driving electric cars is a great way to save on fuel. Norway has figured out a way to let consumers buy these autos at affordable prices by allowing them to lease the battery on the car. In the next few months, the two-seat, electric-powered Think City car will become available in Norway for somewhere between $15,000 to $17,000. Since the battery is the costliest part of the car (about $34,000), the company plans to allow consumers to lease it for about $100 to $200 a month, which will include other services such as insurance and mobile internet access. The web service will allow the company to remotely monitor the battery’s life, and contact owners when the battery needs to be replaced. [...]

Despite the globalization of commerce, there are still many innovative products that aren’t available in this country. That’s where web sites like Springwise come in. The company scans the globe for the most promising ideas and concepts ready for regional or international adaptation or expansion. Springwise has more than 8,000 “Springspotters” in over 70 countries who search the globe for new concepts.

“We regularly hear from readers who are interested in bringing a product or service to their own country, after reading about it on Springwise,” says Liesbeth den Toom, senior editor for the web site.

“Springwise is very much a child of globalization. By gathering ideas from a wide variety of countries and presenting them to readers based in over 120 countries, we believe we are helping to spread smart ideas faster.”

News Quiz: "During October what official brought up the subject of World War Three?" Syria, Iran, NIE, and nukes

September 6
Israel bombs site in Syria.

September 19
“I’m not going to comment on the matter,” Mr. Bush repeated twice when asked about the [September 6] strike at a news conference at the White House. When pressed, he added, “Saying I’m not going to comment on the matter means I’m not going to comment on the matter.”

"Mr. Bush’s remarks -- a relatively rare instance of a president flatly declining to comment -- also reflected the extraordinary secrecy here in Washington surrounding the raid. Most details of what was struck, where, and how remain shrouded in official silence. "(1)

October 3
"One month after the [September 6 bombing] the absence of hard information leads inexorably to the conclusion that the implications must have been enormous. That was confirmed to The Spectator by a very senior British ministerial source:

‘If people had known how close we came to world war three that day there’d have been mass panic. Never mind the floods or foot-and-mouth -- Gordon [Brown] really would have been dealing with the bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon.’ " (2)

October 17
"If Iran had a nuclear weapon, it'd be a dangerous threat to world peace," Bush said. "So I told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested" in ensuring Iran not gain the capacity to develop such weapons.

"I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously," he said.(3)

I have a hard time envisioning how Armageddon could have resulted from a few popguns immediately fired back at Israel, which pretty much sums Syria's arsenal.

It is public record that for years Syria was running centrifuges for Iran and that Syria is a 'client' state of Iran. Yet I don't see why hitting at a centrifuge-spinning site in Syria would immediately touch off Armageddon. But then the British official might not have been referring to a retaliation from Syria.

December 6
"Most critically, [the NIE] does not speak to the fact that the gravest injury that United States has inflicted upon the Tehran regime since the opening of the war in 2001 was the mysterious air to ground attack on September 6, 2007 against a target in eastern Syria."
-- John Batchelor(4)

Batchelor made that remark three days after the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear threat was released. Up until that time, he had steadfastly refused to speculate about Israel's September 6 bombing raid on Syria.

Yet, if one wants to interpret his remarks literally, December 6 found John Batchelor implying that the Syrian sites were connected with Iran. He might have simply been referring to Syria's client status with Iran. But he just plopped out with that statement and gave no explanation or supporting data for it.

He did not provide data on December 9, either, when he stated flatly on his KFI-AM 640 radio show that "Iran has nuclear weapons."

Those who follow Batchelor's news show know that he is well connected with senior US and Israeli defense officials, and also that he is a stickler for only dealing in open source information. So while his statement about the Syria bombing raid is surprising, it is not a surprise that he wouldn't provide supporting data if he had such and if he was making a literal reference.

That leaves the public with the decision to outright reject his statements, interpret them in non-literal fashion, take a wait-and-see attitude, or try to play Sherlock Holmes with open-source data.

Given the gravity of the issues at hand, and that Pundita is not a Wait and See sort, I opted for Plan D. That means I've spent more hours than I care to recount prowling around at search engines, and trying to fit together a picture from slivers of data, anecdotal accounts, and speculations by experts in various fields.

One thing that jumped out at me after Batchelor's December 9 statement is that the NIE -- at least, what's been published of it -- avoids the question of whether Iran has nuclear weapons. The NIE is only interested in whether Iran has a program of developing nuclear weapons i.e., a program to develop indigenous or 'home-made' bombs. Just to make this distinction clear, here is exactly what the NIE says:

“For the purposes of this Estimate, by ‘nuclear weapons program’ we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work ..."(5)

That is why I was interested in General Baluyevsky's 2002 statement that Iran has nuclear bombs. The wording of his 2006 statement is also interesting because while he seems to deny the earlier statement, his wording only pertains to "intensification."

"[The Russian military] said from the very beginning we had no data to speak about intensification of efforts in Iran in the field of nuclear armaments."(6)

If Iran already has nuclear bombs, I can see how the general might consider it imprecise to assert that Iran was intensifying efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon.

But to return to the "bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon," initially I set aside the report that quoted the British official's remark because it contained what I considered a red herring:

According to American sources, Israeli intelligence tracked a North Korean vessel carrying a cargo of nuclear material labelled ‘cement’ as it travelled halfway across the world. On 3 September the ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartous and the Israelis continued following the cargo as it was transported to the small town of Dayr as Zawr, near the Turkish border in north-eastern Syria.

The destination was not a complete surprise. It had already been the subject of intense surveillance by an Israeli Ofek spy satellite, and within hours a band of elite Israeli commandos had secretly crossed into Syria and headed for the town. Soil samples and other material they collected there were returned to Israel. Sure enough, they indicated that the cargo was nuclear.

Three days after the North Korean consignment arrived, the final phase of Operation Orchard was launched. With prior approval from Washington, Israeli F151 jets were scrambled and, minutes later, the installation and its newly arrived contents were destroyed.(2)

All very interesting, but there were strong indications the raid had been postponed from a much earlier date:

... another report indicated that Israel planned to attack the site as early as July 14, but some US officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, preferred a public condemnation of Syria, thereby delaying the military strike until Israel feared the information would leak to the press.(7)

If Israel had been planning to attack in July, I doubt the North Korean vessel had been hanging around at that time.

This doesn't mean North Korea had not been making nuclear-related deliveries to the site in question for many months or even years or that the deliveries weren't part of Israel's concerns about the Syria site. But the reason for Israel striking the site much earlier than September 6 would still be open to question.

The October 3 report I quoted above, and which was published in The Spectator, was headlined, "We came so close to World War Three that day."

The headline made a splash at the time, and was known to anyone closely following the Syria bombing mystery and Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Less than a month after publication of the British official's statement, President Bush also plopped out with a reference to World War Three. It was a very odd statement -- inflammatory, even for Bush -- and caused much comment at the time.

Published commentaries assumed Bush was warning of a future threat. After reading John Batchelor's December 6 statement, it struck me that Bush might have been referring to the past. And signifying, for those who cared to dig, to look in the direction of the October 3 Spectator report if they wanted clues about the reason for the September 6 bombing raid.

Yet even if Bush and that unnamed British official were signifying that Israel struck something in Syria that actually belonged to Iran, that would still leave to speculation how the September 6 strike could have touched off a nuclear conflagration. What would Iran retaliate with? Their own popguns? Unless, they had nuclear weapons.

(It is a matter of record that Iran already has missiles capable of delivering a nuclear bomb and that the missile system can reach Israel.)

But US intelligence agencies don't seem to have invested resources in discovering whether Iran has imported nuclear warheads or key ingredients for assembling a bomb -- or at least, they've not announced such investigations. Ditto for European and Israeli intelligence agencies.

So I don't have much to chew on, aside from a moldering report about what a Russian general said in 2002 and a 2006 Russian news report that Ukraine had sold 250 nukes to Iran.(6) There is, however, the speculation of an Israeli nuke expert:

JERUSALEM (AP) November 22 - A Syrian site bombed by Israel in September was probably a plant for assembling a nuclear bomb, an Israeli nuclear expert said Thursday, challenging other analysts' conclusions that it housed a North Korean- style nuclear reactor.

Tel Aviv University chemistry professor Uzi Even, who worked in the past at Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor, said satellite pictures of the site taken before the Israeli strike on Sept. 6 showed no sign of the cooling towers and chimneys characteristic of reactors.

Even said the absence of telltale features of a reactor convinced him the building must have housed something else. And a rush by the Syrians after the attack to bury the site under tons of soil suggests the facility was a plutonium processing plant and they were trying to smother lethal doses of radiation leaking out. [...]

Last month, American analyst David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said commercial satellite images taken before and after the Israeli raid supported suspicions that the target was indeed a reactor and that the site was given a hasty cleanup by the Syrians to remove incriminating evidence.

Albright saw a clue in the fact that the structure was roofed at an early stage in its construction.

Other analysts have said the satellite images are too grainy to make any conclusive judgment.

But in an interview Thursday with the Haaretz newspaper -- which first reported his assessment -- Even compared pictures of a North Korean reactor at Yongbyon, in which a cooling tower with steam rising from it can clearly be seen, with the Syrian images, where no such structure appears.

Even told The Associated Press that another piece of evidence against the reactor theory was that satellite pictures of the Syrian installation taken since 2003 showed no sign of a plutonium separation facility, which prepares fuel for a nuclear reactor -- typically a large structure with visible ventilation openings.

"It's very difficult to hide a separation plant," he said. "It's more difficult to hide a separation plant than to hide a nuclear reactor," Even added.

"In Yongbyon, the supposed sister facility in North Korea, you can see all those signs that I am pointing out that are missing in the Syrian place," Even said. "You can see the chimneys, you can see the ventilation, you can see the cooling towers, you can see the separation plant. All that is missing from this building in Syria."

Even said he believes the Syrian cleanup, in which large quantities of soil were bulldozed over the site, was an attempt to smother lethal radiation from a plutonium processing plant.

"I have no information, only an assessment, but I suspect that it was a plant for processing plutonium, namely a factory for assembling the bomb," he told Haaretz.[...] (8)

If Israel took out one or more factories for assembling Iran's imported nuclear bombs, that would explain why Iran might be tempted to haul out a completed nuke and hurl it at Israel.(9) That could touch off a nuclear exchange.

But if we continue to play around with Professor Even's scenario, we quickly bump into the question of why the NIE strove so hard to tamp down concerns about Iran being an imminent nuclear threat. Were the analysts who worked on the NIE so out of the loop at the DoD that they didn't know the real reason for Israel's strike against Syria?

Or would they get together after reviewing the reason for the strike and say, 'We must kick the can down the road so to prevent Armageddon any day now.'

If Even is on the mark and if Iran was indeed using Syria as the place to assemble nukes, then somehow I don't think that mere words would kick the can down the road very far.

Of course all this is speculation. Questions. Still many unanswered questions.

1) The New York Times

2) The Spectator

3) International Herald Tribune

4) Human Events

5) The New York Times: Key Judgments From a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s Nuclear Activity

6) Pundita: Iran has nukes, Iran doesn't have nukes. Well, which is it General Baluyevsky?

7) Wikipedia: Operation Orchard

8) Associated Press: Israeli: Syrian site hit not a reactor

9) There is disagreement as to which site in Syria was bombed, leading to speculation that Israel bombed more than one radioactive site and that Syria covered up more than one site with tons of soil. See John Loftus's investigations:

"Senior sources in the Israeli government have privately confirmed to me that the recent New York Times articles and satellite photographs about the Israeli raid on an alleged Syrian nuclear target in Al Tabitha, Syria were of the completely wrong location. Armed with this knowledge, I searched Google Earth satellite photos for the rest of the province of Deir al Zour for a site that would match the unofficial Israeli descriptions: camouflaged black factory building, next to a military ammunition dump, between an airport and an orchard.

There is a clear match in only one location, Longitude 35 degrees, 16 minutes 49.31 seconds North, Latitude 40 degrees, 3 minutes, 29.97 seconds East. [...]

"Photos of this complex taken after the Israel raid appear to show that all of the buildings, earthern blast berms, bunkers, roads, even the acres of blackened topsoil, have all been dug up and removed. All that remains are what appear to be smoothed over bomb craters. [...]"

When rationality takes a back seat to uncertainty and fear: the Orleans Rumor finds echoes in the NIE rumors

I'm proud to note that my fun with General Baluyevsky made it onto Zenpundit's coveted Recommended Reading list. Zenpundit had these comments about the post:

Pundita summarizes the serpentine shifts of the Russian MoD under Putin on Iran’s nuclear weapons program. I haven’t commented on the NIE much because the nine page declassified key assessments represents less than 10% of the NIE itself. Years of watching historians arrive at starkly different interpretations of identical primary sources makes me chary of accepting or rejecting reasoning I cannot cross-check myself.

I like the evocative "serpentine shifts" and I couldn't agree more with Zenpundit's rational reluctance to analyze the NIE. The problem is that within hours of the NIE publication, rationality had fallen by the wayside. Political factions, pundits, journalists, and droves of unnamed officials and their unnamed sources leaped to interpret the reasons for the NIE's conclusions and publication.

Within 15 days of the NIE's publication, the situation has taken on overtones of the infamous Orleans Rumor incident. The Orleans incident saw thousands of otherwise sane French citizens convinced on no evidence whatsoever that a gang was kidnapping Orleans girls and selling them into slavery.

DEBKAfile helped stoke fears about the NIE's implications by listing what they termed "repercussions" of Washington's "about face" on Iran's nuclear weapons threat:

DEBKAfile's sources disclose that Iran’s extremist president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began purging the Iranian leadership of his opponents, emboldened by what he perceived as the victory of the intransigent nuclear policy he and the Revolutionary Guards had pursued.

Still in crowing mode, Iran’s oil minister Gholam Hossein Nozari announced Saturday, Dec. 8, the cessation of oil transactions in US dollars. He labeled the greenbacks an “unreliable” currency.

Less than 24 hours after the NIE was released, the Kremlin announced resumption of Russian work to finish Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr and the consignment of nuclear fuel.

In Lebanon, the Hizballah opened the door for the election of chief of staff Gen. Michel Suleiman as president. To buy a stable Beirut government, Washington accepted a pro-Syrian Hizballah sympathizer as president.

The prospects of tough UN sanctions against Iran’s continued enrichment of uranium dimmed dramatically. The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said there is no point in the light of the US intelligence reassessment. Saturday, the Iranian ambassador in Tokyo invited Japanese investors to put their money in Iranian oil production which he said could be expanded by 30 percent. Tehran has clearly lost its fear of international economic sanctions.

It is irrational, and just plain bad reporting, to identify a cause-and-effect relationship between the NIE and such situations. It is a matter of public record that:

> Ahmadinejad had begun the purge months prior to the NIE publication.

> Iran's oil ministry had been preparing for more than a year to abandon the petrodollar.

> Washington had been backing away from Fouad Siniora's government months prior to the NIE publication.

> Russia had started and stopped their work on Bushehr several times over a period of years over a matter of money, and

> Tougher sanctions against Iran would be a tough sell even without the NIE judgment that Iran had abandoned their nuclear weapons program.

The DEBKAfile post linked above also stoked the rumor that the NIE represented a clandestine bargain between Iran and the United States that was brokered by Saudi Arabia. Not to be outdone:

Saudi journalist Jihad El-Khazen gave his version of the course of events in the Arab newspaper Al-Hayat:

"Here is what happened: The rate of violent acts dropped in Iraq; therefore the American intelligence services discovered that Iran had halted its military nuclear program in 2003. This means that the resumption of violence will make American intelligence services find out that there is a secret military program that is different from the peaceful and famous one.

The Saudi reporter went on to ask: "Is there a deal between the Bush administration and Iran? I cannot categorically assert that a deal was concluded between the two parties through direct negotiations; however, there is an understanding resulting in the 2007 national intelligence report.”(1)

There are close parallels between the underlying reasons for the Orleans incident and rumors about the NIE's implications:

Both situations rose on fears about war (in the Orleans case, fear of war with the Soviet Union), uncertainty about a pivotal upcoming national election, and uncertainty fueled by rapid changes in society.

The worst that might have occurred as a consequence of the Orleans Rumor, which began as a prank by a group of schoolgirls, is that some shop owners (who were rumored to be aiding the rumored kidnappers) would have been hurt and their shops wrecked.

We've not seen the worst that might occur from rumors about the NIE's publication, but the threat of another war is worrisome enough. On Saturday the Associated Press reported:

... a senior Israeli Cabinet minister who once headed Israel's internal security agency issued the country's harshest criticism yet of the U.S. intelligence report, calling it a "misconception" that threatened to lead to a surprise regional war.

Public Security Minister Avi Dichter compared the possibility of such fighting to a surprise attack on Israel in 1973 by its Arab neighbors, which came to be known in Israel for the Yom Kippur Jewish holy day on which it began.

"The American misconception concerning Iran's nuclear weapons is liable to lead to a regional Yom Kippur where Israel will be among the countries that are threatened," Dichter said in a speech in a suburb south of Tel Aviv, according to his spokesman, Mati Gil. "Something went wrong in the American blueprint for analyzing the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat."

Once the election resolved uncertainty about France's direction, rational observers in Orleans finally made a dent in the Orleans Rumor, which then blew over as quickly as it had begun.

The NIE has played into uncertainties the world over about how US policy in the Middle East will change with a new US administration. Yet we are still many months from the US presidential election. Until then many national governments, including Israel's, will be trying to cover all bets and jockeying for the best position whatever the outcome of the US election.

1) DEBKAfile

A note about Saturday's post

For readers who saw the 'early edition:' I published the post a few minutes before midnight. On Sunday, starting around 2:00 PM ET, I added two footnotes and two updates (at 3:00 and 7:00 PM ET), and made the following change to a paragraph:

"...to my knowledge World Tribune and Iran Press Service were the only news sources to pick up on Baluyevsky's statement."

Also: the links to three reports, which were provided to me by the World Tribune publisher (see 7:00 PM update), do not pertain to Baluyevsky's 2002 announcement that Iran had nuclear weapons. And the news they contain would be old to those who have spent years following reports about Iran's nuclear weapons progam. But the reports are good background so I included the links to them in the update.

There will be another post today but I'm not sure at what time; I'm aiming for 2:00 PM ET.

Regards to all,
Pundita

Here comes the cavalry: Israeli intel officers descend on Washington to dispute NIE

JERUSALEM - December 16 (Associated Press) Israel has dispatched an unscheduled delegation of intelligence officials to the U.S. to try to convince it that Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapon — contrary to the findings of a recent U.S. intelligence report [NIE], security officials said.

[...] The U.S. and Israel will also hold additional joint formal meetings on the matter in coming weeks, the Israeli officials said recently. Israel will use these forums to try to persuade the Americans that Iran is trying to development nuclear weapons, and intends to present information classified as top secret for security reasons, the officials said.

More